Talk:Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk:List of scientists opposing global warming consensus/Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Why is this article called 'consensus' when there is no consensus at all? This is not by any means neutral

I object to the name of this article, this seems biased against those who oppose the global warming hoax. This is not surprising since the adherents have raised global warming to the status of a religion not to be questioned, and all opponents are heretics.--82.156.49.1 22:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to modify the intro, so it's not biased against those who oppose the "Consensus View" but I have a feeling that won't hold up. I'd appreciate it if you guys can hold the edits of juanfermin while I'm out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Juanfermin (talk • contribs) Feb 14, 2007.

Agree. If you don't worship at the Church of Global Warming you are a denier. It's really scary how this issue has been hijacked by leftists. It's like Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia. This article used to called "Global Warming Skeptics" and that's what it should be.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.197.130.151 (talk • contribs).

Please see scientific opinion on climate change. The position on climate change espoused by the IPCC and endorsed by many other scientific organization is a substantial majority opinion within the scientific community, which qualifies it as a scientific consensus. This does not mean that all scientists agree, and in fact this page is in the somewhat early stages of documenting those scientists who disagree. If you would like to contribute to that effort, you are more than welcome to do so. However, even the scientists in opposition realize that at present they are significantly in the minority. Dragons flight 22:59, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
>>Dragonsflight wrote: "The position on climate change espoused by the IPCC and endorsed by many other scientific organization"
FACT: The IPCC is NOT a scientific organization.
PROOF: "The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters." Source: About IPCC, [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheVerum (talk • contribs) 20:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
...and no overview article is ever published in a scientific journal, right. The IPCC assesses and summarizes the current state of research, a perfectly normal task for a scientific organization. As far as I'm aware of, the Royal Society does not do original research, and neither does the National Academy of Science. I guess these are not scientific organizations, either... --Stephan Schulz 20:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia defines concensus as "general agreement." The above poster claims "substantial majority." I believe the two are different, and I confess that after reading the title of "concensus" I was surprised by how much opposition was listed in the article. It doesn't sound like a concensus even if it is a substantial minority. I think it would improve the article to retitle it "List of scientists opposing global warming majority view" --Unsigned comment left by User:74.230.230.134
Consensus or "general agreement" does not imply total agreement. If you find it suprising that 14 people are listed on this page, perhaps you need some context: the IPCC Third Assessment Report alone had 122 lead authors and 515 contributing authors, and undoubtedly there are many other climatologists in the world. --Nethgirb 19:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
That is true, the number of those that agree outnumber those that don't. Depending upon how much (or little) they agree (or don't disagree).
This work (IPCC ARs) is mostly unpaid and mostly voluntary, so really only those that have some reason to work on it are involved. Rather like blog posts or Internet polls or Wikipedia editors or message boards or editorial writers.
Regardless, just because people are working on a project totally of their own wills and/or desires doesn't mean that they totally agree with the work focus or the conclusions, or that they're free to disagree, or that others don't have any influence upon their thoughts/feelings; or that their job/status/situation/goals let them openly and/or honestly comment. Or not. Frequently, what I want to say or how I want to say it is overwhelmed by other matters. Maybe certain groups are immune to such things, or I'm just projecting or misunderstanding the nuances of such things.
I will say that it's pretty obvious to me how the person that started this area thinks; calling it a hoax and then comparing it to a religous discussion, true believers versus heretics. Not that I'm saying that isn't a fair analogy, but the degree is certainly (to me) at least a bit out of skew. Another instance of "the dedicated" I suppose. We have our own ideas, but I'd hardly compare this to a religious discussion. If only it were so simple. If only. Sln3412 05:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The antonym for minority is majority. So why not rename the title as follows: "List of scientists opposing the majority view on global warming" or something like it. Schoneveld 07:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Because that is too weak. We are not talking 51% or 60% or 75%, but rather 95%+ (or "near unanimity in the peer reviewed published literature and in official statements by professional scientific organisations"). --Stephan Schulz 08:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)"

That alleged "near unanimity" be found in "Peer reviewed published literature" is no indication of actual majority opinion arrived at by independently carried out scientific processes. Quite the opposite should be the view considering the obvious and often blatant cronyism and other serious abuses that questionable system is becoming more and more famous for. A look at wikipedia's own entry on the subject is worth a visit for starters. --derspatz 11:00, 29 November 2006 (WST)

Peer review is the currently best mechanism we have to ensure the publication of high-quality scientific contributions. Being performed by humans, it is, of course, not perfect. Some papers get rejected that should have been accepted (heck, it happend to me...), and some that should be rejected get accepted. But I'm not aware of any widespread, systematic misuse of the system. If you have a better suggestion, I'm certain the scientific community will be happy for your input. I don't know what you mean by "actual majority opinion". We only give weight to the opinion of people who have actually studied the subject and contributed to it. --Stephan Schulz 15:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"Scientists opposing the 'global warming' vogue" would be a better article title. -Housewares 19:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This feels like a sham calling it "mainstream". The only reason why it is considered mainstream is due to the fact that many media coorperations are leftist, and therefore prefer to claim armagedon is coming. It is due to their "continued" coverage over Global Warming that it is thought by most people that scientists are all in agreemant on this issue, when it is mostly split down the middle. To claim that it's only the outcasts of climate cult are the ones degrading the theory would be a harsh overstatment. One of the main men responsible for the theory is even now retracting his early hypothesis claiming that the info is not enough to support his theory. This article should be changed back to it's original name, "List of Skeptics To Global Warming". --Joshic Shin 20:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

SEE BELOW - SECTION 68 - TITLE DISCUSSION

Throughout the history of scientific endeavor, it is always the skeptic who proves the consensus wrong. At one time, the consensus was that the Earth was flat and that the universe revolved around it. Anyone who expressed doubt--or worse yet proposed an alternative theory--was labeled a heretic and ostricized/exiled/killed. Sound familiar? As the truth spreads, the more shrill the protest become. In the global warming debate, the skeptics have been branded "Global Warming Deniers," making the absurd parallel with those who deny the Holocaust. Several books have been published by prominent and respected climate scientists that blow gaping holes in the anthropogenic climate change theory. BBC Channel 4 has all but completely sunk it with its documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle." The truth is like a reservoir of water behind a leaky dam. They can run around with their hair on fire trying to plug the leaks, but eventually the dam will crumble and the truth will come rushing out.

[edit] astrophysicists and other experts

Re: Scientists from Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Nir Shaviv, and the solid-state physicist. I'll leave it up to others to decide whether to include scientists outside the area of expertise of climatology. I just want to point out that astrophysics has nothing to do with climatology, and should not be confused with agrophysics or atmospheric physics. I don't know why so many astrophysicists are listed. Rotiro 04:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Not so fast: Astrophysics includes physics of the outer atmosphere (ionosphere) and is therefore essential to climate models. For example, part of the global warming controversy includes solar winds and cosmic rays which influence atmospheric chemistry and cloud formation. You cannot eliminate essential physics from the problem just because you dislike the conclusions of the people studying it. Jim2345 23:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

And a suggestion: don't be afraid to find the scientists' webpages and drop them a line by email asking them to clarify their positions on global warming for you. Rotiro 04:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well Shaviv publishes papers interpreting paleoclimate, so he isn't exactly your run of the mill astrophysicist. However, more generally, I think that if any established scientist is willing to put their academic reputation behind statements on climate change we should include him or her, even if their qualifications aren't apparent. However, we should be clear what their primary area(s) of expertise are. Dragons flight 05:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


I disagree with Dragons Flight completely. It's ridiculous to take an opinion on climate science from a person that is not qualified. That's like taking a medical opinion from a non-medical professional! I personally would not want my heart checked by an atmospheric scientist, and neither do I want climate change opinions from non-atmospheric scientists. I'm sick of hearing about geologists opinions on atmospheric science. Many of them have been supported by oil companies and it's their job to muddy the water for the general public so that there is confusion on global warming. Their opinions are not worth noting here. A mention of the way the media has tried to balance the argument for/against global warming has created confusion and not really represented the published scientific material would be better. Unagiplumchan 06:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. A scientist from a field far outside of climatology has about as much authority on global warming as the guy down the street does. I think only a climatologist or closely-related scientist can have an expert opinion on global warming that should be included in this list. Can we debate this? I see geographers, astrophysicists, solid-state physicists, and geologists. How are they relevant? Rotiro 03:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
So an astrophysicist can't research and write climate-related work that counts? I agree with DF on this totally. Plus, on your list, why couldn't a (say) solid-state physicist do climate work, and why isn't geology at least more than somewhat climate-related? It isn't their niche, it's what they do. That's like saying you wouldn't let a vet fix your broken leg. Sln3412 23:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
No, an astrophysicist can't necessarily research and write climate-related work that should be accepted as legitimate and authoritative climatology work, any more than anyone should take me (as a physics grad student) seriously if I tried to do climatology research. I wouldn't know what I was talking about. A solid-state physicist can't do climatology work because a solid-state physicist doesn't necessarily know anything about climate research, and solid-state physics has nothing whatsoever to do with climatology. I say "necessarily" because of course if a solid-state physicist (for example) wanted to do climatology research then he could study climatology and get a climatology degree, at which point his opinions on climate change could be considered legitimate and authoritative. However, based on his bio page, this is patently not the case for Fred Seitz, for example. This is a guy who, as a paid consultant for a tobacco company, said that second hand smoke was harmless. Although some subfields of geology may have ties to climate research, geology in general is not manifestly climate-related because it is the study of rocks and the interior of the Earth, not the climate on the Earth's surface. Also, as noted above, some geologists who are sponsored by the oil industry are biased against global warming. This is not like saying you wouldn't let a vet fix your broken leg, it's like saying you wouldn't let your mailman fix your broken leg. Rotiro 22:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The criterion should be very simple. If a person published refereed papers related to climate science, he is not an outsider and may have something scientifically relevant to say. There is no simpler criterion. With it, Seitz is an outsider (albeit a very interesting one) while Veizer or Shaviv are not (they have several refereed papers related to paleoclimatology, besides their joint paper), even if the mainstream climate community will not warmly embrace them. Besides, if part of the global warming is solar in origin, then it is directly related to astrophysics. As for the example of doctors and climate science, I think it is interesting to note that conservation of energy was co-discovered by von Mayer, a medical doctor (i.e., a doctor doing physics). Other interesting examples include the KT event (i.e., geology done by the physicist Alvarez), or the famous Schrodinger writing about how complex molecules could store the genetic code, thus independently influencing both Watson and Crick. (i.e., a physicist doing biology). There are many more such examples. Just because someone is not in the mainstream doesn't imply he (or she) doesn't have anything scientifically relevant to say. Bugon 21:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I guess I agree with Bugon's criterion. Based on that, how about I "be bold" and delete Seitz from the list? And, okay, I suppose there is some relation to astrophysics. As for the exceptions cited by Bugon, i.e. Schrodinger, von Mayer etc., well, they are just that: exceptions. I figure that there are many more non-experts who came up with ideas about subjects outside their field, and are completely unknown to history because they were wrong. :) In any case, if they were right it would end up in a published journal, so let's stick with that criterion. Rotiro 09:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually I won't meddle since I'm not following this very closely. You guys delete Seitz if you agree with this assessment.Rotiro 09:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Bugon's criterion for deciding who is "climate-related" is good. I think, however, that we've gone down the path of including all scientists, not just climate scientists. We could open up a discussion on that if you want, but we should do so explicitly before removing names. --Nethgirb 11:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I thought I had explicitly opened a discussion on that, right here. :) Who agrees or disagrees with this criterion? Rotiro 03:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
This is also discussed in the section "Proposal: no redlinks" below. Rotiro 03:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Elgog says: This Wiki page looks like a hit list to me. It's a bunch of disconnected names of people who hold scientific beliefes contrary to the alledged consensus. The "consensus" people have far more information, including links to thier articles, than any person on this list. How can you justify this? Since it is radically different from the "consensus" peoples page in terms of completeness and other material, it is really just a hit list or enemies of the tate list. It serves no legitimate purpose in the Global Warming discussion.

Which article are you talking about? We don't have much information on scientists supporting the consensus in this article. If we have more elsewhere, that is because we only list those that have some notability (and hence something to say about), while opposition in the consensus is so rare that we list a much larger proportion, including people of borderline notability and with on articles of their own. --Stephan Schulz 09:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To include?

Here is a short list of Canadian scientists who contest the CO2 factor. I don't know if any of them meet the criteria. Apparently there are "hundreds" of accredited scientists like them-- I doubt it :)

Also,

Ashibaka tock 00:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You need to know what category specific people go in. What exactly is McK's opinion, for example? Vague intimations of skepticism are not enough William M. Connolley 06:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

—McKitrick and McIntyre are not scientists. McKitrick is an economist and McIntyre is a former mining industry executive. --Iceberg007 21:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Iceberg007

Ross McKitrick and Stephen McIntyre are scientists. They have jointly published a series of articles in peer-reviewed journals debunking global warming. They may not own a Ph.D. but the quality of their work (Mann and colleagues had to admit some of their errors) shows they are scientists. RonCram 15:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
61 scientists of various backgrounds and of different nationality have signed and sent a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper in 2006 expressing doubts about the accuracy of the science behind Kyoto (see the links on the main page). Most of them are Dr/PhD. I think that the main page is still a lot minimalizing as to how many scientists have doubts about actual mainstream climate science.
--Childhood's End 19:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
We know the letter, and we know most of the signee's - the trouble is to find - A resonably new quote that accurately describes that persons opinion and disagreement with the consensus. A lot of these people have signed because they don't like the Kyoto policy, and not because of a disagreement with the science. But please - research them, nothing is holding you back. Note: when i say accurately, i mean that the quote must not be subject of interpretation, as you can see in some of the discussions below, an interpretation may or may not be correct. --Kim D. Petersen 20:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Nb. its really essential to research them individually - since there is at least one of them on the list, who claims to have been con'ed into signing. Plus that the signing not neccessarily is equivalent to being sceptical about the science - but merely may reflect a political stance to the Kyoto treaty. --Kim D. Petersen 20:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I was just pointing this out as information in this discussion. This list mainly begs to me the following question: just how many scientists do we need before we should stop talking of a scientific consensus on global warming? I, for myself, ackowledge a media consensus as well as a quasi-political consensus. But scientific? I read too much stuff against the global warming theories from serious sources to be convinced of a consensus. But this belongs to another discussion I guess. --Childhood's End 23:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
A relevant point, and one that is not addressed in in the article, is whether there is such a thing as a generic "scientist". A good fraction of the scientists listed in the article are from disciplines far outside of climate science. I have a little background in atmospheric science but wouldn't presume to comment on research in petroleum geology, astrophysics, or other subjects in which these folks specialize. But when it comes to global warming, the attitude seems to be that anyone can do it. Raymond Arritt 23:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Another valid point. The fact that so many people can pretend to talk about climatology would somewhat be an indication that climatology is closer to alchemy than to science. That is what Pierre Desrochers, in essence, discussed in one of his many articles. --Childhood's End 03:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Erm, well, no, his article doesn't say that. He argues for a vulnerability/adaptation paradigm. Raymond Arritt 04:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
"The fact that so many people can pretend to talk about climatology would somewhat be an indication that climatology is closer to alchemy than to science." There are plenty of qualified climate scientists. I think the point was that among the skeptics, qualifications in climate science are quite frequently absent. "just how many [skeptical (?)] scientists do we need before we should stop talking of a scientific consensus on global warming?" Way, way more than there are. There are hundreds of authors on the IPCC reports, for example... --Nethgirb 07:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the point was that among the skeptics, qualifications in climate science are quite frequently absent. Sir, this point is as valid for the skeptics as it is for the believers. Nobody can pretend to be an expert in every field concerned by climate science.
Way, way more than there are. There are hundreds of authors on the IPCC reports, for example... I wonder how you can manage to place yourself as a good judge of how many skeptics we need before we cease to talk of a scientific consensus. Moreover, the IPCC reports to which you refer have had authors who have questionned climate science in the past. Their questions have simply not been taken into account by the politicians and policymakers, who 'require' at least an apparent consensus, be it real or not. --Childhood's End 13:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
This has all been discussed before here. I refer you in particular to Dragons flight's comment of 4 Aug 2006 in the Mv? section of this talk page. --Nethgirb 19:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why does the page not list Dr. Tim Ball?

Dr. Ball was professor of climatology for 25 years at University of Winnipeg. He still offers his opinion that man-made global warming is a myth. Ball's web page[2] also quotes Dr. Philip Stott, Professor Emeritus of Biogeography at University of London: "The whole feel of the IPCC report differs between its political summary and the scientific sections. It comes as a shock to read the following in the conclusions to the science part: In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate is not possible. - quite a contrast to the alarmism of the Summary for Policymakers." Doesn't this information have a place in the article?RonCram 16:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If TB is indeed a scientist, you can include him, provided you can find a quote for him for a particular section. Quoting Stott obviously doesn't make it; he has to say something for himself. Looking at the page you ref, I can't see anything very specific from him; just vague septicism. What do you think is his position, based on what specific quotes? William M. Connolley 16:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Tim Ball is indeed a climatologist; see below for a longer discussion on him. Birdbrainscan 17:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jan Veizer

Should probably be added, his viewpoint seems to lie very close to Lindzens... [Personal page] and [Opinion] Kim D. Petersen 06:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I added him, with a more specific quote. Noticed along the way this article that might or might not be worth checking for more names: Douglass, D.H., Pearson, B.D. and Singer, S.F., 2004, Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: climate models versus observations: Geophys. Res. Lett., v. 31, 10.1029/2004GL020103. -- Nethgirb 08:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Why is Veizer on the page twice? (and apparently as the only one). --Kim D. Petersen 11:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Good question. He was added a second time on Nov. 21 using a quote that seems to place him in his original category, not the new one. I've just removed that entry. --Nethgirb 12:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Ball was Professor of Climatology for 28 years

According to his website [3], Dr. Ball served for 28 years as Professor of Climatology. Changing his title to Professor of Geology without any link to support it is uncalled for. RonCram 17:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Um....what was wrong with [4] provided by William?--Stephan Schulz 17:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I never noticed that William said anything on the Talk page or provided a link. I'm not sure where it is or how I missed it. After visiting the University of Winnipeg's website, it appears the climatology courses are taught within the Geology department. According to your source, Ball's Ph.D. is in geology on the subject of historical climatology. As long as Ball taught courses in climatology, it appears we are dealing with semantics here. There is only one remaining question: Did the University give him the title of Professor of Climatology or not? I have not yet seen anything to convince me one way or the other.RonCram 18:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
See the diff here or William's version directly - it's after "Professor of Geography" in the first sentence. Using diff and history makes following a discussion much easier. Note that even according to Ball's own website (assuming the linked one is his), he became associate professor in 1984, 22 years ago. He became "Professor" (of whatever) in 1988, 18 years ago. While in the US, all university lecturers and sometimes even highschool teachers are customarily addressed as "Professor X", that is only a courtesy form of address, not an academic title that you use. --Stephan Schulz 19:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I looked for an explanation in Talk and saw nothing. I do not know how I missed the notation in the article itself. I agree with your comments on Professor as a courtesy form of address. I've been called that myself, even though I was only a guest lecturer. It does appear Ball was wrong is saying he served as Professor for 28 years. But I am still not sure that he was not a Professor of Climatology. Of course, that would only be possible if Ball actually taught the courses in Climatology. I'm still not certain how to go about proving the issue one way or the other.RonCram 19:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Tim Ball does not need to be off in a category of his own. That his unnecessary given some of the extreme statements he's made: "(The world's climate) warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it’s been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling." [5] Assuming that web site is for real, he made that statement in November 2004. And in a June 15, 2006 National Post article he wrote "The fact is that, if the world is warming, we would see many benefits" (emphasis mine), suggesting that he still advocates the same view. So that would put him as the only name in the first category. Thus the remaining question is, is this guy a "scientist with a record of scholarship" as required by the article? First, for at least the past decade he has been giving speeches rather than doing science [6]. Second, we can ask, does a "scientist with a record of scholarship" lie about his qualifications? As far as I can tell, he was a scientist before his mid-life career change to liar for hire. Can anyone find evidence to the contrary? If not, removal seems appropriate. -- Nethgirb 10:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I was disappointed to see Dr. Ball call himself "28 year Professor of Climatology" when he did not serve in that capacity for 28 years. However, no one questions the fact he was a scientist and professor for a good long time. Paleoclimatology seems to be the one area that is most damaging to the global warming theory. It is not the job of wikipedia editors to vet the quality of the research done by scientists. It is our job to present it. The readers actually get a chance to read and learn for themselves. Readers deserve some leads on where to go for more information. RonCram 11:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Regarding "no one questions the fact he was a scientist and professor for a good long time": I hereby question that. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it is true, but the only evidence we have of his qualifications, among all the web sites that mention him, is his own word -- which we have seen is not to be trusted. If you disagree, please cite a reputable source. Regarding "It is not the job of wikipedia editors to vet the quality of the research done by scientists": I'm not questioning the quality of his research, I agree this is not the place for that. I am questioning whether enough of his research exists to call him a scientist in the present tense. Maybe we need to have a better specification of the requirements for being listed... but why do we have a list of scientists that are AGW-skeptical to begin with? Because we expect scientists to be more informed and less biased. All of Ball's statements were made after he had given up on science in favor of being employed by the National Center for Public Policy Research. He is now paid to advocate a particular viewpoint (whether it is right or not). Finally, the article is not a place for mere leads. The point of Wikipedia is to provide high-quality information. Leads are useful, but they should go here on the talk page. -- Nethgirb 12:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Since there appear to be no further objections, I am removing him. -- Nethgirb 09:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Ball was added again and I removed him again for the reasons above. Also, he apparently still is saying GW isn't happening at all: An Aug 12, 2006 article quotes him as saying in June 2006 that "The temperature hasn't gone up" [7]. So even if he is a scientist he doesn't belong in the "GW is happening but it's good" category. --Nethgirb 00:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings on including Ball. Yes, he is retired, and yes he is pretty much an across-the-board denialist. But is it right to argue he is not a qualified climatologist just because he is retired (and *really* far from the consensus)? In this 2004 interview he says the planet has been cooling since 1940, cites the satellite issue and urban heat island effect, suggests we may be in a cooling cycle, says warming would be good for Canada (if it were happening), attacks Mann for fudging the 'hockey stick' graph, and all the usual suspects. Friends of Science is pretty much a Canadian outpost of the denial "industry." Okay, I guess maybe we can filter out Ball as not a currently practicing scientist publishing under peer review on this subject. I think we should do something to record who he is and his role in this, probably in the more general "list of skeptics" page. I'll get busy on that. Birdbrainscan 18:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ball was added again and I removed him again since his credentials still haven't been verifiably established. Also, he seems to have changed his story on whether the Earth is warming, from "since 1940 it’s been cooling down" (see above) to "Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling." [8] --Nethgirb 18:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Credentials - http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover020707.htm put him back up.... --Unsigned comment by 65.12.145.148, 02:51, 13 February 2007
That only says he has a Ph.D. -- probably not sufficient grounds for inclusion here and anyway it's not new information. --Nethgirb 07:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but canadafreepress is not a reliable source, as far as I'm concerned. And notice the weaselyness in the linked article. Ball got his Ph.D. in geology with a climate-related topic. I don't know if that makes him a climatologist, but it is arguable. But if yes, he was not the first Canadian with such a degree, and that does not make him a professor of climatology, just a professor (of geology) who is (or, looking hat his lack of recent publications, was) a climatologist. --Stephan Schulz 17:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Funny to watch at all the twists and turns that climate activists will take to censor dissenting views or promote theirs. They wont give an ear to a PhD in geology, but they will easily be convinced of the existence of a consensus by some social sociology teacher named Oreskes who conducted some survey from a selection of articles pre-selected to support GW. --Childhood's End 19:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
You may notice that a) Oreskes does not misrepresent her credentials (regardless of what we think about the "climatologist" claim, the 32 (or 28) years are definitely wrong), and b) that her article was published in Science (journal), one of the most respected scientific publications on this planet, while Ball at most contributes editorial in the popular press. --Stephan Schulz 21:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I worked on the stubby bio page for Tim Ball, and I found a total of four journal articles he published in his time at UWinnipeg, all on temperature reconstruction from historical proxies. He has been out of academia since 1996. So he does not fit the "recent scholarship" screen for this page. Skeptics can claim him as someone who studied climate in the past, but there's a reason why climatologist are not listening to his speeches. Birdbrainscan 01:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
OOC have you found a reliable source documenting his position and what dates he was actually employed at UWinnipeg? --Nethgirb 02:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Go to Timothy_F._Ball#Lawsuit and check the court documents, in particular Johnson's answer. I don't know if this counts as a WP:RS, but it certainly convinces me. And hopefully, we will soon have the court determine the details. --Stephan Schulz 04:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thanks, that was informative --Nethgirb 09:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

User Nethgirb is incorrect when he says Tim Ball is employed by the National Center for Public Policy Research. See http://www.nationalcenter.org/2006/05/seven-degrees-of-exxonmobil.html

[edit] John Christy

Dr. Christy is interesting. He evidently served on IPCC but does not seem to be persuaded by its conclusions. [9] I think we need to consider putting him on the list.RonCram 13:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Best to look at the Christy page. Note that the "real data" turned out to be wrong. You need to think which section to put him in - he agrees the world has warmed (his own data now show it), so... William M. Connolley 13:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Everyone on the page believes the Earth is warming. That is not the debate. Christy is very skeptical about the value of computer models. Did you read the link? RonCram 13:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I did read that his data set was in error. I am wondering what his current position is. The link is from 2003.RonCram 13:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe that this Washington roundtable paper on Satellite temperature data may help on Christy's POV --Kim D. Petersen 01:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Kim, thank you for the link. It was a very interesting read. Not only should Christy be listed here, so should his researcher, Dr. Roy Spencer. Spencer started a new website [[10]]. Since it is new, it doesn't have a lot of information on it yet, but it should be good.RonCram 15:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

In case it's useful at some point, here is a quote from a CNN article titled "Expect a climatic 'wild ride,' study says", October 20, 2006: "Christy, who did not participate in the study but acknowledges that global warming is real and man-made, ..." [11] --Nethgirb 02:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I missed http://www.fightglobalwarminghysteria.com added above. Despite being added in June its still nearly empty. It doesn't seem to have any names assoc with it William M. Connolley 09:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Scientists in this section conclude that it isn't possible to predict global climate accurately enough to justify the narrowness of the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. These scientists don't specifically conclude that the numbers are too high, or specifically conclude that the numbers are too low, merely that the numbers are likely to be inaccurate in either direction due to the difficulty of global climate modeling.

  • Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports: "Climate models aren't ready to tell us how weather will change. Our understanding of the climate system is so incomplete that climate models don't even have real clouds, hurricanes, tornadoes and thunderstorms in them. 'Uncertainty' appears everywhere in the IPCC text, especially in discussions of climate fluctuation and the believability of climate models. When considering predictions and consequences, the report, responsibly, is a series of 'ifs,' 'mights' and 'coulds.'" Atlanta Journal-Constitution, March 11, 2001 [12]

How is Christy not applicable? Jcc1 23:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Christy was a lead author of the 2001 IPCC report, and is a contributor to the AR4. Read the statement (which, btw, is 6 years old - climate models have changed a lot since then). He actually lauds the IPCC report for containing the caveats. So he is in full agreement with the IPCC position (not surprising, as he helped draft it). And, btw, he is speaking about future weather, not global climate. --Stephan Schulz 23:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted Zeeboid's insertion of Christy, for the reasons described by Stephan. The quote referenced was same as the quote above. The quote is describing, not criticizing, the IPCC report. It's also cherry-picking since just after that Christy writes "All in all, the IPCC report is a great piece of scientific work -- 1,000 pages of dense yet concise scientific material. I recommend it." --Nethgirb 05:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Christy was talking about climate models, not about "weather" as Stephan seems to believe. And Lindzen also says that the full IPCC reports are great pieces of scientific work. Is he not skeptical of some aspects of the AGW theories because of that? --Childhood's End 15:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
C says 'Uncertainty' appears everywhere in the IPCC text, especially in discussions of climate fluctuation and the believability of climate models. When considering predictions and consequences, the report, responsibly, is a series of 'ifs,' 'mights' and 'coulds.'". This isn't saying things are less certain than IPCC says - its saying (correctly) that IPCC ppints out the many uncertainties. How is this disagreement? William M. Connolley 15:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Well indeed, it all depends whether you absolutely seek clear disagreement or clear skepticism... I think it's clear he is skeptical of the precision of the IPCC models, but I agree it's not cristal clear he disagrees with the whole process. But to me, the most telling part is "Climate models aren't ready to tell us how weather will change". --Childhood's End 15:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Since that too is in perfect agreement with IPCC, I'm still unclear what the point is William M. Connolley 15:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
We both know that you understand what he meant by "weather" in this particular sentence... --Childhood's End 15:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
No one knows exactly what he mean: the sentence as written, and reading weather as weather, makes sense. He might have meant something else - we don't know William M. Connolley 15:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
You show again why some people find it hard to AGF with you... --Childhood's End 16:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Considered self-referentially, your comment makes sense. Otherwise, it seems just at attempt to have the last word without actually saying anything of value. Why do you find it difficult to beliee that Christy meant weather when he said weather? William M. Connolley 17:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I know I need not explain this to you, but since you want to play little games... That may be bad news, but climate models are not widely used to predict tomorrow's weather. They rather use weather prediction models or some other such stuff. It thus seems logical to think that it may have occurred to Mr. Christy to speak of "how the weather will change" with a longer time scale in mind. Weather changes observed on a long time scale is called climate change, which would make sense with his reference to climate models. --Childhood's End 18:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
You are out of your league, CE. Christy said, "Climate models aren't ready to tell us how weather will change. Our understanding of the climate system is so incomplete that climate models don't even have real clouds, hurricanes, tornadoes and thunderstorms in them." All of the above are clearly weather events, not long range climate trending. "Real" clouds et al would be in a ongoing weather model, including the near term projections of how they will change. If you believe otherwise, please state why. --Skyemoor 20:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I am sure William understood and that he would have preferred that you would not have embarassed yourself with this edit. Please read what climatology is before throwing random assessments of who's in what league. --Childhood's End 21:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global warming is good for you

I modified the the predictions of global warming to include a statment that global warming will be a significant net negative. This is intended to open up the possibility of having a section for "Scientists who believe that global warming will be good for human society". That is, if there are any people who might reasonably be regarded as scientists who take that position. I am thinking mostly of the Greening Earth Society and allied organizations who argue that global warming and high carbon dioxide are good for agriculture. Dragons flight 18:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I created the section and added Sherwood Idso. I think 30+ years with a government lab qualifies him. Dragons flight 20:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
But is that really part of the scientific consensus? Maybe we should stick to specific predicted effects of global warming (increased extreme weather, sea level rise, etc.) rather than the current subjective phrasing On balance, the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative which involves many thorny value judgements (e.g., trading off the rights of people in different parts of the world). This issue has already been discussed above in the "New Intro Suggestion" section, e.g. William's first comment. Do you still think we should have this section? If so could we get some quote directly from the IPCC or similar? --Nethgirb 01:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
About the clearest I can find from the IPCC is: "Projected climate change will have beneficial and adverse effects on both environmental and socio-economic systems, but the larger the changes and rate of change in climate, the more the adverse effects predominate." (Synthesis Report, Summary for Policy Makers, page 9) and images like Image:Risks and Impacts of Global Warming.png. I think it is fair to say that "global warming is good" is a contrarian position even though "global warming is bad" is perhaps less established than other aspects of the consensus. Dragons flight 01:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, how about using that quote then? The current phrasing is somewhat stronger. --Nethgirb 02:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
No objections. Dragons flight 07:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Now that we have this section, are there people that should be reconsidered? For instance, the comment about Sylvan Wittwer above seems to indicate that he would fit into the new section? Mglg 20:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mv?

WN mv'd the page with moved List of scientists opposing global warming consensus to List of scientists opposing global warming theory: these are not people saying a "consensus" doesn't exist, but scientists who disagree with the THEORY. I disagree. The page title is of people who disagree with the details of the consensus, not (as WN seems to suppose) with the existence of the consensus. Although we could have a section for that, too... William M. Connolley 08:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Your move presupposes that a "consensus" exists on the past causes and future consequences of GW.
The move was (1) without discussion, (2) without contributor consensus, and (3) possibly a violation of admin powers.
The title of a Wikipedia article should not pre-suppose anything. I'll post the relevant policy or guideline in a moment. Please don't do anything drastic til then. --Uncle Ed 15:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, the article was under list of scientists opposing global warming consensus for a long time, before it was unilaterally moved to the new title. William just corrected this prior non-consensus move. And of course "the title of a Wikipedia article should not pre-suppose anything" is nonsense, as it allows us not title at all. --Stephan Schulz 16:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I meant, should not presuppose that one side in a dispute is correct. There is a dispute over whether there is a 'consensus' on global warming. The range of views held by working climate scientists does not show up in the political version of the debate, according to Roger Pielke. --Uncle Ed 16:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Ed, why are you doing this? Yet again you are complaining without context - having apparently failed to realise I was merely restoring the long-standing name; and apparently failing to realise that there is indeed a consensus - the text of the GW page, and this page, has been stable around that for rather a long time now. You yourself have written tedia about the dangers of consensus science, implying that you indeed do believe in the consensus... try to keep your position straight! William M. Connolley 16:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand: which 'consensus' are you talking about:

  1. A "consensus" of wikipedians to word the article a certain way
  2. A "consensus" of scientists held to represent a mainstream view with no opposition to speak of

I'm saying that there's a dispute outside Wikipedia over whether the most popular view of scientists (as quoted in the media, or polled by questionnaire, or indicated by mass signing of statements, or discerned by scrutinizing abstracts) constitutes a "consensus". As long as there is at least one published source (like Lindzen in WSJ) disputing the 'consensus', then there's a dispute. It's all in NPOV, and you can thank yer buddy FM for prodding me to read up on it. Cheers. --Uncle Ed 20:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, WP:NPOV also has a section called "undue weight" which you apparently missed. I suggest you read it. FeloniousMonk 21:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Wait, I think I get it now -- in the World According to Ed, there cannot be such a thing as a consensus if more than one person is in the room. Hell, there's not even consensus that the world is round (an oblate sphere if you want to get picky) so long as any of the flat-earthers still breathe. •Jim62sch• 21:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh why don't you guys stop needling me? This isn't going to look good in your RfArb. --Uncle Ed 23:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Barbs aside, I think the basic issue here is whether the "lack of consensus" is a significant minority opinion among relevant experts or whether it is basically a fringe position held by only a tiny number of supporters within the scientific community. As the undue weight provisions of NPOV say, views held by a tiny minority can be justifiably ignored if their inclusion would otherwise create an unfair perception of meaningful conflict or uncertainty. Many of us look at the scientific literaure and the statements of the IPCC, dozens of scientific societies, and thousands of scientists, and conclude that a strong consensus exists against which the comments of Lindzen and Peiser, etc. can not be said to represent anything more than a tiny minority. Even many of the climate skeptics acknowledge that a consensus exists while disagreeing with elements of it. So, Ed if you want change, I think the burden falls to convince the rest of us that doubt related to the existence of a consensus is a significant point of view and not merely the position of a handful of iconclasts. Dragons flight 01:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a consensus (majority view) (but not universal agreement), on various issues, on different levels, involving such things as facts, cause, depth, impact, and fixes. There is basically no scientific doubt the Earth is getting warmer as measured since the late 1800s. But some people question if the short-term nature of thermometer readings versus the long term nature of ice core sampling hides periods in the past where the same thing has happened. There is no doubt we're producing a lot of CO2 but some question either the cause/effect nature of the CO2/temperature relationship; although it's most likely that the CO2 has noplace else to go. Some people question the meaning of it all. Even the large organizations creating the reports put multiple cause/effect information, and qualifiers like could be, probably, maybe, and the like, and mention there are still uncertainties. Other people support the idea that the economic or social impacts of various methods of attempting to reduce the production of CO2 and other things would be worse than the warming -- even when they believe the things discussed are causing the warming. The entire subject is up for debate on many levels, and it's not a simple debate nor a simple subject. Miscategorizing the debate by mixing up viewpoints is not helpful in resolving it, in fact, it's detrimental.
That said, if we're talking about people, Lindzen usually debates part of this consensus (seemingly from a viewpoint as to what that word means, or what certain things tell us), and Peiser has issues with one essay and its conclusions. Usually, the opinions of other scientists that disagree are met with discussions of funding, claims that the person having limited or specific thoughts means they don't agree with anything, or problems relating from the terminology rather than the science.
Until we stop mixing up subjects, what the science suggests versus what the media reports versus what the policy on it should be versus what individuals say versus other things, this will continue to be a matter of debate. It may be the fringe, it may be a tiny minority or it might just be we're not discussing the same thing or that our emotions and preconceptions cause us to behave a certain way.
Comparing those who believe that the Earth is flat with those that think our policy should be better thought out or that disagree with the degree of certainty on specific issues or dispute the models or that don't agree with a certain argument is not valid. Lumping that all together is even more, like, totally bogus. And no, the Earth is not round. And Pluto is not a planet. That doesn't mean the Earth is flat, or that Pluto is not planet-like. Sln3412 02:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted Ed Poor's changes

I reverted back to William's version of 30 July. This removed User:Ed Poor's changes which largely came from the POV that there may not be a scientific consensus on global warming (e.g. "Environmentalists and other advocates have claimed an ever-increasing "scientific consensus" on these two points. Others say they there is no such consensus.") as well as removing important information on requirements for inclusion in the article ("Only scientists with a record of scholarship are included..." etc.) --Nethgirb 20:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: This is not my POV. We are using the word "consensus" differently. If "consensus" means that No scientists at all disagree and that we know this because the literature search reported in Science found exactly 0 out of 928 papers challenging the mainstream view, then it's a disputed between Oreskes (on one side) and academics like Benny Peiser and Richard Lindzen on the other. Leave me out of it: I'm just reporting what Published Sources have said.
If "consensus" merely means that 51% or more are "fairly sure", then there is arguably a consensus. But since so many people use the word differently it's probably better to choose a less ambiguous term. I like "mainstream" because everyone, on both sides of the GW controversy, uses it to refer to the anthopogenic GW theory. It's a crafty term, in that it implies dominance while leaving open what percent of the stream is "main". --Uncle Ed 15:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Consensus is not ambiguous. It does not require unanimous agreement, only "general agreement"; see the dictionary. No one claims 100% agreement among climate scientists (though it is likely much higher than 51%). Also, you are misrepresenting Oreskes. That they found 0 out of 928 randomly-sampled papers to be anti-consensus means that such papers are likely to be very rare, but does not imply that they are nonexistent. --Nethgirb 17:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
All that aside, let's just talk mainly about the essay. Oreskes published an opinion piece that happened to be in Science that happened to agree with the view of the parent organization of Science, the AAAS. None of that means anything, it's just what it is.
However, the essay said the review was to test the idea that the members of the IPCC (mainly) might have their views squashed, and so somebody ("That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts"; not "we" or "I" or "me" but "...was tested by analyzing...") looked at some specific abstracts to see if the publications the abstracts were based upon dissented from or contradicted that "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue". The point that is inferred (or pre-supposed as accepted without explanation) (petitio principii) is that the "Scientific Community" is equivalent to the published statements of the IPCC or to the publications/studies/papers the abstracts represent. And we are also to assume, it seems, that she did the abstract analysis, although it's never specifically said she herself did it; which is one of the reasons why I call it an opinion piece as it was an essay on "science and society". It's not written as a study, and the original essay didn't even get its own search terms correctly, etc.
Be that as it may, forget all that. The search was not random at all. What was looked for was very specific, and certainly was appropriate to see if the information refuted what the IPCC and others had officially said. A little POV here; not surprising they didn't conflict. It was not a representative sample, and again, it was not random. It wasn't even papers.
The analysis was of 1) abstracts 2) of articles 3) on "science" 4) about (corrected) "global climate change" 5) considered by the reviewer(s) to be about "climate change" 6) from 1993 to 2003 7) from published materials 8) peer-reviewed 9) and in the ISI database.
I have included more details on the quote that is the main point of the essay at User_talk:Sln3412#IPCC_WGII_Technical_Summary_1.2_quoted and paraphrased the essay itself by paragraph at User_talk:Sln3412#Oreskes_Essay_paraphrased_by_paragraph.2C_no_comments
The essay seems to be for one thing. Talking points to present the idea there is a 100% unified front on the issue. The problem is, everyone miscategorizes it. I'm just looking at it from the standpoint of how it's written. Some may think "consensus" means one thing or another. Not everyone goes and reads the dictionary. So it's inherently a rhetorical matter as to how a writer directly or indirectly phrases things as to what the reader interprets from it, right or wrong. Such is how it is. Sln3412 07:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The issues you bring up with the Oreskes essay do not seem problematic... Since it does not seem to be directly relevant to this article, I won't reply point by point. But to take one example, the passive voice (as in "That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts") is not hiding who did the work; it's a commonly used style in scientific writing which indicates that the authors did the work. As for use of the word "consensus": I agree it has multiple senses and can be used to mean unanimity or just general agreement (though the latter appears to be the more common definition and is the one used by Wikipedia). In this article, there is no ambiguity: since the title of the article is List of scientists opposing global warming consensus it follows directly that we are not using "consensus" to mean unanimity (otherwise the list of scientists would be empty). --Nethgirb 16:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. But maybe not. Why do you think so many people that agree there's a consensus (or not) have such a huge problem with this subject, and how articles on it are edited? And we know scientists do not all agree with the consensus, we have some here listed, as well as their viewpoints; Orskes herself wrote an editorial that not everyone agrees, but in it she just dismisses them. PR anyone?
"Consensus" does mean what it means. But to stay clear and understandable, information must be presented a certain way, and that essay did not. (Did not what? My point exactly.) My opinion is she used passive because she didn't do the survey, somebody else did. I also have speculated that the way it was written, referenced and originally performed means it wasn't meant to be duplicated and that it was purposely meant to guide the reader to a conclusion (which is the point of essays!). But not supposed to be the point of articles. So quoting it verbatim becomes misleading in and of itself. That makes it relevant, because if you're trying to make a point, what you quote and how you quote it (and how it was originally written) puts an NPOV into it. Much like the essay, so the article. That's just what I think.
If a lot of people will take the word "consensus" and think it to mean something that it is not meaning, what's written using that word should be written to communicate what it means, in the context it's used within.
The way she quotes the IPCC in the article is a similar matter, that she leaves out where it was from exactly, and also what it was she left out. That human activities affecting climate are "primarily burning of fossil fuels and changes in land cover ... or properties of the surface that absorb or ..." Now, isn't that an important point if you're trying to show "what scientists agree on" or if we're discussing why some people wonder why it was left out?
Now, if you're trying to present "what scientists agree on", don't offer up a search that doesn't do that. The search was very specific. It was an analysis of abstracts of articles on "science" about "global climate change" (corrected later) considered by the reviewer(s) to be about "climate change" (not as far as I know corrected) from 1993 to 2003 from published materials that were peer-reviewed and in the ISI database. That is also a bit of info that changes what's being said, and everyone's ignoring or hiding it. It's got a whole lot of bearing upon this issue. Especially since the analysis was done to prove that organizations like the IPCC weren't hiding dissenting viewpoints, which is not what the analysis does.
If the quotes are supposed to be about science, don't offer up cherry-picked, biased, evasive NPOV bits of something non-scientific to support another point about what people think being the same as what an organization thinks. It might work in debate or on talk pages, but it doesn't belong in articles. Sln3412 00:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
It was an analysis of abstracts of articles on "science" about "global climate change" considered by the reviewer(s) to be about "climate change" from 1993 to 2003 from published materials that were peer-reviewed and in the ISI database. It was to support the idea that members of the IPCC aren't being mis-represented in what the IPCC says about "anthropogenic climate change". Trouble is, she doesn't say what the analysis really was, nor does she say exactly what the IPCC said. Here's what they said, below. Sln3412 00:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IPCC WGII Technical Summary 1.2 quoted

WGII of the IPCC Technical Summary: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability

  • Disclaimer at start of Technical Summary

This summary was accepted but not approved in detail at the Sixth Session of IPCC Working Group II (Geneva, Switzerland • 13-16 February 2001). “Acceptance” of IPCC reports at a session of the Working Group or Panel signifies that the material has not been subject to line-by-line discussion and agreement, but nevertheless presents a comprehensive, objective, and balanced view of the subject matter.

First paragraph of section 1.2

  • 1.2. What is Potentially at Stake?
Human activities—primarily burning of fossil fuels and changes in land cover—are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents or properties of the surface that absorb or scatter radiant energy. The WGI contribution to the TAR—Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis—found, “In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.” Future changes in climate are expected to include additional warming, changes in precipitation patterns and amounts, sea-level rise, and changes in the frequency and intensity of some extreme events.


  • Oreskes: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].
  • 4. J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).

[edit] Consensus section?

It might be interesting to have a section for (1) scientists who do not believe there is a scientific consensus, and especially (2) scientists listed in the article who disagree with the consensus but admit that the consensus does exist. --Nethgirb 20:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

e.g. Jan Veizer has said "The standard explanation for vagaries of our climate, championed by the IPCC, is that greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, are its principal driver." [13] --Nethgirb 01:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Fred Singer: "[T]here is no consensus within the scientific community about global warming." (Christian Science Monitor, April 22, 2005) [14]

Is anyone opposed to having this section? If not I might just add it... --Nethgirb 15:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not clear what you mean by 'this section.' At least not to me. Please, clarify before you make any changes, since the page seems fine as it is. Brusegadi 03:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
So I'm not entirely convinced about it myself either, but the proposed section would include statements by the skeptical scientists already listed, concerning whether they think a consensus exists among scientists. I've found some people don't believe there is a consensus among scientists, so having a number of skeptical scientists say that there is a consensus (and some saying there isn't) would be interesting. OTOH, these would no longer really be scientific opinions so it would carry less weight. --Nethgirb 15:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How Many Lists of Global Warming "Skeptics" Does Wikipedia Need?

Currently, the following three entries each have lists of global warming skeptics:

1) This one ("List of Scientists Opposing Global Warming Consensus")
2) "Global warming controversy"
3) "Global Warming Skeptic"

This is preposterous. For example, global warming "skeptic" David Bellamy recently published data which suggested that many glaciers are growing, not shrinking--data which would cause big credibility problems for the anthropogenic GW hypothesis. As it turns out, however, Bellamy got his data from a former architect named Robert W. Felix, who in turn got them (albeit in distorted form) from another GW "skeptic" named Fred Singer. (See http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1480279,00.html as well as http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg18625033.300 for the full story.)

Now, this is pretty important stuff. Two big "skeptics" providing data with no empirical basis, and one of them, Bellamy, had to issue a retraction or lose two prestigious academic posts. As things are now, I would have to put this info into ALL THREE entries. These need to be synthesized into one larger and more comprehensive entry. As I asked on the "Global Warming Skeptic" discussion page, who's with me? Dicksonlaprade 16:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is probably the best setup and organised. OTOH it excludes non-scientists. GWC isn't supposed to be a list of people - its supposed to be about the controversy William M. Connolley 18:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
How about this plan: (1) Get rid of Global warming skeptic. Merge its scientists into this article. Merge the other material (does the stuff on betting have value?) into Global warming controversy. (2) From Global warming controversy reduce the sizeable list of scientists to a short mention of the few most promiment, with a link to this article; and leave the list of non-scientists where the are. Potentially the non-scientists could be split out into a new article at a later date if appropriate. --Nethgirb 20:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I like the ideas/plans of WMC and Nethgirb. I didn't even know about the GWS page. FWIW, I'm not too interested in the betting section. --Spiffy sperry 19:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've made a start on this, by cutting the scientists from the GWS page. All were here, except Michaels. I didn't add him, because from Patrick Michaels it would appear to need a new section, on the lines of "current and future warming will occur at the low end of the range IPCC assessments" and I'm not sure that makes him a skeptic (yes I know he *is* a skeptic but he has to be properly placed) William M. Connolley 19:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I did the merge. Should still clean up these links. There was also still the list of non-climate scientists: of these, the ones not already listed here were David Bellamy (no longer a professed skeptic) as well as the following, for what it's worth (direct cut & paste):
  • Fred Goldberg - Professor at the Royal School of Technology in Stockholm.
  • James A. Marusek - Nuclear physicist and engineer.
  • Nima Sanandaji - President of the Swedish think tank Captus and editor of Captus Journal. Graduate student in biochemistry at the University of Cambridge.
  • Philip Stott - Professor and ecologist based at the Department of Geography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London. Research areas include biogeography and tropical ecology, as well as the role and significance of environmentalist movements and debates. [1]
--Nethgirb 00:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Also I think the list of scientists in Global warming controversy should be trimmed but I'm not sure which are the most prominent few. --Nethgirb 01:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Bellamy, who from his actions seems about as "green" as one can get, at least to the viewpoint of those in the US. He brought up some topics on which he didn't agree with. Some of his sources of information seem to be less than credible according to the standards of those looking at their credibility and which things Bellamy said that were based upon such information. (Not commenting on the validity or lack thereof of anyone or anything, just stating what seems to be the case.) Seeing the meaning (or lack of incomplete description of the meaning) of what he was saying being attacked rather than his stance, or otherwise getting tired with the method of debate, discourse or discussion; he gave up. Like so many others, not prepared for the level of what's involved or countered in making one's point on the Internet. That's what seems to have happened. Perhaps rightly so, perhaps unfairly. But for whatever reason, he gave up. Can't say I blame him. I'd think quite a few people would wish I gave up also in what I do. Not that I'm doing this for that reason (I'm not), I'm just saying. It just seems to me that this is less about the science aspects than it is about the people aspects. And no, I only post under this account, and I'm not any of the people I talk about. Nobody writes like I do, and I write like this about everything pretty much. Nothing much goes on in Finland anyway. Hello!  :wavey: But to answer the question posed, Wikipedia needs as many lists of skeptics as it needs. Not one more or less than that. Sln3412 03:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relevant reference?

Climatologist Marcel Leroux, “Global Warming: a Scientific Fraud” (Fusion No. 95, March-April 2003)Leroux is Professor of Climatology at Jean Moulin University in France, and the director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risk, and Environment. His book, Global Warming: Myth or Reality? The Erring Ways of Climatology, was published in 1995 by Springer-Praxis (Springeronline.com).Mariojalves

According to sourcewatch: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Experts_for_hire Look down on the list and his name is there.

Brusegadi 18:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean http://www.praxis-publishing.co.uk/view.asp?id=158&search=home ; if so you've got the title wrong... William M. Connolley 19:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
In fact, there are two titles in my post 1) A Magazine Article “Global Warming: a Scientific Fraud” (Fusion No. 95, March-April 2003) and 2) The book you refer: Myth or Reality? The Erring Ways of Climatology.
Climatology is not my field but I was curious and did the usual google search. Not many references to Marcel Leroux. But apparently he retired recently from Jean Moulin University in France. His views can be read on this reply to a reader of the Fusion Magazine. The title might summarize his stand point:There’s No Global Warming, Because There’s No Global Climate https://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202005/NoGlobalWarm.pdf
BTW, he signed a letter with other climate skeptics http://www.policestateplanning.com/globalwarming1998.htm. Mariojalves 20:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find any statements in [15] that would place him in one of the categories in this article -- all he says is "but it's cooling in some areas too!" -- except for a strange statement where he seems to be trying to imply that there's some sort of conservation of heat within the atmosphere: "The amount of warming is directly related to the amount of initial cooling, because it is that which puts the warm air into motion. ... Without initial cooling, regional warming would not be possible." Of course his whole discussion was prefaced by "Without getting into radiative effects" which appears to miss the whole point... --Nethgirb 20:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I understand that in [16] is not possible to understand fully Macel Leroux's theories - what he seems to try to explain on that passage is what he elaborates on his book about the Mobile Polar Anticyclone (?) theory.
However, being published by "The world’s second-largest specialist publishing group in the STM (Science, Technology, Medicine) sector and the top specialist information provider in the German-speaking countries" and a book that according to the editor "Leroux takes a hard and dispassionate look at the reality of the greenhouse effect, the evidence from climate models, and the limitations of those models. He then postulates alternative causes of climate change and analyses the trends for global temperatures, rainfall patterns, dynamics of weather and sea level. He argues that the case for global warming is based on climatology which, with its insufficiencies in the understanding and explanation of weather phenomena, does not support this prediction." or Amazon "This timely and controversial book lays out the scientific case of the sizable skeptical scientific community who challenge the accepted wisdom.", signals that this is a skeptical and with more information should have a place on this article. Mario J Alves 21:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Well there's no doubt he's a skeptic. We just have to (1) find a quote that clearly contradicts the consensus opinion on GW, and (2) verify his credentials. Regarding (1), the standard stated in the article is to use quotes only since 2001 (the field has matured since his 1995 book). Regarding (2), his name does come up when searching the university's web site [17] and the first document looks like it might be a list of Ph.D. theses that he's supervised, but I don't speak French... Looks like he does have citations in Google Scholar [18]. --Nethgirb 01:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Just to clarify: I made a mistake - the book is from 2005 [19]. The "Look Inside the Book" of Amazon has the introduction and the article [20] or the text of the letter to the Canadian Prime-Minister should have enough quotes to put him on the article. Maybe the "There’s No Global Warming, Because There’s No Global Climate" can be a starting point to include him on the empty list of "no global warming is happening". Unfortunately concerning credentials I cannot help much because indeed his presence in google is very thin. But his papers in Google Scholar might be enough. I feel this book might be important to mention for an informed opinion on all sides. But I am not an expert so I will leave to someone to add the reference to the article Mario J Alves 13:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
"Global Warming": Myth or Reality? The Actual Evolution of the Weather Dynamics

The "Global Warming scenario" is a hypothesis derived from theoretical models, asserted but not proven. There are numerous inconsistencies between predictions and actual observed climatic facts. The "global" thermal curve has no real significance in climatic terms. Climatic change is not global, but regional: for example, in the North Atlantic aerological unit, the Western side is cooling while that of the Northeast is warming. The 1970s exhibit a fundamental climatic switch which is not "seen" by the models, but is associated with a gradual increase of violent perturbations and irregularity of weather, linked to a change in the general circulation mode (rapid mode).

Mario J Alves 14:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem remains to categorise him. "There is no global climate" is possible, but will just make him look like a wacko. Also, its irritating to have redlinked people. How about you write an article on him *first* - that should, if its any good, contain his opinions based on his writings William M. Connolley 14:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

A quote: "So we do not have to resort to complicated models to tell us that CO2 brings about, theoretically, an increase in temperature... . However, this hypothesis has never been demonstrated as far as climate is concerned, and remains in the realm of the virtual." (p. 2 of his book) There are probably better ones though... --Nethgirb 15:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I will start a stub on his name. But i am not at all a specialist on this area. And I am a newbie on wikipeadia, so I will need help. My intentions when I started this topic was to raise scientific curiosity on people of the field and mainly to have a feeling on how credible were Marcel Leroux´s theories.Mario J Alves 10:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The Leroux article looks good. We still should find a quote that puts him in one of the categories in this article -- the one I mentioned above I think shows he is in one of the 3 categories but does not say which. Also the standard is not to take quotes from petitions, polls, surveys, etc. (such as the letter to Harper), but rather stick to specific statements they themselves have said or written -- but there should be plenty of material in his book. --Nethgirb 14:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Found another reference [21] with strong words but in French: "Cette remise en question fondamentale,indispensable, aurait pour premier résultat de montrer que l’hypothétique réchauffement de la planète, issu de modèles, et fondé sur des approximations, est indubitablement une imposture sur le plan scientifique.". Basically, as far I can tell, he cannot be included on the list as it is set. He thinks that Global Warming is a hypothesis that has never been demonstrated. IMHO, the headings of the list are too rigid for a complex problem like this. Maybe a new section named: Is not yet proven that the Earth is warming. The Leroux article needs some cleaning and some more details.Mario J Alves 18:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

A new category is probably not necessary...If he's unsure whether the Earth is warming, he can go in the first category. If he's unsure why, he can go in the second. But we'll need an English quote. --Nethgirb 18:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Well maybe I am being a bit too literal but when Leroux says that Global Warming is only an hypotheses that is far from being proven is not at all the same as saying that the "Earth is not warming". He seems to be saying that IPCC is not measuring the right way and it's using wrong methodologies. For him the current "proof" is a scientific hoax.Mario J Alves 00:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I think we are basically in agreement...the quote is not specific enough, we need to find something else to better characterize his views. --Nethgirb 01:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
OK I found what seems to be a specific quote...I put the full thing at Marcel Leroux (feel free to cut down on it) and a shorter version at this article. --Nethgirb 01:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Curiously enough, he pops up at http://gamma.physchem.kth.se/%7Eclimate/speakers.htm, though his link - http://www.univ-lyon3.fr/LCRE - 404's William M. Connolley 19:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Over at the Marcel Leroux article, Mario found a link that works [22] from which you can follow a link [23] to see that he's a member, and other links with info about their research (all in French). (Why do you say that's curious? He appears to fit in with the other speakers at the kth.se page, like Baliunas, Carter, Singer, Soon...) --Nethgirb 19:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Balling

The sentence about the source of funding; do we routinely include how much money somebody is given and from whom for random people, including any of those who are proponents of it being a case of human induced climate change? Or is there some reason Balling is called out alone it seems? (And no, I really don't know who he is, nor really care, just asking). It seems to me the facts of their views, with a citation of that view should be provided, not statements like that; seems POV. And if that's okay to everyone, although I don't see how it could be, provide a link to the source, not to an article here on Wikipedia about the institution. ( and let me add the following POV to the talk page :) --Especially not one with so many red links!! Sln3412 23:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a routine tactic of GW theory proponents to tar GW theory critics with the brush of "fossil fuel industry funded". This is used as an ad hominem argument that "of course they are biased, just follow the money".
Somehow it doesn't seem to work in reverse. Why is that? --Uncle Ed 17:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, find us some scientists funded by Greenpeace or Robin Wood. Since nearly all basic research is state-sponsored, getting normal research grants is not a good indicator of undue influence. And you do know, of course, that scientists are not paid for work on the IPCC....--Stephan Schulz 18:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Right, no IPCC work pay, but the organization itself is funded by somebody. Governmental groups are funded according to political viewpoints of those providing the budgets, at least as far as the organization of the governmental group, the people who run them, and their policy focus being related to how the organization functions. And I've looked at the list of people and organizations donating to the AAAS, AGU and AMS, it often is largely the same people or groups that fund the DNC, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club etc. Let the funding thing be put into context at global warming controversy where it can be handled, not just a one-off (funding) stuck at the end of a paragraph about a different subject (scientific opinion)!
My point is that throwing in something like isn't neutral, and it isn't germane, and the fact has nothing to do with listing his thoughts. If this was an article on funding, that's one thing. I take it it's supposed to be about scientists that oppose the consensus, and not about scientists that have gotten funding by an industry with an economic interest in funding known "skeptics"? Don't governments have a policy interest in having scientists working for them also? What bearing does that have? Yes I suppose you could say that those organizations are neutral and only interested in the science. They're still government organizations, and they do have an organizational structure that's political.
I'm saying funding isn't part of this area of the issue at all, at least not the way it's being presented, which, in my opinion, is far too weighted as being a key factor in the viewpoints of the scientists (or him at least). But it's not being presented as being an explanation of views, it's infering that because of funding source, it's not trustworthy on the scientific opinion. It's being presented as: "Viewpoint. Implied 'viewpoint is because they're an oil hack'." It's just random statements stuck at the end of the views, not in the context of explaining anything. What other purpose could there be at putting it there that way but to infer something? It's a non-sequiter. Sln3412 21:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Even if it was somehow decided it belonged there, which I can't see how it would; how much of his funding is from the Office of Climatology and Arizona State University? What kind of professional links exist between the Office of Climatology iteself and industries in general? Or Arizona State University and industries in general? What kind of projects are those two and those and other industries involved in? In what capacity is the funding given? Are there environmental groups that fund any of his work, the Office of Climatology, or Arizona State University? There's no detail to it.
Besides that, the reference is to a biased anti-corporate website, not to anything published or reliable, anyway. That site then refers to Harpers (with no specifics and no reference) and then to "Ozone Action, NCPPR directory" again with no reference but one-sided and existing in a vaccuum. Sln3412 22:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This article discusses scientific opinions. In such situations, listing funding-related conflicts of interest is entirely germane. In many peer-reviewed journals it is even required [24].

It's true as you point out that ultimately there is a chain of influence in any source of money. But you have to look at what is the magnitude of the influence. On the one hand you have a funding organization like the NSF which might be influenced to some degree by the government, but which is not supposed to be biased towards specific conclusions in its distribution of funds and is accountable to the public. On the other hand, you have someone like Patrick Michaels who was given $150,000+ from energy companies specifically because he is a climate skeptic [25] --- so he has a clear monetary incentive to come to a specific conclusion.

That said, I could support listing funding on the scientists' individual articles, at least for the moment. It might get kind of cluttered over here, and it does look a bit funny to have a conflict of interest listed only for Balling. --Nethgirb 15:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It would look funny to have it on anybody's. Person A says X, but they are funded by Y. NPOV? And you're correct, that's part of my point. We just can't throw in random junk without going into it in more detail. If this article is about what these people say, why they might say it is still a non-sequiter. The NSF you're correct, since it is a specific government agency (the IPCC and the others really aren't) but then again, as I said before, the funding bit doesn't FIT into what the information is talking about anyway. In an article about why a scientist or scientists agree or disagree, that might bit of useful info, but not in one about the fact that they disagree and the stated reasons they give. It just doesn't fit in there. That some peer-reviewed things may require disclosing that -- but this isn't a peer-reviewed science paper and providing funding sources is not sticking in a comment at the end of a paragraph with no debate about it. Not really a valid comparision.
In any case, as I said in my last paragraph, there is nothing wrong if it's asking any other questions about the funding, but making just saying that they got some money from some whatever is one-sided and meaningless in the context. If somebody gets $100,000 from X, talk about how much of that amount is compared as to what their entire budget is, verifiable published reasons why they got it, when it's brought up by whom, etc; the "other side"; if you want it to be less an article and more the society pages or gossip or conspiracy theory it might fit.
As far as funding for something like the NSF, how much they get and for what does depend on budgets from governments which might play a part in how much they have as to what they do. But that doesn't really matter, nothing much about the debate even references the NSF.
As far as financial incentive goes for a person, let's look into it. If I'm known in my research or statements on a subject I'm known for, or have been involved with professionally at a low or high level for many years, that might attract some interest. So I say someplace(s) that I don't think that A, which is a large part of explaining B, has enough information about A to help explain B, of course somebody that's not happy with B is going to give me some money. It doesn't prove my research might not turn up that A makes B happen or the other way around. Similar things might be the case with an organization; my research doesn't support their ideas, so they don't publish me. Or publish my letters. Or whatever.
As I've quoted reliably elsewhere, the largest single donor to the AGU in 2005 was ExxonMobil, the same company that is called out as being a large donor to specific people. And? Sln3412 02:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Objectivity, peer review, and the reproducibility of results

Ross Gelbspan wrote:

  • Dr. Pat Michaels calls his industry-funded publications serious journals of climate science. However, he ignores the fact that all research sponsored by the federal government is subjected to the exacting requirements of scientific proof through a system of review by other experts. By contrast, Michaels' research is frequently published in industry journals without undergoing this kind of rigorous scientific scrutiny. [26]

However, recent congressional research turned up the fact that Climate Hockey Stick researcher Michael Mann evaded the exacting requirements of scientific proof by having all his work reviewed by a small coterie of like-minded researchers. (Gimme a few hours and I'll dig up the links for this.) Social scientist have a name for this kind of professional incest, something like social network theory. --Uncle Ed 17:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Your only primary source is a non-peer-reviewed article commissioned, of all men, by Joe Barton. And even that report does not claim that he "evaded" anything (and, for the billionth time, science does not do proofs), just that the structure of the climate science community is such that only a small group of people reviewed his publications. This is really no news, as the number of true experts in any field is small, and they are likely to cooperate (directly or indirectly) over time. It's spun for more than it's worth, of course. --Stephan Schulz 18:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Science finds evidence to support theories (not "proofs" per se); that was a red herring.
Agreed there...but you used the word first.
Mann was specifically accused of evading the requirement of sharing his data and methods.
"Accused", maybe, but that's not in Wegeman's report. It's sore losers McKitrick and McIntyre.
Only around forty people were in the social network; surely the climate community is larger than that, if two billion dollars a year goes into researching GW.
Well, yes. But not that many are in reconstruction of paleoclimate. I'm a computer scientist, but I don't review papers on data bases, networking, compiler construction, operating systems or complexity theory. --Stephan Schulz 20:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Accusations of violating scientific ethics need not be published in peer reviewed journal to qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia.
Well, that depends. Anyways, they must be given due weight. On the one hand is ground-breaking scientific work that may have some flaws (as most science does, especially if it is ground-breaking), but whose core results have been confirmed over and over again by several scientists and in publications in the most prestigeous journals on the planet. On the other hand is an unreviewed report commissioned by someone with a political axe to grind. --Stephan Schulz 20:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "The Earth is warming but mostly due to natural processes"

This paragraph seems to include BOTH people who oppose that the recent warming is due to anthropogenic input AND people who oppose IPCC's predictions. As the difference between these two is very important, in fact essential, the paragraph should instantly be divided in two, for example: "The Earth has been warming [i.e. the last century] but mostly due to natural processes" and "The Earth will not be warming as much as IPCC predicts". I'll not volunteer to rewrite, so I'll leave it to one of you :) Narssarssuaq 21:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you think is wrong. The 2 sections you propose are not mutually exclusive -- it could be possible to believe "the earth's been warming due to natural processes but in the future, won't be warming as much as the IPCC predicts". Anyway, AFAIK, all the scientists listed there fit into the section as stated. --Nethgirb 01:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


Strange controversy - the world is almost always either getting cooler or warmer ( graphs ). If the world remained at exactly the same temperature for more than a very short time then you should start to really worry. What's the best way to make money out of this stupidity?

[edit] Eigil Friis-Christensen

I removed him from the section "The Earth is warming but mostly due to natural processes". The included quote did not say anything about the relative importance of anthropogenic CO2 vs. cosmic rays. See also criticism of the SKY experiment at RC [27]. Here's the original text for reference.

--Nethgirb 10:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Balling (again)

Balling is now in two sections. If this is intended to point out the incoherency of his position, then thats fine by me :-) especially since the document quoted is indeed incoherent - at times it accepts the record, at times it quibbles it William M. Connolley 21:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Balling (again) explanation

Just a few minutes ago, the article stated that no scientist contested the magnitude in rise in global temperature over the past century since the most recent IPCC Report summary. That was untrue. So, here comes Balling for the first time around where he states that because of measurement biases the IPCC estimate is overstated by one third. He explains it clearly within the linked study for anyone who cares to read the entire document. Balling has also addressed separate issues regarding global warming. Personally, I'd rather keep the "two Balling(s)" rather then eliminate one Balling and as a result also eliminate a critical rebuttal of the magnitude in temperature increase over the past century. That is since he is the only one who picked up on these technicalities that caused the temperature record biases.Sympa 22:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear - these are mere assertions by Balling. Don't mistake them for reality (of course, since they are his views, its fair to include them, where he is right or not (see for example urban heat island). Balling is, of course, far from the only skeptic to pick up on these things; I'm sure you could find Singer saying much the same (although only in op-eds, since this stuff wouldn't have a chance of being puclished properly) William M. Connolley 09:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure Balling should be in that first category. The Balling quote Sympa put in says there might be a 0.2 or 0.3 degree bias, but the IPCC's estimate has a 0.2 degree confidence interval already so his opinion about the amount of warming likely falls within the IPCC's estimate. Moreover the quote later in the article shows that he does believe there has been (presumably non-negligible) warming so he appears just to be quibbling about the amount. --Nethgirb 20:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
To back that up more, Balling writes (in p. 5 of the PDF that the quote came from), "[I]t is very likely that the recent upward trend in Figure 1 is very real and that the upward signal is greater than any noise introduced from uncertainties in the record. However, the general error is most likely to be in the warming direction, with a maximum possible (though unlikely) value of 0.3°C. The indicated rise of 0.7°C is likely to be an overestimate." So it would seem that the bottom of Balling's range is 0.7-0.3 = 0.4, which is the same as the bottom of the IPCC's range stated at the beginning of the article. Note also that he never explicitly doubted the range expoused by the IPCC. If there are no objections, and if no one points out a mistake in this reasoning, it seems like we should remove Balling from the first category. --Nethgirb 21:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Balling's estimate of an upward bias of 0.2°C to 0.3°C is not mute just because it would fall within the 0.2°C confidence interval mentioned by the IPCC. More relevant, Balling's estimate would affect the IPCC's mean expected outcome of 0.7°C increase over the past century. Other users suggest Balling's research is mere speculation. Let's face it, any global temperature record prior to the 1950s has a speculative element. And, Balling is the one to explain how. I see no reason to shoot the messenger. Balling is a reputable scientist who has dwelled in the details of temperature records and their related flaws. And, given a NPOV I think his contribution to the body of science on such a subject is relevant.Sympa 23:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether he's right or not doesn't matter for this article. It is likely that Balling and the IPCC have different means in their estimates of temperature increase, but every pair of people you ask will have slightly different opinions, if you look at enough decimal places. The question is: is the difference significant? That's what you use confidence intervals to answer, and it seems that Balling's range of temperatures falls within (or very nearly within) the IPCC's -- thus, the difference is not significant. Moreover, Balling himself said that the maximum error, 0.3°C, was "unlikely" (see quote above). So I don't think his opinion on the amount of warming is different enough from the IPCC's to have a special section for him. Here's an idea -- let's take him out of the first section, but add to his listing in the second section a quote regarding his skepticism about the amount of temperature increase. OK? --Nethgirb 01:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Nethgirb, I agree with some (but not all) of your statements. Out of reasonable compromise, I agree with your solution and invite you to feel free to modify the article as you suggested.Sympa 01:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Claude Allègre

I suggest that he is added, according to Claude Allegre he is a scientist within a related field. And the following quote - although badly translated from french by Google translate would place him in the "The Earth is warming but the cause is unknown" category:

The second question is that of the influence of CO2. The increase in the contents CO2 in the atmosphere is a fact of observation and the man in is doubtless responsible. In the long term, this increase will become a harmful pollution without any doubt, but its exact role on the climate is less clear. Various parameters appear more important to us than CO2. Thus, the cycle of water and formation of various types of clouds, with the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust. Or fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on a year and century scale, which seem correlated better with the heating effects that the variations of content CO2.

Hopefully someone with a bit more french than me will be able to translate it better... The link to the french version is here: [29] and the google translation is here: [30] --Kim D. Petersen 00:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is a translation of another article he wrote (funded by US taxpayer money as part of a disinformation campaign...great...) in which he says "The cause of climate change remains unknown.". --Nethgirb 10:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes - i started from that page, and worked my way to the above, which i think is more appropriate since this is a more in depth explanation of the things that he said in the Killimanjaro article --Kim D. Petersen 01:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
We now have the translation posted by the US Senate. I believe we should use that. RonCram 12:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I dont think that the article that was posted by Inhofe is specific enough to provide evidence to Allègre's scepticism - the quote that Nethgirb provided was for specific local climate changes - where Allègre is correct in saying that the cause is unknown - the specific quote was: "The cause of this climate change is unknown. Is it man? Is it nature?", while the above quote fleshes his opinion out. --Kim D. Petersen 12:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree, Kim's original quote is better. --Nethgirb 02:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388

[edit] POV fork

This article is just a one-sided POV fork on the Global warming article.

"The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article (in some cases people have even converted existing redirects into content forks.) However, a new article can be a POV fork even if its title is not a synonym of an existing article title. If one has tried to get one's personal theory that heavier-than-air flight has never occurred inserted into existing aviation articles and other editors have rejected it as absurd, the answer is not to create 'Unanswered questions about heavier-than-air flight' ."

Isn't this exactly what this article is doing? Calling it a "List of Scientists" is an amateurish ploy to disguise the forking. It should be merged into the Global warming article. Any objections?

Blow it away!!!!!! 24.64.165.176 05:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It has been carefully factored out of global warming to allow that article to describe the currently overwhelmingly supported scientific view on that topic while avoiding a discussion of the individual opinions and qualifications of the critics and the supporters (a list that would be easily 20 times as long). Global warming already is 75kb (as opposed to the recommended limit of 32kb), so if anything it needs to shrink, not grow. If you think this article is unbalanced, balance it.--Stephan Schulz 08:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
There is a dispute over whether Global Warming theory is an "overwhelmingly supported scientific view" or whether there is a "consensus" on the matter. Moreover there is a political dispute over the Kyoto Protocol which hinges on claims and counterclaims on whether or not this theory enjoys (A) 51% support among climate scientists, a simple majority; (B) 80% support, a large majority; (C) 95% support, an overwhelming majority; or (D) 99% or more, all but a handful.
Pending identification of just what proportion of climatologists (or other relevant scientists) accept GW theory, I don't think we should call it a "consensus". The title List of scientists opposing global warming theory or "... the global warming theory" is neutral. And the article can indicate the percentage (if known) or a range of percentages (if we're not sure). --Uncle Ed 14:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes we know that Ed. Sorry, but you've said it before and no doubt you'll say it again. Refresh your memory on all the prior debate William M. Connolley 15:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Senator Inhofe's new press release

I hate to interrupt an interesting discussion on whether this article is a POV fork or not, but I do think we should consider Senator Inhofe's new press release and the information he has gathered. For the time being, I am just going to add some relevant links so students can do some further research on their own. RonCram 14:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I took it out. It has nothing to do with science, its not new (just the same old tired junk), and Inhofe isn't a scientist. Put it on the Inhofe page? William M. Connolley 15:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
It has to do with science because it lists scientists who disagree with global warming. One of the great uses of an encyclopedia is that it provides notes or links to further information. However, I can add another link (written by a scientist) that will link to the Inhofe database of information. For those who wish to see the link WMC deleted, click the following number. [31] RonCram 15:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
No, most of it is just puff-pieces by Inhofe of no value to man or beast. "Database of misinformation" is more like it... William M. Connolley 15:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
WMC, your POV is showing. It could only be misinformation if the scientists who were named as skeptics were not really skeptics. RonCram 16:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Ron - you've stumbled upon a piece of misinformation by Bob Carter. He is correct in saying that the world hasn't warmed if you look at the two specific years. But he doesn't mention that 1998 was an anomaly caused by a strong El Niño. This is not the same as claiming that the Earth hasn't warmed - nor that it isn't warming at the moment. Please check the data: [32] --Kim D. Petersen 16:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Ron - its only information if you can find anything useful in it. I can't, and you haven't. Re Carter: I'm unsure about the bit you added. Carter says that for 1998-2005 the T didn't increase. Thats true, errm, well of course it is since its from CRU. But I don't think he wrote the headline (sub editors do that). The quote you put in from him could have come from me. All that differs is the interpretation of it. If you want to put in Carter as saying "GW has stopped, and the 1998-2005 record is proof of that", then I'd be happy with that, because it would be a skeptic saying something very stupid. But sadly I don't think he quite says it William M. Connolley 16:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I thought Carter was claiming no warming based on a different dataset. I now see I was in error. However, it is clear that Carter believes warming has stopped. Carter writes:

Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).
Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Carter could not write of "temperature stasis" if he did not believe global warming had stopped. I am restoring the Carter quote to the proper section and adding the sentence on temperature stasis.

Oh, and WMC, the useful information in Inhofe's link are the names of competent scientists who disagree with global warming. RonCram 12:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Its still nothing but disinformation - he never states that global warming stopped - all you can say is that he "might allude to it". Carter really would be silly if he actually believed that, as you can see from the CRU data, he references. --Kim D. Petersen 12:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. All Carter is saying it that T hasn't risen from 1988-2005. Thats uncontroversial. If he think GW has stopped, and wont continue in the future, he needs to say so explicitly. and then he can make lots of money betting with those who think otherwise. If there are "useful" scientists in Inhofes screen, please pull them out and put them on the page instead of vaguely alluding to them William M. Connolley 12:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm deleting it again - If anyone bothered to read the actual article they would have noticed that Carter is deliberately saying something ridiculous (about the CRU data) - to make the point that some environmentalists are overstating the climate change by alluding to "dangerous (and man-made) warming.". Its been a while since i read this one, and i still find it a nice spin. --Kim D. Petersen 12:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Kim, finding it a nice spin or not. You cannot deny that Carter is a skeptic. In addition, you cannot censor him because you think he is being silly. Carter clearly states we are in a period of "stasis." This is a list of skeptical scientists, not a list of skeptical scientist whose quotes are found acceptable by scientists who believe in global warming. See below my comments on the exclusion of McIntyre and McKitrick. The exclusion of Carter's quote here is just as unacceptable. RonCram 13:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
RonCram i agree that Carter is a sceptic - which is why he is already on the page (if you hadn't noticed...), by his full name. --Kim D. Petersen 13:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Kim, yes I had noticed (I mentioned it below). But that still does not give anyone the right to censor Carter's comment. You think eight years is not enough time to prove "stasis." Carter thinks 28 years of warming is not enough time to prove warming truly existed to begin with. Carter's point is that if 28 years is enough time, then eight years is enough time. It is against wikipedia policy to keep information (or opinions) from readers. To be NPOV, the article has to present all the information and statements that are relevant. RonCram 13:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
RonCram, it is not the job of this page to give every single quotation that is linked to a specific sceptic - but rather to show unequivocally that they belong to a specific category. Your quote is questionable as i've shown - whereas the current quote specifically states something that put him into a category here. --Kim D. Petersen 13:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Carter can't possibly be under "the earth is not warming" and "the earth is warming but its not due to us". That would be absurd, and the skeptics are never absurd. No-one is censoring Carters comment: what is being removed is your over-interpretation of it. Carter isn't dumb enough to say flat out that GW has stopped William M. Connolley 13:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

WMC, Carter was, of course, stating that the 28 year period of "gentle warming" prior to 1998 was a result of natural forces. But I agree that two entries are not necessary. We should go with his lead statement that temperatures have not risen since 1998. Regardless of your assessment of what Carter might say, all we have to go on is what he has written and is verifiable. Kim, you have not demonstrated that the quote is questionable. The only way I can think to demonstrate the quote is questionable would be to find some other statement in the article that would show he was being facetious and actually believed the opposite of what he said. I agree that we do not have to give every single quote linked to a skeptic, but we should quote the item they emphasize. Carter led the article with the fact temperatures have not risen since 1998. RonCram 14:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Ron, I think the point is that everyone on the IPCC would agree that temperatures did not rise 1998-2005. So that particular statement, taken literally, cannot possibly not demonstrate any skepticism on his part. I think he wrote the article in such a way so that his readers would take the implication that, not only was there no warming 1998-2005, but also the warming will not continue. Such a prediction would contradict the consensus, but he did not say that. He just chose his words carefully to give his readers that impression. --Nethgirb 14:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
To give you an idea how wily Carter is being, consider that all the following would be true according to the data set he used:
For the years 1995-2005 global average temperature increased
For the years 1996-2005 global average temperature increased
For the years 1997-2005 global average temperature increased
For the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase
For the years 1999-2005 global average temperature increased
For the years 2000-2005 global average temperature increased
For the years 2001-2005 global average temperature increased
For the years 2002-2005 global average temperature increased
For the years 2003-2005 global average temperature increased
For the years 2004-2005 global average temperature increased
So it is not exactly a coincidence that Carter decided to talk about the years 1998-2005. You will usually be able to pull off such a trick: whenever the current year is not the warmest year ever in recorded history, I can truthfully say, "Between this year and X years ago global average temperature did not increase" for some value of X. And statistically speaking, due to short-term variability, most years will not be the warmest year ever until that time, even if the long-term trend shows warming. --Nethgirb 15:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A couple of new names

I have not had a chance to read all of the information from all the links Inhofe provided, but here are a few names we can research: Claude Allegre [33] (French scientist and socialist) and David Deming [34] (geophysicist in Oklahoma) and Bob Carter [35] of Australia. Actually, I believe Bob Carter is already mentioned in the article but he is in the wrong section. Carter says there has not been any global warming since 1998. RonCram 15:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Deming should probably be added to the 'causes unknown' category with the following quote: The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause--human or natural--is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria.[36] --Kim D. Petersen 15:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Allegre: ah yes, well known climatologist... I'm sure he was in at some point. Carter: well indeed, its so hard to know exactly what these people think. Is there no GW? Or is there GW but all caused by the sun? Its so hard to keep it straight. Denning says "The available evidence from both GST and SAT studies is sonsistant with a major climatic warming over the North American Continent that likely began near the middle of the 19th century in the east, later in the west. The magnitude of warming in the east estimated from changes in GST significantly exceeds that estimated from SAT. A cause and effect relationship between anthropogenic activities and climatic warming cannot be demonstrated unambiguously at the present time" [37] though would probably phrase it somewhat differently now William M. Connolley 16:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Allegre: we discussed him a few sections above this but he hasn't been added yet. OOC, William, is he actually well known or were you being sarcastic? Carter: he does think the earth has warmed over the last few decades since he has referred to "the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998" and "the late 20th century phase of gentle warming." --Nethgirb 00:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, was sarcasm. You can look him up on scholar [38]: he was a geophysicist, but not a climatologist William M. Connolley 10:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding David Deming, you can see his contribution using Google Scholar as well. [39] He has written on borehole temperatures and paleoclimatology. For some reason Ross McKitrick [40] and Stephen McIntyre [41] were debated earlier on this page and never added to the list. McIntyre and McKitrick are the people who published repeatedly in scientific journals on the errors of Mann and his group (some of which Mann acknowledged). How two people as important to this debate as McIntyre and McKitrick could be left off the list should truly be embarrassing to the long-time editors of this page. RonCram 12:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
If you can find a quote for McKitrick which is saying clearly that he doesn't agree with the criteria in the consensus - then go ahead - but i don't think you can - since McKitrick isn't sceptical about the criteria, he is sceptic on the specifics imho. Please read his blog a bit, and you'll see. But then i may be wrong. --Kim D. Petersen 13:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
May i suggest that you ask him specifically on his blog? Remember to quote the specifics from the top of the page. I believe that climateaudit is valid for McKitrick under Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Kim D. Petersen 13:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Oops sorry - McKitrick in the above should of course have been McIntyre (all those Macs :-) --Kim D. Petersen 14:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I may do that. RonCram 14:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding Khilyuk and Chilingar

The two profs at USC published a paper in Environmental Geology. The quotes were taken from web links that quoted their paper. RonCram 14:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The evidence that you are citing does not live up to wikipedia verifiability specifically not that we need reliable sources. Once again i agree that these two belong on the page, but we need the evidence, otherwise we may be liable for libel. But their paper is/should be enough, as it states it quite clearly. --Kim D. Petersen 22:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
We need some biographical data on Khilyuk, i think he is a consultant - but i'm ot sure (Nb: i'm surprised this paper ever got through peer-review [42]) --Kim D. Petersen 22:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding Henrik Svensmark

Svensmark is head of the research team at the Danish National Space Center. While I suggest everyone read his short report, here are a few quotes:

"Our team at the Danish National Space Center has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth’s surface temperature."
"During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. Such warming events have happened ten times in the last 12,000 years, and recently in medieval times. In between the warm intervals there were cold periods like the Little Ice Age, which was most severe 300 years ago. We know that cosmic rays were intense during the Little Ice Age because the production of radiocarbon atoms, C14, was at a peak. These atoms, used for dating by archaeologists, are made when cosmic rays hit nitrogen atoms in the air."
"In 1900 the cosmic rays were generally more intense than now and most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover. Going back to 1700 and the even higher intensities of cosmic rays, the world must have seemed quite gloomy as well as chilly, with all the extra low-level clouds." [43] RonCram 15:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
RonCram i agree that Svensmark actually belongs on the page - but the link doesn't give evidence that he 1) belongs to that category 2) opposes the global warming consensus. A "big part" is not the same as saying that it is more than the anthropogenic part. --Kim D. Petersen 22:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
How about this: "During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. ... In 1900 the cosmic rays were generally more intense than now and most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover." (emphasis mine) --Nethgirb 23:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
That does seem succinct and clearly in contradiction to the consensus. And from my readings of Svensmark also accurate. --Kim D. Petersen 00:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I have restored the opening two sentences that explain that cosmic rays that reach sea-level help to make low-level clouds. Without this explanation, Svensmark's quote does not make much sense. RonCram 05:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Svensmark's summary paper, and his institution's the press materials on the subject criticized on RealClimate [44], have mysteriously disappeared, as User:Raymond arritt pointed out. There's a copy on some random unrelated web site [45] and at the moment it's still in the google cache [46]. Should we take this as indication that he changed his mind or felt his statement went too far, and thus remove him from the list? --Nethgirb 05:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I just called the Danish Spacecenter to check up on it. They are implementing a new website (plone), so everything isn't up yet. I don't think that much should be done for now. We may just have to adjust some links but thats all. --Kim D. Petersen 08:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding McIntyre, McKitrick and Muller

McIntyre and McKitrick are two of the leading global warming skeptics and among the most influential (although I suspect Svensmark's work will gain more adherents as time passes). Muller is a good example of a scientist who was persuaded by McIntyre and McKitrick. RonCram 19:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sadly however... disliking the HS isn't enough. McI and Muller have said nothing other than disliking the HS. They can do that; but it isn't part of the listed consensus, so they don't belong. McI and McK have previously been very very careful to say that they do *not* present an alternative reconstruction. Given that, they cannot then say *anything* about the temperature: other than that they don't believe the HS. They can't say that they know the current is unexceptional; only that they don't know William M. Connolley 20:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
M&M clearly say the IPCC's conclusion that the 20th Century is fundamentally different from past centuries is not born out by the data. The quote you deleted did not lack clarity regarding their rejection of the IPCC conclusions. Contrary to your remarks, they did say the 20th century is unexceptional. However, after reading Muller's comments more closely, I think we should delete him from the list. Muller describes himself as "concerned about global warming" and thinks "human-created carbon dioxide may contribute." Muller evidently is persuaded that the HS is broken but is not persuaded the 20th century is unexceptional. RonCram 20:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
You still have the wrong interpretation. M&M's official line is that the HS is broken and *therefore we don't know*. They don't have a replacement so they *can't* say the 20thC is unexceptional - all they can say is we don't know (unless they are being inconsistent of course - but we all know they aren't...).
WMC, you are mistaken. If you had read the link, you would know McIntyre claims to have done his own reconstruction (although I have not seen it published) and his reconstruction shows the 20th century is unexceptional. See below. RonCram 05:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further debate needed on McKitrick and McIntyre

The entry below is what I wrote and WMC deleted. The fact McIntyre claims the 20th century is unexceptional is quite clear from the quote (despite WMC's conclusion that McIntyre could not possibly write that). WMC, I invite you to read the link in its entirety. McIntyre might not have written that quote in 2003 (original paper) but he did write it in 2005. Mann and others had accepted some of McIntyre's and McKitrick's criticism and rejected others. M&M responded and more research was done as the debate continued. By 2005, McIntyre had performed his own studies and determined that 20th century climate was unexceptional. McIntyre's findings are clearly contrary to the IPCC. McIntyre and McKitrick are the two most prominent global warming skeptics publishing in scientific journals. It is ridiculous that their views are not included on this page.

[edit] 20th Century warming is unexceptional

Scientists in this section do not accept the "hockey-stick" graph the IPCC relied on in 2001.
  • Ross McKitrick, writes: “Our research (McKitrick and McIntyre) shows fundamental flaws in the “hockey stick graph” used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to argue that the 1990s were the warmest decade of the millennium. The original hockey stick study was published by Michael Mann of the University of Virginia and his coauthors Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes. The main error affects a step called principal component analysis (PCA). We showed that the PCA method as used by Mann et al. effectively mines a data set for hockey stick patterns. Even from meaningless random data (red noise), it nearly always produces a hockey stick.” [47]
  • Stephen McIntyre, perhaps the most influential global warming skeptic, writes: “The Mann multiproxy data, when correctly handled, shows the 20th century climate to be unexceptional compared to earlier centuries. This result is fully in line with the borehole evidence. (As an aside, it also turns out to be in line with other studies that are sometimes trotted out in support of the hockey stick, but which, on close inspection, actually imply a MWP as well.)” [48] RonCram 05:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The Hockey stick is not part of the consensus, it is not even an important part of the evidence that produced the consensus. So it is really quite irrelevant whether or not Mann's particular study is correct or not. While an interesting discussion in itself, it doesn't belong here - but maybe on other pages (i can't recall if it is already there...). (Added) Whether or not the 20th's century is exceptional or not, is not within the consensus either. Please refer to McKitrick/McIntyre or Mann's pages for this - or possibly even Reconstruction_of_temperature_record_for_past_1000_years --Kim D. Petersen 06:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Kim, I disagree. Point 2 of the consensus says "'Most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities', in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane." The last 50 years refers to the last half of the 20th century. If McKitrick's reconstruction is correct showing 20th century temperatures are unexceptional, then this point falls flat. In addition, point 3 also falls flat because it claims emissions will continue to rise and cause the rise to accelerate. If 20th century temperatures were not exceptional, there would be nothing to worry about and we would not be having this debate. RonCram 15:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
RonCram - lets say the MWP was 10°C hotter than now. That wouldn't budge the "Most of .... last 50 years" observation. What it would do - is make the climate sensitivity higher... in effect raising our expected warming from GHG's (iirc). Had the consensus stated that "the last decade of the 20th century was hotter than any comparable period in the last 2000 years" - then you would have been correct. But it doesn't. The MWP was nearly a thousand years ago, the consensus is about the last 50 years. --Kim D. Petersen 15:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Kim, again, I disagree. First, the statement "Most of ... last 50 years" is not an observation, it is a conclusion. The conclusion is based on the belief that the temperature increase in the lasts 50 years has been exceptional. Once the false prop is removed, the conclusion falls flat. The most one can say is that "All things being equal, we would expect that manmade CO2 would tend to increase temperatures globally. We are seeing an increase in temperature, however, a same or greater increase of temperature has happened in the past without manmade CO2 playing any role." Such a conclusion would hardly generate the kinds of funds for climate research that are currently flowing, but it would be more honest. RonCram 13:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
RonCram, sorry but its not a conclusion based on the last 50 years being exceptional. Please see attribution of recent climate change. You may want to ask yourself why the SAR came to almost the same conclusion, despite the that the thought at that time was that the MWP was warmer. --Kim D. Petersen 14:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Kim, it truly is a conclusion. There is no way one can observe a rise in temperature and observe its cause. If you look at the chart on the attribution of recent climate change page, you can see a correlation apparently exists between a rise in temperatures and an increase in CO2 in the last 50 years. However, apparent correlations are not observations - they are conclusions. Regarding the SAR and the same conclusion reached when the MWP was thought to be warmer, you may want to ask yourself why certain climate researchers sent emails to experts they thought were on their side saying "We have to get rid of the MWP." RonCram 16:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
RonCram, first of all i really don't believe that anecdote. Second, its a question of looking at the different forcings that influence the climate system, when you calculate up all natural forcings - you do not get the right temperature. If you add up all the antropogenic forcings - you don't either. If you combine them - then you get the right results. But - lets stop this. This isn't the place to discuss this. The quick and simple here is: It is not our job to interpret either the IPCC consensus - nor the wordings of the individual sceptics. Either you have a direct quote that places someone here - or that person shouldn't be here. So if you want to have McIntyre here - go ask him on his blog.
Kim, the quotes we have are sufficient to show McIntyre's and McKitrick's opposition to the IPCC's conclusions. Limiting comments by skeptics to make them fit a certain pigeon-hole does not allow adequate freedom of expression to global warming skeptics. As long as skeptics are speaking specifically about the conclusions of the IPCC or how the IPCC reached those conclusions, the comments should be allowed. The attempt to censor M&M needs to stop.RonCram 00:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
RonCram, theres just one little thing that i want to comment... we do not "censor" by not putting people on this page. The only way you can come to that conclusion is that you see the listing on this page as a merit. While some may see it as that (and some sceptics certainly will), i can assure you that there are quite a few who do not, please bear that in mind. We do have a responsibility to both wikipedia (as in verifiability) to the scientists and ourselves (as in libel) to assure that they really do belong here. --Kim D. Petersen 06:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Try to get your story straight. The link you provide for McI is *McK* speaking (hint: its called "conf05mckitrick.pdf"). You assert 'By 2005, McIntyre had performed his own studies and determined that 20th century climate was unexceptional - fine - provide a ref for that please and I'll be happy to believe you that he has changed his mind William M. Connolley 09:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

WMC, you are correct. I named the wrong Mc. However, see page 14 of the link I provided to see the graph showing the results when the data is properly handled. The solid line represents the approach McKitrick used in his reconstruction. [49]RonCram 15:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ron! You are wrongly assuming that M&M's crticism is valid and significant. It is not. See e.g. [50]. Note also that the allegedly fake hockey sticks generated from red noise (Figure 7 in your reference) have an amplitude that is about 10 times smaller than the real hockey stick, i.e. any effect of the PC selection and normalization is at most minor (this is rather hard to see due to the small and not particularly clear labeling - MBH98 goes from -0.4 to 0.2, M&M goes from -0.08 to -0.02). Also see [51] about the validity of M&M's "reconstruction" (which, as far as I can tell, they do not label as such, they just try to give the impression without actually stating this). And I assume you know by now that Energy and Environment is not a respectable scientific journal. --Stephan Schulz 16:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
While I agree about how good M&Ms crit is, I disagree with you in that its what they think (and have published) that matters; if we were to remove very stupid arguments from the page there would be little left. However, in this case M&M have stressed that they have *not* made a reconstruction; McK has (temporarily) broken the party line and forgotten this; but the line remains William M. Connolley 16:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Stephen, I believe M&M's criticism is valid and significant (as do the National Research Council Report, the Wegman Report, Richard Muller, Rob van Dorland, Ulrich Cubasch and many others). However, it is not in the purview of wikipedia editors to argue about the merits of a position. Rather, it is wikipedia policy to present NPOV so readers can decide for themselves. The fact the National Academy of Sciences expert panel asked M&M to present is a clear indication their work has earned considerable respect, even in the face of being politically unpopular. I repeat: There is no valid reason to keep McKitrick and McIntyre off this page.RonCram 23:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
WMC, I am afraid I do not understand your argument. It appears you have read the page on the link I provided and agree with me that McKitrick claims to have performed a reconstruction, yet you seem to think it is "temporary." I do not follow your thinking. McKitrick clearly says they tried to replicate Mann's findings and found a series of errors. They corrected the errors and ran the replication again to generate their own reconstruction. While M&M have not published a full journal article dedicated to this study, they have presented enough information for other scientists to replicate their work and have invited others to do us - something Mann et al have not encouraged. I do not understand how, given this set of facts, you can claim the "line" has been temporarily broken but still remains. What exactly does that mean? RonCram 23:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Its not really that difficult. M&M make various criticisms of MBH. Whether those are valid or not isn't the issue here. M&M haven't published their own reconstruction and indeed have specifically stated that they don't believe the method can be used to make one, so they haven't done their own. McK has had a temporary aberration and forgotten the party line, thats all William M. Connolley 09:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think I understand your point now but I still would not call it "temporary." M&M have not performed their own reconstruction from a blank starting point. They have not attempted to consider all of the possible assumptions necessary for a reconstruction. They do not know how to prove such a reconstruction would be valid if attempted. I understand that and agree in that sense they have not done their own. However, it is also true that McKitrick has performed a corrected Mann reconstruction. Based on those results, 20th century temperatures are unexceptional. He has published both his conclusions and his graph and his results deserve to be listed on this page. I do not see any reason they can be left off. RonCram 13:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad you see the point. But its not true that mcK has performed his own recon. He has done it with McI (actually I think its now pretty clear that McI has done most of the work). If McK is now saying that he thinks he has a reconstruction, that would be a change to their line, and I don't think one throwaway comment in a non-PR publication is good enough. If he really meant it he would have said so rather more clearly William M. Connolley 14:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
WMC, your final sentence made me laugh. Of course it was not one throwaway comment since McK referred to the corrected version of Mann on four occasions on pages 13-14. And since when do we require a comment to be written in a PR publication before it gets quoted on this page? Why are you trying to change the standards for inclusion here? Let me remind you how clear McK was when writing about Figure 8. He writes:
  • "The Mann multiproxy data, when correctly handled, shows the 20th century climate to be unexceptional compared to earlier centuries. This result is fully in line with the borehole evidence. (As an aside, it also turns out to be in line with other studies that are sometimes trotted out in support of the hockey stick, but which, on close inspection, actually imply a MWP as well.)" (page 13)
  • "If the flawed bristlecone pine series are removed, the hockey stick disappears regardless of how the PCs are calculated and regardless of how many are included." (page 13) (This sentence shows that M&M actually ran more than one correction of Mann. Of course, Mann did not want to see the bristlecone pine series discarded and Mann attempted to revive the series by making an adjustment, although Mann was not consistent with the adjustment as McK explains.)
  • "MBH99 acknowledged that the bristlecone series are flawed and need an adjustment to remove the CO2 fertilization effect. But they only applied the correction to the pre-1400 portion of the series. When we apply the correction to the full series length the hockey stick shape disappears regardless of how many PCs are retained." (page 14)
  • "Figure 8. Dashed line: MBH98 proxy-based Northern Hemisphere temperature index reconstruction. Solid line: Series resulting from using corrected PCs (retaining 5 PCs in the North America network), removing Gaspé extrapolation and applying CO2 fertilization adjustment to full length of bristlecone pine series." (Caption under Figure 8 on page 14). [52]
As you can see, this is not one throwaway line but a fuller description of the process showing that he has taken into account comments by Mann himself. I must repeat - There is no valid reason for censoring McKitrick's quote regarding his correction of Mann on this page. RonCram 16:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Ron, to avoid one possible misunderstanding: For William, PR likely stands for peer review, not public relations. And your quotes again fail to support the view that M&M claim to have a temperature reconstruction. Notice e.g. the careful phrasing: "Dashed line: MBH98... reconstruction -- "Solid line: Series resulting.... --Stephan Schulz 16:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Stephen, I fully understand that PR stands for peer review. There was nothing in my response that should have led you to think I did not know the meaning of "PR." As I stated above, few of the other quotes that appear on the page are from peer reviewed articles and WMC's attempt to raise that standard here makes no sense. (How could you possibly think I meant "public relations?") Regarding the use of the term "reconstruction," M&M would agree they have not completed a full reconstruction because they are not using their own assumptions. Indeed they are not certain such an approach can be proven valid. What M&M did was correct Mann's (seemingly intentional) data and methodological errors to show Mann's approach does not yield the results he claimed. Instead, it shows that temperatures in the 20th century are unexceptional.RonCram 00:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Like Stephan said. McK is by no means as clear as you assert. Note, BTW, that McK is wrong about lots of things: most obviously This result is fully in line with the borehole evidence. (As an aside, it also turns out to be in line with other studies that are sometimes trotted out in support of the hockey stick, but which, on close inspection, actually imply a MWP as well.) - its not consistent with the boreholes; and as the nice graph DF drew shows, none of the other series show a MWP any warmer than MBH. William M. Connolley 18:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

WMC, McK is very clear. You have a right to disagree with him, but you do not have a right to censor him. I am certain there are statements on the page by many skeptics that you do not agree with, but those quotes appear on the page anyway. McIntyre and McKitrick are the most famous global warming skeptics (and the most commonly cited in PR literature) on the planet. It is truly an outrage that their views have not been presented on this page long before now. You have not presented any reason for excluding the comments of these well respected researchers and so I am restoring the entry. RonCram 00:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the discussion here may have strayed off of the principal question, which is, does McI or McK disagree with some aspect of the consensus? The most important quote Ron has supplied seems to be "The Mann multiproxy data, when correctly handled, shows the 20th century climate to be unexceptional compared to earlier centuries. This result is fully in line with the borehole evidence. (As an aside, it also turns out to be in line with other studies that are sometimes trotted out in support of the hockey stick, but which, on close inspection, actually imply a MWP as well.)" Based on that quote, there are several questions that have to be answered:

  • Can we reasonably assume that McK believes that the 20th century is unexceptional? He doesn't explicitly say that but it is strongly implied.
  • Is it part of the consensus that the 20th century is exceptional compared to earlier centuries? We have not listed that in the article, and the unexceptionality of the 20th century does not seem to directly contradict any of the points that we have listed. In particular McK might believe, in an entirely self-consistent way, that although the 20th century is unexceptional, global warming is happening, is caused by humans, and will accellerate causing detrimental effects to humanity.

So we could debate whether the answer to both of those questions is "yes", or we could look for a more relevant quote. Like Kim suggested, Ron, why don't you just ask him specifically on his blog which category of skepticism he'd be in? [53] --Nethgirb 02:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Nethgirb, okay, I give up. I have submitted the question to the website and will look for a response in a few days. RonCram 06:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Ron, it will be interesting to see the results. --Nethgirb 11:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Thanks Ron, this is productive (we'll see if the answer is, too ;-).--Stephan Schulz 08:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] McIntyre's blog

Stephen McIntyre is attending the AGU meeting and writing about his experience. He posted this:

"I had a long and very pleasant chat with Armin Bunde, who was a coauthor with von Storch in a paper on the persistence properties of various reconstructions. In that paper, they considered MM03 as an alternative reconstruction. I twitted him a little on that. However, I told him that I sometimes felt more like a politician, who liked any citation as long as you spelled the name right. He laughed."

I thought it interesting that Bunde and von Storch considered the work of McIntyre and McKitrick as an "alternative reconstruction" of Mann et al. RonCram 15:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

But McI clearly doesn't William M. Connolley 15:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly (perhaps), McIntyre stated to me in reply to an email I sent him refering him to this page that 'WMC mischaracterizes his ("our") position'. He also said that "It's pretty hard to keep up with every mischaracterization of our work." But then again he's probably just some nut being paid off by Exxon.67.141.235.203 21:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IPCC report is a deeply flawed document

One of the problems I have with the way this article is being edited is the way in which skeptics of global warming are not able to be heard. Editors here try to force skeptics into a certain mold before their statements will be listed on the page. This is simply unfair to readers of wikipedia because they are not provided with a full understanding of the breadth and depth of the criticism against the IPCC's conclusions.

I just scanned the testimony of Richard Lindzen before the Senate back in 2001 [54] regarding his experience working with the IPCC. His criticisms were wide ranging and credible. Here is a quick summary:

  • "Much of what informed scientists agree upon is barely quantitative at all" and "Indeed, the whole issue of consensus and skeptics is a bit of a red herring."
  • "However, the invocation of the IPCC is more a mantra than a proper reflection on that flawed document. The following points should be kept in mind. (Note that almost all reading and coverage of the IPCC is restricted to the highly publicized Summaries for Policymakers which are written by representatives from governments, NGO's and business; the full reports, written by participating scientists, are largely ignored.)"
  • "The vast majority of participants played no role in preparing the summary, and were not asked for agreement."
  • "The preparation of the report, itself, was subject to pressure. There were usually several people working on every few pages. Naturally there were disagreements, but these were usually hammered out in a civilized manner. However, throughout the drafting sessions, IPCC 'coordinators' would go around insisting that criticism of models be toned down, and that 'motherhood' statements be inserted to the effect that models might still be correct despite the cited faults. Refusals were occasionally met with ad hominem attacks. I personally witnessed coauthors forced to assert their 'green' credentials in defense of their statements."
  • "First, climate science, itself, has traditionally been a scientific backwater. There is little question that the best science students traditionally went into physics, math and, more recently, computer science. Thus, speaking of "thousands" of the world's leading climate scientists is not especially meaningful. Even within climate science, most of the top researchers (at least in the US) avoid the IPCC because it is extremely time consuming and non-productive. Somewhat ashamedly I must admit to being the only active participant in my department. None of this matters a great deal to the IPCC. As a UN activity, it is far more important to have participants from a hundred countries many of which have almost no active efforts in climate research. For most of these participants, involvement with the IPCC gains them prestige beyond what would normally be available, and these, not surprisingly, are likely to be particularly supportive of the IPCC. Finally, judging from the Citation Index, the leaders of the IPCC process like Sir John Houghton, Dr. Robert Watson, and Prof. Bert Bolin have never been major contributors to basic climate research. They are, however, enthusiasts for the negotiating process without which there would be no IPCC, which is to say that the IPCC represents an interest in its own right."

Based on Lindzen's comments, we can see the claim for "consensus" is a vast overstatement of a certain basic agreement that CO2 would seem to lead to an increase in temperatures, but there is no agreement on how much or how harmful this might be. The often quoted Summary for Policymakers was not even written by scientists and actually disagrees with the scientific findings. Lindzen views the IPCC report as a flawed document, flawed because of external pressure on scientists to tone down their criticism of climate models and to toe the party line. This article can never be truly helpful to readers without allowing skeptics to express all of their criticisms of the IPCC and the climate models that undergird the flawed report.

Gentlemen, we have to be more encompassing of criticisms by skeptical scientists. RonCram 18:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well yes: if we based ourselves on L's comments, all the wiki climate pages would be rather different. But why should we? L has deliberately distorted the science (see Richard_Lindzen#Letter_to_his_town_mayor.2C_2003); and is clearly in a small minority William M. Connolley 19:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
WMC, this page is about the minority. Can we not at least allow the minority to speak on the page devoted to them? RonCram 20:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeeeeesssss... and Lindzen is listed. What do you mean? William M. Connolley 20:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Let me repeat: We have to be more encompassing of criticisms by skeptical scientists. In other words, you especially, WMC, have to stop the obstructionism when it comes to adding scientists whose criticism may not fit your pre-formed outline. This page needs to allow for criticisms of the IPCC report for undue pressure on scientists and criticisms of the computer models that undergird the conclusions of the IPCC. Right now Singer is listed under two sections and that is a good thing because he holds to both criticisms. Having critics listed under multiple sections is valid, especially if their criticism adds some new information. It seems to me that Lindzen can be listed more than once since he claims to have information about several problems with the IPCC report. RonCram 21:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Please don't repeat yourself, its boring. No, you don't get to fill this page with whatever you like William M. Connolley 21:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Singer should actually only be listed in one category, the specifics about his opinion, should be on his wikipedia page. As for the rest of your argumentation, that may be, but this page is a list of scientists, not an advocacy page for their various opinions. As for Lindzen, he signed a NRC report (where he was a lead author) in 2001 saying that the IPCC report was the best representation of the state of climate science, and that the SPM was a good summary of the report. So i really don't know what he really thinks. You can find this on his wikipedia page. Again: imho the authors wikipedia page is where you put specifics. --Kim D. Petersen 22:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

WMC, you comment is nothing more than obstructionism. It is easy to say "No" but only saying "No" does not make the page better. Why not try to deal with some of the issues I raised next time? RonCram 22:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Kim, I appreciate your thought that specifics go on the author's wikipedia page. I am not sure I buy it, but I will at least consider it. Right now, the main issue is to get more scientists listed on the page without having to meet the rigid outline that is currently in force. Why not address the issue I raised of allowing more encompassing criticisms of AGW and the IPCC? Many times I have tried to put forward one scientist or another as a skeptic only to have the entry deleted because the skeptic had criticized some aspect of the IPCC WMC had not approved for criticism. That's bogus and I think you know it. A skeptic need not have to state his criticism in a way that suits WMC's outline. And I should not have to chase down published skeptics to get them to state their criticism in the approved form, like I am trying to get a five year old to color in the lines. Editors who support AGW should not be able to delete criticisms by skeptics because they do not think the criticism is valid or has merit. The computer modeling that undergird the IPCC conclusions should be fair game for criticism as well as criticisms against the politicization and undue pressure of the IPCC. What do you say, Kim? Are you for free speech or against it? RonCram 22:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
RonCram it has nothing to do with free speach, this page has a premise. We cannot start to invent reasons for adding people to the list. As for putting more scientists on it - well i think that there might be a number that could be added - but i've also discovered that these people deliberately keep within the consensus. They may speak as if they are considering it utter crap - but when you sit down and analyse it - you'll find that they actually didn't say anything. That is frustrating - but in my opinion deliberate. As for people like M&M they are not on top of my list of people to put on this page. I seem to remember McIntyre saying at the Wegman hearing that he had no opinion on AGW, but that it might or might not be correct. Try getting someone like the Friends of Science people (or from the Lavoisier group) here instead. --Kim D. Petersen 23:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Kim, you still did not deal with the issues I raised. I am not trying to invent reasons for adding people. I am trying to add people who have clearly identified themselves as opposed to the IPCC report and stated why. If anyone visits this page at all, they will visit to try to learn why these scientists are skeptical of AGW. I think they ought to find some information but I am slowly coming to the conclusion not every editor here agrees with me. If a skeptic says the IPCC conclusions are based on computer models that are full of crap, he ought to be quoted. If a skeptic says computer models provide scenarios and not predictions upon which policy should be written, he ought to be quoted. Anyone who opposes this is trying to silence the skeptics and that means he is against free speech. So, where are you Kim? Are you for it or agin it? RonCram 23:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Ron, see the first paragraph of the article, outlining the core IPCC positions. If you find a reliable source showing that a scientist opposes any of these three statements, I'll happily support his (or her or its...) inclusion. If that needs a new category because it does not fit the exisisting scheme, fine. But general unspecific noise or quibbling about minor details does not warrant inclusion. It's the nature of a consensus/compromise position, that it does not correspond to anybody's view exactly and in every detail. Thus, minor criticism is only relevant if a critic self-identifies as opposed to the the core consensus. --Stephan Schulz 00:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ron, first of all, I think it would be perfectly OK to add to Lindzen's entry a quote showing why he believes that "we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide", as long as it's concise.

As for keeping people off the list, I can understand why you are frustrated. For some of these people it really is difficult to find specific quotes contradicting the consensus; I think I spent more than half an hour trying to find a good one for Marcel Leroux, and he wrote a whole anti-AGW book! For a lot of them it is obvious that they are skeptical but there seems to be no "acceptable" quote.

But there's a good reason for that. This is not an article on scientists who are skeptical about global warming. It is about those who oppose the global warming consensus. That's a more rigorous requirement but at the same time it's quite simple: scientists who said they think the consensus is wrong in some respect. I don't think anyone here has excluded a scientist who met that requirement. It is perfectly appropriate to discuss nebulous skepticism on the scientist's individual bio page, or to list them in Category:Global warming skeptics. But for this list of scientists, the standards we've adoped are entirely appropriate. The scientists here are putting their scientific reputations on the line by making specific statements; the excluded skeptical scientists are usually fence-sitting.

And finally I can see why it would be frustrating to find a skeptical scientist who has made a specific criticism but it is not criticising the conclusions of the consensus -- rather, it is criticising one of the many lines of evidence, like computer models or past climate reconstructions. We could discuss having a category for such people. I don't think it would be entirely unreasonable. But such criticisms, while they are an essential part of the scientific process (when they are valid criticisms!), are not as important for this article because they are not criticising the ultimate conclusions, just a minority of the evidence. --Nethgirb 06:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, Ron, I have to say that I do appreciate your taking the time to discuss changes here rather than simply making edits. However, I do not appreciate your accusing many of us of intellectual dishonesty behind our backs over at Climate Audit: "Since most of the editors of the page are strong adherents to AGW, it is difficult for them to think and respond independently. They always have to consider how the group will think and vote." [55] I would ask that you consider the possibility that two intelligent people can come to different conclusions on a topic, and I hope we can continue working out disagreements in a reasoned manner. --Nethgirb 07:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Nethgirb, el al, I am talking about people who have identified themselves as skeptics of the consensus and who have specifically mentioned the uncertainty of climate models as the reason they are skeptical. Also, I am talking about skeptical scientists who have spoken about the undue pressure on scientists at the IPCC or people like McIntyre who have complained that the IPCC did not properly audit research before making policy recommendations. Criticism of these items is criticism of the conclusions because it puts the core conclusions in doubt. Under the current WMC enforced criteria, those scientists and their statements are not included. This decision is arbitrary and designed to preclude reader access to wanted information. I continue to stand by the statement I made at Climate Audit. I knew full well someone, or perhaps all of you, would read it. However, I did not accuse you of intellectual dishonesty but of group think. No one in this discussion yet has fully come to terms with my comments. So this current discussion is further evidence of group think. There should only be two questions asked before information is accepted into the page. Has the scientist identified himself as a skeptic? Has he provided a reason why he is skeptical? If those two questions can be answered, then he should be included whether a new category has to be created or not. Your thought that the page should exclude a skeptic because the desired quote criticizes evidence and not conclusions is not valid. He is a skeptic because the evidence does not require the conclusion. Under this thinking, all the better scientists who can actually point to evidence of why they are skeptical are excluded from the page. Surely you see how ridiculous that is. RonCram 11:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Ron said: "I am talking about people who have identified themselves as skeptics of the consensus and who have specifically mentioned the uncertainty of climate models [or undue pressure on IPCC scientists, or the IPCC's lack of auditing of research] as the reason they are skeptical. ... Criticism of these items is criticism of the conclusions because it puts the core conclusions in doubt." You are jumping to conclusions. We simply have to take quotes at face value. If the scientist in question doubts the conclusions for whatever reason, then they can say so and we'll include them. Otherwise, they are only skeptics and you can put them in Category:Global warming skeptics.
"There should only be two questions asked before information is accepted into the page. Has the scientist identified himself as a skeptic? Has he provided a reason why he is skeptical? If those two questions can be answered, then he should be included whether a new category has to be created or not." I agree except that the scientist has to identify himself or herself as a skeptic of some part of the consensus. And, actually, probably no justification is strictly necessary for our purposes.
"Your thought that the page should exclude a skeptic because the desired quote criticizes evidence and not conclusions is not valid. He is a skeptic because the evidence does not require the conclusion." Well, OK, they are skeptical of some parts of the evidence; but not necessarily skeptical of the conclusions. By your argument, I would venture to guess that WMC himself would be on the list: he has probably reviewed many AGW-related papers and has been skeptical of some of these papers' methods, without doubting the IPCC's conclusions. Like I said, I would be happy to discuss inclusion of a specific category for doubting parts of the evidence without doubting the conclusions. It would, however, be outside the stated topic of the article. "Under this thinking, all the better scientists who can actually point to evidence of why they are skeptical are excluded from the page.": People should not be excluded from the page because they criticize evidence, but rather because they did not criticize the conclusions. So then you are apparently saying that all the better scientists don't disagree with the conclusions? --Nethgirb 12:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Nethgirb, I only want to include scientists who have identified themselves as skeptics of global warming. WMC would never be included because he is a strong adherent (should I say believer) in global warming. I am not completely certain we can even include McIntyre yet, but anyone who has identified himself as a skeptic and said what McI has said should be included. The idea a skeptic has to criticize one of the specific conclusions stated in the Intro is too rigid. If someone calls global warming a hoax, they are skeptic. They do not have to make a statement that they believe only 20% of recent warming was due to CO2 or some specific rejection. The better scientists will not name a percentage that is man's responsibility because they do not think it can be done. The better scientists disagree with the conclusions but they do it by pointing to problems with the evidence. What I am saying is good, skeptical scientists are being excluded from the page for the wrong reasons. You write: People should not be excluded from the page because they criticize evidence... If you believe that, are you willing to include self-identified skeptics who criticize computer models? Are you willing to include people who criticize the IPCC for creating undue pressure on scientists? RonCram 13:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
To answer your last questions I suggest you read the whole sentence that I wrote instead of just the first clause.
"If someone calls global warming a hoax, they are skeptic.": I agree, that's probably sufficient for inclusion. But the person who called it a hoax is William Gray and he is on the list already. Who do you have in mind that was unfairly excluded? --Nethgirb 13:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Nethgirb, I did read your whole sentence and it was not clear. That is why I asked the question. To answer your question, several people have been unfairly excluded. Your refusal to answer my questions is not helpful. I would have preferred that you answered the question first and then follwed the facts to the proper conclusion. The fact you want to know who I want to include seems to indicate you are more concerned with the end product than you are with following facts and logic. I hate repeating myself but I must: Are you willing to include self-identified skeptics who criticize computer models? Are you willing to include people who criticize the IPCC for creating undue pressure on scientists? RonCram 15:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

"If you believe that, are you willing to include self-identified skeptics who criticize computer models? Are you willing to include people who criticize the IPCC for creating undue pressure on scientists?" If they have criticized the consensus, then yes. If they have only criticized models or the IPCC process, then they should not be included in the article as it is, but as I said I would be willing to discuss having a special category for these people.
"To answer your question, several people have been unfairly excluded.": Who? --Nethgirb 00:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
If someone claims to be a global warming skeptic, have they not expressed doubt about the "consensus?" For better clarity on the issue, I will manufacture a quote and you can tell me if you would include the person. "I am skeptical of the global warming theory because the theory is based on computer models I do not find convincing. None of the computer models used include all of the variables involved in climate change." - John Q. Scientist Should such a scientist be listed on this page or not? If the answer is no, are you saying the skeptic has to specifically criticize the IPCC in the quote that is selected for the article? Or is he acceptable if he has criticized the IPCC conclusions in one piece and given the evidence against the conclusions in the quote selected for the page? RonCram 01:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
"I am skeptical of GW theory" seems like a borderline case. Certainly if John Q. Scientist says "I am skeptical of the principal conclusions of GW theory" then he should be included, but in a new category of scientists who have expressed doubt regarding the scientific opinion on global warming (as required at the beginning of the article) but without saying what part they doubt.
The problem with "I am skeptical of GW theory" is that it is not very specific. Someone who only says that is not really putting their reputation on the line. If 20 years from now it turns out AGW is universally accepted fact, they can say, "I only meant that I was skeptical of some important parts of GW theory in that some of the multiple lines of evidence were not convincing, but it was clear to me that the overall conclusions were likely true".--Nethgirb 04:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The standard of specificity you are requiring is nonsensical. People do not talk like that usually. No one can be skeptical of GW theory without being skeptical of its principal conclusions. If someone identifies himself as skeptical of GW theory, he should be recognized as a skeptic. Any scientist who tried to deny he was a skeptic 20 years after describing himself a skeptic would surely be publicly ridiculed, especially after the scientist had described the evidence that caused him to reject the theory. I can only ask that when I put forward scientists in the future that you try to be a little more reasonable than you are being at the moment. RonCram 05:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No one can be skeptical of GW theory without being skeptical of its principal conclusions - exactly. So if you can't find them disputing one of its conclusions, rather then mouthing off in general about being a skeptics, don't try to push them forwards. But this is going round in circles, of course. Are you just trolling? William M. Connolley 09:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
WMC, I am glad to see you agree with my principal point. However, you seemed to have missed my subpoint that people do not usually speak in the manner Nethgirb and you are requiring. By the standard you put forward we cannot include someone if they say "I reject the theory of global warming." In such a case, there is no doubt about their being a skeptic yet they do not reach the standard put forward to be on this page. That is plainly ludicrous and must be changed. Regarding your trolling comment, I have been editing here for a while now and several of the scientists listed on the page are there because of me. Are you just trying to be insulting? RonCram 15:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
"I reject the theory of GW" may be acceptable though more specifics are preferable. But this is all hypothetical unless you can name someone who was unfairly excluded. I've asked twice but you've named no one. --Nethgirb 02:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Nethgirb, you know me well enough to know I will get around to that eventually.RonCram 14:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another form of skeptic

The article is too narrow in another key aspect. As it stands right now, if a scientist says "The IPCC Summary for Policymakers leads policymakers to believe the science is well-established and therefore a good basis on which to make policy. I disagree. While AGW may be at work, scientifically speaking there is no assurance this is the case and therefore no reason to spend billions of dollars trying to force changes to society." The scientists making such a statement may have done considerable work in the field and believe they can demonstrate why there is no assurance (and be considered skeptics by the media) and yet not he would not be listed in this article. I believe readers have the right to know this type of skeptic is out there. I believe readers would expect such skeptics to be listed. I do not believe there is any reasonable reason to keep such skeptics off the page, even if the Intro to the page has to be expanded with a short phrase or sentence. RonCram 14:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You are mixing up two things: The certainty of the science, and the call for policies. The second depends not just on the understanding and prediction of global warming, but additionally on economic arguments. There are, e.g., some scientists who accept AGW, who think it will be negative, but who claim that we can achieve more by investing the money elsewhere (clean water and education for Africa...). There are others who think that reasonable anti-emission politics will pay for itself even without global warming, as it reduces other environmental problems, and funnels less money to gouvernnments with questionable politics. Both will require very different levels of certainty for anti-CO2 policies, so this is not a reasonable measure. However, if you find someone who says "the science is a lot less settled than the IPCC suggests", by all means introduce a new category. --Stephan Schulz 15:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! I will do that. RonCram 15:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Added Hendrik Tennekes as the first. I am certain there will be more. RonCram 15:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Added Nils-Axel Mörner, Arthur Rörsch, Richard S. Courtney and Dick Thoenes. RonCram 18:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are these guys notable?

Stephen asked the question if these guys are notable when he edited my entry. I will post some info about them here but I think most will end up getting their own biographical article on wikipedia eventually.

  • Nils-Axel Mörner is professor of paleogeophysics and geodynamics at Stockholm University and the co-editor of a book titled "Climatic Changes on a Yearly to Millennial Basis" and a contributor to "The Impacts of Climate Change: An Appraisal for the Future." [56]
  • Arthur Rörsch is professor at Leiden University in the Netherlands. He is leading the preparation of a document to the "Dutch Parliament asking for an independent scientific audit of the advice given to the government that made them decide to sign the Kyoto Protocol" making him one of the leading AGW skeptics in Europe. He is also holding a meeting of skeptics in Stockholm sometime soon (if it has not already happened). [57]
  • Richard S Courtney is more difficult to assess. [58] He appears to have held technical positions in business but not academia. However, he appears to be working closely with Rörsch. [59]
  • Thoenes is a chemical engineer and was chairman of the Royal Netherlands Chemical Society. He is also co-author of the book "Man-made global warming" [60]
I found a blog by Luboš Motl, who appears to be assistant professor of physics at Harvard. He refers to himself as a "reactionary physicist" and seems to have quite a knack for teasing warmers with the facts. For example you might want to see his page on the current global cooling trend the planet has been experiencing. Except for 2005, temperatures have basically been on a downtrend since 1998. Take a look at his blog for yourself. [61]
Notability: clearly they aren't, or they wouldn't be red-links. Why don't you create your page if you think they are worthwhile people?
If you're down to treating Lubos as a credible source (on climate; I'd take his advice on gravity), you're lost. Learn about interannual variablity - well just look at the temperature pic. If you (or anyone else you think is credible) think we're on a downward trend, I can point you to people who are willing to bet on the reverse - Lubos has declined.
As to the new people - this is just generalised whinging. They need to say something a bit more serious and a bit more specific. There is a nice 1, 2, 3 list at the top of the page of the "consensus" points and not one of these people objects (the E+E article may have, but neither you no I have read it so we don't know) William M. Connolley 20:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Redlinks is not the way to gauge notability. Most of these guys are European and do not write much in English. You admit the E&E paper may meet your stringent criteria but yet you deleted it anyway. This is not a fair minded course of action. The others you deleted even though two of the editors here agreed such a section was justifiable. If you really think this section is not warranted, why not address the issue on the Talk page before reverting edits others support? RonCram 21:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll stay on the sideline and watch the general outcome. But "most of these guys are European and do not write much in English" does not wash. If you are in the sciences, you either publish in English, you are French, or you do not publish scientifically at all. None of my peer-reviewed publications is in German and I don't even know if a German language venue exists...--Stephan Schulz 21:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Ron, read what William said - the E+E paper may have, but neither you no I have read it. If neither of your have read it, how can it be a valid source? Guettarda 21:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Ron, i agree with Guettarda - an article that noone has read cannot be used. The abstract can be interpreted either way --Kim D. Petersen 22:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
You guys are trying to change the standard for inclusion again. There are several scientists listed on the page who have not published in any journal, much less one we have all read. The Intro says "This page lists scientists, not necessarily involved in climate research, who have expressed doubt regarding the scientific opinion on global warming." Expressing doubt is the standard, not 100% rejection of the theory. Regarding Rorsch et al, the quote from the abstract shows the article clearly presents a different interpretation of the data than the IPCC. There is no question the authors oppose the consensus 100% (even though that is not required for inclusion here) and are offering a competing interpretation. The fact Rorsch is leading meetings by scientists opposed to AGW theory only confirms this interpretation of the abstract. Rorsch, Courtney and Thoenes wrote the article together. Rorsch and Thoenes are notable authors of both papers and books. (Steven, if you cannot find papers in other languages, you need to change your preferences on scholar.google.com.) Courtney is less notable but I do not know how you leave him out when he is a co-author of the paper.
RonCram we're not changing the rules - verifiability is the most important rule of all - and not specific to this page. The quote in the Rörsch abstract is about presentation of different theories - it doesn't state anything about the conclusions or the authors opinion, which is important for this page. As an analogy take this page - its about sceptics and their opinion, yet i think you'd find it hard, based upon your interaction here (behind the scenes) for you to claim that this automatically makes all of us agree with the opinions presented on the page. From what i've read so far, including his letter about the Stockholm conference, Rörsch could be a sceptic, or simply interested in presenting the sceptics view to a broader audience. --Kim D. Petersen 16:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC) - note btw that in the same breath i have no doubt that Courtney is a sceptic from the same correspondance. --Kim D. Petersen 16:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Ron, you're reading a lot into that abstract that's not there. You can't go from "This paper ... makes an alternative interpretation to that given by the IPCC" to "There is no question the authors oppose the consensus 100%". --Nethgirb 21:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

(1) I agree with Ron that being a redlink doesn't automatically mean one is not notable. However, the burden of proof should be on establishing that they are notable before they are included. Ron's justification above might be sufficient though. (2) I changed the title of the new section from "The science is a lot less settled than the IPCC suggests" to "General Skepticism" because that's what seems to differentiate it from the other sections. For example all of the people in the second section, "The earth is warming but the cause is unknown", think that the science is a lot less settled than the IPCC suggests. (3) The Nils-Axel Mörner quote appears to only criticize politics and societal response, not the actual science. Since this page is about the science, I removed him. He may well belong on the list but that quote didn't show it. I also agree the Rörsch et al abstract could be interpreted in many ways and a different quote should probably be found. --Nethgirb 00:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I agree with William that there isn't enough information to support either Tennekes or Rörsch et al. There's a difference between saying "I remain a climate skeptic" and being "opposed to the GW consensus". The former says that you are skeptical, not that you either support or oppose. Without a better source, there's no way to put Tennekes in the "oppose" column. With regards to Rörsch et al., an "alternative explanation" isn't necessarily opposition. Without seeing the paper, there's no way to tell whether they belong here or not. Guettarda 13:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

My trouble with this whole section, is that the list went from demonstratable to .... well.... something diffuse. How are we going to determing who is going into the last section? Will we have to discuss Roger Pielke Sr once more? Despite his own comments? Does Hans von Storch suddenly come into the picture? Where do we draw the line in the sand? Can someone explain the specifics to me - specifically how we seperate people that are critical of specific subparts of the IPCC report, and the more general sceptic, who just cannot be categorized because his statements are too unsubstantial to be categorized? Hope i'm not rabbling - but i'm really not sure about the specifics here. --Kim D. Petersen 22:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fred Singer

In which category is he most relevant? Currently he is represented twice - once is enough. Personally i suggest the natural causes category. --Kim D. Petersen 00:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree, but he does belong in both categories... One idea would be to change the 4th category to be more in line with the the others, e.g.: "This section contains scientists who accept that global warming will occur and that it is caused primarily by humans, but advocate the position that it will be of little impact or a net positive for human society." So then we retain the pattern of increasingly strong statements. --Nethgirb 05:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Quite a lot of these people have made statements that would place them in more than one category. Lindzen comes to mind as one of these - i think we need to limit them to the one category that mostly adheres to their opinion - for Singer this would be the natural warming category, since it is in thread with his new book. Alternatively we could have some kind of tag applied to them, to state that they also have opinions that intersect with other categories. Singer is just as relevant for instance to be included in the new IPCC sceptic column (which i btw. do not think is a good idea - since it (potentially) includes people who are openly supporting the IPCC consensus). --Kim D. Petersen 15:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I think if we modify the 4th category as I suggested above, then all the categories will be mutually exclusive, given how the requirements are currently written. --Nethgirb 21:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I still don't agree - ie. i don't believe that they are mutually exclusive. And i have to adjust my view on Singer, he belongs in both, but from the Stockholm conference video at around 15:00 in - Singer explains quite thoroughly that warming is good - and that that is his main statement, he also believes that its natural - but here at least he is pretty forcefull in stating that its good. Btw. can we use this video as a references? --Kim D. Petersen 00:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The categories would be (1) "No warming", (2) "Warming, but we don't know why", (3) "Warming, natural", (4) "Warming, anthropogenic, but it's good", and (5) "General skepticism that doesn't fall into any of the other categories". So that does seem mutually exclusive (e.g. Singer would be only in category 3) but I'm not sure it's the best organization because it would be hard to place some people in a category. E.g. Sherwood Idso has said warming is good but we'd need more information to decide whether he belongs in categories 1, 2, 3, or 4. Another idea would be having a big matrix with a row for each scientist and columns for statements with checkboxes in the appropriate places. But that might be going overboard. I'm OK with the current arrangement of listing Singer twice, or changing it as you see fit. I think referencing the video is fine especially if you note the time into the video at which the quote occurs. --Nethgirb 02:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Global Warming - Scientific Controversies in Climate Variability

An International seminar was held at The Royal Institute of Technology (a university also known as KTH), Stockholm, Sweden September 11-12th 2006. The organizing chairman was Peter Stilbs, Professor of Physical Chemistry at KTH, and the seminar was attended by almost 120 people from 11 countries.

It is interesting to read the comments of Rorsch who challenged believers in AGW to come to the conference and debate the science. He sounded a little like Martin Luther attacking the prevailing dogma when he nailed the 95 Theses to the door of the church in Wittenburg. Read his comments at the bottom of this link. [62] Unfortunately, I do not think many hardline AGW supporters showed up for the debate. Somehow I just can't imagine Michael Mann showing up to defend his "hockey stick."

The program speakers are listed here. [63]And Peter Stilbs summarized the "wide agreement" by the final panel discussion here. [64] While the summary discusses many areas of disagreement with the IPCC, one of the most interesting comments is the prediction of global cooling in a few decades based on "aspects related to solar cycles." RonCram 15:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to make a correction. At least one hardline warmer was present at the conference. Professor Bert Bolin, first chairman of the IPCC, heckled one of the conference speakers but the meeting continued. [65]RonCram 15:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The summary at [66] is a nice piece of propaganda. Much of it can be interpreted as reasonable while suggesting something very different:
  • "It is likely that there has been a climate trend towards global warming underway since 1850..." - fine.
  • "...however there is no strong evidence to prove significant human influence on climate on a global basis. Well, yes, science does not prove things.
  • "The global cooling trend from 1940 to 1970 is inconsistent with models based on anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions." Well, it is inconsistent with models based only on on anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. It is very much consistent with current standard climate models, though. I very much doubt that e.g. von Storch agreed with that sentence. Anyone up for a bet?
  • "Actual claims put forward are that an observed global temperature increase of about 0.3 degrees C since 1970 exceeds what could be expected from natural variation." Ok, true sentence. Rather empty, though.
  • "However, recent temperature data do not indicate any continued global warming since 1998." Umm...1998 was a record setting year, an upper extreme among a decade of hot years. Taking that as a reference is itself dubious, as is the implied claim that meaningful analysis can be made by looking at 8 years of data.
...and so on. --Stephan Schulz 20:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)phen
Stephan, I have to admit that I had some of the same thoughts. No doubt it is difficult to come up with a statement that would warrant the description "wide agreement" without weasly words. The point that stood out to me was the claim there was wide agreement on the prediction of coming global cooling. I have been reading about a Russian scientist who makes that claim. He says the global cooling is supposed to start in 2012 or thereabouts (although some would claim it started in 1998). In spite of the shortcomings of the summary, the conference is interesting and the list of speakers gives us a few more names to research to see if they are truly skeptics or just trying to get the science right (like von Storch). RonCram 14:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I found Stephen McIntyre's account of the Stockholm conference on his blog.[67] You might find it interesting reading.RonCram 14:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Interestng reading. Wow, "no article involving Philip Jones could be relied on." And yet Fred Singer's presentation at the conference went unquestioned... Raymond Arritt 17:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
You are referring to a comment in a private conversation by Wibjorn Karlen to Stephen McIntyre. Of course, McIntyre asked if it was okay to quote him before doing so. Without knowing any specifics, I have to think there is some history between Karlen and Jones or he would not have said this. It would be interesting to know the history. Regarding the fact no one questioned Singer's presentation, at least a few warmers were present and could have questioned him. Apparently no one did. RonCram 22:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some suggested additions

I still believe this page does not come close to accurately presenting the number and quality of the scientists who oppose AGW theory. Since wikipedia is a global encyclopedia (and since this article has had a North American-centric dominated perspective0, I have recently been working to find scientists outside the U.S. to include on the page. I suggest we include the following scientists and sections:

Actually, Ron, here's an argument that we've got most of the major ones. If you look at the list of speakers at the KTH conference [68], you will see that of the 19 speakers, 7 are already in this article (Baliunas, Carter, Leroux, Singer, Soon, Svensmark, Courtney) and at least one (McIntyre) has been discussed, so we've hit 8 of 19. Let's assume that everyone else at that conference is actually a skeptic, and that there is an unknown set of N skeptics out there, and the conference participants are composed of a uniform-random set of 19 skeptics, and our list is composed of a uniform-random set of 24 skeptics. For what value of N do we expect an overlap of size 7 between the conference and this article? If you work out the math, the answer is 57. That would indicate that we have covered slightly less than half of all skeptics -- which is different than what you say, that "this page does not come close to accurately presenting the number and quality of the scientists who oppose AGW theory."
There are a lot of assuptions here of course. Most importantly, I'm guessing the KTH conference was composed of a few important skeptics and then a bunch of local people of minor significance. So probably N=57 is an overestimate of the number of prominent skeptics -- it's all downhill after Lindzen's MIT professorship -- which would explain why we're kind of scraping the bottom of the barrel now in terms of qualifications for new additions... --Nethgirb 01:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Of the 19 speakers, I can immediately recognize several as highly qualified non-skeptics: Kallen, Bengtsson, and von Storch. Raymond Arritt 03:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Nethgirb, I am not a statistician but I can follow the math. 8/19=42%. 24/57=42%. However, I cannot follow your logic that because we covered 42% of the speakers that we necessarily have covered 42% of all skeptics. That does not follow. Nor does it take into account the growing number of skeptics. It does however remind me of Lindzen's criticism that climate science has been a bit of a scientific backwater. Lindzen says most of the brightest students go into physics, mathematics or computer science. Experts from these disciplines are just beginning to look into the problems and errors of the climatologists and so the number of skeptics is growing all the time. RonCram 02:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
"However, I cannot follow your logic that because we covered 42% of the speakers that we necessarily have covered 42% of all skeptics. That does not follow." We haven't necessarily, but it's a justifiable ballpark estimate. At the intuitive level: Suppose you and I each pick a prominent skeptic randomly. If there were hypothetically 6 billion prominent skeptics, it would be hugely unlikely that we would pick the same one (1 in 6 billion chance). So if we happen to pick the same one, we would rightly suspect that there are much fewer than 6 billion people to pick from. Same basic idea here -- if many prominent skeptics are both speakers at the conference and in this article, there must not be too many prominent skeptics to pick from. This is why you see the same names coming up again and again.
The math uses some basic statistics/probability. Assume there is a set of N prominent skeptics from which are drawn both the conference's 19 speakers and this article's 24 entries. Since the speakers are uniform-random prominent skeptics, each speaker has probability 24/N of being one of the entries in this article. Let Xi be equal to 1 in the case that the ith speaker is in the article, or Xi = 0 otherwise; then the previous sentence says that Pr[Xi = 1] = 24 / N. What we're looking for is the expected number of people in both sets, which is E[\sum_{i=1}^{19} X_i] = \sum_{i=1}^{19} Pr[X_i=1] = 19 \cdot 24 / N, by linearity of expectation. So when N = 57 we would expect to have 19 \cdot 24 / 57 = 8 people common to both groups.
"Nor does it take into account the growing number of skeptics." Whether the number of skeptics is growing or not is an entirely separate issue, on which Lindzen seems to be speculating without any evidence that I've seen. The above tells us about the current number of skeptics. --Nethgirb 06:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it tells us very little about the current number of skeptics at all. The "assumption" you have used, "linearity of expectation" is not warranted. We are not talking about a sample from well mixed atmosphere where a ratio from the sample could tell us something about the larger entity. Perhaps if you had several samples to consider from different parts of the world, it may be different. The math you are proposing is worthless without some margin of error in the calculation. My guess is that your math could be off by a factor of ten or more. RonCram 12:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
RonCram, i'd say it fits pretty well, both with my own guesses, and from trying to find and read sceptic papers. These are the people that keep popping up again and again, not only nationally but internationally as well. If you look at the different sceptics organizations, these are the people as well. And the speakers list on this conference is a pretty decent crosssection, they've invited sceptics from all over the world - so we can assume that these are the people that are significant here. But as Nethgirb's calculation also shows - we're still missing some. --Kim D. Petersen 13:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Kim, we have a different view. Everytime I sit down to research the issue, I find a host of names that are not on the list and I find new organizations that oppose AGW theory as well. I am not at all certain that 57 even begins to scratch the surface. Plus it is becoming more acceptable for skeptics to express their problems with the theory. For years some of these people were afraid to say anything for fear of getting fired or losing their funding. The fact these people are more willing to speak at conferences and publish papers coupled with the fact scientists from other fields are looking into global warming and finding the science unconvincing, we can expect the number of skeptics to continue to grow (especially while the earth is in its currently cooling period). RonCram 14:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"Actually, it tells us very little about the current number of skeptics at all. The "assumption" you have used, "linearity of expectation" is not warranted." Well Ron, I did make assumptions one could criticize, but linearity of expectation is certainly not one of them. :-) Anyway, this is probably not worth the time... --Nethgirb 19:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carbon dioxide is not capable of significantly warming the earth's atmosphere

  • Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist with Scientific Alliance, is a longtime critic of global warming theory. He wrote the peer-reviewed journal article "The roles of carbon dioxide and water vapour in warming and cooling the Earth's troposphere" in 1995. The abstract reads: "The currently perceived mechanism of operation of the so-called greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide and water, is dependent upon the atmosphere behaving as an emitter of continuous radiation as would a cavity of the same temperature and upon vibrationally excited carbon dioxide and water molecules being de-activated mainly by the emission of fluorescence radiation at all altitudes. This article maintains that carbon dioxide and gaseous water molecules cannot behave as cavity radiators and presents evidence for vibrational fluorescence of carbon dioxide occurring substantially only at the very low pressures (lower than 0.1 Pa) found in the thermosphere at altitudes above 95 km. Substantial concentrations of water vapour exist only in the troposphere where pressures are too great to allow significant emission of vibrational fluorescence radiation." [69]
First: Is he reputable? Second an article from 1994/5 is hardly sufficient to establish what his current opinion is, from all we know he may have changed his viewpoint several times since then. Thirdly the science has solidified quite a bit since then, so theres a good chance that he doesn't hold on to this particular critique (and he doesn't - please check thispage discussing a more recent paper, where he has changed his view). My view: 1) Not reputable. 2) no clear link to a viewpoint. --Kim D. Petersen 23:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Notice he also contends that by his measure water vapor does not act as a "so-called greenhouse gas." Thus he is either incompetent or (more likely) is discussing an aspect of the problem that is not relevant to climate. My suspicion is that he's a lab scientist who doesn't really understand much about climate: for example he apparently ignores the effect of increased CO2 on the wings of the absorption bands. Raymond Arritt 00:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
At first glance, it appears he has changed his view but not his position as a skeptic. I suggest we find another more suitable quote. RonCram 02:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rise in surface temperatures not preceded by atmospheric warming as per AGW theory

  • Bob Foster, a geoscientist for Shell writes: "However, the 1976–2000 warming is unlikely to be from the ‘greenhouse effect’, because there is no substantial trend of rising temperature in the lower atmosphere over that time—beyond the 1976/77 jump. On the other hand, and not mentioned by IPCC, there was a major re-ordering of oceanic heat transportation between 1976 and 1977. This event provides a better-founded explanation for the observed surface warming at 1976–2000 than does IPCC’s implausible attribution to human-caused changes in the composition of the atmosphere." (Page 33)[70]
And over here [71] he says it's due to the sun. But more importantly he works for Shell...not a scientist unless you can come up with some other qualifications. --Nethgirb 00:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not necessary to bring up the fact that he works for Shell. The more relevant point is that the guy is demonstrably wrong on two counts: first, there is a warming trend after 1976-77, as even a cursory glance at the temperature record will show; second, everybody knows about the change of phase of the PDO at 1976-77. Raymond Arritt 00:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
But this article is about their opinions, right or (in this case) wrong. So as long as he has the qualifications, and he says something to contradict the consensus, he should be in. I was suggesting that he doesn't have the qualifications. --Nethgirb 00:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, understood. I guess it brings up another point: if one of these guys is very obviously wrong, do we mention it? I'd rather not as it will open up a big back-and-forth, but on the other hand I'm uncomfortable including nonsense without comment. I suggest a disclaimer up top that we are refraining from comment on validity or lack thereof. Raymond Arritt 00:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The disclaimer might be a good idea. --Nethgirb 19:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Anyone who works for Shell is automatically discredited, but if one works for the government, it is okay? What kind of double standard is that Nethgirb? It shows your hypocrisy. You don't think that there are possible conflicts of interest working under the government? Likwidshoe 15:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Apparently you have to resort to grossly misinterpreting what I wrote in order to support your point. --Nethgirb 15:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Where and how did I "grossly" misinterpret what you wrote? A little explanation would go a long way. Remember that you're discrediting someone because he works for Shell ("But more importantly he works for Shell...not a scientist..."), yet accepting scientists paid for (with either money or influence) by the UN. Likwidshoe 15:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I wrote, "But more importantly he works for Shell...not a scientist unless you can come up with some other qualifications." Working for Shell doesn't qualify or disqualify him. --Nethgirb 16:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that Foster is saying that there has been no warming in the lower atmosphere since 1976. I believe he is quite right on this point. I also believe John Christy and Roy Spencer also fit this category. Foster is a scientist if other scientists cite his work. He does not need to hold a professorship to be a scientist. RonCram 02:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I checked into Foster and it seems he's academically qualified. His essay linked here is very, very shaky in its science and contains some notable outright factual errors, though per se that doesn't preclude him from being listed. I'd say go ahead and add him. Raymond Arritt 03:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd go very carefull with Foster - i've now read the two papers, and he doesn't specifically dispute the consensus. He does dispute that the SPM is a good reflection of the TAR, and he does cast doubts on the upper extrema of the projected temperature projections. But i cannot see if his dispute is simply on par with Pielke Sr.'s (ie. anthropogenic causes - but CO2 sensitivity is overestimated), or if he really disputes that the temperature rise in the last 50 years is mostly anthropogenic. (ie. he is disputing that it is mostly from GHG's but does caveat that it could be from landuse changes and other anthropogenic sources).
My second caution is on his credentials, he is an engineer, with experience as a geoscientist, which means he doesn't have the scholarship. He is as far as i can see, a lobbyist now (director of the australian Lavoisier group). We may need a more specific definition on what a scientist is? Is it enough to have some kind of degree, and then publish an op-ed? --Kim D. Petersen 11:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Foster is on the board of the Lavoisier Group, but I am not sure that makes him a lobbyist. He most certainly is a skeptic in that he believes the Sun is the dominant driving force in the climate and he certainly rejects all (even the lower range) of the IPCC's projections. [72]RonCram 13:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Ron (i assume), none of the papers state specifically that he believes the Sun the primary driver, he says something about the IPCC ignoring the Sun (which is erroneous - but thats irrelevant) not that its the main driver, you are once more reading between the lines. Secondly he needs to be a scientist - being a lobbyist (head of a lobby group makes people such). Thirdly you are also reading between the lines when it comes to "rejects all" IPCC projections, i can find no such clear statement, neither in the former nor the latter papers. --Kim D. Petersen 13:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Kim, here are some quotes from the paper I just linked.

The underpinning for IPCC's projections is its Special Report on Emission Scenarios. But the SRES's A1 "storyline", setting the high end of the range (5.8 ºC), is neither science nor economics. Instead, it reflects the yearning for social equity of the SRES economists. A1's basis is the achievement in the century ahead of a very substantial catch-up of living standards in the LDCs to those of the developed world. The result is a world where nearly everyone is rich. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, of course; but, it needs an almost-unimaginable increase in Third World per-capita GDP by 2100. Even the low-end of IPCC's range (1.4 ºC) is deeply deceptive. It is based on SRES's slightly less fantastic, but still highly implausible, B1 storyline---where "the emphasis is on global solutions to economic, social and environmental sustainability, including improved equity". This is no 'range'.
(But, what did cause the warming? Presumably, some comes from land-use-change, urban-heat-island, and emission (soot/sulphate/GHG) effects; but most is unrelated to human activities. It is still the Sun which drives our climate.)
Some claim climate is chaotic, and hence, prediction is impossible. IPCC claims that climate is now driven by human-caused GHG emissions, and change can be modelled---if emissions can be predicted. But the Sun has not resigned from the climate-change game. Furthermore, behaviour of the Solar System is not chaotic; and a well-resourced analysis of the relationship between the solar torque cycle and climate might enable us to do what IPCC cannot do---predict climate change. (Theodor Landscheidt has enjoyed notable success in predicting El Niño events by this means---search "Landscheidt" at www.john-daly.com for his innovative work.)

I do not think I am reading between the lines. He specifically states his rejection of the IPCC range and says the IPCC is not capable of predicting future climate. He is without doubt a skeptic. He holds that the Sun is the primary driver (not just through radiative forcing but also cosmic rays which are influenced by planetary/galactic forces). I hope this has been helpful. RonCram 14:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

RonCram, He doesn't reject the 1.4-5.8 range - he tries to put doubt on the scenarios that lead to the projections. Note that he calls them "deceptive" not wrong. The second quote is probably decisive - but the last one is irrelevant and says nothing (except that some claim to be able to predict the Sun). The question is: does he say that the Sun is the main driver of climate change? Or just a driver.
But my main problem with him isn't the op-ed's, where you can probably find direct contradiction of the IPCC - but that he isn't a scientist, nor has the credentials to claim expert knowledge. He is the director of a think-tank/lobby group. --Kim D. Petersen 15:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Kim, the term "deceptive" does not just mean "wrong." It also means "intentionally misleading." His rejection of the range is clear. The third quote specifically rejects the IPCC's claim that GHG is driving the recent warming. Regarding your claim that he is "the" director of the think tank/lobby group, I think this is a misunderstanding. My understanding is that he is on the Board of Directors which provides oversight. The group has a president and other executive officers that actually run the group. Raymond believes he is a scientist. I am not certain why you do not. RonCram 03:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Probably because no one has yet cited his credentials. I looked now and couldn't find anything on him. Maybe Raymond will share... --Nethgirb 04:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
The byline to one of his publications says this:
Robert J Foster is a consultant in energy economics... He is an Adelaide University engineer by qualification, a Shell geoscientist by experience, was latterly GM Marketing at BHP Petroleum, and is now Hon Treasurer of the Royal Society of Victoria. Bob is an Honorary Fellow in the School of Ecology and Environment at Deakin University, and also Victorian representative on the Environment Committee of the Australian Institute of Company Directors.
That's admittedly borderline, but our standards seem pretty loose so I figure he makes the cut. Add to my misgivings that I wasn't able to find any evidence of peer-reviewed publications. He makes a lot of the basic mistakes that people make who are operating well outside their field of expertise -- but several of the others already on the list have demonstrated clear lack of basic competence in the physics of climate (e.g., Chilingar and Khilyuk), and no one has complained about their inclusion. Again, Foster is a borderline case but he seems to fit. If others have strong opinions I'm not willing to fight this case either way. Raymond Arritt 05:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything there to call him a "scientist with a record of scholarship" as required by the article. Adelaide University engineer by qualification: So he has a bachelor's degree in engineering. Shell geoscientist by experience: corporate, non-academic work unless we have evidence to the contrary. GM Marketing at BHP Petroleum: obviously not scientific. Hon Treasurer of the Royal Society of Victoria: This seems to be a science discussion and promotion society, not a research institution, and anyway "honorary treasurer" doesn't seem to have anything to do with scientific research... Honorary Fellow at Deakin: lots of people get honorary appointments and that doesn't make you a scientist. Representative on the Environment Committee of the Australian Institute of Company Directors: again, corporate, non-academic position. Overall, with no full-time academic appointment and no publications in academic journals, seems like he's not qualified to me (unless we find further credentials, of course). If there are others currently on the list who are this unqualified, then they should be removed. --Nethgirb 06:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not think academic positions are the only way to prove someone a "scientist with a record of scholarship." For example, Steve McIntyre has never held a professorship yet his "record of scholarship" is clear. With Foster it is not as clear cut. I thought Foster's paper on the TAR was enough. [73] If you are willing to look the paper over and still decide his "record of scholarship" is lacking, I am willing to abide by that decision. RonCram 15:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
As evidence of "scholarship" this report does Foster's case more harm than good. It wasn't published in a professional journal, doesn't follow the scientific method, is polemical in tone, and contains major factual errors. Frankly it's much worse than I'd expect of an upperclass meteorology major. Raymond Arritt 16:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Like Raymond says, Foster's paper on the TAR is not a scientific paper; it was submitted to a political committee. So, no, it's not enough to show a "record of scholarship". --Nethgirb 02:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scientists predicting global cooling

  • Khabibullo Abdusamatov, chief researcher at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International Space Station says: "“On the basis of our [solar emission] research, we developed a scenario of a global cooling of the Earth’s climate by the middle of this century and the beginning of a regular 200-year-long cycle of the climate’s global warming at the start of the 22nd century." [74]
He might have the qualifications. I'm not sure if his comments are really about global warming though: he seems to be proposing an entirely separate mechanism which will arrive in a few years and save us from global warming. There's not much detail there though... --Nethgirb 00:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
He is contradicting the IPCC on several points. First, it is clear his conclusion regarding temperatures in this century is diametrically opposed to the IPCC conclusions. Second, he believes the recent global warming we have experienced is a result of natural forces which are about to reverse, although that point is more implied than explicitly stated in this quote. RonCram 01:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
"First, it is clear his conclusion regarding temperatures in this century is diametrically opposed to the IPCC conclusions." Yes, but then, I could say that I think global cooling will begin in 2025 because a giant octopus is going to swallow the Sun. And I'm not sure I should be considered a global warming skeptic in that case. Now, if he does believe that recent global warming is natural, as you suggest, then he certainly qualifies; as you note, I didn't see that stated but maybe we can find him saying that somewhere else. --Nethgirb 06:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
How many IPCC principal conclusions must a scientist reject before they are considered a skeptic? I thought one was enough. It is difficult to find a short quote that will include explicit statements of rejection of more than one conclusion. For some reason, you are trying to raise the standard for inclusion. RonCram 12:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
For more detail on his theory, here is quote from another article: "Khabibullo Abdusamatov's theory says that the temperature of the planet will drop by only one degree. Mr. Abdusamatov says that the climate changes by one degree there and back on a cyclic basis. It means that the reduction of temperature in the middle of the current century will be followed with a global warming. “There will be no fundamental change of the global climate,” the scientist emphasized. Such cyclic climate changes occur for 7,500 years. [75]
I think combining the first quote and that last quote is pretty good. --Nethgirb 19:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay. I have added this one. RonCram 06:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm reluctant about this addition, and it bases itself on a news article, which is translated from russian into pretty bad english. I (and others) have no way to know if this article is in any way reflective of Abdusamatov's views or hypothesis'. Is the newspaper even acceptable as a reliable source? From looking at Google Scholar - none of this has been published (at least not under Abdusamatov's name). --Kim D. Petersen 19:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
On second thought it seems you're right, Kim. I switched to a different quote -- what do you think of it now? Also, I don't really like having yet another new section but it seems he is in a different category than the others. --Nethgirb 22:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
The source is (probably) better, ie. closer to the original source - but the thing here is that we are putting weight on media reporting, instead of first hand sources. If i compare this to the reporting from otherwise well established and notable media in the west on research by people like Solanki (see his section), or Roger Pielke Sr. - then i'm not at all happy with it. If you combine the the quoted article about Abdusamatov [76], with another newsitem from the same date, at the same mediabureau [77], you can even explain why (if my hypothesis is correct) that the newsbureau is taking a particular angle to Abdusamatov. My take is that this is relying too much on popular media reporting Abdusamatov's research correctly. (Note: i've searched for Abdusamatov on Google scholar, and i can at least confirm that he is involved in solar research, but i cannot confirm that he is seriously proposing this hypothesis). My take - put Jaworowski in at the spot for Abdusamatov - Jaworowski should be put on the page (no matter if Abdusamatov is there or not). --Kim D. Petersen 22:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't trust their interpretation of what he said, but what we're using now is a direct quote, which (even though it was reported by the media) is probably more trustworthy. It certainly would be better to find an academic article on it, though, or anything written by Abdusamatov himself. --Nethgirb 23:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Increase in atmospheric CO2 is not anthropogenic

  • Zbigniew Jaworowski, chair of the Scientific Council at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, wrote: "In fact, primary source of atmospheric carbon in North America and elsewhere, is not fossil fuel burning, but natural sources. The annual natural flux of CO2 (expressed as carbon) from ocean into the global atmosphere is about 106 Gt, and from the lands 63 Gt, summing up to a total of about 169 Gt. To this natural flux of CO2 the fossil fuels, land use, and cement production add about 6.3 Gt per year, i.e. about 3.7%. The North American contribution of 1.6 Gt per year adds a triffle 0.95% to the natural flow of CO2 into the global atmosphere. This hardly could be defined as 'primary source.'" [78]
We can tell where the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from by using isotopic analysis. The signature of carbon from fossil fuel burning is clear in the C-13 isotope trend -- see for example this reference. For Jaworski's idea to be plausible, he has to explain how the C-13 that has to be present in natural sources somehow magically disappeared. Raymond Arritt 00:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Raymond, the research I have seen cited indicates the c12/c13 ratios from burning fossil fuels overlap the c12/c13 ratios from plants, so I believe any argument from isotopes is inconclusive. More importantly in my view, the amount of CO2 attributable to mankind is dwarfed by nature's release of CO2. Nature's annual release of CO2 is not constant. The amount of flux is probably more than mankind's annual contribution. RonCram 02:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe it is time to add this one.RonCram 03:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure. He's wrong, of course, but that's not one of the criteria, and I've seen his name mentioned elsewhere. Raymond Arritt 05:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This guy probably belongs, but there are two problems. First, the source is a comment to a blog post. That is not a verifiable source -- anyone might have written that under his name. Anyway, he says it's the contents of a letter that we perhaps can find elsewhere, so we should do that. (I couldn't find it elsewhere) Second, the quote above I suspect may be actually entirely correct and within the consensus. As these skeptics are wont to do, he is being sneaky: It's entirely true that most of the flux of CO2 into the atmosphere is natural. The thing is, that's irrelevant. The question is how much of the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere is anthropogenic. If the distinction is unclear to you, see RealClimate's discussion (4th bullet point). So at the high level he's basically right to the best of my knowledge, although the specific numbers might be wrong.

A better quote comes later in that post:"man-made CO2 emissions contribute about 0.05 to 0.25% to [the greenhouse] effect." This seems more likely to contradict the consensus (at the above RC link there is a back-of-the-envelope calculation that puts the number at 3-8%) but I'm not sure... --Nethgirb 06:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I cut him. A blog post comment is far too thin. And: this is getting too wacky to be included without rebuttal. If we include a rise-not-anthro then we need a link to why this is totally wacko William M. Connolley 10:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I just now found a better quote and put him into the "warming is natural" section. Not sure on his record of scholarship though... --Nethgirb 11:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Regarding his scholarship, you cannot expect to find his journal articles the same way you would US scientists. Google scholar will allow you to search for science articles in Chinese, English, French, German, Japanese, Portugese and Spanish. It does not allow you to search exclusively for Russian. Wikipedia policy is to be international in perspective. It is wrong to exclude Russian scientists because they did not publish in English. He is recognized as a leading scientist in Russia - serves as chair of scientific council. These arbitrary rules used for excluding scientists are contrary to the interest of wikipedia readers. This has to stop. RonCram 11:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
RonCram, Wikipedia rules state that your information has to be Verifiable. This means that you have to provide the neccessary/adequate information. Noone is censoring anyone here, there simply has to be enough information available to place people into the categories. And just for measure: Jaworowski is not Russian, is not chair of anything in Russia, he is retired, and does write things in English. Svensmark is danish, works in Denmark etc. and he still writes in English, and is well-known (also in Russia or Poland). --Kim D. Petersen 18:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying international scientists never publish in English. I am saying they have choices to publish in non-English journals as well. You are correct that Jaworowski is not Russian, he is Polish. Jaworowski is a well-known skeptic, not a red link. His notability and scholarship are not reasonably questioned. RonCram 17:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hurricanes

In the intro, under item (3) I changed the mention of hurricanes to a broader mention of severe weather. The hurricane changes don't have nearly as high degree of confidence as some other kinds of severe weather, like heat waves or more intense precip. Most relevant is that one can dispute the contentions with regard to hurricanes and not be considered a skeptic on the broader issue of global warming -- this is Chris Landsea's position, for example. Raymond Arritt 19:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that you did that because the strong hurricane season of 2006 didn't pan out. Scientific consensus proved wrong. Likwidshoe 14:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Khabibullo Abdusamatov

I cut him. I can find no record of scholarship for him William M. Connolley 10:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I restored Abdusamatov. Google scholar does not have the ability to search exclusively for Russian science journal articles so you cannot claim he has no record of scholarship. Wikipedia policy is to be international in its perspective. Abdusamatov is the Russian equivalent of Jim Hansen at NASA. There is no reasonable question regarding his scholarship. RonCram 11:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I've cut him again, now you can demonstrate to us how Abdusamatov is the "Jim Hansen" of russia, and why he hasn't published anything in english or french (which are the international languages for science (iirc)). I couldn't even find him on the Russian science academy page - so it doesn't look as if he's a member (which is a bit strange for a "Hansen" clone).
RonCram, it is not enough to assert, you will have to demonstrate that it is so. --Kim D. Petersen 11:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I am tiring of this claim that English is the "international language of science." This is the lazy man's reason not to study a foreign language. Not that I am an expert in languages, but in my field of study I had to learn two just to get a Masters. Let me disabuse you of this notion once and for all. Go to Google Scholar and click "Scholar preferences." There you can select any one of the languages available and click "Save preferences." Then type in the appropriate search terms you wish to use for that language. You will be given a number of links. Some of them will be college level textbooks and not journal articles, but you will find journal articles if you look. Here are some examples.
  • Spanish [79] An example of a journal article [80]
  • Portugese [81]An example of a dissertation [82]
  • German [83] An example of journal article[84]
Let me repeat. Google scholar does not list "Russian" as one of the languages we can search. Therefore, it is impossible to say this Russian scientist does not have a record of scholarship. Both of these guys we are talking about hold very senior positions. Keeping out Russian scientists because they are Russian is really a form of racism. Please restore him. RonCram 13:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I've restored it ("chief researcher" ... "Russian Academy of Sciences" ... relevant quote ... external link provided). RonCram is being very reasonable. --Spiffy sperry 15:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunatly i cannot find a reference to Abdusamatov on the member list of the Russian Academy of Sciences - so that one is pretty weak - chief researcher - how about finding a link to him on the St. Petersburg observatory where he should be "chief researcher" - there are excellent ressources for translating russian webpages into english (albeith sometimes inadequatly for full understanding). I've tried to do both - and i can't find him. We are relying on a newspaper article where we cannot estimate the reliabilty of the information. I've found another article stating much the same as the former - and here Abdusamatov is claiming that a paper was released at the 233rd symposium of the International Astronomical Union, but that paper doesn't exist in the symposium paper list (found here). The only paper close to Abdusamatov's claims was this one - but no Abdusamatov. (this was unsigned by me --Kim D. Petersen 17:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC))
Lets check the first member on the Russian Academy of Science, on google scholar - and see if it turns up any russian science papers - lo and behold it does. Removing again. Note: English/French are the primary languages for science (iirc), if you are doing research that has international value, you publish it in english --Kim D. Petersen 17:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
If it may help his name in Russian is: "Абдусаматов". --Kim D. Petersen 17:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I've found a peer-reviewed publication for Kh. Abdusamatov here [85]. Interestingly there's an "H.I. Abdusamatov" who works at the same place as our man "Kh. I. Abdusamatov" and who also has pubs on record. I'm not that great at transliterating Cyrillic, but strongly suspect that "Kh. I." and "H. I." Abdusamatov are the same person. Raymond Arritt 17:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
X transliterates into H or Kh so you are right. Its either Habibullo or Khabibullo (Хабибулло). This might well be our man - but i'm still waiting for the explanation as to how he is the "Jim Hansen" of Russia - try googling "Хабибулло Абдусаматов", which gives quite a few links to the same article - or try to search for him at the RAS (Russian Academy of Science) - which gives one article (exactly), which is a newspaper clipping of the same article Russian English "translation". So the conclusion will probably be - a scientist or engineer: yes. degree in science: unknown, reputable: possibly, renowned: no. And my original objection still holds: This is a newspaper article, and one of which we do not know if it is correct or not. Too many unknowns not enough meat --Kim D. Petersen 18:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
(dedented) Ok, after a long a tedious search, i've finally become convinced that Abdusamatov is indeed a scientist, and that he has a record of scholarship. He is not the head of the Observatory (Alexander Anatol'evich Soloviev is), but is listed at the webpage (which btw is down - google cache found it [86]), i've also found an article that actually provides a picture, and an interview. As for his titles - well i'm not at all certain that they are correct (russians and other former soviet block countries do have a tendency to "inflate" these) - for instance i can't find a mention anywhere on the ISS pages. RonCram, in the future i really would like this work to have been done beforehand. Possibly by researching the people for a stub with their name first? (that is if you keep adding obscure people). --Kim D. Petersen 19:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


wHO THE HELL IS kIM pETERSEN - English is the language that scholars have to publish in - since when? Call an adult from the wiki organization - if there is a wiki organization and if it has adults - and confiscate his crayons.

(Anyone want to sign the above screed?)

There is now a bio page of slightly more than stub proportions for Khabibullo Ismailovich Abdusamatov. I created it with his patronymic included, so the firstname-lastname links were still red (I've fixed a few.) I need to learn how to make article pointers work. I listed several articles of his that were translated into english and (re)published in scientific journals - all on solar physics.

Sadly he skims right over the question of atmospheric radiative forcing. He simply asserts his solar variation explains past climate variation, and goes on to predict a future Global Cooling episode based on his projection of solar output decreasing. He's getting a lot of press in Russia it appears. Birdbrainscan 00:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Good job. --Kim D. Petersen 01:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: no redlinks

I propose that no-one gets on this list as a "red link". If they aren't notable enough to have an article, they shouldn't be here. Stubs will do, but are of course subject to VFD-ing if considered non-notable.

This would prevent the Abdusamatov stuff, and would allow "record of scholarship" to be established properly.

William M. Connolley 19:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I second that. I'd hate to do another Abdusamatov search again, just to ensure if a deletion or addition is fair or not. --Kim D. Petersen 22:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I have to disagree (but could be convinced). I think the most reasonable criterion was stated earlier on this page; viz. "If a person published refereed papers related to climate science, he is not an outsider and may have something scientifically relevant to say." There are qualified people who are not sufficiently prominent to merit a Wikipedia article. Note also that the requirement of "refereed papers related to climate science" would eliminate chemists, astronomers and others making uninformed conjectures about climate. Raymond Arritt 23:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree, if your premise actually was a requirement for the page - but as it stands - it isn't. (but should be - imho) --Kim D. Petersen 00:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Hasty addition to my comment above - this would remove a couple of people from the list - such as Abdusamatov and Tennekes. --Kim D. Petersen 00:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
It would remove Abdusamatov, but Henk Tennekes is well known in atmospheric sciences and has published many peer-reviewed papers. Raymond Arritt 01:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry i confused Tennekes with Arthur Rörsch mentioned in a section above (ie. both Dutch) - i've just received the paper discussed in that section btw. (personal correspondance) - so if anyone wants a copy please ask. (it does seem that the paper is sceptic - but haven't done much reading on it yet). --Kim D. Petersen 13:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with William. Normally, it is a good idea to exclude red links from such lists, but GW is a global issue, and I don't think the English Wikipedia has a global scope, yet. --Spiffy sperry 01:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Why shouldn't it be global? I'm from Denmark - and if i'm not mistaken several posters (on the climate change issue) aren't from English speaking countries either. But the main issue here (imho) is Wikipedia:Verifiability - if you include someone here, that is from outside the english verifiable area, the burden of proof becomes larger. --Kim D. Petersen 02:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Spiffy Sperry: but if the person doesn't have an article yet, you can just create it, as WMC suggested. I think the key is whether to add notability as an explicit requirement, in addition to having "a record of scholarship". I haven't made up my mind on that, but I'm not sure it will make this article easier to manage. I can easily see getting into long debates about what qualifies an individual as being notable. To fix that we would need more specific requirements, not just more restrictive ones. --Nethgirb 07:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Wiki already has a mechanism for deciding notability: AFD William M. Connolley 10:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess you mean this one in particular: Wikipedia:Notability (academics)? --Kim D. Petersen 13:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
There are plenty of highly competent but non-notable people. For example, most of the IPCC lead authors would not meet the criteria given in Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Many of the stated criteria for notability have nothing to do with academic competence (e.g., things like being often quoted in the popular press or involvement in current events). I'd rather include a skeptical remark by a relatively obscure person with a solid record of scholarship than someone with a high profile but scant evidence of competent, relevant research (I'd name names, but the people I have in mind have shown a fondness for lawsuits). Raymond Arritt 17:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you are wrong here - the academic has to match one of the conditions stated - not all. I believe that most IPCC Lead Authors would match #1 and/or at least #3.3. --Kim D. Petersen 23:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I was unclear -- my point was that it's quite possible for someone to fit the criteria for notability without being academically competent (and vice-versa). In other words, I think we agree... Raymond Arritt 00:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Raymond's earlier suggestion that the scientists be required to have published in journal related to climate science. The more I see really poor work being done in climate science, the more skeptical I become. I have to agree with Dr. Lindzen that climate science is a scientific backwater that desperately needs the contributions of chemists, statisticians, physicists and computer science people. This article is about scientists who disagree with the "consensus," not about climate scientists who disagree. RonCram 16:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

RonCram - first of all you are putting words into Lindzen's mouth (which is bad etiquette), Lindzen wasn't referring to outside people, but advocating for a higher number of bright people inside climate science. Second, if they are serious about their critique, then they would have published at least one paper outlining this critique inside the field. Wegman would for instance be qualified by this criteria - it also makes McIntyre valid. Such a criteria would be stated to sort away someone (lets for instance say an Anthropologist), who is commenting way outside his field, and without the background or academic credit to judge the subject. (i'd for instance rule away a critique by one of my friends who is a historian (with Ph.D. and notability) - since he isn't in no way qualified to comment on climate science (and he btw agrees with me), but i certainly listen very carefully on historical subjects). --Kim D. Petersen 23:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Kim, Lindzen's statement reads: "From my provincial perspective, an important priority should be given to figuring out how to support and encourage science (and basic science underlying climate in particular) while removing incentives to promote alarmism." Perhaps you read that statement and think he means we need to find ways to get climate scientists better trained in physics, statistics and computer science. When I read the statement, it sounds to me like he wants input from these other fields to support the climate scientists. Climate scientists need other experts to check their work. After all, reproducibility is an important part of the scientific process and it simply is not working in climate science right now. The climate scientists don't want to provide their data sets to statisticians or tell them the methods they used for their calculations. It is a real scandal. I can only imagine what Karl Popper would have to say about the current state of climate science.
Regarding your comment on the Anthropologist or Historian, I agree to a point. However, a scientist from a related field: physics, statistics, computer science, philosophy of science or several others could make valuable judgments, be notable and should be listed. RonCram 01:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
RonCram, unless your name really is Richard Lindzen, i suggest that you keep from inferring what he thinks or says, and instead quote him specifically. The Lindzen statement that you quoted is from a testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on 2 May 2001[87], and he is quite specific in that sentence. (he talks about bright people entering into other fields than climate science). But this is not really the fora to discuss things like this - but please keep from using [Appeal to Authority] here, without verifiable quotes, it simply isn't polite. (unsigned by me - sorry) --Kim D. Petersen 01:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Kim, it looks odd when you put your comment in the middle of my comment. It makes it look like I forgot to sign (which I sometimes do), so I moved your comment lower to the proper place. Regarding the inference I took from Lindzen's comment, I think it was fair. Inferences are made all the time. Yes, Lindzen is quite specific earlier in the testimony about bright people entering other fields of science. And he is quite clear that better basic science underlying climate science is needed. The fact climate scientists are slow (and sometimes have to be forced) to provide their data and methods so others can check their work is hardly a secret. When the facts come out, the methods are shown to be shoddy and their data sets manipulated. These are facts. Thankfully, the situation is improving. More recently (within the last six months), some (but not all) climate scientists have been more forthcoming. I do not understand how one could take what I have said as unpolite. If I have truly offended you somehow, I am sorry. RonCram 12:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

A restriction to having published in climate science or related fields seems like a separate issue from WMC's proposal. Getting back to that original topic... I had not known about Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I would support adopting that policy here -- I read it as being essentially a way to define "(notable) record of scholarship" more specifically, which is what I think we need. It will also make the list smaller and higher quality. --Nethgirb 05:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Nethgirb, I am uncertain about this proposal for a variety of reasons including your goal of making the list smaller. According to the Intro, the list is supposed to be as comprehensive as possible. As I was reading through the recommendation, I noticed one sentence worth noting: "the absence of references in Google Scholar should rarely be used as proof of non-notability." In fact, the recommendation is to include as notable people who have written books of general interest or commonly used text books. If the goal was to use this recommendation as a way to make the list more comprehensive (the goal stated in the Intro), then I may support it. RonCram 12:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Quantity is not quality. And the article should be comprehensive within its stated scope but that scope is not set in stone. --Nethgirb 22:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Nethgirb, I am open to changing the scope of the article. But if there are too many scientists to list them all and be comprehensive, then we need to change the name of the article so it refers to global warming theory and not "consensus." After all, if there is a "consensus," then we should be able to list all those who disagree. RonCram 04:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's some flawed logic there. Consensus has to do with the fraction who are skeptics, not the number who are skeptics. --Nethgirb 07:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Not flawed logic at all. The larger the number, the larger the fraction. RonCram 13:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
You've somehow missed the point. Although the number of skeptics may be large from the perspective of this encyclopedia article, the fraction of scientists who are skeptics can simultaneously be small. --Nethgirb 22:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giese and Bratcher

RonCram, please demonstrate how their paper or the press-release is in contradiction to the IPCC consensus. The press-release is here. Note specifically the last paragraph - and the acceptance in general of anthropogenic climate change. I was just about to delete them - but am waiting abit so that you can demonstrate this. Notice that the IPCC doesn't rule out internal variability, but only that 50% or more is from anthropogenic sources. --Kim D. Petersen 01:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact i just found the paper - and it doesn't contradict the consensus, just the attribution of how much internal variability. I'm deleting them. [88] --Kim D. Petersen 01:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Their paper was discussed in a news article that made it sound as though they were skeptics.[89] I may have misread their conclusions. I sent an email to Dr. Giese to clarify his position. However, they are predicting a cooling affect in air temperatures from the change in sea temperatures. Maybe that explains why 2006 was so much cooler than the warmers had projected. RonCram 16:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
This is all too typical. You don't bother read what they have actually written, only septic glosses on it, by people out to mislead William M. Connolley 11:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
And your snide remarks are all too typical too, William. I have made several contributions to this article that have greatly improved the quality and breadth. Everyone makes mistakes, but not everyone has to be rude. Here are some of Giese's quotes from the press release Kim linked:
"Abrupt changes in water temperatures occurring over intervals of up to 25 years suggest that global warming may result as much from natural cyclical climate variations as from human activity."
"How much of this variability is attributable to natural variations and how much is due to anthropogenic contributions to atmospheric greenhouse gases has not yet been resolved," Giese said. "Recent studies indicate that it is difficult to separate intrinsic natural variance from anthropogenic forcing in the climate system."
Based on those comments, I can see how someone would view him as a skeptic. In fact, it seems pretty clear to me that Giese is not convinced in the IPCC conclusions that most of the warming is from man. But as I said, I have sent him an email to clarify his position. I expect to him from him after winter break. RonCram 11:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Giese replied by email. I know the article cannot quote anything from his email as everything has to be verifiable. My thought is that he is not a cheerleader for the IPCC, but probably does not want the baggage of being thought a skeptic. I think we should leave him off. However, his research will probably show up in other wikipedia articles that touch on global warming. RonCram 00:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

My thought is that you confuse research into details of the climate system with disagreement on the major IPCC results. Is that email private or can you post it here (or send me a copy)? I'm curious. --Stephan Schulz 01:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wallace Broecker

Dr. Broeker, Newberry Professor of Geochemistry at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, is studying the role of oceans in climate change. In 2001, he published a much cited article in Science on the Medieval Warm Period concluding that it was global. While he has expressed concern in the past about mankind's possible role in AGW, he doubts predictions such as those published by the IPCC can be justified. His webpage at says: "We have clear evidence that different parts of the earth's climate system are linked in very subtle yet dramatic ways. The climate system has jumped from one mode of operation to another in the past. We are trying to understand how the earth's climate system is engineered, so we can understand what it takes to trigger mode switches. Until we do, we cannot make good predictions about future climate change." Without doubt, Dr. Broeker can be listed as a skeptic of the IPCC's predictions. RonCram 19:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Wally Broecker (not Broeker), a global warming skeptic?????? You can't be serious. Who's next, Jim Hansen? Raymond Arritt 19:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction on the spelling. And yes, I'm serious. He does not trust the predictions of the IPCC, one of the principal conclusions of the IPCC. Did you read the quote? RonCram 19:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh come on. Anyone familiar with Broecker's work would understand the context of the quote in his profile. Let me give you another recent quote by Broecker: "What is needed is not more words but a means to shut down CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. Although we are powerless to accomplish this by 2015, we certainly have the wherewithal to do it by 2075." Yeah, that sure sounds like a global warming skeptic. Raymond Arritt 20:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
How many of the principal conclusions of the IPCC does a scientist have to doubt to be listed? I thought it was just one. What is the date of your quote? Why not provide a link? RonCram 20:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Which of the three principal IPCC conclusions do you propose that Broecker rejects? The quote that I gave is from a letter to Science, but I managed to find a publically-availble version here. Raymond Arritt 22:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the link did not work. It is clear Broecker rejects conclusion #3. "If greenhouse gas emissions continue, the warming will continue and indeed accelerate, with temperatures increasing by 1.4°C to 5.8°C between 1990 and 2100, causing sea level rise and increasing some types of extreme weather. On balance, the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative." Broecker makes it quite clear that with our present knowledge "we cannot make good predictions about future climate change." RonCram 04:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Ron, its a bit funny because Broecker is one of the proponents for abrupt climate changes, ie. that we may be severely underestimating the impact of greenhouse gases. --Kim D. Petersen 05:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I had in mind earlier when stating that the quote on Broecker's profile page has to be taken in the context of his work. Broecker contends that while the models predict gradual warming from CO2 rise, there's a possibility that CO2-induced warming could induce abrupt changes with more serious negative impacts than those produced in GCMs. If a "skeptical" scientist is one who believes that the danger of climate change may be even greater than current projections lead us to believe , then yes, Brocker is a skeptic. Raymond Arritt 05:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If I understand Broecker correctly, the abrupt climate changes he has studied have all been natural. He is looking for the triggers of these changes. CO2 could trigger an abrupt change, but from Broecker's perspective, the next great climate change could result from a natural trigger and make the climate cooler. That is not to say he is not concerned about CO2, but it is quite clear he has no confidence in the IPCC predictions. So, yes indeed, he is a skeptic of conclusion #3. I would not mind a short explanation of this in the article, but Broecker is exactly the kind of scientist that wikipedia readers want to know about.RonCram 13:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, clearly this discussion is going nowhere, so I'll bow out. My final advice to RonCram is "when you're in a hole, stop digging." Raymond Arritt 18:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd say that you may be right that Broeker may be contradicting the premises of the page. But then you would have to create a new category on the page name Anthropogenic warming projections may be severely underestimated, other prospects for this category would be people like Jim Hansen. But seriously the list here is inferred as people who are sceptical that anthropogenic warming is happening, not those that believe that it is worse than the IPCC states. --Kim D. Petersen 20:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
And no - Broecker is very specific in his papers about CO2 being a trigger of abrupt climate changes, by shutting down, or partly shutting down the Thermohaline, If im not entirely mistaken the popular movie The Day After Tomorrow, is inspired by amongst others - Broecker. Try this Google search. --Kim D. Petersen 20:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
As movies go, I thought it was entertaining but not at all plausible scientifically. I would be willing to have a new category for Broecker that you recommend, but I think it Broecker's entry needs to say that Broecker is uncertain if CO2 will cause temperatures to could go up or down or both in succession. RonCram 21:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
RonCram, but that would be fraudulent. He isn't uncertain that temperatures will go up, he is just stating that it may cause cooling (severe) in some areas as well - which isn't in contradiction to the IPCC in any way. Ianacs - if the thermohaline shut down it wouldn't mean that the average global temperature would fall, it would mean that some areas now being warmed by the thermohaline would experience cooling (northern europe for instance) and other areas where the thermohaline cools would experience more warmth. Overall i believe it should accelerate heating (iirc) since the oceans would become a less efficient heat-sink. --Kim D. Petersen 22:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not extremely conversant with Broecker's theory but I have not seen anything in the IPCC that predicts severe localized cooling (mini ice age) in the same way as I understand Broecker. I want the article to be accurate and inclusive. If you would like to take the first stab at writing the Broecker entry, great. RonCram 17:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Listing Broecker is not right - he is not a skeptic at all. Oddly enough, not everyone is obliged to agree 100% with everything in IPCC or be called skeptic. If you're interested in he THC, see Shutdown of thermohaline circulation. The IPCC discusses it here and doesn't exclude Broeckers position: It is too early to say with confidence whether irreversible shut-down of the THC is likely or not, or at what threshold it might occur. William M. Connolley 17:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Friends of Science (FoS)

The - ahem - "Friends" of Science aren't a person but an org. Furthermore they are in the wrong place, since they say (and this was pasted into the very page) Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8Cover the last 100 years, ie they *do* believe in warming, presumably at the ?0.14? oC/decade that the S+C satellite record shows... William M. Connolley 18:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


FoS is an organizaton and therefore, speaks only through and for persons. It is lead by a scienfitic advisory board composed of :
- Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Research scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts
- Dr. Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Auckland
- Dr. Madhav Khandekar, Meteorologist retired, formerly with Environment Canada
- Dr. Tim Patterson, Professor of Geology and Paleoclimatology, Carleton University
And for your point on "believing in warming", what they ackowledge is that the ground readings do show a little warming, but they consider that these readings are misleading. There is a difference between believing in the existence of readings and believing in what these readings actually say.
To say that no scientists have expressed skepticism towards the fact that the Earth is warming since 2001 is simply not true, and the encyclopedia should not say that.
--Childhood's End 18:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Even if I accepted all you say (and I don't) they describe the satellites as "accurate" and assert that the warming seen there hasn't changed. So since the satellites *do* show warming, how can you put them in the earth-not-warming section? William M. Connolley 18:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
What is it that you do not accept in what I say?
FoS do describe the satellites as being accurate. But the satellites do not show warming - it is the ground stations that do. As they say on their web site : "Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures."
I maintain that the encyclopedia is false when it mentions that no scientist has expressed skepticism since 2001 towards the theory that the Earth is warming. It should be changed.
--Childhood's End 19:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Errrm, you put FoS in the "earth is not warming section". And they say satellite... not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Read it *carefully*. They say the sats show *warming* but no change in it. I admit, its cunningly constructed to mislead, and its fooled you, but nonetheless they are saying that the sats show *warming*. And of course, the satellites do indeed show a warming trend (FoS used to say that the sats showed no trend, which was of course false; they've changed that since to the current wording) William M. Connolley 20:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I will not take as a personal insult your comment pretending that a "cunningly constructed" sentence fooled me. Rather, I will invite you to read Dr. Chris de Freitas' work, on which FoS' position on this topic is probably based, at least in part. It clearly says that "Contrary to the IPCC predictions, global temperature has not risen appreciably in the last 20 years. Most surface temperature data free from the influence of surrounding buildings and roads show no warming. Data from satellites support this." Of course, I do not agree or disagree with this. But my point is that there are scientists who have been skeptical of the IPCC global warming statements since 2001, and the encyclopedia should not pretend the contrary. --Childhood's End 21:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
You're discussing two different things: what FoS says, and what deFreitas says. FoS has changed their formal position so that it does not contradict what the data show (provided you read very, very carefully, as WMC notes). On the other hand deFrietas appears to be sticking to the old party line of "satellites show no warming." It would be interesting to have a category like "skeptics, but wrong on basic known facts" though that's probably impractical. Raymond Arritt 21:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Um, so now you realise you've misread what FoS intended you to misread, you switch to deF. Well I suppose thats progress. It really does look like deF is mad enough to believe what he says. Of course, that was in 2002 and the satellite record he relied on has since been shown to be in error (and what he says about the sfc record is wrong, but of course thats not the point). OTOH given that he supports the FoS statement (I presume he does support it?) which clearly contradicts his own statement, but is more recent, it could be argued that he has subsequently changed his mind William M. Connolley 21:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
As I said, I am not trying to prove right or wrong what FoS or de Freita said. My point is that there ARE scientists who have been skeptical of the IPCC statements on global warming since 2001 and the encyclopedia should not say that there are NONE. Also, when you refer to an acknowledgement by FoS of some warming according to satellite data, I am not sure you are talking about natural or unnatural warming here. If FoS acknowledged data showing *natural warming*, I do not think that we should necessarily interpret it as meaning that they are not skeptical of the *Earth's warming*. But I am of course willing to discuss this. --Childhood's End 21:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, the FoS Myths/Facts page links to de Freita's work. It is also on this page that they indicate that "Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures." --Childhood's End 22:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You still seem to be having severe trouble trying to understand what FoS are saying, which is not surprising as they are being deliberately misleading. FoS acknowledge warming; natural or anthro is not the issue at this point. Your If FoS acknowledged data showing *natural warming*, I do not think that we should necessarily interpret it as meaning that they are not skeptical of the *Earth's warming* is nonsensical; it would come close to making sense if you replaced "earths warming" with "anthro warming" William M. Connolley 23:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, as you certainly know, the term "warming" may carry a sense in the dictionnary that may be different when we discuss global "warming". Thus, the general catchphrase "global warming", or the word "warming" used in specific discussions on climate, oftenly is not used in a way to include natural warming, while the obvious stricto sensu sense would invite us to do so. --Childhood's End 00:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Get rid of general skepticism section?

I suggest we get rid of the general skepticism section which seems to be about people who criticize some fine points without objecting to the main conclusions, and put those people (just one person now actually) in the See Also section. This would be appropriate because the article is about objections to the consensus conclusions. --Nethgirb 18:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Tennekes seems to me to actually doubt the main conclusions of climatology. His argument, as I understand it, is essentially that:
1- Climate models, climatologists and climatology do not understand or take account properly of turbulence
2- Turbulence plays a significant part in climates
3- Therefore, climatology and climatologists will be sorry when the science community gains counsciousness of what he calls "the horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows"
Since none of us is as knowledgeable in turbulence as Mr. Tennekes is, we must accept that he may be right and the encyclopedia should not ignore his stance. But I think that to classify him in "General Skepticism" is somewhat unfair and I would suggest either a new section named "Turbulence", or a classification under something like "Predictability problems of climate models". On the other hand, since Mr. Tennekes is doubting the whole idea of climatology, it is not totally flawed to classify him under "General Skepticism". It is just that the reasons for his objections are not of a general nature but are rather specific and scientific.
--Childhood's End 19:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
"Mr. Tennekes seems to me to actually doubt the main conclusions of climatology." Which specific conclusion is he doubting? He clearly has doubts about climate models but those are only one like of evidence supporting the main conclusions outlined at the beginning of the article. As discussed elsewhere on this talk page, I do agree that criticisms of specific lines of evidence (without criticism of the main conclusions) are related, but I think they are outside the main point of this article, which is why I suggest using the See Also section. --Nethgirb 01:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
In the absence of further objection, I have made this change. --Nethgirb 23:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I have made an objection, which I did not reiterate. Tennekes should have a subsection for his own point, which is about a specific science concerning climatology, i.e. turbulence. I have also read another author who was saying that cloud physics is actually ignored by climatology. --Childhood's End 00:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Not all points deserve a place in the body of the article, which is about scientists who dispute the consensus conclusions. So if you want to have T in the body of the article you have to show that he doubts one of the consensus conclusions. For example, T would certainly belong if he had said, "I consider it probable that GW is natural, and climate models are not seeing this because they do not model turbulence correctly." But he didn't say that. --Nethgirb 01:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] deFreitas

Sorry - i object to the inclusion of deFreitas in the first category. He is stating that there is (or rather was) a discrepancy between the satellite (MSU) measurements and the temperature record. That is not the same as saying that the Earth is not warming. He may believe that this evidence has a larger weight than the land/sea-surface measurements . But to infer that he is saying the Earth has not warmed from this, is going one step to far (imho). Since the discrepancy doesn't even exist anymore - it would be unethical to take his 2002 opinion and say that he is thinking this. I'd go for updating the old statement about 2001 to 2002 - since deFreitas clearly does think that MSU has larger weight. --Kim D. Petersen 09:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Carefull reading of his section on the satellite discrepancy, shows that he is arguing that there is little or no warming - he argues a lot back and forth about "no significant trend" is shown etc. but he doesn't go all out and say that the world isn't warming. --Kim D. Petersen 09:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
It is also noteworthy that a 2003 popular rewrite of the article, doesn't contain this claim. [90], it has been downscaled to "no significant warming trend" (whatever thats supposed to mean). --Kim D. Petersen 10:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
But its still headed fallacy two: glob temp has not inc; if glob t inc is a fallacy then it must not be happening. So I think we have to assume he is mad enough to still believe that junk, unless he has re-revised his opinions William M. Connolley 11:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Which i believe he has - from the article quoted just above. So we end up with "No scientist has claimed this since 2002". --Kim D. Petersen 17:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
No - the heading about a fallacy is still in your version William M. Connolley 18:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that what de Freita says, it is that IF there is a warming (and he maintains his doubts even on this), it can only be natural warming that would have occured no matter what. He seems to clearly refuse any warming in the sense carried by the debate over "global warming". As a sidenote, if we must refuse inclusion of any scientist admitting natural warming of the Earth, no scientist could be considered as objecting the global warming theory. All scientists admit natural changes, or so I hope.
I think you misunderstand, de Freitas clearly belongs on the list (in fact currently he is there two times). I just object to him being in the first category - since i believe that the 2003 article shows that he doesn't hold that opinion anymore. --Kim D. Petersen 16:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There's an article by de Freitas from just ten months ago in which he flat-out states that "the climate has warmed about 0.6C in the past 100 years"[91]. And those are his words; he isn't saying "according to the IPCC..." or anything in this newest article. So regardless of what de Freitas may have believed in 2002 or 2003, there's no way to justify a position that he disagrees with the TAR on that particular point currently. I'm moving him into the "we don't know why" category, and dropping the whole "it's not warming" category altogether, since he was the last one in the category. MrRedact 09:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The usual suspects continue to misrepresent and cast dispersions on those who don't 'believe'. In the man's own words from 2006 "To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human caused and natural warming. This has not been done." Call him names, say he's crazy, but the man is a skeptic. [92]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.141.235.203 (talk • contribs) 20:29, February 27, 2007 (UTC)
Who claimed he wasn't a skeptic? Whether de Freitas is a skeptic was never in doubt; the question was merely over how to categorize his skepticism. I just moved him within the article, I didn't remove him from the article. In 2002, de Freitas claimed that the earth hadn't warmed over the previous 20 years, which conflicted with the IPCC TAR conclusions about the temperature rise during that period. His current statement about how much temperature has risen is identical with that of the IPCC. He currently conflicts with the IPCC TAR in a different way, by saying that we don't know that the main cause of the temperature rise is anthropogenic CO2. So he's changed from conflicting with point 1 at the top of the article to conflicting with point 2. The quote you provided isn't new or conflicting information; it's part of the exact same quote that I added under his name when I moved him, to illustrate his current position. We're agreeing about what it is that de Freitas is saying currently. MrRedact 12:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Desrochers

I took out

  • Pierre Desrochers, Assistant Professor of geography at the University of Toronto, Canada, writes (translation): "Many things have been said about climate changes and it is obviously difficult for common people to sort it out. After all, the question is so complex that no one can pretend to be a specialist of all the material issues that are more or less well incorporated into climate and economic models (demographic tendencies, energy options, economic growth, emission permits mechanisms, public health, evolution of ecosystems, atmospheric physics and chemistry, oceanography, solar activity, agriculture yields,

This quote in no way establishes any scepticism about the core IPCC conclusions. It only states something about the capability of "common people" compared to the field of climate change (and impacts and policies).--Stephan Schulz 15:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It's also not clear that Desrochers is a "scientist" in the context of the article. His curriculum vitae shows that his concentration is in economics and public policy[93]. Raymond Arritt 15:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, now, what is "clear skepticism" according to yourself? And according to common understanding? For myself, a geologist pointing out that there are so many fields of science involved in climate models that no one, common people or scientists alike, can actually pretend to be a specialist in all the issues involved clearly says that he has doubts about mainstream climate science or aspects of the evidence, such as climate models. The General skepticism subsection clearly says: The scientists in this section have expressed general doubt about global warming or have criticized aspects of the evidence, such as climate models. However, they are not known to have stated disagreement with the consensus conclusions listed at the beginning of this article. This rules out the necessity of a reference to the IPCC. Unless you can prove yourself to be right about your own definition of "clear skepticism", I still propose to add Desrochers to this section. Also remember that it is not possible to quote the full article - a single quote cannot present the whole argument, obviously. --Childhood's End 16:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Desrochers is a geographer, not a geologist. There's a big difference between the two. Raymond Arritt 16:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Please let's be serious. Sorry for this mistake, but the point is not there. Geography may have material things to to say about climate, just like geology. --Childhood's End 16:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
So much for nominative determinism William M. Connolley 16:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Quite obviously there is no specific criticism of the science in the quote, let alone criticism of the principal conclusions. For me this just emphasizes that this "general skepticism" section is not a good idea. --Nethgirb 19:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
But the General skepticism subsection actually exists and Desrochers falls right in it according to its description. Also, the article to which this quote refers provides more details about his "skepticism" but it is obviously not convenient to quote more herein. I will revert Desrochers back. Stephan Shulz was wrong to remove him since this subsection does not require specific doubts about the IPCC conclusions. --Childhood's End 19:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Apart from all the other discussion: Desrochers may be a sceptic. But your quote is not, in no way, showing this. I could sign his statement, and I guess William could, too. Climate change is a complex topic, and people have trouble sorting it out. No one is an expert in all of the related fields. But the same holds for any other field of science. That does not mean that we know nothing. I'm a computer scientist, my specialty is automated reasoning. I'm not a specialist in operating systems, but I use the ones written by a Finnish geek and a group of weed-smocking hackers in Berkely. I could write a compiler, but I'm not a specialist in optimisation. No problem, gcc -O6 is there for me. "Computer science is so hard, no-one can claim to be a specialist in all of it" - so what? --Stephan Schulz 20:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Again, is Desrochers a scientist in the context of the article? He's an economic geographer, and perhaps a very good one for all I know, but he has no apparent training or experience in physical or biological sciences. If we add Desrochers then we have to admit other economists, political scientists, and so on, so that the article becomes something very different. Raymond Arritt 19:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
"But the General skepticism subsection actually exists and Desrochers falls right in it according to its description." The requirements for that section (which, by the way, I wrote) are too vague and need to be modified. If as you say he says more specific things elsewhere in the article, then maybe you can find a better quote -- you say that's not convenient but nevertheless it's necessary and we have managed to do it for everyone else on the list... --Nethgirb 19:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I see here a very hard biaised test to meet before adding any credible source of skepticism towards climatology. You are actually censoring a geographer because in your opinion, a geographer is not qualified enough as a scientist to produce valuable opinions about climate science. But on the other hand, you all admit that nobody, including any scientist, has specialist-level knowledge of all the fields involved in climate science. Thus, it seems to me that according to your own censorship rules, nobody should be allowed to talk about climatology and therefore, most information on global warming and climate change should be erased if we were to follow this reasonning. If climatology involves fields in which you are not a recognized scientist, then necessarily, you cannot be a scientist in climatology unless it is scientific to talk about things that partially involve things you know little about.
Also, even if what the quote from Desrochers says might seem obvious to you here, you should remember that it may not be so for everyone who wishes to read wikipedia and find information on the reasons that can exist to be skeptic about climate change. I fear that a lot of people think that climatology is a science standing on its own like physics, that it is not more complex than meteorology alone, and that it does not involve so many fields of science. This article actually does not reflect this and I think it should. --Childhood's End 20:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"You are actually censoring a geographer because in your opinion, a geographer is not qualified enough as a scientist to produce valuable opinions about climate science." Yes -- either that or the fact that the quote does not contradict the consensus. Either one alone would exclude this quote. "But on the other hand, you all admit that nobody, including any scientist, has specialist-level knowledge of all the fields involved in climate science. Thus, it seems to me that according to your own censorship rules, nobody should be allowed to talk about climatology" There is a difference between being entirely outside the area of climate science, and being a climate scientist who does not know the details of every climate-related field. Do you know what a geographer is? These days geography departments are generally social science not natural science. This is confirmed by Desrochers' research interests as stated on his web site: "economic development, technological innovation, entrepreneurship, international trade, business-environment and business-university interactions. His other areas of expertise include intellectual property and urban and housing policy." None of that is close to climate science. --Nethgirb 02:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to say, but what kind of all-knowledgeable judge are you to determine that geography is totally outisde the material fields associated to climatology and to pretend that These days geography departments are generally social science not natural science? For the record, Desrochers has been published in publications such as Progress in Industrial Ecology and Journal of Cleaner Production.
Nothing to do with climate?
I suggest that we add Desrochers in the "See also" subsection. Perhaphs the quote I selected was too general, although I still believe that for the common wiki user looking for information here about opposition to global warming theory, it was of interest and useful. I will wait for your thoughts on this. --Childhood's End 14:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not all-knowledgeable and I will be happy to change my mind if you can present evidence that I am wrong. Here, I'll even look for some evidence myself.... Based on 2 data points, it appears that more climate science than I thought does happen in geography departments but they are still mostly social science. In my university there are some natural scientists (5 of the 15 faculty) and some of those (4 of 15) even specifically mention climate or atmosphere but most (10 of 15) are in the social sciences [94]. In Desrocher's department 5 or 6 of the 13 faculty could be called natural scientists with most (7 or 8 of 13) in social science [95]. So my basic point stands, which is that having an appointment in geography does not qualify him. More importantly if you look at Desrocher's research interests he's solidly on the social science side. If you read the abstracts of the journal articles you mentioned, you will see that they concern economics / public policy / history and not climate science or even physical/natural science. --Nethgirb 19:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Annan's bet?

Shouldn't we add Bashkirtsev and Mashnich? [96] for all i see they must be sceptics to bet that way - and at least be in opposition to the future warming part. Anyone know their credentials, and would the basics that they bet against Annan be enough to substantiate their scepticism? --Kim D. Petersen 21:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This paper (abstract) should be enough? We still need their credentials though. Comments? --Kim D. Petersen 21:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Unless they have "specific statements" on the record to go along with their bet, they don't fit the stated criteria for the article. My understanding from reports of their work is they think it's all down to sunspots. But I don't trust second-hand reports and can't read the original articles, as I can't read Russian. (My impression is that you do read Russian?) Raymond Arritt 21:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't read russian - but i do work with a mean babel-fish and basic gloses ;-) But i should mean that this sentence: "A global fall of the surface temperature in the coming 25 years is predicted based on close solar–terrestrial relations and on an anticipated decrease in solar activity by 2025." from the abstract shows contradiction to #3 of the consensus? --Kim D. Petersen 22:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Lindzen

It seems this person isn't saying "we don't know why global warming is caused", just "We don't know what caused climate change in the past" and "we can't predict how much of a problem global warming would be". I don't see how he's opposing the global warming consensus. Tergadare 23:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Part of the consensus is that we do know the primary cause of climate change in the (recent) past, and also that we can make reasonable projections about future climate. --Nethgirb 23:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The consensus position of the climate science community

Before you continue to be at war one another because of "The consensus position of the climate science community", please tell me, what do you mean exactly? Which "consensus"? Do you mean the consensus of a (political) group who had found together to celebrate their doctrine? Who is member of your ominous "climate science community"? Are the opponents reputable members of this "community"? Do they have agreed to? Or, is the the term "consensus" a democratic self-delusion of arrogant people who don't depend on opinions which may have no political weight? Is the term "consensus" an advertising slang within this circle to emphasize the negligibility of opposite views - so, a rumor you want to spread? --NimNick 11:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a strange question, because the page sez: The consensus position of the climate science community has been summarized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as follows: and then goes on to list it. Consensus does not mean unanimity. The CSC is an ill-defined concept but certainly includes people like Christy (who accepts GW but has his own MSU series) and Lindzen (who adopts a contrarian attitude) William M. Connolley 11:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Go look up the word, or at least quit trying to pretend you don't understand it. Arker 12:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
"Consensus does not mean unanimity" - yes, in its slack connotation; you are using an ambiguous wording. Do you need it to patronize a doctrine? It would be easy to use an unambiguous term. At least, there is no need to use the same weasel wording as it is usual inside of a selfdefined "community". --NimNick 13:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Consensus is, indeed, a word used for political purposes in the context of the global warming debate. As you can see, global warming activists have also stormed the Wikipedia general article about "scientific consensus", which article requires in no way a reference to the global warming debate. In this page, they go as far as to compare the certainty of science about climate change as to that of gravity. But for politicians and the United Nations, the appeal to majority argument (a form of sophism, or fallacious argument) is essential in order to minimalize public doubts about the decisions taken. It is fairly common in politics, but in an encyclopedia, it boggles the mind. --Childhood's End 15:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

By my count, NimNick has added POV (scare quotes or changing consensus to doctrine) six seven times between 17 Jan and 24 Jan. NimNick, please keep in mind Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. --Nethgirb 11:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with doctrine? You should read the section above.--NimNick 20:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added warnings because of vandalism to the talkpages of Nethgirb and Stephan Schulz. They are supporting intentionally a biased version as discused above. --NimNick 20:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Good luck trying to Wikilawyer your extremist POV into these articles. The consensus position is supported by reliable external sources: The IPCC reports, which have undergone multiple levels of peer review and are generally regared as an excellent summary of the state of science, describe themselves as consensus documents, and have been prepared using a consensus process with thousands of recognized contributors. The Oreskes analysis and the joint statement of the G8+ academies of science (which explicitely states "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the IPCC"), as well as similar high-ranking scientific sources confirm this. On the "other side" there are few individuals (very few of them actual scientists), and a number of lobbying organizations like the Cato Institute, the Greener Earth Society, SEPP, ... , with essentially no scientific standing. None of this is a reliable source to dispute the existence of the consensus, much less a classification of the scientific consensus as "doctrine". --Stephan Schulz 20:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
This is awesome stuff ! Let's take a look more closely...
The consensus position is supported by reliable external sources: The IPCC reports themselves - wooaaah so the IPCC reports support their reports? / are generally regared as an excellent summary of the state of science - regarded as such by those who agree with them, that is / describe themselves as consensus documents - ?!? that's the point right there ! / and have been prepared using a consensus process - which means eliminating dissidence / the G8+ academies of science (which explicitely states "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the IPCC") - ever looked at the individual members of these academies instead ? / On the "other side" there are few individuals (very few of them actual scientists) - where "scientist" is defined by what suits your POV / and a number of lobbying organizations like the Cato Institute, the Greener Earth Society, SEPP, ... , with essentially no scientific standing. - oops, you just ignored Friends of Science, Richard Lindzen, Marcel Leroux, this list of 60 scientists [[97]] and all the others who have explained that there is no scientific consensus on the topic, only a political consensus. --Childhood's End 21:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Um. Aparently this is meant seriously. The first time you posted it, I mistook it for WP:SARCASM. I give you the G8+ national academies. They include, to pick out one, the British Royal Society. It's been around for about 350 years, with former fellows like Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit, Thomas Huxley, Lord Kelvin and current fellows including Stephen Hawking, Peter Mansfield and Tony Hoare. It has helped shaping modern science and publishes a number of highly respected journals, including the oldest continuously published scientific journal in the world. You present Friends of Science, a single-topic lobby group founded in 2002 by some of the usual suspects (and, apparently, funded by the other usual suspects). They have no scientific standing and no record of any scientific activity. Don't you see a slight imbalance? I did not ignore them, they are included in the "..." above. Just like Lindzen is is included in the "very few [sceptics who are] actual scientists". --Stephan Schulz 01:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Funny how the mere allegation that a funding source may desire bias is enough in your mind to totally discredit any source disagreeing with your doctrine. I know I've seen you (quite correctly) reject that argument as fallacious when it's leveled against sources who happen to agree with you. Arker 01:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
yes, all listed scientists in this article must be zombies! We should move it to List of zombies opposing global warming doctrine LOL --NimNick 01:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Stephan cites a DailyKos article. What he doesn't notice is that one could say "the other usual suspects" about both his source and this supposed "consensus". Who funds most of these climate scientists? Whether it is through direct research grants, or filtered through government endowed colleges and universities, the government does. Here we have "the usual suspects" pushing a belief that calls for government action, funded by the government. How shocking! Somehow, the anthropogenic climate change believers don't make this connection. They're so quick to find and point out "big oil" ties and immediately discredit them based on that alone, but somehow miss the clear government ties. Is it any wonder why we think it is an agenda? Likwidshoe 14:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but

  • the IPCC may only support their own consensus position. This is not the position of the whole scene.
  • the Oreskes paper support only some consilience in some important jourmals. It's no evidence for anything.
  • the G8+ academies of science repeat only the same slang of the IPCC. This is not amazing.
  • If there are too few reliable sources against this doctrine then I must wonder at the description of them (21 scientists) on this article! Is it a zombie page? ;-)
  • I rather think that your claims are nonsense and extremist POV.

--NimNick 21:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to convince anyone else of that, or if you want to have your edits treated as anything other than disruptive, you are going to have to cite reliable external sources that back your points up (which I suspect you will find it hard to do, but I'm always happy to change my mind if you produce evidence). --Nethgirb 21:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Where are your reliable external sources that back your points up? (which I suspect you will find it hard to do, but I'm always happy to change my mind if you produce evidence)
But you can visit the article doctrine. Prove yourself the characteristics of the term with the global warming position of the IPCC as described in Wikipedia. There is no difference. The therm "global warming doctrine" is also always used in this connotation by all editors. What's your problem? --NimNick 23:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Doctrine has a religious or sometimes political connotation, not a scientific one. A key difference between religion and science is evidence. Stephan has summarized the evidence for a consensus above. Still waiting for yours. --Nethgirb 23:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Stephan Shultz's explanation is that the evidence is evidenced by itself. Got anything else instead? --Childhood's End 00:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
LOL --NimNick 00:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


I'll just put the final nail into this discussion, and quote Michael Chrichton's logical points herein (extracts from a lecture given to the California Institute of Technology, Passadena, January 17, 2003) :

"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

(...)

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."

Given especially the last statement, which speaks for itself, I also suggest that we stop referring to the idea of a consensus in this encyclopedia when it comes to global warming. --Childhood's End 22:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar

The following was injected into the article with a heading indicating an edit for "grammar, style, conciseness":

"These main points are accepted by most climate scientists and those doing research in closely related fields; however, there is also a small number of scientists who actively disagree."

In the interest of grammar, I corrected this to:

"These main points are accepted by most climate scientists and those doing research in closely related fields; however, there are also a small number of scientists who actively disagree."

(The bolded word in each quote above added by me, to draw the eye to the point of disagreement.)

The previous editor then reverted my correction, claiming that '"is" is correct, since "number" is the noun.'

He is mistaken, the object of the verb here is a nominal phrase "a small number of scientists," and thus the simple object is "scientists" and "a small number of" is an adjectival phrase applying to that object.

Don't take my word for it though, you can test this in an obvious way.

Were the first example correct, the sentence would be best simplified to say "however, there is a number who disagree."

If the second example is correct, the sentence would be better simplified as "however, there are scientists who disagree."

Which now has grammatical errors introduced? (If the object is number, then 'disagree' should be 'disagrees'.) Which is closest to the meaning of the full sentence? QED. So please, let's not have any more reversions to faulty grammar. Arker 00:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

How about "...there are a few scientists who disagree"? The meaning is the same, but the grammar is unambiguous. Raymond Arritt 01:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The grammar is actually unambiguous either way, but I see no strong objection to your edit. I do think it read better the way I left it. Arker 01:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Credentials

I removed the text that stated that Sherwood Idso is President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. The standard that's been adopted on the page is to list academic or scientific qualifications for each scientist, which the CSCDGC isn't. Other activities only serve to clutter the page rather than support the person's scientific credibility. --Nethgirb 14:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no defined standard. This is wishful thinking. To be a President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change is a qualification related to the specific field. --NimNick 14:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
It is the de facto standard and it is a good idea: list the information that justifies the person's inclusion in the article. Even the Center's own mission statement says their goal is to "disseminate factual reports and sound commentary" [98], not to do science, so it does not justify Idso's status as a scientist. --Nethgirb 14:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
So what? The IPCC has the same self-conception: The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature. Its role, organisation, participation and general procedures are laid down in the "Principles Governing IPCC Work [99] --NimNick 16:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Starting your own company and being its president is not a qualification for anything, since there's no vetting by others. Anyone off the street could do that. Raymond Arritt 16:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean that you can build up and mangage a company without qualifications? A vetting is this: Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change --NimNick 16:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notes on science funding from Exxon

I noticed the link at the bottom of the page regarding how Exxon funds climate change skeptics. I don't believe this is a big issue because none of the good scientists take any money from Exxon. But if we need to have this link, then perhaps we also need a notation on every scientist specifying if he has taken funding from Exxon or not. RonCram 15:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I do think that is useful information but it is rather a daunting project -- as it is, all of the statements you added are unsourced. And it gets worse, because if we wanted to list funding from Exxon for each scientist, we really need to list funding from any fossil fuel corporation. Anyway, it seems to be outside the stated goal of the article. I mean, the article doesn't even say whether the statements the scientists make are factually accurate -- much less get into dealing with conflicts of interest. --Nethgirb 15:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
At a higher level -- there is a lot of potentially useful info we could list, e.g. (1) in what way they disagree with the IPCC, (2) scientific credentials, (3) whether they believe a consensus exists even though they disagree, (4) whether they have published papers in climatology, (5) whether they have published papers arguing against the consensus, (6) whether they have taken money from oil corporations, etc. I think we have to take the philosophy that we are going to select only the most important information to include. --Nethgirb 15:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Nethgirb, you take a sensible approach. If you wish to revert my entries, I will not object. RonCram 18:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the funding stuff is outside the scope of the present article. It would more appropriately appear in the article for each person (for those who have one). As for Nethgirb's list, we already have (1) and (2), at least in skeleton form. I'd say items (4) and (5) are relevant, (3) is edit-war fodder. Raymond Arritt 18:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed all the funding-from-Exxon comments, for the following reasons: (1) The rationale for singling out Exxon from all other funding sources was not apparent. (2) Any such relationship is almost always indirect: the corporation gives money to a foundation; the foundation transfers funds to a "think tank"; the think tank then funds the individual, allowing the individual to truthfully state in a strict legal sense that he or she received no money from the corporation. Raymond Arritt 18:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I intend to reinstate some reference to the Exxon funding. ExxonMobil is the only corporation that one of the G8 Science Academies has specifically called on to stop funding climate change contrarianism. It is the only corporation where there is a published analysis of the links between the corporation and entites arguing against the climate change consensus. The section then allows for those who are interested to cross check each individual entity's connections, meaning that therre do not have to be a myriad of entries on separate pages which don't allow the overview to be seen and it is the overview that is relevant. dinghy 22:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If any of you have good faith in the intent of wikipedia and your roles as editors you will remove those external links and replace them with relevent ones. Using the external links to promote aspects of the issue not directly relevent to the article is a mis-use of the external links feature. This article is nothing more than a list of scientists who oppose the concensus on global warming. The external links should include pages about the scientists themselves or the scientific hypotheses they espouse. It is not a feature to promote your idealogy no matter how badly you disagree with the scientists. The wiki article "Scientific opinion on climate change" has no external links to opposing viewpoints yet this article's external links is entirely opposing viewpoints. If you're not editing this page in a way that elaborates the topic in a relevant way you have no business editing it at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.149.166.105 (talk • contribs) 09:42, January 31, 2007 (UTC).
Agreed. Curious, why didn't you delete it yourself? Raymond Arritt 13:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I will delete them myself. RonCram 23:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legates

I restored the entry for Legates and added the [citation needed] tag, I don't think it was at all appropriate to simply remove an entry that obviously belongs on the list without tagging it for citations first, and giving a reasonable amount of time for those to materialise.

I'm not confident of my mastery of the citation formats and if anyone who is would be kind enough to insert the appropriate information after it's posted here that would be greatly appreciated. Otherwise I'll figure it out and do it myself. Either way, possible citations go here for the moment.

BBC at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3569604.stm reports that "Professor David R. Legates of the University of Delaware claims flaws in the data and methods used to fashion the hockey stick mean it can no longer be viewed as valid." Further they provide as direct quotes: "There is an exaggeration of recent trends, suggesting that 1998 was the warmest year, and that the 1990s were the warmest decade of the millennium," Dr Legates told BBC News Online. "There is an underestimation of the uncertainty, because they did not take into account other errors associated with estimating large-scale trends and temperature from observational data."

http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20030825-090130-5881r.htm - Global warming smear targets by David R. Legates.

http://epw.senate.gov/108th/Legates_072903.htm - Statement of David R. Legates to the Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate, March 13, 2002

Those are just a few selections from the first page of hits on google. There are many more.

He has .phd in climateology and http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=David+R+Legates&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search shows a significant number of peer-reviewed articles published as well. He clearly belongs on this page. Arker 22:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Disbelieving in the HS is probably not enough (and doesn't fit him for where you put him). I had a quick look at MArshall and cou;dn't find anything William M. Connolley 22:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
If the categories in the article don't match the dissent, then perhaps it is the categories which need to be changed. I don't see any section for "says they're jumping to possibly incorrect conclusions in advance of the evidence" which is clearly the most common and strongest dissent position. Instead we have categories only for the kind of dogmatic statements that good scientists avoid making, the very kind of dogmatic thinking critics are often objecting to in the first place.
Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 24, Issue 18, p. 2319-2322 - I assume you have access to the full article? For the moment I don't, but the abstract is most interesting. "Several recent studies claim to have found evidence of large-scale climate changes that were attributed to human influences. These assertions are based on increases in correlation over time between general circulation model prognostications and observations as derived from a centred pattern correlation statistic. We argue that the results of such studies are inappropriate because of limitations and biases in these statistics which leads us to conclude that the results of many studies employing these statistics may be erroneous and, in fact, show little evidence of a human fingerprint in the observed records." Arker 22:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Legates counts as a scientist; but you can't just dump him in sans quote because "everyone knows he is a skeptic". Now you have something closer to a quote - but if you mean L+G 1997 [100] then thats an antique and it qould be unfair to hold him to those opinions still - there are many more studies of attribution past then. Put that in if you must, but something more recent would be better (FWIW I have no doubt that legates *is* a skeptic: but still would like to see a decent quote) William M. Connolley 23:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
"If the categories in the article don't match the dissent, then perhaps it is the categories which need to be changed. I don't see any section for "says they're jumping to possibly incorrect conclusions in advance of the evidence" which is clearly the most common and strongest dissent position" Ummm, what about the section "The Earth is warming but the cause is unknown"? That would be an entirely appropriate place for a scientist who said, for example, "We don't yet have the evidence to support attribution of recent warming, if any, to anthropogenic sources or any other source, and those who think we do are jumping to possibly incorrect conclusions in advance of the evidence." --Nethgirb 00:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Giegengack

Professor Bob Giegengack believes CO2 increases follow temperature increases, not the other way around. He teaches at UPenn. [101] He is not afraid to be known as a skeptic. RonCram 16:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in the linked article that contradicts the IPCC position. Giegengack is anal about some details of An Inconvenient Truth and thinks that it will be impossible to curtail CO2 emissions. He does not deny that global warming is happening, he does not deny that CO2 is causing it, he is not even in serious disagreement about the rate of current sea level rise. So he's a pessimist about emissions and an optimist about future sea level rise, and he likes to sport an image of a rebel... --Stephan Schulz 16:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Stephan, surely you are joking. Giegengack wears the skeptic mantle proudly. He says the paleoclimate record indicates that rising temperatures probably cause CO2 to rise, not the other way around. He completely rejects the alarmist position of the IPCC, including extinctions and severe weather events. And he completely rejects the idea that anything could be done to stop it if the IPCC was correct. RonCram 16:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a source for this? As far as I can tell, the linked article does not provide any of these points. It's a well-known part of the scientific consensus that warming causes atmospheric CO2 increase, and usually preceeds it in the paleo record (it's also known that the increase in CO2 leads to further warming, of course, but Giegengack does not seem to deny this). And whatever he thinks he is, you're not a sceptic by declaring yourself one, but by holding sceptic views. --Stephan Schulz 17:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Looks like yet another hard-rock geologist who doesn't understand climate. From the article he acts like a skeptic, but I can't see a specific quote that refutes a specific IPCC position, just vague stuff saying that he doesn't agree with the most alarmist positions (if that's skeptical, then I'm a skeptic too). And it would be better to cite something that Giegengack wrote himself: American journalists are notorious for "clarifying" quotes to make a better story. Raymond Arritt 17:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

G has some curious interpretations of the science, and is clearly very grumpy about the state of climate science, but I don't think the current quote is good enough. Yet another RC "of course this one belongs" type of argument. The quote in the article appears to be about the ice-age cycle: his emphasis differs from the std position but not the basic idea. Most of RCs comments appear to be his own extrapolations. William M. Connolley 17:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

William, of course he belongs since he is a self-described skeptic. Imagine the audacity of someone refusing to admit that you hold the views you claim you hold. Here is another quote from the article: "'Sea level is rising,' Giegengack agrees, switching off the sound. But, he explains, it’s been rising ever since warming set in 18,000 years ago. The rate of rise has been pretty slow — only about 400 feet so far. And recently — meaning in the thousands of years — the rate has slowed even more. The Earth’s global ocean level is only going up 1.8 millimeters per year. That’s less than the thickness of one nickel. For the catastrophe of flooded cities and millions of refugees that Gore envisions, sea levels would have to rise about 20 feet. 'At the present rate of sea-level rise,' Gieg says, 'it’s going to take 3,500 years to get up there. So if for some reason this warming process that melts ice is cutting loose and accelerating, sea level doesn’t know it. And sea level, we think, is the best indicator of global warming.'” [102]
In addition, you should know that G has published Hughes, G. B.; Giegengack, Robert; and Kritikos, Haralambos, 1999, Spectral indications of unexpected contributors to atmospheric CO2 variability: Int’l Journ. Climatology, v.19, pp.813-819. RonCram 18:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
As usual, your understanding of what is actually the consensus is very weak. G's description of recent sea level rise is wrong (it was fast, then slow, and has recently risen to 2-3 mm/yr) but all the other stuff is just blather which anyone could sign up to. I'm getting very bored with your "of course he belongs" stuff, you need to do better William M. Connolley 19:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Pop quiz for RonCram: What does the IJC article actually say beyond its title, and do its findings in any way dispute the consensus understanding of recent climate change? (Hint: The last sentence of the article is "This result indicates that the complexity of subannual, annual and inter-annual atmospheric CO2 variability is not great.") Raymond Arritt 04:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


I can claim I'm a Nobel Price winner all day without it becoming true. So much for logic. Where is Gieg actually expressing disagreement with the IPCC position? Indeed, where does he claim he disagrees? --Stephan Schulz 13:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
You can't possibly be serious. Is that your take on logic?? you didn't win the Nobel prize. But if I believe someone's an idiot, that is my belief. Regardless of whether the person is an idiot. No offence intended. 65.12.145.148 01:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I challenge you: Where does Gieg even claim to be a sceptic with respect to the IPCC position? He criticizes Gore for being sensationalist (well, according to a third-party report), but I have found nothing where he disagrees (or claims to disagree) with the consensus opinion. --Stephan Schulz 15:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Logically, Geigengack can say "I'm a skeptic", and Stephan Schulz can say "Geigengack is not a skeptic", and both people can be stating the truth, if they are using two different definitions of the word "skeptic." Being a "skeptic" is not black-and-white. For example, suppose the following three people exist: Person A believes that the Earth isn't even getting warmer. Person B believes that the IPCC is about right, but on the pessimistic side, and Person C believes that the IPCC is being way too optimistic. Person C would view person B as being a "skeptic", but Person A wouldn't view Person B as being a "skeptic" in the least. For the purposes of this article, it isn't particularly useful for us as editors to define what we mean by "skeptic", since that word is never used to describe any of the scientists on this page. Instead, we need to try to determine whether the scientist appears to agree with the IPCC position, and if not, how not. Whether or not someone refers to themselves as being a "skeptic" isn't necessarily useful information in that regard. MrRedact 16:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly... I think when Stephan says "sceptic with respect to the IPCC position" he is referring to disagreement with the IPCC position, not the very subjective term "skeptic" which you rightly point out is pretty much useless. --Nethgirb 16:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, based on the article, it does look to me like Geigengack fits into the "The Earth is warming but mostly due to natural processes" category, at least. He says "If CO2 is the problem, we've already lost.", but later says "The Earth is fine. The Earth was fine before we got here, and it'll be fine long after we're gone.". The second quote implies that according to him we haven't "already lost", which together with the first quote logically implies that he thinks that CO2 is not the problem. This contradicts the combination of IPCC statements that "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations", in combination with "Carbon dioxide is the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas." MrRedact 16:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I read this very differently. "The Earth is fine. The Earth was fine before we got here, and it'll be fine long after we're gone." is taking a geological time perspective that says nothing about millenium-scale warming. Sure, the Earth will be fine in a few million years. Yes, he does seem to downplay the more extreme "catastrophic" effects of GW, but they are not part of the IPCC position either. For most first-world countries, the effect of GW will appear minor, and come slowly - higher insurance premiums, maybe some more expensive public works in Holland or Florida, and so on. The Venus-style runaway greenhouse is not part of any SRES I'm aware of. --Stephan Schulz 16:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
By "long after we're gone," I took Geigengack to mean long after he and the reporter have died, not long after all humans are extinct. He lists smoking and access to fresh water as being two of the many environmental issues that he thinks are more important than global warming. So he does care about what happens to humans within our current human timeframes, not just about what happens to the planet. He just doesn't think that global warming will ever become a genuinely important environmental issue for humans. MrRedact 17:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

NEW INFORMATION - Giegengack believes that human industrial emissions are probably contributing to the global warming now under way. However he is not sure how large that contribution is. GW is not in his top 10 environmental threats. The source is from personal correspondence with him

Could you please post both your query and his reply exactly? An answer of "I'm not sure how large that contribution is" is a lot different if it's in response to "Do you think anthropogenic GHG are most of the cause of GW?" than if it's in response to "Do you think anthropogenic GHG is a measurable contributor to GW?" Also, please sign your posts. MrRedact 19:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The question I posed was: Do you consider yourself a skeptic of the position of the most recent IPCC report? It was personal correspondence. I didn't tell him I was going to post it on the internet, so I'm not comfortable doing so. He's very accessible, I'm sure he'd be happy to converse. I neither know how, nor wish to, sign a post.65.12.145.148 01:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
In any case we can't judge based on personal correspondence since it's unverifiable. You can sign your posts with four tilde's, ~~~~, which will stamp your post with the date and your IP address (both of these are already public; it's just helpful organizationally). --Nethgirb 21:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I know it'd be unverifiable. I would just find it interesting out of curiousity, after having spent a bunch of time trying to piece together something concrete about his position out of an often less-than-concrete article. MrRedact 22:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough --Nethgirb 23:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giegengack's rejection of IPCC #3

This argument is ridiculous in the extreme. Here is the IPCC's conclusion number 3 listed in the Intro of the article:

3. If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures increasing by 1.4°C to 5.8°C between 1990 and 2100. Related to this will be sea level rise and increases in some types of extreme weather. On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.

Next is a quote from Giegengack about sea leval rise:

“At the present rate of sea-level rise,” Gieg says, “it’s going to take 3,500 years to get up there. So if for some reason this warming process that melts ice is cutting loose and accelerating, sea level doesn’t know it. And sea level, we think, is the best indicator of global warming.”

Now it has to be clear that Giegengack is rejecting the IPCC conclusion regarding sea level rise. In Giegengack's view there is nothing "significantly negative" about the rate of sea level rise. And he believes sea level rise is the strongest indicator of AGW being a problem in the future. If sea level rise is not a problem, AGW is not a problem. RonCram 16:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"Now it has to be clear that Giegengack is rejecting the IPCC conclusion regarding sea level rise." Well, it is actually true that at the present rate of sea level rise it will take thousands of years to reach a 20 ft increase in sea level (which is what he was talking about if I recall correctly).
"And he believes sea level rise is the strongest indicator of AGW being a problem in the future." He didn't say that. Read what he said. --Nethgirb 17:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

A 20' rise in 3,500 years is equivalent to 1.74 mm/Yr, which is pretty close to the IPCC's most optimisting projection using the most optimistic model (B1). So that prediction alone doesn't directly clearly contradict the IPCC. However, Giegengack's apparent expectation that future sea level increases will occur at about the same 1.8 mm/Yr rate as it has in the past few thousand years, in conjunction with the statement "sea level, we think, is the best indicator of global warming", might be an indication of differing from the IPCC, if that statement is taken to mean that Giegengack is thinking of sea level and average temperature as being related linearly, at least within timescales of within about a century. If he thinks there's a short-term nearly linear relationship between sea level and temperature, that would mean that he's also expecting average temperature to also only increase about as fast as it has in recent millenia, which would put him in the "The Earth is not warming significantly" category. But that's not a very strong, well-supported conclusion. I think the above argument that he is at least in the "The Earth is warming but mostly due to natural processes" category is considerably stronger, so I'd propose putting him in there. MrRedact 18:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand how people can read straight-forward statements and not see the evidence. The IPCC clearly says sea level rise is a big issue. IPCC also says these events are "significantly negative." G says sea level rise is the best indicator of warming, but he the claim that it is "significantly negative" is hogwash. According to G, the annual rise is less than the thickness of a nickel. This is just one of the IPCC conclusions that G contradicts. RonCram 00:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that no draft of any version of the IPCC report ever literally used the phrase "sea level rise is a big issue," because that phrase would be way too vague and imprecise to have a place in such a scientific report. What the IPCC 4AR[103] does predict, if you'll just look on page 13, is a range of between .18 and .59 meters (about 7 to 23 inches) sea level rise over the course of a century, depending on which scenario is used, and whether you're talking about the low end or high end of the predicted ranges. If you're most comfortable measuring sea level rise in nickel thicknesses per year, the 7 to 23 inches that the 4AR predicts within a century amounts to about 0.95 to 3.1 nickel thicknesses per year. You seem to be under the impression that the 4AR is predicting a huge sea level rise in the next century, like the 20 foot sea level rise that An Inconvenient Truth has pictures simulating, but if you'll actually read the report, you'll see that it doesn't actually predict anything near that level within the next century, even in the most pessimistic prediction of the most pessimistic scenario. The IPCC 4AR is not An Inconvenient Truth. MrRedact 03:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to, and had earlier quoted, conclusion #3 of the article Intro. If the Intro overstates the IPCC, then we can change that. However, I think it is quite clear that the IPCC DOES consider sea level rise a big issue leading to flooding, extinction of species and other extreme events. G ridicules that type of alarmism. RonCram 05:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Whether something is "alarmist" or not is an emotional issue, not a statement of fact. One thing that comes through clearly from the article is that Geig shows a "who cares, big deal" attitude toward global warming, and he feels that a relative lack of concern is an appropriate emotional response to the global warming issue. But that alone doesn't doesn't contradict the IPCC report, because the IPCC report doesn't make any statements about what emotional response is appropriate in response to the information it presents. What's needed to show a contradiction is a statement about facts, about things that are either clearly true or clearly false, that Geig makes that logically contradicts a statement about facts that the IPCC makes. For example, if Geig had said "I think the average temperature of oceans and the atmosphere will increase by only 0.1 degrees in the next century," that would clearly contradict the IPCC, because it's logically impossible for Geig's prediction and the IPCC's prediction to both come true. Geig's statement about it taking 3,500 years for the sea level to rise 20' is exactly the kind of quantitative, factual statement that could be used to show a clear-cut contradiction with the IPCC's report. But the 20'/3500Yr rate is basically right on the edge of the range predicted by the IPCC, so it's not a contradiction. MrRedact 10:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
...and Gieg does not even make a statement about the rate of sea level rise, he assumes it for the sake of the argument.--Stephan Schulz 12:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

MrRedact, you are missing the point. I said that the IPCC claimed that sea level rise would lead to extinction of species and an increase of extreme weather events. Giegengack views these predictions as unwarranted and clearly rejects them. Giegengack is rejecting conclusion #3 listed in the article's Intro. RonCram 19:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

*You* said it, but did the IPCC say it? If so, where? I can't see why SLR would change extreme weather. Do you mean storm surges? It would help if youd quote IPCC rather than paraphrase William M. Connolley 20:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Extremist IPCC report will "create" many, many more skeptics

The altogher ridiculous conclusions of the new IPCC report will mean the list of skeptics will grow quite a bit. For instance, Landsea should now be considered a skeptic of the new position. (An interesting article on how he was waylayed (?)) [104]67.141.235.203 21:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Where exactly does L disagree with the report itself? William M. Connolley 21:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you daft? 67.141.235.203 22:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
If it is so easy, why don't you find a quote? It is unlikely that WMC is daft --Nethgirb 23:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read the article from the National Post. (Or perhaps it's just part of the Exxon funded conspiracy...). IPCC concludes that huricane intensity has/will increase due to GW. Landsea says that there is no basis in science for that conclusion.

You have to admit either the Landsea's assertions in the National Post article are lies or the IPCC bases it's conclusions(at least in part) on junk science.

The NP article is probably an OK source and L might belong on the list but you need to propose a specific quote --Nethgirb 23:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Would someone, preferably Connolly, address Landsea's assertions. Is he a nut? Paid off by Exxon, or just honest.
The NP article is tendentious crap. Read Landsea's own words here. In short, he thinks Trenberth has mis- or overstated the case that GW leads to stronger hurricane seasons in 2004. I don't know enough about the details to evaluate this claim back in 2004, but since then a couple of new papers have strengthened this link, so the new IPCC position (66+% likelihoood of increased hurricanes) seems reasonable to me. I don't know Landsea's current opinion on this topic (in contrast to some some other people, real scientists will modify their beliefs if new data arrives), but he is on the record in agreeing with the core findings of the IPCC (it's getting warmer, and it's mostly due to human greenhouse gas emmissions). --Stephan Schulz 15:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
(I don't believe profanity is allowed on Wikipedia). You shouldn't attack something just becasue it goes against your religion, it makes you sound like a creationist. Does Landsea agree with the IPCC position that AGW is causing more and more severe cyclones? Clearly not. Read his current working paper. Or see BAMS 5/06 page 630,bottom of left column.67.141.235.203 16:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
(Actually, profanity is allowed. Wikipedia has a no censorship policy. MrRedact 16:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC))
Thank you, dammit.67.141.235.203 16:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
...and I thought "crap" was a mild description of that article. Whom do you think I "attacked", btw? Anyways, I checked the BAMS article here and fail to recognize what you are talking about. Landsea's "current working paper" is not something I have access to - or do you have a source? However, even in 2005 he included the following statements about the effect of GW on hurricanes in the Hurricane FAQ: "The PEAK and AVERAGE INTENSITY of tropical cyclones may increase by about 5% in wind speeds. Storm total RAINFALL may also increase on the order of about 5% more precipication."[105] --Stephan Schulz 23:20, 7 February 2007
Why did you skip over this in the quotes you list* Preliminary analyses hint that globally only small to no change in the NUMBER of hurricanes may occur and that regionally there may be areas that have small increases or small decreases in frequency (on order of +/- 10%). That clearly condradicts latest IPCC report conclusions. IPCC doesn't listen to him anyway....he doesn't say what they want to hear.(Will try to find link to the working paper I referenced above.)
No, actually, that quote is entirely consistent with the IPCC's assessment. They say the intensity, not the number, of hurricanes/cyclones will likely increase: "There is observational evidence for an increase of intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970...There is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones." [106] --Nethgirb 02:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Uh, yes, that's the point...you appear to be confused... The commentor above said Landsea said the number of hurricanes won't increase and claimed this contradicts the IPCC; but it doesn't because the IPCC said essentially the same thing. --Nethgirb 18:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Syun Akasofu is clearly a skeptic

Read his testimony. Someone tried to claim he is no skeptic...please note when comparing two exhibits during his testimony before the Senate he says "This comparison clearly shows that much of the prominent warming in the continental Arctic after 1970 was NOT (my emphasis) caused by the human induced green house effect." READ IT YOURSELF, and try to comprehend it. If all those numbers get in the way, just read the words....you should still get the point.65.12.145.148 03:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Read the sentence again: "This comparison clearly shows that much of the prominent warming in the continental Arctic after 1970 was not caused by the human induced green house effect." He's saying that the observed change has both natural and anthropogenic components -- which is also the position the scientific consensus (including IPCC). More fully, he says:
For this purpose, I would like to demonstrate that:
  1. Prominent climate change is in progress in the Arctic, compared with the rest of the world. However,
  2. arctic climate change consists of both natural change and the greenhouse effect, and thus
  3. it is incorrect to conclude that the present warming in the Arctic is due entirely to the greenhouse effect caused by man.
  4. Therefore, it is important to find out the contribution of both natural and manmade components to the present climate change in the Arctic.
All of which is in close agreement with the scientific consensus. Raymond Arritt 04:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
65.12.145.148, please have a look at Wikipedia:No personal attacks; you have been violating it --Nethgirb 04:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Deceptive 'reasoning'. If IPCC report stopped with your 4 points this page wouldn't even exsist. However, the reports goes on to "conclude" much, much more which Akasofu doesn't agree with. Here is something elementary, it was spoken by Akasofu to politicians. I can't possibly understand how someone could read this and try to argue that he supports IPCC conclusions!!![107]67.141.235.203 15:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the link. I agree he is a skeptic. He clearly believes anthropogenic global warming is science fiction. He claims the strong warming trend is not global, but was mainly limited to the Arctic and is now over. He says the arctic ice has been receding since 1800, long before the release of CO2 from fossil fuels. He belongs in the section that says the warming is natural. I suggest we use the following quote: In addition, long-term records of glaciers and sea ice show that they have been receding continuously since 1800, well before the CO2 release became serious. We have some evidence that the present recession of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean is due partly to the intrusion of warm North Atlantic water, which is caused by the North Atlantic Oscillation, a natural phenomenon. RonCram 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
How do you square his supposed belief that "anthropogenic global warming is science fiction" with his statement that "arctic climate change consists of both natural change and the greenhouse effect"? Raymond Arritt 16:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Raymond, I think he is a "luke-warmer," meaning that he understands the role CO2 can play (the "physics") but believes the warming by CO2 is much less in the real world than people would expect. There are a number of "luke warmers" out there. Most of them do not want to be identified as skeptics because that has been good for several people's careers. I notice that Akasofu has just retired. I hope that was his choice.RonCram 16:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I just love conspiracy theories -- "scientist forced out of job for disupting global warming." The fact that he's 76 years old couldn't have anything to do with his retirement... Raymond Arritt 17:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
yes evidently you do love conspiracy theories. QED. 67.141.235.203 17:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
He does not look 76 in the pic I saw. Perhaps I am a poor judge of age. I did not conclude he was forced out, I merely stated my hope that he left on his own terms. Do you doubt that others have been forced out for disputing global warming? RonCram 18:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I just read a news report saying Akasofu has retired as director.[108]The article should be reflect his retirement.RonCram 16:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

In the article you refer to,[109] Akasofu's central thesis is merely that "it is incorrect to conclude that this warming in the continental Arctic is due entirely to the greenhouse effect caused by man." He's not even saying or implying that most of the warming in the continental Arctic is due to natural causes, merely that some is. And even if he were to make the much stronger statement that most of the warming in the continental Artic was due to natural causes, that still wouldn't conflict with the IPCC's position, because the IPCC position is that most of the average temperature increase globally is very likely due to anthropogenic greenhouse gasses, not that anthropogenic greenhouse gasses are the main cause of the warming observed in every part of the world individually. There's just no logical contradiction there between Akasofu's statement and the IPCC position. MrRedact 18:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

MrRedact, you miss the central point. He claims the strong warming is not global but is mostly limited to the Arctic and is now over. This contradicts the IPCC. RonCram 18:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
As an aside, my comments above were based purely on Akasofu's verbal testimony.[110] I see now that there is much more information with which to judge Akasofu's position in his written testimony.[111]
I'll split your statement that "He claims the strong warming is not global but is mostly limited to the Arctic and is now over" in two, and tackle each of the two parts separately. First, the "...and is now over" part: It's misleading at best to say that Akasofu is saying that the strong warming in the Arctic "is now over". Sure, he says that "...the continuous increase of the warming [in the Arctic] is not taking place any more." However, his very next sentence is "Instead, intense warming is now in progress in Greenland, which experienced cooling in the recent past." He's not saying that the more intense warming is now over, merely that the location of the more intense warming has shifted from the Artic to Greenland.
The other part of your statement is "He claims the strong warming is not global but is mostly limited to the Arctic...". The IPCC's 4AR[112] agrees that warming is more pronounced in the Artic. On page 8, it says "average Artic temperatures increased at almost twice the global average rate in the past 100 years." And Artic warming at rates even substantially more than twice the global average within sub-century periods is also perfectly consistent with the 4AR, since, as the 4AR points out, "Arctic temperatures have high decadal variability." There's nothing radical about pointing out that variations in temperature are more pronounced in the Artic than over the earth as a whole.
It's important to keep in mind that his entire testimony is purely about climate in the Arctic, not on the earth as a whole. He's merely pointing out that climate changes in the Arctic don't seem to be simply directly related to greenhouse gasses, and hence other factors such as the relationship between Artic climate and the North Atlantic Oscillation need to be better studied. He's not in any way denying the importance of anthropogenic greenhouse gasses on the climate of the earth as a whole. In fact he emphasises these two points himself, by saying the following as his opening statements: "In order to avoid any misunderstanding, I would like to state at the outset that it is in the best interests of mankind to reduce the rate of increase of our release of CO2. My talk is about the interpretation of the recent trends in the Arctic."
MrRedact 02:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am removing Syun Akasofu from the list on the basis that the two quotes used to justify his inclusion in the list are taken out of context, which alters their meaning greatly. Both quotes only pertain to climate within the Arctic. His complete testimony is only making the point that the temperature changes within the Arctic don't appear to be very directly related to anthropogenic greenhouse gasses, and that therefore other effects such as how the Northern Atlantic Oscillation interacts with the Arctic climate system need to be studied better, in order to gain a good understanding of the Arctic climate system. He is not claiming that anthropogenic greenhouse gasses are a poor indicator of temperatures averaged over the whole earth. Indeed, he takes pains to emphasize in his testimony that he believes anthropogenic greenhouse gasses to be important, and that he's only talking about Arctic climate, by using the following as the opening statements of his testimony: "In order to avoid any misunderstanding, I would like to state at the outset that it is in the best interests of mankind to reduce the rate of increase of our release of CO2. My talk is about the interpretation of the recent trends in the Arctic."[113] MrRedact 05:45, 8

Please read Context-

Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to testify at this important hearing today.

The most prominent warming in the world had been taking place in the continental Arctic during the last half of the last century, three times more than in the rest of the world. I would like to bring your attention to this most prominent feature.

We have at least two firm scientific indicators that show it is incorrect to conclude that this warming in the continental Arctic is due entirely to the greenhouse effect caused by man.

The first indicator is that the most advanced 14 IPCC global climate models, which include the best scientific knowledge of the greenhouse effect, cannot reproduce the warming of the continental Arctic that occurred during the last half of the last century. This is the so-called “hindcasting” method and is so far the best scientific test of the greenhouse hypothesis.

The scientific methodology consists of three parts. The first is observation (the temperature variations in this case). The second is to hypothesize causes (the CO2 hypothesis in this case), and the third is to verify the hypothesis on the basis of the best scientific knowledge available and using a supercomputer, if necessary.

If the computed result agrees with the observations, the hypothesis will become a scientific fact. If the computed result disagrees with the observations, the hypothesis should be disapproved.

If one still insists on the validity of the hypothesis, it will be in the category of science fiction, which can ignore science.

If one insists that global climate models are not good enough to test the greenhouse hypothesis, is there any other quantitative proof that the present warming is caused by the greenhouse effect?

If not, the basic scientific methodology is being ignored, and one is no longer talking about science, but science fiction.

There is no problem with the physics of warming by CO2. The problem is that the greenhouse hypothesis has failed to reproduce the observations. We encounter many hypotheses, which are based on sound physics (good ideas!). But we have to discard them, if they fail the test quantitatively. This is what all scientists do.

The second indicator is that the geographical pattern of the warming in the Arctic has been drastically changing in recent years. The strong continental arctic warming trend is no longer evident during the last two decades. If the warming trend were entirely due to the greenhouse effect, the past geographic pattern of the warming should intensify. That is not the case. Various warming and cooling of similar magnitude has occurred continuously at different locations in the Arctic during the last 100 years and, thus, it is natural to conclude that such trends would continue.

In addition, long-term records of glaciers and sea ice show that they have been receding continuously since 1800, well before the CO2 release became serious. We have some evidence that the present recession of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean is due partly to the intrusion of warm North Atlantic water, which is caused by the North Atlantic Oscillation, a natural phenomenon. This warm water is flowing along the Siberian coast and is approaching Alaska at the present time.

The Arctic is obviously the best location for this study because the warming and cooling signals are larger there than they are in the rest of the world. Some of the Q/A:

Senator Vitter: You said that the Arctic is the best place to do global warming research?

S.-I. Akasofu: Yes

Senator Stevens: Can you estimate the warming caused by the intrusion of the warmer North Atlantic Water?

S.-I Akasofu: We have not done it yet.

Senator Lautenberg: We have a house on fire (meaning global warming). We had better put out the fire.

S-I. Akasofu: I am not sure if we have a house on fire. If we want to put it out (without understanding what is going on), we may make much water damage, ruining the furniture.February

This man is not a skeptic of the global warming consensus?

I'm through trying to debate with crazy people. Good look, comrades.65.12.145.148 13:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit that two of Akasofu's statements are difficult to reconcile. His statement at the beginning of his written testimony, "I would like to state at the outset that it is in the best interests of mankind to reduce the rate of increase of our release of CO2", sure sounds like he thinks that CO2 has already been sufficiently implicated to begin taking measures to curtail CO2 emmissions. But his metaphorical comment about firefighting after his verbal testimony sounds like he thinks that working to curtail CO2 emmissions might be premature. These two statements in conjunction make it somewhat difficult to categorize him easily. And unfortunately, those two statements are about the only statements he makes that pertain to climate on the earth as a whole, instead of just talking about how we don't have a complete picture yet of what's going on in the Arctic. MrRedact 19:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Akasofu should be readded - with this quote: "Both changes are significant. Until they can be quantitatively more carefully examined and subtracted from the present trend, it is not possible to determine the manmade greenhouse effect. Therefore, there is no firm basis to claim “most” in the IPCC Report." [114] - thats a clear contradiction of the consensus items. And he is talking about global here. --Kim D. Petersen 21:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A New Consensus

Looks like this list of scientists is growing pretty fast. I wonder how long it will be before a new consensus is reached, which acknowledges the many other factors that contribute to changes in the earth's temperature.

The "consensus" that man made CO2 emissions are the leading cause of global warming is a media generated phenomenon. The appearance of consensus has been created by thousands of uninformed individuals writing articles that ignore the many other factors that contribute to changes in the earth's temperature.

Marketanomaly 19:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no. The scientific consensus is best defined by the IPCC's assessment reports. The fourth assessment report[115] involves over 2,500 scientific expert reviewers, and another 1,300+ scientists from over 130 countries working as lead authors and contributing authors. The couple dozen skeptics on this page is peanuts. The IPCC's fourth assessment report contains stronger statements about manmade greenhouse gasses being the culprit behind global warming than did the third assessment report six years ago. The understanding of the media and especially the general public is lagging behind the scientific consensus about CO2 being responsible for global warming. MrRedact 20:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"Scientific expert reviewer" what a great concept. 1300 scientist from 130 countries....yes, yes. All of whom met the "pro AGW" criteria for skeptics here. Many of the 1300 'scientist' are lower on the food chain than the meteorologists often brought in by skeptics. You've taken the bait good man. Godspeed. I'm a cultural anthropologist, I study the lunacy of the humans. The .com insanity will be ignored by history because this 'debate' will overshadow it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.12.145.148 (talk • contribs) 00:11, February 9, 2007 (UTC).

There is no "counter-consensus" among the skeptics listed here (see next topic). The consensus is not a "media generated phenomenon" -- it is the actual state of the working scientists. I've taken courses on climatology, global warming, and atmospheric physics, and I've plowed though the many dozens of assigned readings from the journals. The peer-reviewed journals back up what the IPCC is saying. Many national academies of science do as well. This is not a "hoax", a fad or a stampede led by "group-think." The case for AGW was made over decades, via hundreds of publications. Just this week I attended a talk by one of our physics profs who was a lead author of a section of the IPCC 4th AR. He presented his data (on sea-level rise), covered how the data was collected, how the satellite instruments are calibrated. He explained isostatic rebound and reconstructing past sea level trends from tide guage records. He addressed competing explanations of observed trends. He showed how satellite observations are confirming the predictions of GCM models.

Take a look at the work of Andrew Dessler on how science and politics intersect on this issue. He sums up the issue particularly well. Birdbrainscan 05:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The "consensus" on global warming is an absurd creation of politicians, the media, and special interest groups. The prolific spread of the theory that human generated CO2 emissions are the leading cause of global warming has been significantly aided by the internet and the increased weight that our culture gives to opinion over verifiable facts.
Consensus is turned to so often by proponents of the theory, because they don't have the facts to back up their claims. Real scientists would never turn to consensus to try to prove their claims.
There is substantial evidence that other factors play a more significant role than CO2 in global temperature cycles. For example, changes in the energy output of the sun have been found to significantly influence the earth's temperature. There are many other factors as well, though they are rarely acknowledged in media reports on the subject. Marketanomaly 15:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What Consensus?

Shouldn't an encyclopedia present the facts to the audience and let them decide? Science doesn't work by consensus politics but by patient research, which frequently puts up counter-evidence to a "popular" theory. The theory of the aether or eugenics are good examples of a consensus being overthrown by the facts. Likewise, the idea that the earth is the centre of the universe. Articles in Wikipedia should not become a diatribe by one side or another, but try to present a balanced viewpoint. A "couple of dozen" sceptics may be right, after all (just lke Copernicus and Einstein. Peterrhyslewis 22:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

We present the current best state of knowledge. That's the purpose of an encyclopedia. If we ignore the "undue weight" clause, Wikipedia becomes useless. It's in the nature of science that you need an advanced and specialized education to evaluate the current state of the art. We cannot just dump all opinions as if they had equal support and let the reader sort it out - we must present the opinions with adequate weight. Several thousand contributors to the IPCC have more weight than a few assorted (and even inconsistent) opponents. Einstein is an interesting example - his special theory of relativity was quickly accepted in the scientific community. As with global warming, it took the popular opinion a while to follow suit. --Stephan Schulz 22:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Adequate weight of the opinions....how scientific!

If you want a hurricane forecast you go to Bill Gray, the entire world does. Because he is the preiminent scientist in that field. It's safe to say he knows more about the science of hurricanes than most people, except maybe Trenberth (ha!), but you don't weight his opinion about hurricane intensity and AGW because you don't like what he says. (Scientifically, I'm not sure that you should.) Neither do you weight his opinion about the political agenda of the UN and its 1,250,000 expert scientific reviewers. I know some of the expert scientific reviewers, many are sound (and overly political) and many are idiots. Idiots with PHDs (I find your run of the mill idiocy iritating but not offensive, but I find your perversion of the word KNOWLEDGE obscene.) 65.12.145.148 04:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, great scientific ideas sometimes only have a few adherents. In fact, an idea starts off with just one person believing in it: the really smart person who studied the issue thoroughly and came up with the brand new idea that nobody thought of before. Yes, that applies to Copernicus with his brilliant new idea of a heliocentric solar system, Einstein with his brilliant new idea of relativity, and Michelson and Morley with their brilliant new idea of how to test if the aether exists. But that doesn't apply to the scientists on this page. None of them have come up with some brilliant new idea that nobody's thought of before. In fact, the opposite is true. The scientists on this page hold a minority viewpoint because they are resistant to a new idea, the idea that anthropogenic CO2 and other greenhouse gasses could build up to the point where they cause a substantial warming of the earth's surface. They're the last remaining remnants of the old guard stalwarts who don't want to change their way of thinking.

If you want to look for an Einstein or Copernicus on this issue, look at Roger Revelle, who in 1957 came up with the brilliant new idea that anthropogenic CO2 could build up and cause a global warming due to the greenhouse effect. Because you aren't going to find an Einstein or Copernicus among the scientists on this page. MrRedact 00:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere. As I look at the arguments of the scientists on this list, I find few making any kind of case that they have a better explanation of what's going on than the consensus. A lot say there are large uncertainties, it is too soon to take costly mitigation measures, etc. Some argue that their piece of the puzzle is underrated and must be taken into account (such as solar variability, or cosmic rays). But these do not cohere in a better theory that can persuade climatologists to switch from AGW. There are fundamental facts about radiative balance that predict that rising CO2 will retain more heat. Quibbling over whether CO2 was higher millions of years ago or if the 'Medieval warm' was global fail to address this. Focusing on how far the AGW signal has emerged from the climatic noise or whether 1998 was warmer than 1008 misses the point that CO2 does trap heat. It's almost shocking how many scientists seem prepared to assert that CO2 forcing is effectively zero, offering no data or argument for other scientists to follow (or respond to). Birdbrainscan 04:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Scientists skeptical of AGW hold one of several positions:
1. Some scientists think CO2 does not cause warming because the paleoclimate record indicates warming leads the increase in CO2. Personally, I do not think that necessarily follows but it does show that other climate factors were more important than CO2 in the past.
2. Some scientists point out that the correlation between increase in atmospheric CO2 and temperatures is not good. They claim CO2 began to rise early in the 20th century and temps rose. CO2 rose dramatically beginning in 1947, but the Earth was in a cooling trend from 1945 to 1975. The correlation between CO2 and temps has been good since 1976, but was not good in the thiry years prior. These scientists say this indicates there is no cause-effect relationship.
3. Other scientists say CO2 does cause warming but the effect is not uniform, the first 100 ppm gain created the greatest warming and additional CO2 creates only a diminishing amount of warming. Such a result is not unknown in nature and may well be true. RonCram 01:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Section?

How about a section - Scientists Skeptical of IPCC Conclusions on the Basis of its Methodologies. That is, the conclusions are based on methods & models that aren't accurate enough to come to scientific 'conclusions'.65.12.145.148 04:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not really necessary; such people can already fit into the existing sections. For example, if a scientist said, "There is no sound evidence to attribute current warming to anthropogenic CO2 because existing studies are based on inaccurate methods and models", then she would go into Section 2. --Nethgirb 03:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
What if someone said "I don't won't my name on the IPCC report because it's based more on an agenda than science". Where would that person go? They are skeptical of the process so we can conclude they are skeptical of the conclusions from that process, perhaps?65.12.145.148 04:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
If they are skeptical of the conclusions then they can say so; we can't put words in people's mouths. So that quote wouldn't place them in this article. But they would certainly belong over at global warming skeptics.
Keep in mind that we don't discriminate here regarding the reason for the person's belief. They could be included with a quote like "GW is natural. The purported 'evidence' for anthropogenic GW presented by the IPCC arose from agenda-driven pseudoscience." Or even, for that matter, "GW is natural. I know this because I spoke with aliens." --Nethgirb 04:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I support the proposal. This list gives a false illusion that the number of valid "skeptics" is lower than it really is. Henk Tennekes is a good example of who would fall into such a category. --Childhood's End 15:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I support the proposal as well. Climate scientists are notoriously bad mathematicians and statisticians. Skeptics deserve to speak out on this. Gerald Browning is one example of a person with a record of scholarship who fits. [116] He is currently preparing a presentation on why the computer models do not work and cannot work as advertised.
See post #73 [117] for this post to Willis:
AFter reading the post on Numerical Climate Models, you might want to peruse the manuscript
Comparison of Numerical Methods for the Calculation of Two-Dimensional Turbulence
G. L. Browning and H.-O. Kreiss
Mathematics of Computation
Volume 52, No 186 (April 1989), pp. 369-388
Igmore the mathematics and just read the text and look at the contour plots.The plots make very clear what happens if insufficient resolution is used for a given kinematic viscosity for the incompressible NS equations and how the minimal scale estimate provides accurate information as to the amount of resolution needed to correctly resolve the solution for a given kinematic viscosity. The minimal scale estimate and examples make it very clear why low resolution Coupled Climate Models necessarily use viscosities that are orders of magnitude too large. Hence, necessarily, the forcings are nonphysical.
See post #78 [118] for this quote:
I attended a seminar by one of the lead authors of WG1 and specifically asked him about the accuracy of the atmosphere ocean interface in their coupled climate model. He did not have a clue about that interface, i.e. the model is being used as a black box. RonCram 17:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the proposal? The original proposal "Scientists Skeptical of IPCC Conclusions on the Basis of its Methodologies" would not allow anyone new onto the list, at least if you assume that "IPCC conclusions" refers to the principal conclusions listed at the beginning of the article. In general, if you are arguing for allowing more people onto the list then you should be directing criticism at the requirements for inclusion, rather than the sections which are just an organizational tool. --Nethgirb 00:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

How about a section - Scientists Skeptical of IPCC Conclusions on the Basis of its Methodologies. That is, the conclusions are based on methods & models that aren't accurate enough to come to scientific 'conclusions'.65.12.145.148 04:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nigel Weiss

An article in the Financial Post describes Weiss:CV of a Denier: Nigel Weiss, professor emeritus of mathematical astrophysics in the University of Cambridge, discovered the process of "flux expulsion" by which a conducting fluid undergoing rotating motion acts to expel the magnetic flux from the region of motion, a process now known to occur in the photosphere of the sun and other stars. He is also distinguished for his work on the theory of convection, and for precise numerical experiments on the behaviour of complicated non-linear differential equations. Nigel Weiss is a recipient of a Royal Society Citation, he is a past President of the Royal Astronomical Society, and a past Chairman of Cambridge's School of Physical Sciences. He was educated at Clare College, University of Cambridge. [119]

Dr. Weiss believes CO2 may have played a role in recent warming but is not sure how big the role is. He is certain the world is about to enter a cooling period. "Variable behaviour of the sun is an obvious explanation," says Dr. Weiss, "and there is increasing evidence that Earth's climate responds to changing patterns of solar magnetic activity.""If you look back into the sun's past, you find that we live in a period of abnormally high solar activity," Dr. Weiss states. These hyperactive periods do not last long, "perhaps 50 to 100 years, then you get a crash," says Dr. Weiss. 'It's a boom-bust system, and I would expect a crash soon." It is clear Dr. Weiss disagrees with the IPCC and is predicting a decrease in temperature in this century. RonCram 19:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

After reading Weiss's webpage, I have removed him from the article. He says the article in the Financial Post was misleading. [120] RonCram 19:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear, another one bites the dust. Still I doubt it will slow RC down William M. Connolley 21:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Larry Hulden

Larry is a contributor to www.climateaudit.org. See comment #16.[121] He published a piece that was critical of the IPCC TAR in Finnish. [122] I do not read Finnish. Is there a way we can translate this? RonCram 19:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm stunned. Somone from climateaudit.org published a piece critical of IPCC? We'd better jump right on this one. Raymond Arritt 20:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Intertran is the only translation machine that can translate from finnish [123] - but it cannot translate this text - sorry. Why don't you ask Larry Hulden to translate it into English himself - if it has content that is of wide enough interest then he should be willing. (after all Finnish really is a very small language) --Kim D. Petersen 01:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
The CA link is wrong. But the abstract of Hulden comes out nicely: Several international ilmastopaneelin IPCCn : tendering voucher ilmastonmuutoksen vaikutuksista ecosystem ovat yet wrong subjektiivisia or nothingness data bottom. Mutual trait many huomioiduissa tutkimuksissa is lämpötilatilastojen consummate intervention or lämpötilojen ostensible compare candidate data. Scarcely yhdessäkään tutkimuksessa biologisella data and lämpötilanmittauksilla is comparable secular and geographical capping. William M. Connolley 10:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll have to say, that makes more sense to me than most articles by Ball or the Heartland Institute!--Stephan Schulz 10:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I've corrected the CA link. Sorry about that. RonCram 17:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
No problem. But sorry, he sounds like your typical loon. "I have a lot of results that will overturn mainstrean science, but no-one will publish them". Yes, sure. He also seems to be an entomologist, so his opinion about global warming seems to be of rather peripheral interest... --Stephan Schulz 18:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Stephan, I believe he has published in the climate field in the past. His claim of journal censorship is not new. It is one of the biggest reasons many of the global warming skeptics do not want to be known as skeptics, it makes it harder to get published.RonCram 00:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Larry Huldén (note acute accent) apparently has a couple of articles related to entomology. (It turns out there are two "L. Huldén"s in the literature, Larry and his wife Lena.) There's no indication of any publications or expertise in climatology, but we've specifically not restricted the list to people who know anything about the subject. Raymond Arritt 01:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Record of Scholarship?

I'm newish. Does "record of scholarship" have a reliably concrete definition in Wikiworld?

Also, I see a lot of comments that do a disservice to those who recognize the evidence for global warming is substantial. For instance, it would behoove the contributors to remember that scientists in almost every field have something to offer (including entomologists). Also, there is a general disregard for Kuhn's theories of scientific revolution. Scientific certainty in the current decade often predicates scientific upheaval in the next. Let's keep the 1970's "ice-age" fears in mind, shall we? DRJ 07:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If you mean global cooling, then you'd better read that page William M. Connolley 09:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi DRJ. I would take "record of scholarship" to mean that they either (1) hold a scientific research position such as a professorship or (2) have a number of papers published in scientific peer-reviewed journals. There is a somewhat official definition of academic notability, which seems to be a higher standard than "record of scholarship". If we held this list to that standard, I think a lot of the names would be removed. And it would be entirely reasonable to do that given the general Wikipedia policy of only including notable people. --Nethgirb 10:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Title - Better

This new title removes the loaded and relative term "consensus" and replaces it with an actual item with which these scientists are in dispute. DRJ 08:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't make moves like this that are bound to be controversial without discussing them first William M. Connolley 09:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Consensus is an appropriate and well-defined term. Of course there is some gray area (is 60% support a consensus?) but this issue is well outside that.
We have debated over and over and over on this page whether there exists a consensus on global warming. There's a lot of evidence that there is a consensus (see the various discussions here), but I've never seen any evidence presented to the contrary. If you have some, I would be interested in seeing it. --Nethgirb 10:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
So far on this talk page, what I've seen is that the term "consensus" is highly controversial, and is accepted only by climate change believers. To use it in the title, thus, is POV pushing, as are most other uses of the word "consensus" when it comes to science. --Childhood's End 13:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
If there wasn't a consensus, you wouldn't see people like Crichton wurbling about the dangers of consensus science William M. Connolley 14:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Huh? So when people discuss about the dangers arising from appeals to consensus, rather than listening to their points, you prefer to believe that it proves that there is a consensus? --Childhood's End 16:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
No, it shows that Crichton probably believes there is a consensus... and maybe you are more willing to believe Crichton than the IPCC. But this is beside the point. You don't get to label something as "POV pushing" just because some editors disagree with it. It would be POV if there were no verifiable evidence to back it up (but there is) or if there were verifiable evidence to the contrary (which, still, you haven't shown). --Nethgirb 18:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes, Crichton believes there is a consensus. I guess that's the latest episode in the "how-to-believe-there-is-a-consensus" series. Simply pretend the evidence against the existence of a consensus is not evidence, then read a biaised survey done by some Oreskes teaching social sociology somewhere, and POOF ! there is your obvious consensus.
By the way, it's not that I believe in what Crichton says. It's just that I cannot disagree with him, and neither can you. It is simply a sad fact that "Historically, the claim of consensus has been (...) a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled". It is also a fact that "Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way". --Childhood's End 01:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
"Simply pretend the evidence against the existence of a consensus is not evidence" -- what is this evidence against the existence of a consensus to which you refer? --Nethgirb 01:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Just check the list herein, I would bet that Oreskes did not take a look at their papers when she conducted her survey... (not to mention all those who cannot be listed here, or all those who owe their positions/funding to their support towards the IPCC but who would otherwise disagree). --Childhood's End 14:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
This seems to be the fundamental disconnect... I ask for evidence, and you give speculation. --Nethgirb 21:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
If believing that the Oreskes survey proved that there is a consensus is not speculation, I wonder what speculation is... --Childhood's End 13:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

So... I'm still confused. Che clearly thinks that labelling something "consensus" is bad for that thing. Che is clearly skeptical of GW, so obviously would be happy for GW to be labelled with "consensus". Yes? William M. Connolley 09:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure of who you refer to with "Che", but I would guess the Che would have believed in AGW...(smile). As for myself, I am happy when truth is allowed to be discovered, and that's why I am against the use of "consensus" and the marginalization of dissent when it comes to controversial matters such as AGW. --Childhood's End 14:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Guevara, obviously.

The thing about consensus is really two points:

  1. What is the rough estimate of the percentage of scientists who agree?
  2. Is it a high enough percentage to justify making a decision?

Crichton said:

  • Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. [124] --Uncle Ed 22:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The whole consensus argument is baffling. We have a very weird situation where every major scientific organization (excepting the American Association of Petroleum Geologists) agrees with the IPCC position, which itself is the work of about 2000 scientists in the field, and yet the existence of a consensus is questioned. It's almost surreal. Raymond Arritt 22:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
If it's so baffling, why do the IPCC supporters still feel so much the need to speak of a consensus? By the way, organizations themselves are usually funded by governments who signed Kyoto. I suggest that you take a look at the individual scientists. There, you will find a majority, perhaps a large one, supporting the IPCC, but not a consensus. We know that the National Academy of Science, as an organization, officially supports the IPCC but we also know that some of its members do not. --Childhood's End 13:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Raymond, your comment is not exactly correct. The American Association of State Climatologists issued a statement in 2001 that said an accurate prediction of future climate was not possible. That seems to put them at odds with the "consensus." In addition, the IPCC position hardly inspires confidence. The two Coordinating Lead Authors on the Paleoclimate (chapter 6) are Eystein Jansen and Jonathan Overpeck (of “Get rid of the MWP” fame). Unbelievably, the IPCC does not even deal with the Hockey Stick controversy. One would have expected them to spend a great deal of time to make certain they got their facts straight after the HS fiasco. Instead the incompetence is becoming all the more obvious. In a press conference, Jansen cited "well core [borehole]" data regarding the MWP. Stephen McIntyre responded: "The borehole curve in the spaghetti graph only goes back about 400 years or so, so it’s ridiculous for Jansen to cite it as having anything to do with the MWP. But hey, he was only the IPCC Coordinating Lead Author - why would he be expected to know?" See comment #7.[125] You have to admit, that's pretty funny there.RonCram 17:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Have you actually read the AASC statement? It doesn't say "accurate prediction of future climate is not possible." It says it's "complex", has "uncertainties", and is "difficult." All of which are entirely consonant with the IPCC and other mainstream climate scientists. Raymond Arritt
Raymond, do you really claim that statement is consistent with the IPCC? WOW. I'm almost speechless. Let me give you a quote from the minutes of 10TH SESSION OF WORKING GROUP I OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE:
On Monday morning, Dahe Qin, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group I, opened the Session. Christian Bordhag, Interministerial Delegate for Sustainable Development, France, highlighted the role of clear communication with the media. Bordhag underscored the importance of consensus and certainty for policy makers. He stressed the role of IPCC in the climate change process and stated France’s support for a similar body for biodiversity. [126]
Raymond, note that right at the start of the meeting there is a call to conformity and a rejection of any talk of scientific uncertainty. Andrew Weaver, a Canadian climate scientist and study co-author, certainly jumped on that bandwagon saying: "This isn't a smoking gun; climate is a batallion of intergalactic smoking missiles." [127] The AR4 makes it clear that the IPCC is an advocacy group and is not interested in the science. This is very unlike the American Association of State Climatologists.RonCram 18:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Whatever you say, Ron. I for one am glad we don't have the power, authority, and money that you think we do. Raymond Arritt 01:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


Well, I took a couple of days to see how that would go, and obviously the argument must continue. "Consensus" has a definition. So does "good." So does "honorable." This does not mean that these aren't POV or "relative terms." By this it is meant that the terms are defined in relation to other things. "Consensus" is defined poorly in the Consensus article. The language alone necessitates that "consensus" as defined in the article is a concept devoid of awareness with regards to opposition viewpoints. Therefore, following the definition of "consensus" as per the article, one cannot oppose a consensus if one belongs to the community of scientists in a particular field of science at a particular time. This definition of consensus automatically disqualifies opponents from membership within the community of specialists.

In response to Nethgirb - I cannot accept your assertion that previous discussion eliminates the value of renewed discussion. And well-defined rarely allows for "gray area."

This being said, these scientists are in disagreement with the IPCC statement, or they are in disagreement with the content of the assertions contained therein. This is not a POV way of stating the case, and if Wikipedia is to be a reliable and Non-POV source of information, we must do our best to remove fuzzy-language when possible. I will wait one more week before transferring this article to what I consider a non-POV title in order to allow for discussion. BUT PLEASE REMEMBER, WE ARE DISCUSSING WHETHER THE WORDING FOR THE CURRENT TITLE IS POV, NOT WHETHER THE MAJORITY OF SCIENTISTS DO OR DON'T AGREE WITH CURRENT GLOBAL WARMING THEORY. THIS BEING SUCH, PLEASE REFRAIN FROM FLAMES, PERSONAL ATTACKS, AND DISCUSSIONS REGARDING MICHAEL CRICHTON. (I liked "Sphere.") Please weigh in and provide what you think qualifies as a thoroughly non-POV title. For instance, my recommendation is "List of Scientists in Opposition to the IPCC Statement on Global Warming." This is true, non-POV, and in no way lends the IPCC or their opponents any additional support or validity. The article on the IPCC should take care of defining who this group is and why its statement should be taken seriously. Please reply. DRJ 08:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

All I can do is repeat what I've already said. Your entire argument rests on the assertion that saying there is a consensus on GW is POV, i.e., it is not supported by verifiable evidence. So, given that we have cited evidence that there is a consensus, in order to have any sort of case whatsoever, you need to produce some evidence that there isn't a consensus. Which has not yet been exhibited here.
"I cannot accept your assertion that previous discussion eliminates the value of renewed discussion." I never said that. However, repeated complaints without any substance are not useful. --Nethgirb 09:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
You did not and cannot prove that there is a consensus - please stop this rhetoric. Either you define consensus as unanimous agreement, which doesnt exist about GW, or either you loosely define consensus as a widely accepted or general agreement, which seems to be the easy way out that climate activists have chosen. But then, if you want to "prove" such a consensus, you need some kind of scale which should be agreed upon, which has never been provided. Is it 90% agreement? Is it 80% ? Until you have provided both the scale and the evidence that it is reached, your so called evidence remains POV since only GW believers agree that it proves consensus. By the way, a biaised survey done by some history professor may satisfy newspapers and activists, but a serious encyclopedia will not settle the issue on this ground only. --Childhood's End 16:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] G C Reid

Do the inquisitors grant that a man who said this shall be deemed a skeptic - "The importance of solar variability as a factor in climate change over the last few decades may have been underestimated in recent studies". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.12.145.148 (talk • contribs) February 12, 2007 (UTC)

Numbers tend to matter in science, so what does he (she?) mean by "underestimated"? A factor of 2 would be no big deal. A factor of 10 would make the solar effect comparable to the radiative contribution to greenhouse gases, which would place him (her?) outside the consensus. "G.C. Reid" is a fairly common name so you'll need to narrow that down as well. Raymond Arritt 01:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The man's name is George.
Still pretty vague, but maybe this George Reid. All the climate-related comments I could find by him were oldish (1998 or earlier). Raymond Arritt 02:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's the abstract the quote came from: [128]. The article is from 1997, so it wouldn't fall under the criteria "This article lists scientists who have, since the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report, published research or made public comments opposing at least one of the conclusions listed above." MrRedact 03:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Post 4th IPPC report list of scientists publicly opposed now needed

This article is about those scientists who disagreed after the third IPCC report. In view of the release of the 4th IPCC report, we should now have a separate list of those scientists who have publicly expressed opposition to the consensus since the release of that report. dinghy 05:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This article should definitely be updated somehow at some time to reflect the 4th report. But it seems like now might be kind of early to be doing that, since there hasn't been hardly any time for scientists to publicly react to the 4th report yet.
It seems like this could get messy in terms of the number of lists and how they interrelate. If the scientists who disagree with the 4th report are also separated into four lists depending on how they disagree, that'd mean there'd be a total of 8 lists. And then there'd be the question of how to handle those scientists which were on the list for their reaction to the 3rd report, and have a different statement that puts them on a 4th report list (which might be in a different category!). I would hope in the name of avoiding redundancy and article bloat that the 3rd report lists would explicitly not include those that are in a 4th report list.
An alternative to the 8 lists would be to just keep the article so that it just continues to refer to the 3rd report for now, and just continues to have the existing 4 lists. But the quotes used to establish the scientists' placement on a list would be kept up-to-date so that it includes their most recent statements, and then perhaps a year from now, the article would be modified such that it only lists scientists who have published research or made public comments opposing the 4th report, since the 4th report came out. I'd prefer this alternative.
MrRedact 06:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


I don't see the need for another list -- this list is scientists opposing global warming consensus not scientists opposing the IPCC TAR. Citing the TAR is just one way to summarise the main points of the consensus. So, we can replace that summary with the updated conclusions of the 4AR. Anyway, I don't think that will substantially change who's included on the list. --Nethgirb 07:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
That's true, just the IPCC summary could be updated to reflect the 4th report, while still keeping the criterion for inclusion on the list that they have published research or made public comments opposing the consensus some time since the 3rd report came out. It's a bit of a disconnect to have the inclusion criteria refer to two different reports, but it's better than the mess of adding one or more additional lists.
And yeah, the differences between the basic conclusions of the 3rd and 4th report are small enough that making that change alone probably wouldn't involve any changes at all as to who's on a list or not.
At some point this article ought to be updated to have a more current cut-off date since which the scientists must have published research or made public comments opposing the consensus to be included on a list. The release date of the 4th report seems like a very natural date to use as the next cut-off date, in terms of consistency within the article. But I think changing the article to use the release date of the 4th report would be something that wouldn't happen for at least another year. And by that time, this current discussion will just be burried in a long-forgotten archive. MrRedact 08:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like too much to hope for --Nethgirb 09:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
After sleeping on it, I think it would be flat-out wrong for this article to use summary points from the 4th report in conjunction with a cut-off date of the 3rd report's release. The 3rd report and the 4th report substantially agree on the numbers as to how much warming there has been, and how much warming there will be. The main thing that changed is that the 4th report reflects the increasing certainty that most of the warming is due to anthropogenic greenhouse gasses. But the opinions of many individual scientists have also changed over the last six years, due to the additional scientific data that has come in over the last six years. It would be comparing apples and oranges to compare individual scientists' opinions as of six years ago with the current degree of certainty in the 4th report about anthropogenic greenhouse gasses being the cause of the warming. The article should consistently be based on either the 3rd report, or on the 4th report.
What makes sense to me is to continue to base both the summary points and the cut-off date on the 3rd report for now, since little to no public reaction to the 4th report is available yet, and then switch to basing both the summary points and the cut-off date on the 4th report in about a year or so. So what should change in the article now is just that it should be noted that it is based on an out-of-date report due to the dearth of public response yet to the newest report. MrRedact 17:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and modified the article to note the 4th report, while still basing the article on the 3rd report. MrRedact 17:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks good for now. --Nethgirb 23:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
How about a running cut-off time? For example 6 years (the time between IPCC reports) - statements must be sourcable within that running timeframe. This way we also dodge the risk of attributing at least very old opinions - that may or may not still be valid? As far as i can see this would only impact the statement by Chris de Freitas - who would move into another category (he is still a skeptic). --Kim D. Petersen 00:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Is the full 4th report out in the public, or is it only the Summary that has been released? If the full report is not yet available, that's an even better reason to keep the focus on the 3rd report herein. --Childhood's End 17:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Only the SPM has been officially released. Drafts of the full WG reports have been leaked inofficially. Anyways, at the level of abstraction we are talking here, TAR and AR4 are probably indistinguishable. I doubt that there are many who oppose one, but not the other. --Stephan Schulz 19:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
One more reason to be skeptical of the IPCC... Publising headlines without the full scientific background to allow a full assessment of the headlines is quite questionnable and shows how the IPCC is about sensationalism. --Childhood's End 03:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eigil Friis-Christensen

Which one of you jokers re-removed him and why?67.141.235.203 22:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh, it looks like the joker is you. You removed him in your edit at 17:16, February 12, 2007. As for why, under the circumstances, it appears to have been a mistake. MrRedact 22:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Vincent Gray

I thought the wikipedia article on Vincent Gray was on the climate scientist. I see now that it is not. That should be remedied as Dr. Gray deserves his own article. Dr. Gray earned his Ph.D. in Chemistry at Cambridge University and published more than 100 scientfic papers in several different fields, including climate science, environment, sociobiology and theoretical biology. This paper has a short bio on page 30. [129] Since 1990, he has been working mainly in climate science. He was until recently a visiting scholar at the Beijing Climate Centre in China.[130] You can check Google Scholar for his climate writings. [131] What category does Dr. Gray fit? I think he best fits the proposed category of "Scientists Skeptical of IPCC Conclusions on the Basis of its Methodologies." You can read Dr. Gray's assessment of AR4 SPM here. [132] RonCram 22:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how he meets Wikipedia:Notability (academics). And about the only information on him seems to see the article blurb bio (that is usually provided by the author, so not a neutral source). If you can make a cause for his notability, by all means do so. I'm normally more of an inclusionist. Of course, his "climate writings" are just that: "writings". I found nothing in that list that could be considered a serious scientific publication (i.e. anything published in a respected, peer-reviewed venue). --Stephan Schulz 23:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the short biog you ref doesn't say he has papers in climate science. I wonder how that crept into your list? The list starts with petroleum, coal and timber which you *don't* mention. How odd William M. Connolley 23:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I did not attempt an audit of the results from Google Scholar. I did notice both a journal article[133] and a book.[134] Stephan, no one would ever accuse you of being an inclusionist. Rather than debate the question of whether or not he is notable at the moment, I would note that if we are going to raise the standard for inclusion in this article to "notability," then we should state in the Intro that the list is only of scientists who meet the wikipedia standard of notability. RonCram 00:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Energy and Environment is not a recognized scientific journal. It's not in any serious citation database, and many of the articles are an actual embarrasment (including Gray's last "masterpiece"). The book is also not published by a recognized academic press, but by the same publisher that publishes E&E...surprise! And notability has always been the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Stephan Schulz 00:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Stephan, until yesterday (I think) the article claimed this list was "comprehensive." You cannot reconcile "comprehensive" with the much more stringent "notability" requirement. If you are taking the position the article only lists notable scientists, then the Intro should say that. Once the Intro says that, we can continue the discussion as to whether or not Gray is notable. RonCram 11:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems that the standard up to now for this article has not been to require notability (possibly in violation of standard Wikipedia criteria). So if we require notability that will be a major change which will probably make the list shorter. I don't think that will necessarily make the article worse or better; just different. But I just wanted to highlight that we should be explicitly making a decision about the article overall, not just Gray.
That said, even if we keep things the way they are, we still have to establish a "record of scholarship" and find a quote. --Nethgirb 11:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More on Abdusamatov

Try reading this article which quotes Abdusamatov. The number of blatant factual errors in Abdusamatov's quotes is incredible. We have such gems as:

  • "Mars has global warming, but without a greenhouse" (erm, what about basic radiative transfer principles, as well as data from the Mars Climate Sounder...)
  • "Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated" (even the most diehard skeptics acknowledge the existence of a natural greenhouse effect)

And the winner is...

  • "Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away." This one leaves me speechless. (Google "homosphere", for a start.)

Sometimes you just have to shake your head and walk away. Raymond Arritt 02:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

But he said, "These parallel global warmings -- observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth -- can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance." How could he be wrong when he is so confident?
Relatedly, this is the kind of article that casts doubt on the reliability of the news outlet. They don't describe this as contradicting other scientific evidence, or as one of several theories, or even as Abdusamatov's theory. No, they assert it as truth, writing, for example, "[T]he project will help mankind cope with a century of falling temperatures, during which we will enter a mini ice age." --Nethgirb 03:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Geez. Raymond, he said "Mars has global warming, but without a greenhouse." Have you ever heard of an ellipsis? [135] It is to be understood like this "Mars has global warming, but without (anthropogenic) greenhouse." Or, are you saying he is wrong about that? Do Martians have SUVs? This kind of nitpicking is unseemly. Regarding "homosphere," that refers to "general" homogeneity, not absolute homogeneity. BTW, his view on this is also held by a Dr. Chilingar at USC and has (I believe) been cited in a positive manner by Lindzen. RonCram 11:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, for the sake of argument I'll grant that Abdusamatov meant what you think he meant rather than what he actually said. But his final comment - "Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away" - displays absolute ignorance of the basic physics of the Earth's atmosphere (the point is not esoteric, it's covered in freshman meteorology textbooks). Abdusamatov is an astronomer - apparently, a very good astronomer - but it's clear that he knows nothing at all about how the atmosphere works. And what on earth do you mean by "general" homogeneity versus "absolute" homogeneity in the present context? Raymond Arritt 15:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Raymond, general homogeneity means there is no gross change in the composition of the atmosphere. Your comment makes it sound as if even minor changes in the composition are not possible. If that is your view, that is patently false as there are minor changes all the time as part of the carbon cycle and the water cycle. A good deal of mankind's contribution to atmospheric CO2 is no longer in the atmosphere. Most people think it has gone into the oceans. Your claim Abdusamatov knows nothing about the atmosphere does not ring true. The viewpoint Abdusamatov and Chilingar have presented has (I believe) been supported by Lindzen, who obviously does know something about the atmosphere. I do not have the Lindzen citation at hand but I believe it can be found.RonCram 17:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Abdusamatov didn't say there were minor changes in the composition of the atmosphere, which is obviously true. He said "heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away", which is patent nonsense. I'd be interested to see that Lindzen citation -- Lindzen does know about the physics of the atmosphere, so it's extremely unlikely he'd say such a thing. Raymond Arritt 17:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, I do not understand your point. I have to run to an appointment. I have not yet found the link I read on Lindzen but I did find this from a pro-AGW blog. [136] I will try to find exactly what Lindzen said though, because I think it may be instructive. RonCram 17:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. The proposal that the Khilyuk and Chilingar paper could be an elaborate hoax along the lines of the Sokal Affair is intriguing but doubtful. Raymond Arritt 18:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title Discussion

--Re: above "New Title - Better"--

Well, I took a couple of days to see how that would go, and obviously the argument must continue. "Consensus" has a definition. So does "good." So does "honorable." This does not mean that these aren't POV or "relative terms." By this it is meant that the terms are defined in relation to other things. "Consensus" is defined poorly in the Consensus article. The language alone necessitates that "consensus" as defined in the article is a concept devoid of awareness with regards to opposition viewpoints. Therefore, following the definition of "consensus" as per the article, one cannot oppose a consensus if one belongs to the community of scientists in a particular field of science at a particular time. This definition of consensus automatically disqualifies opponents from membership within the community of specialists.

In response to Nethgirb - I cannot accept your assertion that previous discussion eliminates the value of renewed discussion. And well-defined rarely allows for "gray area."

This being said, these scientists are in disagreement with the IPCC statement, or they are in disagreement with the content of the assertions contained therein. This is not a POV way of stating the case, and if Wikipedia is to be a reliable and Non-POV source of information, we must do our best to remove fuzzy-language when possible. I will wait one more week before transferring this article to what I consider a non-POV title in order to allow for discussion. BUT PLEASE REMEMBER, WE ARE DISCUSSING WHETHER THE WORDING FOR THE CURRENT TITLE IS POV, NOT WHETHER THE MAJORITY OF SCIENTISTS DO OR DON'T AGREE WITH CURRENT GLOBAL WARMING THEORY. THIS BEING SUCH, PLEASE REFRAIN FROM FLAMES, PERSONAL ATTACKS, AND DISCUSSIONS REGARDING MICHAEL CRICHTON. (I liked "Sphere.") Please weigh in and provide what you think qualifies as a thoroughly non-POV title. For instance, my recommendation is "List of Scientists in Opposition to the IPCC Statement on Global Warming." This is true, non-POV, and in no way lends the IPCC or their opponents any additional support or validity. The article on the IPCC should take care of defining who this group is and why its statement should be taken seriously. Please reply. DRJ 08:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Forget it. You're dealing with what is considered one of the better admins on Wikipedia and is a member of the Harmonious Edits club and many of the people that were first in line to vote for him as an admin. I have never seen them to be wrong. Just accept the fact that no matter what changes you make they will undo them when they feel you have left the page. If that takes too long then they will overwhelm you with reverts, text deletes and quote give links to pages of semi-applicable policies (read guidelines to their benefit, policies for their exception) and guidelines. NPOV is only what they say it is. Everything you write is a POV violation. At least, that is the pattern in looking at their contributions as far back as possible. Just take what you know about this topic and, well, it will not last here. Accept that. -- Tony of Race to the Right 09:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The title must be changed. When it comes to AGW, the idea of a scientific consensus may make its way to newspapers, but it should not be accepted so easily by an encyclopedia. At best, an encyclopedia should note that many supporters consider that there is a scientific consensus. But the only thing that we know that is true is that there is a majority opinion. GW consensus is vaguely defined and thus is an unproven concept, and first and foremost, is used by partisans in a disputed debate and litigious issue. This alone should call for great care when editing an encyclopedia. --Childhood's End 16:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The question of consensus depends on the definition chosen. [137] If we choose the first definition, then clearly there is a consensus as the majority of climate scientists believe in AGW. If we take the second definition, there is no consensus as there is no concord or harmony. If you read the usage note, you will find another interesting point: The expression is redundant, however, only if consensus is taken in the sense "majority of opinion” rather than in its equally valid and earlier sense “general agreement or concord.” I wish to point out that both definitions are considered equally valid. In fact, definition #2 is older and the one people my age (I'm 48) to have in mind when they read the word "consensus." But I also understand that usage changes and so definitions change over time. Perhaps the article should even discuss the definition of "consensus" so this important issue can be clarified. RonCram 17:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a more ambiguous term like "mainstream view" is better, if partisans outside Wikipedia are wrangling over whether there is a simple "majority" of climate scientists supporting AGW theory (more than 50%); or whether it's 75% agree, 25% doubt; or whether it's virtually all (98% to 99.9%).
And sorry for skipping the discussion. I should have joined the discussion and perhaps even called for a vote instead of just moving the page. --Uncle Ed 19:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I don't greatly care whether or not the word "consensus" appears in the title. I would dislike having "IPCC" in the title, because the consensus over global warming is much larger than just the IPCC. Having "global warming theory" is also problematic since it harkens from the "just a theory" POV and does nothing for brevity. Calling it "List of scientists who dispute global warming" would be roughly accurate and at least give us a pretense of brevity. Adding "anthropogenic" is more technically accurate, but obviously longer. Dragons flight 19:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
You raise a good point over "theory". If readers will take theory to mean "just a theory", then the title implies the truth of the anti-AGW position. Contributors on both sides of AGW will agree that we should not do anything to make Wikipedia seem to oppose AGW.
On the other hand, the term "global warming" includes both the theory that GW is mostly manmade, and the facts about trends in global air temperature. To say that some scientists "dispute global warming" makes it seem like most of them doubt the current trend.
I'd prefer for the "opposing" article to clarify just what it is that this minority opposes. Currently, it lists only one "warming skeptic" and around 15 "AGW" skeptics. --Uncle Ed 20:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I actually agree with Ed (whoa!  :-) ) that the title "List of scientists who dispute global warming" would imply that the people listed here do not think the globe is warming. Returning to the tired old subject of whether "consensus" is fair, Ron pointed out above that there are 2 definitions of consensus, and stated that on the GW issue one is satisfied ("majority of opinion") but not the other ("general agreement or concord; harmony"). I would say that GW satisfies both definitions since "general agreement" does not have to mean "unanimous agreement". It is clear that within the scientific community, there is general agreement and harmony. Thus, the current title seems the best proposal I've seen. --Nethgirb 07:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


I won't accept that a title must necessarily be brief; this is not a valid reason for withdrawing "anthropogenic." Valid reasons for title changes would include POV wording, inaccurate wording, misspelling of terms, etc. Nor should a title be ambiguous, so "mainstream" is out. Would you like a "List of churches opposing mainstream Christian doctrine"? I didn't think so. Also, I perhaps was under a misguided impression that the definition of consensus was that found in the "Scientific Consensus" article. Anyhow, I can understand a problem with "IPCC" in the title, but I thought perhaps that "IPCC Statement" was a good reference point. The article on the IPCC statement could go into detail on how the IPCC as a group represents a large majority of scientists working in fields relevant to global warming, and this would handle most of the concerns regarding this title. It would remove what a large number of people seem to think is biased (I even find the current title ridiculous, even though there is very little I can dispute in the IPCC statement), and it would not undercut the validity of the views which the IPCC statement presents. "Theory" doesn't belong in the title. Again, this is not a "tired old subject" simply because some people have reached a conclusion any more than Platonic idealism is a "tired old subject." The notion that such a subject need no further discussion is silly. I still hold that "List of scientists in disagreement with the IPCC statement on global warming" is an excellent title. I might consider "List of scientists proposing non-anthropogenic sources for global warming" as an also-valid title. Consensus must go. It is a bad word for this article in the same way that it would not fit in the titles that follow: "List of churches opposing consensus on Christ's divinity" or "List of artists opposing consensus on Michaelangelo's supremacy among Italian painters" or "List of philosophers opposing theistic consensus"---In each case, there is a large, historical majority holding to the view that Jesus Christ existed materially, or that Michaelangelo was the best renaissance painter in Italy, or that there is a God. Can we call it consensus? Or don't we call these groups "Gnostics," "Fans of Raphael (or DaVinci)" or "Atheists". Please, someone, make a valid argument if you disagree with me, or posit a valid title for this page. Thank you. DRJ 23:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi DRJ, let me start by saying I did not mean to stifle new discussion; I just get kind of tired of people objecting to the title on the grounds that there does not exist a consensus without providing any evidence. I would like to understand your reasoning better.
"Valid reasons for title changes would include POV wording, inaccurate wording, misspelling of terms, etc." So do I understand correctly that you are saying the current title has POV wording in your view?
"It would remove what a large number of people seem to think is biased" It is certainly indisputable that a large number of editors here think the current title is biased. But this should not be a popularity contest among editors; it should be based on verifiable sources, as is the standard for all of Wikipedia.
"I still hold that "List of scientists in disagreement with the IPCC statement on global warming" is an excellent title." The only reason I don't really like this proposal is that the main point of the article is to say who disagrees with the consensus; the IPCC report is merely a means to the end, a convenient way to present and justify what the consensus is, and it is backed up by reports from many other organizations. What do you think?
"Consensus must go. It is a bad word for this article in the same way that it would not fit in the titles that follow:..." I pretty much agree that using "consensus" in those examples is odd. But all your examples seem fundamentally different in that they are on subjective topics like faith or artistic quality, which I think does not apply here, where we are dealing with science, and have verifiable evidence about whether there is a consensus. It would help my understanding of your argument if you could phrase it directly rather than as an analogy. --Nethgirb 02:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey, there, Nethgirb. I appreciate your thoughtful response. Thank you very much.  :) I can understand your frustration with arguments that seem to miss the point. In response to your questions -- I'll have to respond to your last question first: I don't know if this is the place to evaluate the inductive scientific process (Hume has done that for me), but you are absolutely correct in drawing a division between aesthetics, physics, and metaphysics. My mistake.
I do think "consensus" is usually POV, and at least in this case it's being misused. As I said, there is little I could take issue with in the IPCC statement, so it's not an issue of whether I believe that the globe is warming. The definition, however, reads: "Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of science at a particular time." (Scientific consensus). This definition does not allow for disagreement on "the collective judgment, position, and opinion." It doesn't quantify how many within the field do or don't agree with what is identified as "consensus." In fact, according to this definition, a person who does not hold to a view identified as "consensus" could be summarily dismissed from the "community of scientists in a particular field of science at a particular time." Perhaps this is why many feel the term to be poorly applied here.
I think if the IPCC report accurately represents what you would define as the current global warming "consensus," then it's no problem to use this concrete object (the IPCC statement) as the target of opposition. You've begged the question in the following: "the main point of the article is to say who disagrees with the consensus." You can't argue that the article is meant to identify opponents of consensus, so therefore consensus is the appropriate term. I don't mean to sound unnecessarily harsh. I do appreciate the this is a difficult article to entitle, but I think we'll be able to find something that works.
Oh, on a final note, I had recommended a possible title of "Scientists who propose non-anthropogenic causes of global warming." Any thoughts on this as a title? Thanks very much for everybody's patience. DRJ 05:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I consider the alternative you propose neither better nor worse than the present title. At the very least it would need some redirects, in the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME. Not that the current title is much better in that regard. Raymond Arritt 05:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
DRJ, I think your suggestion is the best we have heard so far. It has my vote.RonCram 05:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, not good. The IPCC position is nuanced and does include non-anthropogenic causes of global warming. It just claims that the larger (and increasing) part of the warming is due to anthropogenic causes, not all of it.--Stephan Schulz 08:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AEB2

Hi DRJ! Hmm, this is tricky, isn't it? About your proposal: I am concerned that is too restrictive. It would exclude scientists who (1) believe the Earth isn't warming, and (2) think GW is a good thing. Depending on how you read it, it might also exclude scientists who believe we don't have enough information to decide whether GW is anthropogenic or not. In this regard using the phrase "consensus on GW" or "GW theory" is convenient as a catch-all, though the latter has the problem that "theory" in common usage may give the wrong impression. Another option might be something like "List of global warming skeptical scientists". That sounds really awkward though. But I think it "catches all" since "global warming skeptic" seems to be a term people use. Maybe there is some variant of this that works? The point of the article: "You can't argue that the article is meant to identify opponents of consensus, so therefore consensus is the appropriate term." Maybe I should have said: the article is valuable because it lists scientists in opposition to the consensus, so therefore consensus is the appropriate term. If we titled the article using "IPCC position" instead of "consensus", the question a newbie reader will have is, what is so important about the IPCC position? And the answer is because it is the most prominent exposition of the scientific consensus. So why not just call it that? Now of course all that assumes that there is a consensus, so... The definition of consensus is maybe something we should come to a consensus on (ahem!) before any of the other discussion. I think all of the terms that have been coming up (collective judgement, general agreement, consensus, etc.) allow some amount of dissent. If one out of 3 people disagrees, that's probably not a consensus. If 10 out of 1000 disagree, I would call that a consensus. I agree the exact threshold is not defined, as you observed. But, we do not need so precise a definition. Regardless of whether we need 66% or 95% agreement, the evidence we have about scientists' opinions clearly demonstrates that we are beyond the grey area. In addition, I think the IPCC process itself, with many hundreds of scientists from around the world collectively producing documentation of the state of the field, pretty much exemplifies a consensus. I tried to find some authoritative sources to see how the word "consensus" is used in practice. Here is one relevant quote from the NIH: "A consensus statement ... reflects the views of a panel of thoughtful people who understand the issue before them and who carefully examine and discuss the scientific data available on the issue. ... The statement may reflect uncertainties, options, or minority viewpoints." [138] To summarize, we might break the issue down into two questions: (1) what amount of agreement do you need to have "consensus"? (2) Is there that amount of agreement on GW? I'd be interested to see how everyone here weighs in on those questions. --Nethgirb 08:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, dictionary definitions of consensus differ.[139] Two such definitions are "majority of opinion" and "the feeling of most people", which seem to imply that anything more than 50% agreeing constitutes a consensus. But another two definitions are "an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole" and "agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole", which could be interpreted as requiring an agreement by 100% of the group. At any rate, by any definition the percentage of people agreeing to count as a "consensus" is somewhere between 50% and 100%. How about if we split the difference between the two extremes, and say that it's reasonable enough to use the word "consensus" if at least 75% agree? Surely we can at least agree that at least 75% of climate scientists agree with the IPCC position? MrRedact 11:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I think Nethgirb appropriately summarized the issue at the end of his last contribution. --Childhood's End 14:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Can you provide those dictionnaries which define consensus as "majority of opinion" or "the feeling of most people"? I wonder how they define "majority" then... Or are these two words synonymous?
The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionnary defines consensus as "an opinion that all members of a group agree with". The American Heritage Dictionnary defines consensus as "an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole". The English dictionnary WordReference.com defines consensus as "agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole".
In the event that indeed some dictionnaries propose that consensus and majority are somewhat synonymous, I would oppose a split to 75%. Our goal should be to accept the best definition, not to find a compromise between the best and the worst. Or so I think...
- When words lose their meaning, people will lose their liberty (Confucius)
--Childhood's End 14:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Two points: (1) By these measures there would be no "consensus" about plate tectonics, evolution, HIV causing AIDS, or a whole host of broadly accepted scientific concepts. (2) There may be a difference between British and American usage. Raymond Arritt 15:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
All four definitions I mentioned are listed in the Dictionary.com reference I gave ([140]). MrRedact 18:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that Raymond Arritt just exposed why it can be so controversial and even dangerous to speak with words such as consensus in issues such as GW. And it seems obvious that we're much closer to a consensus with regard to evolution than to GW. Want it or not, what Michael Crichton said was relevant to this discussion. --Childhood's End 18:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

A few thoughts. Regarding Nethgirb's claim that Scientists who propose non-anthropogenic causes of global warming is too restrictive, I must disagree. Those who do not believe the globe is warming fit quite well. If they do not think the globe is warming, then they cannot blame anthropogenic causes for it. Those who think warming is a good thing (I think Idso is the only one listed) also believe the warming is non-anthropogenic. These criticisms fail. Regarding Stephan's concern that non-anthropogenic causes of GW do exist, I suggest we change the title to: Scientists who propose non-anthropogenic drivers of global warming. This clarifies that these scientists do not believe anthropogenic causes were the largest drivers of GW. Regarding the term consensus, the main issue is harmony or concord. Harmony does not just refer to the number of those in the minority but also to the degree and the passion with which they speak against it. When consensus exists, the minority are willing to "go along to get along." That does not describe the current debate in which not just the science is being criticized but also the scientists who fudge data, fail to archive data and employ sloppy methods in order to get a preconceived result. This is not a harmonious situation and we can all expect to see lawsuits filed over these practices. The word "consensus" definitely needs to go.RonCram 18:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason that discussion here is so long and so hard to manage is that people fail to think before posting. How can we call the page Scientists who propose non-anthropogenic drivers of global warming when many of them merely propose that we don't know what is causing GW, without neceessarily proposing any mechanism? William M. Connolley 19:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, some people fail to think before posting. There are still things that remain unexplained by science, even though some people have a hard time believing it, and it is ridiculous to require someone to "propose a mechanism" before he can say that the current science does not adequately explains something yet. Someone may have very solid reasons not to believe in the Big Bang and to believe that the origins of the Universe lie somewhere else, yet not be able to determine or propose where they may exactly lie and feel that the explanation has yet to be found.
This being said, what about Scientists who oppose mainstream global warming science ? --Childhood's End 20:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
That may be the least-bad of various unsatisfying possibilities. It has the appeal that many of them oppose the science per se, and not simply the conclusions drawn therefrom. Raymond Arritt 20:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
William Connolley has a valid point there. If the scientists listed are positing causes for global warming that differ, then we can entitle this article in the positive, but if they are only developing criticisms of current scientific work, then the title must carry forward this notion of opposition. However, the two sections of the article that are relevant list scientists that propose natural causes, or scientists that can't identify a cause. So, if we couldn't classify this latter group as proposing non-anthropogenic drivers, we certainly could classify all of them as currently denying anthropogenic drivers. Maybe this would correct the problem. A title that took this into account would read List of scientists currently denying anthropogenic drivers for global warming.
All of the definitions listed by childhoodsend (?) as well as the current definition in Wikipedia's own Scientific consensus article disallow for an opposition viewpoint. Nethgirb provided the only definition thus far that allows for such opposition read "A consensus statement ... reflects the views of a panel of thoughtful people who understand the issue before them and who carefully examine and discuss the scientific data available on the issue. ... The statement may reflect uncertainties, options, or minority viewpoints." (NIH, [141] ) This definition seems to be way too broad, and would allow for a consensus on pretty much everything. In fact, this would allow for a consensus view against global warming if one were to put together a panel of thoughtful, careful people who don't find evidence for global warming. Is this what we want? To have a list of scientists who hold to the global warming consensus view and a second list of scientists who hold to the non-global warming consensus view? I don't think so. "Opposition to consensus" seems to fail on a number of counts to accurately identify the situation here entailed.
Raymond Arritt seems concerned that we will no longer have "consensus" regarding plate tectonics, the HIV-AIDS relationship, or evolution. I don't see a problem with identifying the current majority view on these scientific issues as "the current majority view." Concision in language is nice, especially in operator's manuals, but Hemingway may have led us to idolize it in ways we should not.
Stephen Schulz - The nuances within the IPCC statement do not remove it from it's position as a representative of the current majority viewpoint. Even if it allows for non-anthropogenic causes, it still maintains, as you wrote, that the larger (and increasing) part of the warming is due to anthropogenic causes and it seems that most of these scientists are in disagreement with what the IPCC statement maintains.
Thanks to all for the thoughtful comments so far, I think we're going to be able to hammer this out. I keep seeing references to Mr. Crichton here; can someone link me to what he wrote on the issue? Feel free to link it on my User discussion page. Thanks. DRJ 20:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I think Childhood's End's suggestion has merrit. I would slightly rephrase it: Scientists who oppose the mainstream scientific opinion on global warming. Slightly longer, but I as far as I'm concerned, "global warming science" is a process, while most of the sceptics seem to disagree with the results. I also think that "Che" would be a very cool nickname, and "Che's suggestion" rolls a lot easier of the keyboard than "Childhood's End's suggestion", but that's just me ;-)--Stephan Schulz 21:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem with List of scientists currently denying anthropogenic drivers for global warming, besides it being long, is that a big chuck of these scientists are merely saying that science doesn't know yet what's causing the warming. They aren't denying the possibility that anthropogenic drivers exist, or even denying the possibility that anthropogenic drivers are the primary cause of the warming. They're just saying we don't know yet.
I think Scientists who oppose the mainstream scientific opinion on global warming is the best possibility thought up so far, with Scientists who oppose mainstream global warming science coming in second. The second one is more succinct, but the first one is more accurate. Since this is such a contentious issue, accuracy trumps succinctness in this case. MrRedact 21:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems like all these proposals have problems. But it appears the only problem with the current title is that some editors think there is not a consensus (agreed?). That, in turn, seems to come down to an argument between people that think consensus means unanimity (DRJ, probably others?) and those that think it allows for some amount of disagreement (MrRedact, Nethgirb, Raymond arritt, others?). Here is my argument, based on the definitions cited above [142]:

  1. 2 of the 6 definitions explicitly allow for dispute by using the word "majority" or "most".
  2. The other 4 of 6 definitions are roughly either "agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole" or "general agreement". I don't think this is synonymous with "unanimity" and I'm not sure why others think so. Is it a contradiction to say "Generally, people agree X is true, but a few think Y"?
  3. We can also look at more general usage, represented by definitions Google finds on the web. [143] By my count, of the 22 definitions: 6 explicitly allow for dissent; 10 use some variant of "general agreement" which I think allows for some dissent; 4 use phrasing which implies unanimity; 2 are irrelevant or don't actually give definitions.
  4. If there is any ambiguity about which definition we are using, the title itself clears it up: we could not possibly be using "consensus" in the sense of 100% agreement, or else the list would be empty.
  5. To put this in context please note that some skeptics even admit there is a consensus, e.g. taking a quote from Benny Peiser on the GWC page: "an overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous" [144]. So apparently Peiser agrees that a consensus does not have to be unanimous.

--Nethgirb 22:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Nethgirb - Those are excellent points. I can't speak for other members, but it's not that I think an unusually large majority of scientists would argue for global warming, but that I don't think "consensus" is the right term. I appreciate that a number of definitions are available, but for internal consistency, we need to either redefine consensus on the Scientific consensus page, or operate according to this definition.
I think, though, with Benny Peiser's quote in mind, another excellent title for the page might be List of scientists opposing the majority consensus on global warming. This seems to allow for the usage of the term "consensus" in such a way that people (like myself) won't read the title and think "Huh?" As you pointed out, if "consensus" means everyone, then this list would be self-contradictory. This self-contradiction is why I re-raised the point in the first place. I won't spend too much time on the problems with the word "mainstream," as you can read my prior comments on the matter.
Mr. Redact - Any thoughts on this reworking of my suggestion? List of scientists not currently affirming anthropogenic drivers for global warming? I understand it's a bit long, but maybe it's more accurate. Thanks all. DRJ 00:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's much more accurate. I have no problem with the accuracy of your reworked suggestion. However, as you point out, it's a bit long, and it's also not immediately understandable to a newcomer who doesn't know what an "anthropogenic driver" is. I think your revised suggestion would be good option with a more narrowly technical readership, athough I would change "anthropogenic driver" with the much more widely used "anthropogenic forcing". MrRedact 02:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The interpretation of consensus that requires unanimous agreement seems to make the term useless for large groups -- there will never be unanimous agreement from thousands or tens of thousands of scientists around the world. But, I guess we will have to agree to disagree on whether consensus requires unanimous agreement. Maybe we can come up with a couple good title options and then put it to a vote of the editors here. --Nethgirb 01:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Of the suggestions that have been proposed, I think Scientists who oppose the mainstream scientific opinion on global warming is the best. It's a bit long, but I think it perfectly accurately describes the topic of this article, it doesn't throw any new words at a newcomer, and it won't seem contentious to readers who might take "consensus" to mean "unanimous agreement". MrRedact 02:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
That would be OK. I'm not entirely thrilled with the word "opinion", but some hills are worth dying on and some are not. Raymond Arritt 02:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I can see your point. "Opinions" are often casual viewpoints that aren't necessarily the result of a careful, thoughtful examination of all available data. How about if Stephan's suggestion is tweaked to use "assessment" instead of "opinion"? I.e., Scientists who oppose the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming? MrRedact 03:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
That's good. It echoes the "assessments" that have been formally done; e.g., TAR, AR4, U.S. National Assessment, and so on. Raymond Arritt 03:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I like the term "assessments" as well. "Opinion" reminds me of those never-enjoyable arguments over the use of "theory." I can even accept "mainstream," though I'd prefer "majority." The term "majority" is accurate and understandable. "Mainstream," due to it's social-contextual semantic range, shuts out opposing viewpoints as "kooky" or "odd," or in some cases, "belligerent and rebellious." Just remember how the phrase "mainstream media" has become one of contempt. Are we trying to classify the scientists on this page as the "Mike Savages" or "Al Frankens" of global warming study? Maybe, Scientists in disagreement with the majority assessments on global warming? DRJ 07:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You could shorten it slightly to List of scientists opposing the majority scientific assessment of global warming. The only bit I don't like is that, while "majority" is entirely accurate, it is too weak. It's really more like a 95% assessment, not just a majority. I wish we had a word that was stronger than "majority" that we could all agree is not as strong as "unanimous". Dominant? Prevalent? Prevailing? Preponderant? Predominant? --Nethgirb 09:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

"Large majority" conveys nearly a strong enough majority, but it's wordy, and really only works well as a noun phrase instead of an adjectival phrase, anyway. "Overwhelming majority" is even stronger, in fact perhaps strong enough to be considered contentious, but it's even wordier and is still a non-ideal part of speech. Scientists who disagree with the assessment of the overwhelming majority of scientists on global warming? Ick! DRJ, I acknowledge that "mainstream" has antonymous connotations that are undesirable, but I can't think of an alternative way of expressing an appropriate-sized majority in a way that isn't very awkward to use in a title. I think "mainstream" is the least bad of the available alternatives.

Between "in disagreement with", "who oppose", and "opposing", I think the meanings are close enough that we might as well pick the shortest one, "opposing".

Between "assessments on", "assessment on", and "assessment of", I prefer "assessment of".

Between including "List of" or not, it doesn't look like the "List of" prefix is required as a matter of list style, and the "List of" isn't needed for disambiguation as between Dog Breeds and List of Dog Breeds, so I think we can do without it.

So the title I'd most prefer at this point is Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Basically the same as my most recent proposal, except for just "opposing" instead of the more verbose "who oppose". MrRedact 10:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AEB3

OK, it's been a day, and noone's said anything, so I guess everyone's OK with changing the title to Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. I'll go ahead and do that. MrRedact 02:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure everyone is OK with that. Perhaps we should explicitly put the two options to a vote:
  1. Keep previous title: List of scientists opposing global warming consensus
  2. Move to new title: Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
I'll start, by voting for Keep, on the grounds that consensus allows some disagreement. We might confuse a few people who think "consensus" = "unanimity", but with "mainstream" we'll confuse some people who think "mainstream" implies only 51% agreement or maybe only a 40% plurality; on the whole the true amount of agreement is much closer to "consensus" than "mainstream". --Nethgirb 04:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Neutral. Either would be OK by me. Some are indisposed to "consensus", so in the interest of harmony I might lean slightly toward the new version. Raymond Arritt 05:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Neutral. The previous title seemed fine to me, but the new title is OK too. I like that the previous title was more concise, but I like that the new title may help promote harmony. MrRedact 05:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep Personally i find mainstream more loaded than consensus. And i don't really think that there has been adequate discussion about this move. --Kim D. Petersen 06:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Mostly Move/Sort of Neutral - Sorry for the delayed reply...It's been a long day for me. I agree with Kim D. Petersen with regards to "mainstream." I'd vote to move to the new title, and I agree we need a word that fully conveys the significant size of the majority. Nethgirb has given us a good list of what I think are acceptable synonyms. I personally think prevailing is the best of the bunch. Prevailing implies a significant majority, and the gerund form signifies an ongoing or continuing prevalence. I'd vote Move to Scientists opposing the prevailing scientific assessment of global warming. How does this work? DRJ 07:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
keep previous - new title too long William M. Connolley 14:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The new title is much better, but would anyone mind a switch from "mainstream" to "prevailing" or "prevalent"? I wanted to check with the community prior to making a change. Thanks! DRJ 03:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Having gotten this far, how about if we leave it as is. "Mainstream" is accurate, and "opposing...prevailing" falls oddly on the ear. Raymond Arritt 03:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't particularly care for either "prevailing" or "prevalent", as both sound too temporal to me. Given that the main difference as I see it between the TAR and the AR4 is an increasing certainty that AGHG are the primary cause of GW, I don't foresee that assessment as being something that is likely to ever change. E.g. a definition of both "prevalent" and "prevailing" is "encountered generally, especially at the present time".[145][146] MrRedact 04:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Good points, both. The two gerunds kind of grate on the ear. I suppose I can be fine with the new title, but a question for Mr. Redact - I agree that it's unlikely that we will see future changes to the scientific assessments, but isn't it certainly POV to disallow for future re-assessments? (I think Kuhn would also find that such an assumption disregarded most of scientific history.) I simply don't want to be guilty of assuming that current science won't override old science, and that future science couldn't override current science. DRJ 23:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Following that principle, we'd have to add a temporal qualifier to the title of practically every article in Wikipedia. It goes without saying that things can and will change in the future. When new information becomes available we'll simply update the article. Raymond Arritt 23:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
To put it another way, it is certainly POV to disallow for future re-assessments, e.g., if the page were titled Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, which, by the way, is never going to change, so you had better get used to it. However the current title simply takes no stand on whether the consensus will change, so it's fine in that respect.
Also, Mr.Redact is correct in pointing out that "prevailing" and "prevalent" both connote something which is current as opposed to permanent. So using those words might be taken to imply that the scientific consensus is likely to change. And although I originally suggested those words, they don't seem to imply any greater amount of acceptance than "mainstream", so from my perspective they don't improve on "mainstream" (or "consensus"). --Nethgirb 23:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
(Interestingly, though, the global warming article does use the word "prevailing" in the intro.) --Nethgirb 23:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, an extreme in either direction would be non-NPOV, e.g., it would be very non-NPOV to say either "Scientists opposing this week's temporary scientific assessment..." or "Scientists opposing the permanent scientific assessment...". What's best is a term that's fairly neutral about whether or not the assessment is likely to change. I think either "mainstream" or "consensus" are more neutral in that regard than "prevailing" or "prevalent". And I also don't think that "prevailing" or "prevalent" imply any larger of a majority than "mainstream or "consensus". MrRedact 00:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Those are fair points. I will hereby cease and desist. :) In all seriousness, however, this was a helpful conversation, and I am pleased with the results. Thank you to everyone for your thoughts and your patience (which I'm sure has been tried.)  :) DRJ 07:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too bold, too soon

Stephan Schulz took me to task, quite rightly, for moving the page to List of scientists who dispute the anthropogenic global warming theory without discussion. Should I move it back, pending outcome of the current discussion, which *blush* I didn't even notice was going on? --Uncle Ed 19:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I tried to move it back, but it wouldn't go. So I wound up sticking a the in the title. Sorry. --Uncle Ed 20:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
With my sooper-powers I have fixed this William M. Connolley 20:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TAR vs. AR4

User:Childhoodsend reverted my revert of his edit with the comment "4th report unreleased so far, so only the summary speaks for now. And please read climate sensitivy scenarios for TAR (max 5.8) and AR4 (avg max 4))". The first point is at least arguable. However, I find his version cumbersome and useless. The SPM is a summary, not an independent document. Hence these key conclusions are conclusions of the whole report, not just the SPM. As for the second point: You seem to be mixing up climate sensitivity and actual prediction. The TAR has a climate sensitivity between 1.5 to 4.5 °C. It predicts temperature increases between 1.4 to 5.8 degrees, based on the uncertainty in climate sensitivity and different emission scenarios. The AR4 estimates climate sensitivity in the range from 2.0 to 4.5 °C, with a best estimate of about 3 °C. The low estimate for climate sensitivity has risen, but the old range includes the new one. Based on the uncertainty in climate sensitivity and again different emission scenarios, the AR4 predicts temperature rises between 1.1 and 6.4 °C. You seem to be comparing the worst case for the high-emission scenario of the TAR with the average case for the AR4 high-emission scenario, which is nonsense. --Stephan Schulz 17:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand And please read climate sensitivy scenarios for TAR (max 5.8) and AR4 (avg max 4)) either. I'll presume its just a misunderstanding on Che's part unless subsequently justified William M. Connolley 23:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
A misunderstanding? What a choice of words... At worst I made a mistake. Anyway, here is the justification, and any explanation that would show me where I am wrong is welcome. Based on their different respective scenarios:
  • "The TAR estimate for the climate sensitivity is 1.5 to 4.5 °C; and the average surface temperature is projected to increase by 1.4 to 5.8 Celsius degrees over the period 1990 to 2100"
  • (AR4) Surface air warming in the 21st century:
Best estimate for a "low scenario"[5] is 1.8 °C with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 °C
Best estimate for a "high scenario"[6] is 4.0 °C with a likely range of 2.4 to 6.4 °C
So I would still maintain that AR4 lowers the warming annoucements made by TAR. --Childhood's End 02:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
You're comparing apples and oranges. The temperature increase of 1.4 to 5.8 in the TAR is counting from the low end of the lowest scenario to the high end of the highest scenario. The corresponding range in the AR4 is 1.1 (low end of lowest scenario) to 6.4 (high end of the highest scenario). The average of the low end of the lowest scenario and the high end of the highest scenario has risen slightly, from 3.6 in the TAR to 3.75 in the AR4.
You had been incorrectly comparing the range from the low end of the lowest scenario to the high end of the highest scenario in the TAR, with the best estimate of the lowest scenario to the best estimate of the highest scenario in the AR4. You can see at a glance that the 1.4 to 5.8 range in the TAR isn't coming from the best estimates of the various scenarios by looking at figure 5.d in the TAR.[147] The lines within the graph show the best estimates of the various scenarios, and the error bars to the right of the graph show the low end to the high end as of 2100 for each of the scenarios.
It would also be valid to compare the range from the best estimate of the lowest scenario to the best estimate of the highest scenario in both the TAR and the AR4. In this case, the range is about 2.0 to 4.5 in the TAR (as read from figure 5.d), and 1.8 to 4.0 in the AR4. The average of the best estimate of the lowest scenario and the best estimate of the highest scenario has gone down a little, from 3.25 in the TAR, to 2.9 in the AR4. So one could validly argue that the projected temperature increase has either gone up or gone down between the TAR and the AR4, depending on what you count as the projected range. Given this ambiguity, perhaps a good neutral conclusion is that the temperature projections haven't really changed much in either direction between the TAR and the AR4. MrRedact 04:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Further to this, there are more models included in AR4 than in TAR so we expect the limits of the range should be wider, as indeed they are. One could attempt to compare the two populations statistically but this would be difficult, as the members of the population are not independent (the models include descendants from common dynamical cores, some of the models have certain parameterizations in common, and so on). Raymond Arritt 04:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
@MrRedact : Well, it doesnt seem that I was that far from truth, but I accept your "Given this ambiguity, perhaps a good neutral conclusion is that the temperature projections haven't really changed much in either direction between the TAR and the AR4." So, I'll forget about this issue. I will restore only my mods to the intro regarding the non-availability of the full 4th report, which Stephan Shultz also reverted. Thanks for the info and taking the time to try to sort this out by the way. --Childhood's End 14:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Let's try to find a compromise there, too. Your version was "According to the summary, the Fourth Assessment Report shows an increased certainty that the recent warming is mostly due to increased greenhouse gas concentrations", which is rather cumbersome. What do you think about "According to this summary, there is an increased certainty that the recent warming is mostly due to increased greenhouse gas concentrations"? --Stephan Schulz 14:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I tried to improve my wording. But it seems important to me that we do not make it appear that a summary intended to casual readers can make scientific statements. Only the full report can make scientific statements, and the summary's statements can be validated only once they can be compared to what the full report says. --Childhood's End 14:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The coordinating lead authors for the individual chapters were right there in the room while the wording of the summary was being haggled over, so it's extremely unlikely that the summary contains anything materially at variance with the full report. Raymond Arritt 19:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
By the way, your version would indeed be an improvement to the former text. But what I proposed, although perhaps a bit more cumbersome as you said, seems to me more accurate. --Childhood's End 14:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I still like mine better, but not enough to make an issue of it. But I think we are missing one thing: TAR and AR4 are broadly compatible. (Nearly) everyone who has a factual problem (as opposed to a procedural one) with the one will have one with the other. I wanted to add some of this, but it would involve major changes to all of the intro (essentially, state the consensus position in terms of TAR and AR4, and define opposition as opposition against either). What do you (all of you) think about this soluition? --Stephan Schulz 15:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

What I see as being the biggest difference between the TAR and the AR4 is the increase in the expressed certainty that most of the warming is anthropogenic. It's gone from merely "There is new and stronger evidence that..." to "...is very likely due to...". Given that, essentially any statement anyone's made that's inconsistent with the TAR is also going to be inconsistent with the AR4. So nobody on this article's lists would get dropped in going from basing the article on the TAR to basing the article on the AR4, if the dates of the various statements aren't taken into account.

However, the reverse is not neccessarily true. For example, take the statement "there's still a lot of uncertainty as to whether the warming is mostly anthropogenic". That's not neccessarily a contradiction of the TAR, but it's probably a contradiction of the AR4, since the 90% certainty that "very likely" is defined as meaning arguably doesn't leave room for "a lot of uncertainty". So there may well be additional people who would get added to this article's lists, if the article's criteria were switched to being based on the AR4, but the dates of people's statements weren't taken into account.

The fair way to account for the dates of people's statements is to include a person in this article if they have made a statement since 2001 that contradicts the TAR, or made a statement since February 2007 that contradicts the AR4. It's important to make this distinction because people can and do adjust their opinions as time goes by, as evidenced by the people listed in Former global warming skeptics.

The problem I have with basing this article on both disagreements with the TAR and disagreements with the AR4 is that to be well-defined, the article would need to describe both the TAR and the AR4 positions, and describe how different criteria are being used depending on the date of a person's statement. It seems like that would be adding a lot of complexity to the article. It'd be a lot simpler just to base the article purely on the TAR for now, and switch over to basing the article purely on the AR4 at some point in the future. MrRedact 16:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I really look forward to what the full 4th report says with regard to the said 90% certainty and the choice of words in the summary ("is very likely due to..."). To me, 10% uncertainty in science is still quite significant uncertainty. --Childhood's End 17:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
"very likely" denotes 90% or greater certainty. --Stephan Schulz 17:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
In science, there's a world of difference between 90% certainty and 99% certainty. But as I said, I look forward to the full report. I find it already strange that it has not been released along with the summary. --Childhood's End 17:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thankfully, Che has abandonded the nonsense about the AR4 lowering the range. Sadly the pointless distinction between the SPM and full report remains in dispute. Describing it as a summary intended to casual readers reveals ignorance of the document and the process William M. Connolley 19:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

First, the next time you use "Che" when refering to me will see me raise a civility issue. I let it go the first few times, but this is not only immature but also offensive. By the way, Che Guevera would support global warming, as you can guess if you know anything about him. Second, you seem to be the only one to support the idea of a nonsense with regard to this issue, showing how biaised you are. MrRedact himself pointed out that So one could validly argue that the projected temperature increase has either gone up or gone down between the TAR and the AR4, depending on what you count as the projected range. Unless you show his analysis to be totally wrong, you will also stop to use such uncivil words. Third, I am not the one showing ignorance of what a summary is intended for. Look in your own mirror for that. --Childhood's End 19:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
To WMC: I realize that you're using "Che" as an abbreviated form of Child Hoods End. Since you're British, I presume you just didn't know that Che is a slang term for "fellow" or "mate" in Spanish (which is how Che Guevara got his nickname). Although I presume it was just accidental that your choice of abbreviation could be interpreted in an ironic sense as an anti-hispanic disparagement, as a suggestion, it'd be a good idea to use a different abbreviation to avoid any future misinterpretation.
To Childhoodsend: I'm disappointed that you had simply reverted out my rewrite of two of the intro paragraphs. I understand that you have an issue about the summary not being as authoritative as the full report will be, but I tried to be careful to accommodate your concern when I did the rewrite. Specifically, according to my rewrite, the article is waiting for availability of public comments on the full report, not just for comments on the summary as the paragraph had originally said. There's nothing about my rewritten sentences that says or implies that the summary alone is sufficient for any kind of decision making. Indeed, by following the sentence about what the summary expresses with a sentence that effectively says "but we're waiting for responses to the full report", it's kind of buttressing your point about the summary not being the whole story, but in a more succinct way than belaboring the point with a couple dozens words as in your version.
By simply reverting my rewrite instead of just tweaking it if needed, you also removed a couple other improvements I made that have no bearing on your point. MrRedact 21:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't speak Spanish. Childhe can be whatever abbreviation she cares to specifiy. MrR said You had been incorrectly comparing... and went on to point out why. Your actual edit to the page is although the predicted maximum warming is lower which is wrong: the max has gone up from 5.8 to 6.4. But since you've dropped your error (or rather, allowed others to drop it for you) from the summary, this is a bit pointless William M. Connolley 21:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I may have made a mistake with the numbers I used to show my point, but the point was about whether AR4 suggests a lower warming increase than TAR, which point appears to be reasonably arguable. I accepted that it was ambiguous and I simply let go the issue. I'll try to find for you definitions of "nonsense" and of "mistake" if it can help. Thanks for taking the time to reflect about this. --Childhood's End 22:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I once noted very diplomatically to WMC that "Che" referred to Che Guevera. He obviously ignored it, as he does for many other things (usually things usupportive of his POV).
As for your version, I agree that it mostly answered the concern that I raised regarding the summary not being as authoritative as the full report. But your version still says "The summary expresses more certainty than does...". I can live with it, ok, but I still think that it makes the summary say things that it does not have the authority for, be it only because it cannot be audited or assessed. I still suggest that we revert to my wording.
Finally, reverting edits instead of just tweaking is the rule adopted in GW-related articles by WMC, Nethgirb and their pals...
Regards --Childhood's End 22:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I can sort of see your point, in that the summary doesn't provide references to published peer-reviewed primary research that backs up the statements it makes (I presume that will be coming in the full report). However, the statement about the summary doesn't make any claims that what the summary says must be factual because the summary is an authoritative voice of Truth. The statement about the summary is just a factual statement about what it is that the summary says. It's just like it would be perfectly legitimate for a neutral Wikipedia article to contain the sentence "Hitler's book Mein Kampf expresses certainty that the Aryan race is superior to all others." That statement doesn't say that the ideas in Mein Kampf are valid; it's merely making a factual statement about what it is that Mein Kampf says. Similarly, "The summary expresses more certainty than..." is merely a factual statement about what the summary says. It's left up to the reader to consider the source, read the summary if they so choose, and make their own decision about whether the ideas expressed in the summary are valid or not. The statement is just a factual statement about the summary's contents, and isn't promoting any point of view.
If you do make a change, please just tweak the beginning of that sentence to have it refer to the full report, instead of reverting everything. But in my opinion, the sentence is perfectly neutral as is, and is more succinct that what had been there. MrRedact 23:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Well I dont really want to spend more time on this since what you propose can be acceptable. I'll leave it to you or to other users to determine if more accuracy is needed. What I'll say is that this is different from Mein Kampf in the sense that everyone is familiar with the idea that what Mein Kampf says is not authoritative, while this is not necessarily true in this instance. Sometimes, according to circumstances, making factual statements is not perfectly neutral or inevitably leads to ideas that are not perfectly neutral, and I think this is one of those cases.
Also, what I wanted to cover with the rest of my text with as much neutrality as possible was that the fact that the full report has not been issued along with the summary can, if not raise some concerns, at least seem strange or questionnable for some people, thus urging for more caution about the summary's statements. --Childhood's End 00:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I think mentioning the fact that the full report has not yet been released is fine, and if readers think that makes the IPCC suspicious then OK. But I would object to any explicit implication that releasing a summary first is an indication of impropriety since I don't see how we could make that verifiable. --Nethgirb 01:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
It's an exaggeration to say that "everyone is familiar with the idea that what Mein Kampf says is not authoritative". It's all a matter of POV. To the tens of thousands of neo-Nazis in the world, what source could be more authoritative than a book written by Der Fuhrer himself?
It sure seems to me that urging people to interpret a document in a given way (i.e. with caution), instead of just describing the existence of a document and letting people decide for themselves how to interpret its contents, is pushing a POV. The only way it potentially could be made both neutral and not "original research" would be if some notable external source raised a concern about the AR4 SPM being a potentially unreliable source of information for the reasons you described. Then a neutral statement could be added in WP that points out that such criticism of the AR4 SPM exists. However, such a statement would belong in the Criticisms section of the AR4 article, not in this article. This article doesn't even use the AR4 SPM; it's based on the TAR. Any unnecessary verbiage about the AR4 SPM in this article is just off-topic article bloat.
The whole reason I added the paragraph mentioning the AR4 SPM to the article was just as a way to answer any knowledgeable reader who might have a criticism that the article is out-of-date, because it's based on the TAR instead of the AR4. The paragraph is essentially just a way to tell such a reader "yes, we editors know that the AR4 SPM exists, but we've decided that it's premature to base the article on the AR4 yet."
How about this as a compromise: I'll just remove the sentence "The summary expresses more certainty...", since you seem to find the sentence objectionable, and since the sentence is really just an aside instead of being central to the paragraph's point. In exchange for that, you don't make any more attempts to clutter up the paragraph with words about how the SPM shouldn't be used for anything until the full 4AR has been released. How's that sound? MrRedact 15:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I am flaggerbasted that you would persist in your example with Mein Kampf. Of course, Neo Nazis believe what it says is authoritative. But I was not aware that Neo Nazis were notable or credible enough to make it POV to say that Mein Kampf is not authoritative. On the other hand, we all agree that the summary is not as authoritative as the full report.
Here is a somewhat notable (although biaised) source about the concern that I described [148]. It's obviously one-sided and erroneous on some aspects, but the concern they raise seems relevant nonetheless.
What you propose is fine with me. In exchange for that, perhaps you could realize that I was not only attempting to "clutter up the paragraph with words"? How's that sound? --Childhood's End 18:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
As to whether Mein Kampf is an authoritative source, let's put it this way: if I ever met a neo-Nazi in person, and he was claiming that Mein Kampf was an authoritative source, I wouldn't argue with him about it. Those are rather scary people. ;)
Sure, the Heartland Institute article you provided a link to seems like it'd be notable enough to justify a mention of it in the Criticisms section of the AR4 article.
Yes, I understand that you weren't just trying to clutter up the paragraph with words. You had a point that you felt was important to make. You and I just disagreed as to whether the extra words were valuable. I'm glad we could reach a compromise that we're both happy with. MrRedact 20:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad as well. Until our next argument :) Cheers --Childhood's End 23:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro mods

There were some significant changes to the intro a few days ago (see diff; the ones I'm referring to are prior to the paragraph beginning "In February 2007..."). I think the old version is better: (1) I think it's better to state the requirements for inclusion upfront rather than footnoting them. (2) Some of the text is a little inaccurate: "While the first point is accepted by virtually all climate scientists, a small number of scientists actively disagree with the second and third points." -- this might be misconstrued as implying that possibly the 2nd and 3rd points are not accepted by most climate scientists, and that there's no one that disagrees with the 1st point, neither of which is true. (3) I generally prefer the phrasing of the old version.

Does anyone prefer some aspect of the new version, or shall we make the intro more like the old version again? --Nethgirb 07:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I didn't like the "new" version, but in the spirit of a harmonious editing club tweaked it rather than reverting. If you want to revert, I certainly won't object. Raymond Arritt 17:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Since there appears to be no objection, I have modified the intro to have a form more like the old version, with the requirements for inclusion at the top rather than footnoted, while incorporating some of the more recent text as well. --Nethgirb 01:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To the "Editor"

Let it be known that I am scientist with a PhD in Management and an additional PhD in Computer Science, with special interest in technology forecasting using mathematical models. I have published 3 books (under my real name) and over 25 articles. I am constantly invited to review articles submitted to first tier scientific peer-reviewed publications and conferences. While I am not a climatologist, I believe I am qualified to evaluate theories based on mathematical modeling, as well as assess the writing of others.

I have noticed that not only the article’s heading is severely biased, but the opening is unsubstantiated as well. The entire entry appears (to me) to be ideology-driven rather than facts driven. This should have no place in Wikipedia. It appears to me that the rogue ideologist who “edits” this entry has no ethics when it comes to promoting his/her agenda. For example: The Feb 17, 2007 entry edited by [Ed Poor] reads “A small minority of about 16 scientists have expressed doubt regarding the theory that modern global warming is mostly man-made.” On Feb 18, 2007 same “editor” rephrased it to read “A small minority of scientists have expressed doubt”, probably realizing that his cognitive abilities are doubtful (can’t count the correct number of listed scientists). In any case, the usage of the terminology “small” and “minority” is used in a derogatory manner rather than factual. The list is incomplete, so the “editor” cannot substantiate the assertion only a “small” number opposes what only he asserts to be a “main stream” scientific opinion. On 19 February 2007 I have made changes to the opening paragraphs, giving proper background for the IPCC mode of operation (apparently not very pure and scientific) giving proper resources for said account. There is no scientific consensus; there is political drive to make it appear as such. The medieval church had a scientific consensus that the earth is flat. That church has been replaced by contemporary politicians who are no less zealot and vengeful when it comes to their agenda. I added a clause about Variations in the sun's energy output and a clause about Variations in Earth's orbit (Milankovitch cycles). My changes caused “Rracecarr” to race to the scene and undo all the changes. Naturally, I edited them again. My contribution was reverted over a dozen times in less than 36 hours, telling me that someone keeps a close eye on this specific article, uses multiple user-IDs and insists on shoving down our collective throat a single, biased, unsubstantiated, non-factual ideology driven view point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheVerum (talk • contribs) 18:30, 20 February 2007.

Sorry, but I'm a mixture of reincarnated Albert Einstein and Data, and I know you are wrong. In other words, if you want to lean on your reputation, reveal your identity. I do, William does, Raymond does, User:Rracecarr does, User: BozMo does. We are all verifiably distinct real people with real Ph.D.s (well, William's is a D.Phil, and mine is a Dr.rer.nat., if we want to be particular). Better yet, bring real arguments. And you want to take a look at WP:3RR. --Stephan Schulz 17:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The Verum, thank you for participating. I am certain that most of your edits were valid improvements. But just making the article better is no guarantee other editors will accept it. One of the best ways to get your edit accepted is to make your argument for a change prior to making the edit. In that way, you can explain your thinking and people can contemplate the facts before seeing the change. They will be more inclined to make small changes to your entry rather than just revert. Stephan, so your training was in the life sciences? And how did you get interested in climate? RonCram 17:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Answered on your talk page, as it's fairly off-topic here.--Stephan Schulz 19:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Ron, did you actually look at his edit? It was a diatribe buttressed by only one unreliable and highly partisan source (OISM's weirdly-named "civil defense" website). Raymond Arritt 18:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Responding to Schulz: I agree - it appears to me you are a sorry mixture, but not of Einstein nor Data. Both have/had the integrity to present facts and let the reader reach a conclusion, rather than use linguistic acrobatics to belittle those who do not agree with the alleged "consensus". Even if my revision of the opening statement wasn't up to Wikipedia's standards, some questions must be asked of the treatment of the additional contribution I made:
Q: Why did you remove the addition relating to the Milankovitch Cycles?
Q: Why did you remove the addition relating to Variations in the Sun's Energy Output?
In addition, why do you revert to name-calling and derogatory representation of the Civil Defense Perspectives? "unreliable" and "highly partisan". That is, uh, inaccurate, to use an understatement.
That wasn't Stephan, it was me, and I stand by my comment. If you consider OISM, the Marshall Institute, etc. objective and reliable sources on a par with peer-reviewed documents, then there isn't much of a basis for discussion. Raymond Arritt 20:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The reverting was me. I've reverted it because it is completely off-topic to this article (see the title) and mostly the debate as a whole. The GW debate deals with a time frame of decades to centuries. Milankovitch cycles deal with millenial changes at the fastest, and the sun going red giant is an issue of billions of years.--Stephan Schulz 20:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Per the alleged consensus and the (irresponsible) IPCC claims: QUOTE "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations (UN) body charged with assessing the state of knowledge about climate change, in its Third Assessment Report (TAR) published in 2001 claimed that most of the warming of the last 50 years was likely attributable to human emissions of greenhouse gases. This statement has been cited many times as evidence of the need for drastic actions to reduce human emissions of greenhouse gases. The Marshall Institute, in its recent report, Climate Science and Policy: Making the Connection, examined this claim in detail and raised many questions about the certainty with which it was presented. END QUOTE Source: Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D. and Willie Soon, Ph.D: Lessons and Limits of Climate History: Was the 20th Century Climate Unusual? The George C. Marshall Institute - Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine [149]. Kind regards - TheVerum


TheVerum, I'm sorry to hear that a fellow computer scientist feels unwelcome here. But you really have not done a good job of backing up your assertions with evidence. Your single citation of a decade-old article by an advocacy group does not stand up against the scientific statements. By the way, the "16 scientists" bit was only recently added; I agree it was strange and needed to be fixed. --Nethgirb 19:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Nethgirb: I accept your critique. Will suggest an alternate improvement here before moving to editing the article. --unsigned comment by TheVerum
Good, I look forward to discussing with you. Also, FYI since I think you are new here, please try to refrain from personal attacks like "it appears to me you are a sorry mixture" which are not allowed on Wikipedia. --Nethgirb 21:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ideologues Refuse to Learn from Past Hyperbole

In 1989 and 1990 the media handed their microphones, camera crews, and front pages, directly to The Population Bomb [150] author Paul R. Ehrlich, awarding him large chunks of airtime to imagine America losing the nation’s capital and the entire state of Florida.
In May 1989, Ehrlich claimed, global warming was going to melt the polar ice caps, causing a flood in which "we could expect to lose all of Florida, Washington, D.C., and the Los Angeles basin . . . We’ll be in rising waters with no ark in sight." Ehrlich didn’t give a time frame, but his panicked report clearly suggested doom around the corner.
The panic was necessary to sell an extremely harsh "solution" of "enormous, rapid change." Ehrlich commanded that to forestall doom, the world needed to cut its energy use in half over 20 years. Industrialization needed to be dragged to a screeching halt, not only in America, but also especially in the Third World. In Ehrlich's view the next generation of Americans should be denied the Earth-strangling prosperity of their parents, saying the world’s ecosystems "cannot support the spread of the American lifestyle to the Third World or even to the next generation of Americans."
Ehrlich appeared on NBC in January 1990 to sell his "inconvenient truth" line again. This time, he gave a more concrete timeline. Antarctica’s ice sheets were slipping, and then "we’ll be facing a sea-level rise not of one to three feet in a century, but of 10 or 20 feet in a much shorter time. The Supreme Court would be flooded. You could tie your boat to the Washington Monument. Storm surges would make the Capitol unusable."
It’s been almost 20 years, we never cut our energy use in half, and Florida is still above water, not to mention Washington and Los Angeles. We have yet to tie our boats to the Washington Monument. On Feb. 14, 2007 the House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality had to cancel a 10 a.m. hearing on global warming because of a snow and ice storm that hit the nation’s capital. And in St. Louis, a scheduled showing of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” was canceled by Maryville University because of the harsh winter weather hitting the Midwest. Global warmers may or may not appreciate the irony, but they dismiss these events as irrelevant. In their parallel universe, if it’s hot, it’s due to global warming; if it’s cold, it’s due to global warming...

Now Wikipedia's "Editors" (the ideological zealots who guard this page) joined the media in handing over their resources in support of bad science that yields panicky predictions, with no apparent expectation that anyone will ever question their accuracy. Typically, ideological zealots approach global warming with arrogance, insisting that all the facts are in and that anyone who dissents were probably paid off by fossil fuel interests, or are marginal in their field, or are otherwise unqualified to opine. This behavior of this page’s “guardians” is typical of radical ideologists, not of scientists. The inappropriate and demeaning title, followed by a barrage of uncomplimentary adjectives are merely serve as an introduction to the rest of this mean-spirited subjective entry. --TheVerum 17:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Now that you have explained that some of the editors here are arrogant, dismissive, radical ideological zealots who advocate mean-spirited, subjective, inappropriate, demeaning, dissent-stifling content, I am sure they will heed your suggestion to avoid barrages of uncomplimentary adjectives. --Nethgirb 22:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Value of Research

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21269012-661,00.html (...unsigned)

An interesting link, but not so pertinent to this page; it might be relevant to [Global warming controversy] Birdbrainscan 03:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability in intro

Mr. Redact modified the intro to say "While the first point is now accepted by virtually all climate scientists, a small number of notable scientists actively disagree with the second and third points" in line with discussion in the section "Fight this insidious censorship" at Talk:Global warming. I think I can summarize that discussion as follows: some editors felt that saying "a small number of scientists" was derogatory just based on the use of "small number" and that some extra positive qualifier ("notable") should be added to counterbalance it.

I think the sentence is probably accurate. But I'm worried that it gives the mistaken impression that the scientists on this list are all notable. Until now, academic notability has not been a requirement for inclusion. So, should we remove "notable" from the intro? Or should we make "notability" a requirement for inclusion? Or is this conflict actually not a problem? --Nethgirb 21:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops! When I made the change to include the word "notable", I didn't even yet know that there was an official guideline on what "notable" means here when used in an academic context. I'm still fairly new to Wikipedia. "Notable" is indeed an exaggeration for many of the people on this page. And since using the word here would imply notability in the academic sense, I'll remove the word. --MrRedact 22:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Standard deviations

"...has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C"

This is supposed to be a 95% confidence interval and we are not supposed to change it to be 0.4-0.8 °C. I thought that it was standard notation that when you see X ± Y it means that Y represents one standard deviation. Here, it is being used to mean TWO (strictly, 1.96) SDs.

The figure 0.6 ± 0.2 °C is used for consistency with the cited IPCC document. Raymond Arritt 21:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, AR4 gives a range which *is* a 90 (95?)% interval William M. Connolley 10:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orrin Pilkey

Orren Pilkey, coastal geologist and emeritus professor at Duke University, and his daugher Linda Pilkey-Jarvis have written a book titled “Useless Arithmetic: Why Environmental Scientists Can’t Predict the Future." They argue that predictions such as those published by the IPCC are worthless. The New York Times article says "Nature is too complex, they say, and depends on too many processes that are poorly understood or little monitored — whether the process is the feedback effects of cloud cover on global warming or the movement of grains of sand on a beach." And "the authors say it is important to remember that model sensitivity assesses the parameter’s importance in the model, not necessarily in nature. If a model itself is 'a poor representation of reality,' they write, 'determining the sensitivity of an individual parameter in the model is a meaningless pursuit.'" [151] Because of the writing style of the NY Times writer, it is difficult to find a full and useful quote. No doubt the book itself will have several useful quotes. RonCram 17:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You're adding your own gloss again. They don't mention IPCC in that article. They *do* say Two issues, the authors say, illustrate other problems with modeling. One is climate change, in which, they say, experts’ justifiable caution about model uncertainties can encourage them to ignore accumulating evidence from the real world. which suggests not skepticism but the reverse. Theres more here but seems to concentrate on coastal stuff William M. Connolley 17:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
William, you are wearing colored glasses. They do not mention the IPCC but the IPCC makes predictions and they call them "usless." Climatologists are ignoring accumulating evidence when they ignore the fact ice is growing in Antarctica, the oceans have been cooling since 2003 and the warmest year in recent history is still 1998. The accumulating evidence all points to the fact global warming has slowed or stopped, yet climatologists are increasing shrillness and hype. They certainly look like skeptics to me, especially skeptical of the computer models. RonCram 17:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Ron, 1998 was a freak outlier. See Image:Short_Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png and please stop repeating this little bit of misinformation as if it means something. --Stephan Schulz 18:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Stephan, the 1998 stuff is just trolling - ignore it. There is nowhere in the NYT article that the word "useless" is used except in the book title. If they say this about IPCC predictions, you'll need to read the book I suppose. Its clear that they are basing things very heavily on their coastal erosion experience. They *do* however say Worse yet, we found that the modelers in many fields (global climate change being an exception) don't look back at the predictions to see if they were right. And guess who said Environmental science takes some hard licks, especially in the debate about climate change and sea-level rise. A whole cottage industry funded by Big Coal and Big Oil and encouraged by the present administration lies in wait for any and all new pronouncements by climate-change scientists. I don't think OP is going to be much use to you William M. Connolley 19:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Ron has a long history of attempting to find new "skeptics" by using second- or third-hand sources or without in-depth examination. (Remember his "skeptic" Wally Broecker?) It's not reasonable that others are expected to do Ron's homework for him, so any new candidates for skeptic that aren't supported by primary sources ought simply to be left without comment. Raymond Arritt 20:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ron, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but to paraphrase what I think you're saying, you seem to be summarizing the authors as saying "all environmental models are useless". I haven't read the book, but from what I've read about the book, that summary is an overgeneralization of what they're actually saying.

The two problematic words in that summary are "all" and "useless". First, the "all" part: The authors do seem to feel that some environmental models are essentially useless. In particular, they seem to feel that way about current models of coastal geography. They also criticize models that have been developed pertaining to North Atlantic fishing stocks, poisonous pools produced by open pit mining, and populations of invasive plants and animals. However, saying that some environmental models are useless isn't controversial. I'm rather certain that WMC, for example, would agree that some proposed environmental models turn out to be essentially useless, and wind up having to be discarded. The authors do not say that all environmental models are useless. Indeed, they point out ways that models can be improved, such as by paying more attention to nature, by making models more transparent, and by explicitly stating whatever assumptions are being made by the models. The authors wouldn't be making suggestions about how models can be improved, if they believed that all environmental models are ultimately doomed to being useless regardless of what is done.

Note that what you quoted was "If a model itself is a poor representation of reality, determining the sensitivity of an individual parameter in the model is a meaningless pursuit." The "if" leaves open the possibility that a given model might not be a poor representation of reality. If the authors believed that all environmental models were useless, they would instead have said something like "Environmental models are all poor representations of reality, so determining the sensitivity of an individual parameter in the model is a meaningless pursuit." But the authors didn't say that.

What needs to be determined is if this book specifically considers to be useless the group of global climate models that the IPCC is using. How the authors feel about environmental models pertaining to beach erosion or North Atlantic fishing stocks or whatever is not particularly relevant.

If you don't change the word "all", the other way to repair the above summary to make it accurate would be to replace the word "useless". Rather than "useless", what it would be fairer to say that the book says about all environmental models is that they all are subject to errors and uncertainties. The authors seem to be pointing out that the models' errors and uncertainties are too often underemphasized. I.e., the authors emphasize that results of models need to be taken as just being "ballpark figures" (their words), instead of being a precise prediction.

In the context of this article, what's important in this regard is whether the authors specifically claim that the IPCC has inadequately taken into consideration the errors and uncertainties in the models that they use. It appears that the authors don't feel that way about the IPCC at all. In fact, quite the opposite is true. I happened to run into the following snippet from page 79 of the book, by using amazon.com's book previewing features: "...the IPCC approach is a refreshing sort of modeling. The publications of this diverse group are filled with painfully long discussions about errors, uncertainties, and missing data. The objectivity of these global modelers stands in stark contrast to the arrogance of the coastal engineers or the overconfidence of groundwater modelers." MrRedact 22:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

MrRedact, thank you for finding that quote. Perhaps you and William are correct about their view of the IPCC models. The word "if" can be used with the meaning "granting that" or "since." In the context of this writeup, it appeared to me that was the meaning they were using. If you and William are correct, it seems to me to be a strange exception given the high level of certainty these climate modelers hold for their models. One of the modelers who occasionally posts on ClimateAudit.org actually talked about the model runs as "evidence." When corrected, he continued to insist that the model runs were evidence and to say "observations" could be made from the evidence. Is this just poor word choice? Or does it indicate a true misunderstanding of what evidence is and what it is not? Predictions are not evidence. This particular modeler did not seem to be able to distinguish between nature and the model he was working on. RonCram 22:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
MrRedact, I found the quote you mention and kept reading. The authors go on to say: But what is said in print in the middle of a dense 875-page document and what is said out on the street are two different things. Somehow the IPCC folds in the uncertainties (called "uncertainty absorption" by policy scientist Ron Brunner), downplays the complexities, and comes out with real predictions with error bars (pluses and minuses) of the future sea-level. On the next page, they then go on to discuss scientists attempting to predict sea-level rise whose predictions do not fall within one another's range of uncertainties. They do not even agree on the direction of sea-level change, whether it's falling or rising, resulting from water storage on land." Without reading the whole book, it appears to me the authors are trying to be politically correct while pointing out some of the problems with trying to predict nature precisely.RonCram 22:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I just want to quickly point out that the "but what is said in print..." does not immediately follow the quote I found; it's a couple paragraphs later. I don't want it to look like I was intentionally being deceptive by terminating the quote where I did. I read the paragraph I quoted because it popped up when searching for the term "IPCC". I had also glanced at the paragraph immediately following the quote, but that immediately following paragraph basically quotes the TAR as making a valid point, so I didn't think much of it. Like I said, I haven't actually read the book. I'll probably respond in more detail later, I just wanted to make this point quickly now. MrRedact 23:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


Now that I've read at least a bit of the book, I'm better equipped to make some observations:

The authors don't seem to be strong skeptics. They don't, for example, seem to deny that global warming is occurring. And they don't deny that human activities are an important part of the current global climate changes (see, e.g. their table 4.1, which includes human effects on sea level, without the authors scoffing at such a notion).

The way that the authors may well conflict with a point listed at the top of this article is that the authors appear to think that the range of reasonable predictions should be broader than those given by the IPCC. The quote I've found that most strongly supports this statement is:

"What a daunting task faces those who choose to predict the future of the sea-level rise! We have seen that the factors affecting the rate are numerous and not well understood. Even if our understanding improves, the global system simply defies accurate and quantitative prediction because of its complexity."

The authors don't, however, feel that even rough, qualitative predictions are meaningless:

"Accurate prediction of future sea-level change is clearly impossible, but predicting the direction and the general magnitude of changes in the level of the sea is within the realm of our capabilities. General magnitude might mean a prediction of a small rise rate increase defined as one foot per century or a large rate increase of five feet per century or perhaps a turnaround sea-level drop. Qualitative global change models can play a very important mechanism here. The models have encapsulated all the major mechanisms, processes, and uncertainties that we know about, and have clearly indicated that the case for future sea-level rise is very plausible, however imprecise. But even such broad general predictions must be accompanied by the recognition that some of the unknowns are very large."

The above quote is unfortunately completely nonnumerical, which makes it difficult to compare it with certainty to the predicted sea-level rise range given by the IPCC. The IPCC range isn't of course defined as meaning that the prediction is that it is 100% certain that the actual value will fall within the given range. (How is the IPCC range defined, anyway? 90% certainty? 95%?) So saying that there's a nonzero possibility that the actual value might be outside of the IPCC's predicted range doesn't actually conflict with the IPCC prediction. It's neccessary to subjectively interpret the above quote in order to decide if it means that there is a greater chance that the actual value will be outside of the IPCC range than the 5% or 10% chance that the IPCC range allows for. There are other quotes in the book that support the idea that the authors feel that there is a greater chance that the actual future values will be outside of the IPCC ranges than the IPCC ranges allow for, e.g.:

"The objectivity of the IPCC documents is laudable. But the fact that the group recognizes its model weaknesses and is trying to improve them doesn't make its conclusions stronger or more believable."

Pilkey arguably belongs in this article. But under what category? He doesn't really fit into any of the existing categories. What's needed is a category something like "The IPCC projected ranges are too narrow to adequately reflect modelling uncertainties".

I'm concerned that Pilkey's inclusion in this article might be hastily misinterpreted by many readers. Somehow, it needs to be made clear that Pilkey is not just saying that he thinks that the IPCC's forecasted ranges for sea-level or temperature rise are too high. There is nothing I have read that would indicate that he thinks that any inaccuracies are more likely to be on the high side than on the low side. MrRedact 11:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

MrRedact, I apologize if my earlier comment caused you distress. I did not think ill of you for stopping the quote where you did. And I was not trying to imply any ill motives on your part. I appreciate your honest assessment of the author's stance. I agree that they do not fit comfortably with many of the other skeptics in the article. However, these authors are exactly the kind of skeptics the article needs to include. Many of the skeptical scientists are skeptical because of the computer models have significant problems and because the uncertainties are glossed over by the politicians who write the SPM. In my view, Pilkey belongs in a new category of those who are skeptical of conclusion #3 regarding the IPCC predictions. Perhaps we call it "Scientists who are skeptical of IPCC predictions." RonCram 12:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
First please find a specific quote that contradicts one of the main conclusions in the article. If you can find that, then we'll fit him in somewhere. I do agree there is a "missing category" which is missing just because we haven't had anyone to put in there yet: the category for scientists who believe GW is anthropogenic but disagree about some of the important effects like sea level rise. So if he has actually said the IPCC is wrong on this, then he could fit there. --Nethgirb 12:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Nethgirb, I think the quote MrRedact found is suitable: "The objectivity of the IPCC documents is laudable. But the fact that the group recognizes its model weaknesses and is trying to improve them doesn't make its conclusions stronger or more believable." I will add him under the new category. RonCram 19:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
No, that does not contradict anything the IPCC says. Maybe you can find some quote saying which of the IPCC's conclusions the authors don't believe. --Nethgirb 23:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Nethgirb, you are attempting to establish a different standard. Pilkey clearly rejects conclusion #3 in the Intro. Pilkey does not have to establish his own predictions, he only has to disagree with the predictions the IPCC publishes. The mainstream assessment is that precise predictions with error bars are possible. Pilkey refutes that idea. Pilkey is not saying the prediction is too high or too low. He is saying any prediction, claiming any degree of precision, is useless. He also writes: "Accurate prediction of future sea-level change is clearly impossible, but predicting the direction and the general magnitude of changes in the level of the sea is within the realm of our capabilities." RonCram 23:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
....but this means that he agrees that "precise predictions with error bars are possible". It's just that his error bars may be larger than the IPCC error bars (or maybe not - the IPCC temperature projections allow for a factor of 6 between min and max, while "general magnitude" could be read to allow a factor of two or so).--Stephan Schulz 00:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ron, I am not trying to change the standard. Vagueness has never been acceptable. Like I said, if he rejects conclusion #3 then he absolutely belongs in the article. But you are misrepresenting both the IPCC and Pilkey's quotes presented here. You imply that the mainstream assessment is that precise predictions are possible -- well, no, approximate predictions are possible. Why do you think there is almost a factor of 10 difference between the top and bottom of the amount of sea level rise predicted by the IPCC as cited in the article? Then you say that Pilkey says that "any prediction...is useless". Well no, he said that "Accurate prediction ... is impossible, but predicting the direction and the general magnitude of changes in the level of the sea is within the realm of our capabilities." Sounds like something any climatologist would agree with.

Does Pilkey disagree with the IPCC's predictions by saying that their error bars are way too small? It would be great to have a quote specifically stating that. --Nethgirb 02:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I contacted Pilkey. He agrees with the description of his views, and the header to this section William M. Connolley 15:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, William. I should have thought of that. I spent two hours this morning developing my interpretation of his views based on his book. It is not an easy task. His book is well-written, but does not come with the type of pithy quotes that Nethgirb favors. RonCram 16:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Stephan, contrary to your comment above, Pilkey does not think predictions with error bars are possible. He rejects the attempt to do quantitative modeling. He does think qualitative predictions are possible (choosing a direction of sea-level change, whether it will rise or fall, and whether the rate of rise will increase or not) but that any attempt at precision is useless. Regarding the improvement of climate models, he writes: "And once again a new model is announced, with implied assurances that future, usefully accurate predictions are just around the corner. 'Give us another decade of funding and we'll tell you what to expect from global warming' is the unstated message of the bright, cheerful, and buoyantly optimistic press release. But it won't happen; it can't happen." (page 86) This does not mean that he is skeptical of temperature increases or future sea-level rise.RonCram 16:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but even "just the direction (up)" is a prediction with an error bar from 0 to some generous upper bound (say 1000m - I doubt there is enough water on Earth to do more than that). Direction and general magnitude to me indicates much smaller error bars than this. --Stephan Schulz 16:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
It's an odd category. Pilkey is not a global warming skeptic, but is a skeptic about modeling specifically. He accepts the "gist of the conclusions of the IPCC" (his words) but doesn't have any faith that models can give quantitative predictions. If we expand the criteria to include everyone who agrees with the three main conclusions but has reservations about some aspects of the methodology then the list will grow to hundreds or thousands, including myself and probably WMC. No doubt Ron would be thrilled to find such a large list but it wouldn't be very meaningful. Raymond Arritt 16:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, unless I completely misunderstand Pilkey's view, Pilkey only considers error bars as useful or appropriate when doing quantitative predictions. Raymond, as William says Pilkey "agrees with the description of his views, and the header to this section." Pilkey does not agree with IPCC's conclusion #3 because of the quantitative predictions. It is clear he belongs on the list.RonCram 17:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see we have confirmation directly from Pilkey -- that saves a lot of arguing (though it would be nice to have a verifiable quote on that). To respond to Raymond, I agree having a section for "people who disagree with some of the methodology" would not be useful. However it looks like this section, and Pilkey's opinion (given WMC's confirmation), do concern the conclusion, not the methodology. Now, the Tennekes quote in there I think is not really good.. you have to extrapolate quite a bit from that to conclude that he disagrees with one of the principal IPCC conclusions. Thoughts? --Nethgirb 07:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
According to Lindzen, Tennekes was forced out of his position for "questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming." I do not think much doubt exists on his position. [152] RonCram 19:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The current quote does demonstrate that he has questioned the scientific underpinnings of (one part of) global warming theory. It does not demonstrate that he disagrees with any of the principal conclusions. --Nethgirb 21:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
What you say is like saying that Mr. X questions metaphysics, but that this does not demonstrate that he disagrees with the conclusions of metaphysics... Let's be reasonable here ok? --Childhood's End 22:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Even Naomi Oreskes recommends reading Pilkey's book[2] ("a must-read" !)... And in this interview[3], you will also find that the authors say that "The problem is not the math itself, but the blind acceptance and even idolatry we have applied to the quantitative models." --Childhood's End 16:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the discussion about Pilkey has been settled... --Nethgirb 23:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duncan Wingham

Is he a skeptic?65.12.145.148 00:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Not in the least: "In the artic there's another ice sheet but a rather different one, it's a very delicate thin layer of frozen sea water, and global warming will probably destroy this almost completely in the next 70 years. If we destroy that ice cap then we'll change the ocean circulation, and if we change the circulation we could change our climate, even in European latitudes we could change our climate."[153] MrRedact 00:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I beleive he is as he claims ocean levels are going to recede over the next century. That opposses the canon.67.141.235.203 16:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Where does he say that? MrRedact 16:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proponents of AGW

I wonder if someone tried to put together a list of "Scientists supporting the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" and used the same guidelines for inclusion on this page(PHD in applicable field, published in peer reviewed journal since '01, very specifically stating they supported the 3IPPC report as worded) if there would be more, or less, scientists than this list. Interesting to ponder, but I will waste my time in other endeavors.Jepp 17:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There are more than 1000 contributors to the IPCC AR4, nearly all of which would fit your definition. Also, we don't require a PhD in an applicable field (just a record of scholarship in the broad area of natural sciences) and we are happy if they disagree with any of the three core statements of the IPCC. --Stephan Schulz 17:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I could have written word by word Stephan's comment before he made it ! The problem with this simplistic thinking is that none of the 1000 contributors can assess the whole work of the IPCC - each of them has knowledge of a certain field of research or two and can confirm whether the IPCC reports are consistent with what he knows, but none can give scientific support to the whole conclusions of the IPCC. For example, the geologists involved in the IPCC reports do not know for a second whether the models predicting global warming are accurate - all they know is if the data/inputs/assumptions/stuff regarding geology is acceptable to them.
This is not different from any other human endeavor. When I build a tree house, I rely on the quality of nails and boards and tools. When I do anything in science, I rely on an enourmous number of previously published material. No scientist has complete knowledge of even his domain. I cannot even usefully review papers on database implementation, or on rendering algorithms, or on chip layout and routing. But the IPCC process involves an enormous number of scientists, with several specialists for each area, that furthermore work only on existing peer-reviewed literature. If they agree with the report, it's not because they have personally checked every thermometer between Tierra Del Fuego and Vladivostok, every icecore ever bored, or every bit send from a climate monitoring satellite. It is because they understand and trust the process and understand the basic concepts of the field. --Stephan Schulz 20:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
As you said, they "trust" the process. If they support the conclusions of the IPCC farther than the limits of their scientifc knowledge, they do it on trust, not on knowledge or on science. Just like you and so many others do... No question why Nigel Lawson spoke about the "church of global warming". --Childhood's End 20:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
By that reasoning,
  • whenever someone follows the advise of his doctor, he believes in the "church of modern medicine".
  • whenever someone crosses a bridge, he believes in the "church of modern architecture"
  • whenever someone uses GPS, he believes in the "church of general relativity", and simultaneously in the "church of computer science"
This is a useless standard and an empty rethorical phrase. --Stephan Schulz 20:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, you totally got it. The difference is that when I trust a doctor, architect or GPS maker, I chose to do it rather than being forced into their church by governments, and that modern medicine and architecture have a fair history of reliability. --Childhood's End 21:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I've come to the conclusion that climate activists use the weasely-worded catchphrase "climate scientists" to create the idea that every scientist studying any aspect relevant to climate is qualified to speak about climate scenarios (see this discussion). --Childhood's End 19:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm more concerned about people like Tim Ball, who variously claimed to have been a "professor of climatology" for 32 or 28 years, and Canada's first Ph.D. in Climatology, and even a Doctor of Science, all of which is demonstrably wrong, but used to generate the impression of a highly qualified expert (but with a grand total of four (4) serious publications, all on local historical climate around Hudson bay). --Stephan Schulz 20:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I have never supported any misrepresentations by Tim Ball, although the fact that he may have misrepresented his positions/experience does not disqualify him per se. --Childhood's End 20:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
These more than 1000 'contributors' (some of whom are on this page!) did not write or reivew the summary report. Which is the root of the problem. There's a leap from science to simplicity without the neccessary caveats.67.141.235.203 18:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any examples of IPCC contributors (i.e. authors, as should be clear from the number -- there are many more additional reviewers) on this page? Of course the summary report summarizes and simplifies - that's its purpose. Again, do you have any authors that disagree with the summary report? --Stephan Schulz 19:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Balling. Most scientist don't support it because they don't speak to the report as it is a political document edited by government representatives. But for guys like John Holdren...67.141.235.203 21:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

At least the list of "Academies of Science opposing the scientific assessment of global warming" will be very short, and even more so when compared with a list of academies supporting it... Hardern 21:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Lindzen (way back) & Landsea.67.141.235.203 21:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Lindzen is not a current author. Neither is Landsea, but he supports the general IPCC positions anyways. He was unhappy with Trenberth's opinion on hurricanes, and retired (but note that the AR4 SPM actually seems to fairly reflect Landsea's opinion, anyways). Note that Landsea is not on this page, either...--Stephan Schulz 21:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
landsea is a great example of a scientist who you infer would support the ipcc conclusion, yet he left because he felt the whole process was a joke "I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound". Great evidence to support your case.Jepp 21:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, Landsea and I disagree about the IPCC process. But apparently he still agrees with the result. This fact also seems to indicate that Landsea's opinion on the process was unfounded, or that the process was resilient enough to withstand the "pre-conceived agendas". --Stephan Schulz 22:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
you obviously don't realize how irrational that comment is.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.12.145.148 (talk • contribs).
From today's Daily Mail:

The UN report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was published in February. At the time it was promoted as being backed by more than 2,000 of the world's leading scientists. But Professor Paul Reiter, of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, said it was a "sham" given that this list included the names of scientists who disagreed with its findings. Professor Reiter, an expert in malaria, said his name was removed from an assessment only when he threatened legal action against the panel. "That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed," he said. "It's not true."

Two things: One just read the quote. Two, what if I tried to put a Malaria Expert on this page? Yet when the cool aid drinkers throw around 2000 scientists this guy is on their list, of course until he demanded to be removed. Note he had to threaten legal action to be removed. 67.141.235.203 14:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Which list? If Reiter is a malaria chap he wouldn't be on the IPCC WGI report anyway. Why should he be? William M. Connolley 15:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I apologize I didnt know there were 2000 members of WGI67.141.235.203 15:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tongue in check suggestion

There is an improvement that could be made to this page. We could have expert wiki users rate the scientific merit (or "credibility rating") of the people listed to better allow to tar and feather them. Then once the powers that be force everyone to believe that cow flatulance and SUVs are destroying the planet, then we can use that 'credibility rating' to determine the correct number x, which should be inserted into the phrase: "WANTED: DEAD or ALIVE $x (preferably dead)" under their name. Can someone explain to me why this page even exists? Do these people need an excuse to not believe a THOERY? And if the page must exist (there are some pretty weird pages on wiki), must it really be made to sound like something befitting the FBIs most wanted list?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.94.133.252 (talk • contribs) 21:47, February 28, 2007 (UTC)

Documenting how much dissent there is from the mainstream/consensus opinion is useful. It doesn't have to be seen as a "most wanted list"; for example, it provides a starting point to learn more about the skeptics' opinions if you want to do that. If you think the accompanying text is worded in a derogatory way then you should make specific suggestions about what you think is wrong. --Nethgirb 02:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
If the page is intended as a source for information for skeptics (and if that is the case, then what is the possible purpose of the more general "global warming skeptics" page) then it should be structured like one. If most of the scientists indeed believe that average temperatures increasing and only the aspect of whether or not it human caused, then why is claim one included in the IPCC report? Infact, since this article would presumably be referenced by people looking for information against the human caused global warming theory - so why is it necessary to introduce the subject with a re-hash of just how much consensus there is (clearly implying how on the fringes the people listed below are). I think linking to the global warming page with a "many scientists believe the thoery of man made global warming <link> which claims among other thigs that: (insert points here). Other scientists dispute some of these claims. Among those are:" would be sufficient as a NPOV intro. The article seems to me to be written in such a manner to marginalize the people listed (with an implicit: "and here is a list of the wacko deniers... (for completeness)") making it appear like the wanted list I was joking about (phrases like "Each scientist's views are stated without comment as to their factual accuracy." go through the PC-translation unit in my brain and come out as: "this junk they're saying is of course factually bogus, but this is how out there these people REALLY are... *deep sigh*"). That's what I was trying to imply in my original comment. 65.94.133.252 03:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The list of the main points of the consensus (as expressed by the IPCC) sets the context for what these scientists are disagreeing with. It does slightly duplicate text elsewhere on wikipedia, but it is quite relevant to this article, and in fact I would say it is essential in order to spell out who belongs here and who doesn't.
You are suggesting that stating that there are only a few skeptics is meant to marginalize the skeptics and is therefore POV. But it's just a fact, and one that we have to mention in order to give appropriate weight to the mainstream point of view. The article doesn't say that these people are wrong because they are in the minority.
The "without comment as to their factual accuracy" I think is fine; we haven't rebutted any of the points here, so if anything that little statement is the least we can do to give fair weight. --Nethgirb 04:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The fact that they are in a minority is fact (source! source! j/k). The problem is that this fact is completely irrelevant to an article whose purpose is a list of names of people who don't support the theory. In such an article, this 'fact' is a POV the same way as if you used the word 'silly' to descibe their beliefs. There is no need to rebutt anything either - again, it's a list of people who believe in certain things (not about the validity of their belief - that belongs in the global warming page). As for this "small number of scientists" being skeptics business - it's not that tiny at well over 16000. This is going to be a very large page soon, isn't it?65.94.133.252 05:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You are advocating having no context for the list, which quite strange. I would argue that taking the unusual step of not having context would be a non-neutral POV by suppressing relevant information that the number of skeptics is small.

I agree there is no need to rebut the arguments here -- you might note that we don't -- but neither should we imply that their views are correct. I actually don't think the "views are stated without comment as to their factual accuracy" sentence is really essential but it is certainly appropriate.

As for "well over 16000" you should read the Oregon petition page and note discussion about it elsewhere on this talk page or on Talk:Global warming controversy (possibly both; I forget). --Nethgirb 05:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not advocate for no context. Re-read the above and you will find I suggested something along the lines: "many scientists believe the thoery of man made global warming <link> which claims among other thigs that: (insert points here). Other scientists dispute some of these claims. Among those are:" where (insert points here) are the points the people on the list are in disagreement with. If you prefer, it could say: "the majority of scientists believe the theory of man made global warming...".
As for the Oregon petition, what should I be looking at exactly? Even if you assume the list has lots of fraud, then even if only half or even a quarter of the signatories would meet your requirements, then it's still a large number (and it's HIGHLY unlikely that every scientist who thinks man-made global warming is overstated, had signed it). So when the page says "a small number of scientists" it is misleading at best.65.94.133.252 14:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Please stop being so sensible....67.141.235.203 15:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
If all these scientists reject global warming (btw, "theory" is the highest level of support in science, closest thing to a "fact" in normal English), where are their publications? They've had 20 years to act on their scepticism...where are their results? If there are 16,000 scientists, surely they should have produced some science? Guettarda
Yes: Guettarda hit the nail on the head. The Oregon Petition was just puffery - it's vacuous. If you want to claim there is a substantial minority of scientists still opposing AGW, somebody needs to come up with some peer-reviewed publications where they are saying this, rather than just petitions or sound bites in polarized media and websites. I have access to the full text of a lot of the journals through our university library system, and I regularly collect cites for bio pages of people we discuss here. (Anyone can check for article titles using scholar.google.com even if you don't have full text access to the journals.)
This page includes a few scientists with serious publishing track records; they are the ones who need to be taken seriously in the debate. Many other proposed names have come up blank, or with no work that has any bearing on questions about (A)GW. If you know of more who have published in scientific journals on this subject, propose them for addition to this list. But this is where you run up against Oreskes' result: it's hard to find such articles. Do you see the significance of that? Birdbrainscan 01:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for illustrating how hopeless it is to have a NPOV article on the subject. You will continue to see what you want to see and ignore anything else. I was naive. So, as I sit here stuck at home under a foot or more of freashly fallen snow and in freezing temperatures, I'll turn on my incandescent light bulbs as I eat some beans, and hope that my little contributions to the greenhouse effect will keep me from freezing this day of March. But rest assured, as I bring forth this apocalypse, my guilt laden consciousness will contemplate the resulting crisis and I may yet repent, so everyone please pray to Gaia for my salvation.
PS - I couldn't stop laughing when I saw the page suddenly put up the qualifier that the scientists must not have signed any petitions to be admissible to the page. Nice touch! lol. -69.156.115.51 03:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The article doesn't say that. Scientists who have signed a petition are perfectly admissible to the page, as long as they have also made specific, attributable statements in published research or public comments that oppose one of the listed conclusions. The article says "and not on listings in petitions or surveys", not "and on not being listed in any petitions or surveys". It's very different. MrRedact 10:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Signing a petition saying which says "I do not believe global warming" (paraphrase), is a public statement. 72.139.191.151 17:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
A petition or survey may be public, but the article uses the phrase "attributable statements", which means that a given individual is verifiably the source of the statement. With a petition or survey, the source of the statement(s) is the person or persons who designed the petition or survey. It's an important distinction, because an individual who signs a petition or survey has no choices available other than to either agree or disagree with the statements in the petition or survey. In particular, the Oregon Petition uses the phrase "catastrophic heating". "Catastophic" is vague, but given that popular media depictions of climate change include things like The Day After Tomorrow, in which half of the U.S. is quickly rendered uninhabitable, the word "catastrophic" as applied to climate change may well be taken to mean ridiculously unrealistically severe. Someone who agrees that anthropogenic greenhouse gasses won't cause catastrophic heating in a petition or survey may well say that anthropogenic greenhouse gasses are very likely to cause heating of a few degrees Celsius, if they were given a chance to express their opinions about global warming in their own words.
Since the phrase "attributable statements" apparently might be taken to include statements that appear on a petition or survey that someone has signed, I will add the phrase "in a scientist's own words", to avoid any possible confusion. MrRedact 20:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scientists skeptical of the amount of claimed warming

Some scientists doubt the amount of warming is as great as claimed by the IPCC in conclusion #1. The article, at this point, does not deal with any of those scientists and why they have their doubts. As far as I know, the doubts come is these forms:

  • Data sets do not properly account for UHI or instrument error
  • Keepers of the data sets have not released their data or methods of adjustments
  • Some scientists have questioned the claim of homogeneity within some data sets
  • Recent adjustments to the data sets are as great as the previously claimed warming

This is an important issue. The claimed warming is only 0.6C ± 0.2C. So if the data was determined to be only 0.3C ± 0.2C, then the warming is cut in half and completely reframes the discussion. Scientists who have expressed skepticism of the data include scientists who do not doubt that anthropogenic CO2 is warming the planet to some degree. The real question is: how much? Scientists include Roger A. Pielke Sr. [154] and Steve McIntyre [155] [156] [157] although I am certain there are many more.RonCram 19:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The warming is now up to... ?0.74? in the AR4 William M. Connolley 19:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
With what kind of margin of error? Is it still ± 0.2C? RonCram 04:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I could tell you the answer, but it would be much better to read the AR4 SPM for yourself. Raymond Arritt 04:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Raymond, I have read it but have forgotten. SPM4 is saved on my other computer. I did not want to download it again. But not to worry, I can read it tomorrow.RonCram 04:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so the SPM4 says the warming is 0.74C ± 0.18C over the last 100 years. Too bad the data and methods are not archived and made available for other scientists to check. RonCram 17:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Too bad the data and methods are not archived and made available for other scientists to check - sigh; one can tell you've been reading CA too much. Are you planning to include that in every sentence you write? If so, people will soon grow bored William M. Connolley 17:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone notice that the Chinese announced today that Mt Everest is 14 ft 'shorter' than previously thought? Something to ponder....
Perhaps its melting? --Childhood's End 20:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

A statement that the amount of the warming was 0.3C ± 0.2C over the last century wouldn't clearly contradict the TAR statement that the amount of the warming was 0.6C ± 0.2C, because if the actual amount of the warming was anywhere between 0.4C and 0.5C, then both statements are correct. The 0.3C ± 0.2C would, however, contradict the AR4 range.

However, a discussion of when ranges contradict is all mute unless a scientist has actually given an alternate temperature range that they believe accurately bounds the average global temperature increase over the last century. I couldn't find any such temperature range in any of the four links you provided, although I admit I was just skimming for numbers rather than reading each article thoroughly. Pointing out that there are difficulties in trying to accurately gauge the amount of the increase isn't enough, since the IPCC doesn't deny this. If the IPCC were under the delusion that it was possible to come up with a precise value for the amount of temperature increase over the last century, they would have just given the one number instead of giving a range (or given a range with smaller error bars). The upper bound of the TAR estimate for the temperature increase last century is twice the lower bound, so it's a pretty big range, and allows for a quite a lot of difficulty in coming up with an accurate figure. What's needed are some actual numbers that contradict. MrRedact 22:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

sometimes when humans measure things, even really smart humans, they get it wrong. Even when the mountains right there to measure.

[edit] "small"

I recently made an edit to this part of the intro:

While the first point is now accepted by virtually all climate scientists, a small number of scientists actively disagree with the second and third points.

I removed the word "small", since it's not an objective term. User:Raul654 reverted that edit, and so I took the "small" matter up with him on his talk page. Since he implied that people had argued over this wording before, and since I have no interest in getting into the global warming debate, I'll modify my suggestion.

I think "smaller" would be a fine replacement for "small", one that is both objective and which continues to accurately represent the relative popularity of the mainstream and non-mainstream views.

--Xoom.org 16:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This has indeed been argued over at great length. Rather than repeat the entire previous discussion, why don't you read it? I don't see why smaller is any better than small William M. Connolley 17:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
"A is smaller than B" is an objective statement. "A is small" is a matter of opinion. If we have reliable figures for the relative sizes of each group, we should use those figures. Otherwise, we should restrict the phrasing to something objective. I understand and appreciate that the number of (credible) skeptics is probably what I would consider small relative to the larger mainstream group, and that this fact shouldn't be glossed over – but that's no excuse for using vague and dismissive phrasing. Isn't it enough that global warming skeptics be wrong (assuming they are, of course) – do we need to insult them as well? Why not phrase it "a tiny number" or "a practically insignificant number" instead? There are objective and more neutral ways of saying the same thing, and I'd prefer to phrase things one of those ways.
As for previous discussions on this, I haven't seen any. I did a search on this page for key terms before posting here, and the only real discussion involved disputes over factual matters (just how many skeptics there are, which I don't contend and honestly don't care about) or over grammar (whether "a small number of scientists" should go with is or are). If you're aware of another discussion elsewhere (in the GW talk page archives perhaps) then please let me know.
--Xoom.org 18:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
"A smaller number" is true, and misleading. True and misleading isn't ok. As for actual numbers - if you are aware of actual numbers, please, supply a sources. The most accurate thing we can say is "a small number" or "a few" or "a handful". Guettarda 18:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree that it's misleading, but I'm definitely open to alternatives. The problem with "small", "few", and "handful" is that they're subjective, although I think "handful" is better than the other two because it doesn't imply a value judgment (nothing is ever "too handful"). What's small to one person may not be small to another. I don't have any numbers myself, and don't really care enough about this issue to research that (my point is more about language than global warming). I'd certainly like to see numbers in place of vague adjectives though, if somebody else has them. It would be better to let readers see the numbers themselves and make their own judgments about the differences in popularity (and presumably merit) of each position. --Xoom.org 19:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I second that. --Childhood's End 19:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't understand what part you're seconding. Could you clarify? --Xoom.org 19:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
It's simple - "a smaller number" usually implies something of a similar order of magnitude. You don't use "a smaller number" to compare 1000 with 5. That just isn't normal English usage. If you say "a smaller number" relative to 1000, most readers will think somewhere in the hundreds. A "handful" isn't encyclopaedia language, while "a small number" or "a few" is...sadly imprecise, but it's about the best we can do. Imprecise is far better than misleading. Guettarda 19:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, now *I* can't find the discussion before, either. Hey ho, its fairly familiar though (and is scattered across this, GW, and GWC). You are correct that "smaller" means something different, in that 49 is smaller than 51. Which is part of the reason why its not a better change. The number who dissent are, indeed, small. William M. Connolley 19:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I presume its in the archive... but the link is broken? Because of the move? William M. Connolley 19:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there some way to indicate the smallness of the number of dissidents such that we can back it up with references? Obviously getting exact numbers would prove difficult, but surely there are some upper bounds? Aren't there statements by various scientific organizations that we know to be backed by a certain percentage of their members, and about which we also have some sort of idea of how large their membership base is in relation to all scientists? I'd even be happier with something like "a small number including X members of group Y" or something (assuming group Y represented the majority or at least largest chunk of the dissidents) and that at least hinted at a basis for the choice of "small". Right now, it's being pulled out of thin air.

If you think an unqualified "small" is appropriate, I ask you: Why not "tiny"? Why not "miniscule"? I'm reasonably sure that if I saw the actual number of dissidents, I'd consider both those adjectives applicable – but that doesn't mean I think they should appear in an encyclopedia article. When I see "a smaller number" I don't assume that the things being compared are of similar orders of magnitude, but I recognize that it's common to make such assumptions. However, I don't think using such language is misleading, nor do I think subjective language is merely imprecise – it's far worse than mere imprecision, because it invites disagreement in such a way that can't be resolved by facts.

--Xoom.org 20:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You, like me (see my tongue in cheek suggestion above), did not understand the point of the page. The page is not intended as "a source to find further information about the AGW view". If it was, then it would not be neccessary to include anything more than what makes these scientists unique (i.e. what these scientists are disagreeing with). So, accepting that that is not the purpose of the page, what is? I'll be blunt. It's simply a freak show. As a freak show, it needs several important ingredients that a "resource page" does not. It needs to emphasize that the people listed are weird - weird enough to have their own wiki entry. And most importantly, the number of scientist has to be tiny. Any attempt to remove either of these factors will be reverted by the GW true believers (face it - they are the ones that are caretakers of this page, and they'll defend it to their last Baud).
Hence we are repeatedly bashed over the head with references to all the consensus - "mainstream scientific assessment"(title), "current scientific opinion", "mainstream position", "vitually all climate scientists", "small number". The deniers are listed with a snide "without comment as to their factual accuracy". The size of the list must naturally also be kept in check (freaks must be rare to be freaks), so the scientists must publish in mainstream journals - yes, the same mainstream journals and publications that actively support the idea of global warming - and fringe publications and blogs don't count. The cherry on top is, of course, that it's scientists who don't sign petitions or surveys (I still have to laugh). The restriction here is obviously to prevent the page from swelling from names from the Oregon Petition (and probably others), but in truely lovely NPOV fashion, to do so in such a way as to avoid listing any such petitions (and hence give away the staggering 17000+ number).
So, in short my friend, give it up. I was told to stop being so sensible, and so should you. The article is what it is. -72.139.191.151 17:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It has just been brought to my attention that my username violates the rules, so I won't be using either the User:Xoom.org or User:Ltbx.com accounts any longer. I think I've made my point here as well and hopefully one of the regulars can take my suggestions to heart; I was just here in passing, having stumbled in from some other link, and thought it odd to see what was (to me) clearly an "opinion word" that I'd been warned against including in my reports back in school. So I probably won't be adding anything else to the discussion here with whatever new account I create, but if I do I'll make sure to identify myself, so as to avoid giving my position any more weight. Cheers, relax, good luck! --Xoom.org 20:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

For reference, one recent debate over "small" is at Talk:Global warming#Fight this insidious censorship. MrRedact 22:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I hate to be difficult, but I'm in full agreement with Xoom on this one. "Small" is a relative and subjective term. "Smaller" is an accurate term, and Guettarda is incorrect--"smaller" is not misleading. It does not imply that the two referents in question are of similar magnitude, and it is fully valid to say that 5 is a smaller number than 1000. In fact, if you were to say you were thinking of a number which was smaller than 1000, any number from 999 down would be a valid possibility, including 1, 5, 8, or even--wait for it--9! Guettarda -- Imprecise is never better than misleading!! Imprecise is misleading!! I'm sorry for the bold italics and double exclamation points, but this is an important point, and I was surprised (maybe saddened) to see someone actually make the comment that imprecise was better than misleading.
Anyhow, let's just vote on it to see where things stand. Please vote CHANGE if you would like to adjust the wording to "smaller" or KEEP if you would like to retain the current term, "small."
For the purposes of this vote, it is valuable to see your reasoning, so please explain why you prefer one over the other. Please remember, Wikipedia is meant to be a reliable, intelligently written, and NPOV source of information. It's of no more use to anyone than CNN or FOX News if we cannot eliminate the slanted rhetoric. And remember, if you think that fudging the wording on a Wikipedia article somehow validates or makes true your particular beliefs, you have good reason to question those beliefs. :) Seriously. DRJ 07:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and my vote is CHANGE for the above listed reasons. (True, objective, accurate, etc.) DRJ 07:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think this vote is binding; there's not been much discussion so far. But, my opinion is Keep. Clearly, neither small nor smaller is as precise as a numerical value. So we have to consider which one has a typical meaning closer to the correct value. Smaller is true and objective but numerically it is too weak (since it can be true if 49% of scientists are skeptics, but the true fraction of skeptics is much smaller). In my opinion small in this context implies something smaller than smaller and so it is more appropriate. The key point I would say is that the true fraction of skeptics is so small that it fits with any reasonable interpretation of small. So there is no need to weaken the statement. By weakening the statement to be, effectively, "the number of skeptics is smaller than the number of supporters" you are using a non-neutral POV by omitting the relevant information that the number is in fact significantly smaller.

"Imprecise is misleading"? No. To take an example, suppose 50 out of 100 people in a room are tall. If I say "about 50 people in the room are tall" that is imprecise (due to "about") but not misleading. If I say "somewhere between 50 and 100 people are tall" then that is misleading.--Nethgirb 11:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me also add that skeptic Benny Peiser has actually used the word himself: "Despite all claims to the contrary, there is a small community of sceptical researchers that remains extremely active." (emphasis mine) [158] --Nethgirb 11:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The people-in-the-room analogy is fitting. The number of sceptics is extremely small, and they have produced essentially no scientific literature. --Stephan Schulz 11:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I also agree that we should stick to the use of "small", since it's the best estimate we've got and it's not misleading, only imprecise. Personally, I would also be in favor of "very small", but that ain't open for discussion, eh? Hardern 15:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I vote to KEEP the word "small". I agree with Guettarda, "smaller" gives the impression of two numbers being roughly similar, which would be misleading in this case. MrRedact 16:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Since Stephan uses the phrase "extremely small", Hardern likes "very small", and Raymond thinks "small" is an overestimate, I propose that we widen this vote to be between "smaller", "small", and "very small". With the wider options, I'll change my vote to VERY SMALL, since a number in the dozens to me seems very small compared to a number in the thousands. MrRedact 18:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
"Small" is an overestimate. It also doesn't recognize that some skeptics don't know even the most basic principles of atmospheric physics (Abdussamatov, for a start). But I'm feeling charitable today so keep. Raymond Arritt 16:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I spoke too baldly and Nethgirb raises a point worth addressing. I agree that imprecision is distinct from misleading comments, but they are often bedmates. I can see how saying "About 50 people in the room are tall" could be imprecise without being misleading, but I can't see how "50 people in the room are tall" isn't a better phrase. (I am of course disregarding the word "tall" which is itself both imprecise and potentially misleading as you move from one social-context to another.) When is imprecision preferable to precision? In particular, we are dealing with an objectively measurable set, so it seems it's better to use precision when at all possible.
What is the goal of retaining the wording "small" or even the wording "very small?" Are we attempting to persuade? Are we attempting to guide the reader? Are we attempting to emphasize the obvious? Why assume that the Wikireaders are illiterate or ignorant? They are more than capable of reading this article and saying to themselves, "Wow, only a couple of dozen scientists fit into this category. That's not a large number."
Is it important to emphasize the disparity of proportion in the introduction? I think it is. But, as I stated, the readers are wise enough to notice just how sparse this group really is. Please respond to these concerns by discussing the language in question while remembering the purpose of this resource. Thanks. DRJ 01:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello DRJ, I definitely agree with you that being more precise is better, as long as it still remains concise. So yes, "50 people in the room are tall" is a better phrase. The problem in the case of GW skeptics is that we can't put an exact number on it -- there are 24 people on this list but there are an unknown number of others that we've missed. The evidence at hand, however, indicates that the number of skeptical scientists is very small without yielding a definite number.
It is worthwhile to mention that verifiable fact in the intro. First, I don't see how you know a priori that readers of this page find it obvious that the number of skeptics is very small. Second, it is not correct that readers should see this list and conclude "Wow, only a couple of dozen scientists fit into this category. That's not a large number." -- the reader would be committing an error of logic in that case, because the reader has no way of knowing how complete the list is. (There is some reason to believe we have good coverage, but that's a separate issue.) --Nethgirb 01:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to open up this discussion again, but I just realized that what seems to me a simple, fair and neutral wording has not been discussed :

While the first point is now accepted by virtually all climate scientists, a small number of some scientists actively disagree with the second and third points.

I think that the word "some" is the word that has the best chance of not carrying a subjective meaning. It includes the idea that they're a minority, yet it gives no subjective judgment with regard to the size of the exact number. --Childhood's End 20:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"Some" seems just as subjective as "small number", except with the additional problem that its implication is too weak. But I am happy to hear other opinions... --Nethgirb 20:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The use of the word "Small" is used here to downplay the Scientists opposing Man Made Global Warming. The numbers of scientists should speek for themselves... not someone's opinion of what a "small number" is.--Zeeboid 16:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
All the discussion above addresses this... Your assertion that the word is used to downplay these scientists' prominence is unsubstantiated. In fact, the number of scientists that are skeptics is small, so stating that in the introduction to summarize the state of opinion is entirely appropriate. --Nethgirb 23:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Despite this thread being inactive for a few weeks I think I have a fair solution. Change 'small' to 'relatively small'. This is both true and IMHO it is NPOV. There are far more scientists who support AGW so relative to that number, this group is small. However, small is completely subjective. Relative to the universe, the earth is small, but relative to an ant the earth is big. Small is only meaningful if it is compared to something else, nothing can be inherently small. What do you think? Prnd3825 19:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
You've made a case for your change, and after mulling it, I think it makes sense. Skyemoor 17:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
In my experience there are two uses of the word "relative". One of them is a more informal sense which means "not extremely", so that "relatively small" seems larger than "small". This is not the sense we want to use. The other more "technical" sense, comparing two numbers, is the one you mean. So for now, I've attempted to reword to make that clear.
In my opinion though, the "relative" doesn't need to be there at all. The word "small" is always relative to something. When it is clear what you are comparing to, you don't need to state it. In this case it seems obvious that we are comparing the number of skeptics with the number of scientists supporting the consensus. --Nethgirb 18:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I would have to say that you are probably right that the relativity is implied. However, I think it is prudent to make it explicit, an encyclopedia should not make people read between the lines. I also think this is a fair middle ground between those who are upset with 'small' because it tries to mininmize the number, and those who feel that (the closest other word suggested above) 'some' might lead some to think the number is larger than it is. Prnd3825 21:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
"Comparatively" is better than "relatively." It's more specific, and "relatively" is often enough (mis)used as a meaningless filler word that it should be avoided. Raymond Arritt 21:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Personally I see no difference between 'comparatively' and 'relatively' but you are right that 'relatively' is used too often. I would support changing it from its current form to saying 'comparitively small' (although reading it in my head it sounds funny) because it would flow much better than in its current incarnation. Prnd3825 21:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neil Frank

Neil Frank was recently added. Does he qualify as a scientist with a record of scholarship? Obviously being a weather anchor isn't worth anything in this context, but having directed the National Hurricane Center might be... or not, as his bio lists his duties there as "directing severe tropical weather information to meteorologists and media across the country" [159] which, while undoubtedly being a position of responsibility, doesn't really involve scientific research. Google scholar shows he has several publications but all the ones I saw are more than 25 years old and they're mostly just yearly reports of storm occurrences. [160] There's also the issue of finding a more specific quote, but let's start with this... --Nethgirb 06:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

MWR is a good journal. OTOH the papers there were from 1969 which is antique. NF is clearly not a scientist anymore. I would favour removing him; unless leaving him in is a useful sign of the desperation people have finding contrarians... William M. Connolley 09:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is it when the proponents of alleged AGW speak of the IPCC consensus of scientists, the 'consensus'includes govt employees, sociologists, Malaria experts(see above) etc. Yet they hold the scientific skeptics to a different standard. [deleted].67.141.235.203 21:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Noooo... in fact the standard for pro-AGW is far higher, in that we only list organisations. But thats because there are far too many individuals to list. If you think that NFs credentials put him in the front rank of active scientists... you're wrong William M. Connolley 15:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Yesssss. That is a joke to say that the standard for pro-AGW is far higher...you list IPCC, yet IPCC contributors include many, many people(Malaria experts, sociologist, energy company employees, et al) who you would never allow on this list. Whats good for the goose, is evidently not good for the gander. You have obviously lost all sense of perspective, and have become part of the problem regarding this 'debate'. If you wanted to say the consensus of WGI supports alleged AGW, you would be applying a consistent criteria. But then you couldn't go around spouting that thousands of scientists support alleged AGW and only a couple of dozen don't.
Well, it might be interesting to list all of the scientists on record as agreeing with the consensus. Kind of like a takeoff on Project Steve. But it's recommended that Wikipedia articles not exceed 32 KB or so, and there's no way we could fit all of them into such a limit even if we listed names and nothing else. Raymond Arritt 15:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
You're ridiculous. You too miss the point. If that list were held to the same criteria as this list it would easily fit under 32k. This long list that you refer to, includes many, many scientist who are in unrelated fields, work for energy companies etc, if you want to include them in your propaganda ("thousands of scientists agree") then you should let this list include scientistd in unrelated fields, that work for energy companies, weathermen, etc.
The anonymous poster is entitled to his or her opinion but it is not relevant to the discussion of whether Frank's credentials satisfy the established requirements for inclusion in this article. --Nethgirb 16:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Why not? Either stop claiming 2000 scientists support alleged AGW or have the same criteria here. Some of the IPCC contributors are meteorologists. You claim them as part of the scienticic consensus. Why can't that be scientific skeptics? (In essence I'm saying the established requirements for inclusion are unreasonable.
Errm... exactly which article has the 2000 claim that you're objecting to? William M. Connolley 16:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
On this disucssion page 1000 & 2000 have been mentioned around. That's not really the point Please address the point. If part of the scientific consensus (IPCC contributors) can include oil company employees, why can't oil company employees be part of the scientific skeptics? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.141.235.203 (talk • contribs).
OK, so no-where in the articles. OK, where in the articles are non-scientist oil folk given as supporters of IPCC? (in answer to your question: oil folk are welcome as skeptics, but need creds as scientists to be listed on this page) William M. Connolley 17:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
What a silly question. Where in any article is anyone given as a "supporter of IPCC"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.141.235.203 (talk • contribs).
Errm... so what exactly is your point? Could you perhaps quote some piece of text from the articles (not talk) that you find objectionable? William M. Connolley 18:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that this anonymous poster's point is that a geologist, meteorologist, or physicist involved in the IPCC cannot be presumed to support on the whole the IPCC's conclusions. His participation to the IPCC process is necessarily limited to his field of expertise. I would thus agree with this poster that it is presumptuous to pretend that the hundreds/thousands of scientists involved in the IPCC process agree with "the consensus" since none of them holds even 10% of the knowledge that would be necessary to assess all aspects of the IPCC conclusions/predictions. --Childhood's End 18:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, so you try anwering my question: where is it said in the articles that the hundreds/thousands of scientists involved in the IPCC process agree with "the consensus"? William M. Connolley 18:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Finally you see the light! You now recognize that their is no scientific consensus supporting the summary. Thank you, my work here is done.67.141.235.203 21:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you promise? Raymond Arritt 18:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Funny, but I think the point is made, indeed... --Childhood's End 18:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
If the point is that you have no answer to my question, then yes it is indeed well made. This entire discussion seems to be based around a strawman William M. Connolley 18:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Rather, this page is based on a strawman. Trying to refute a consensus that doesn't exist, against the will of an editor with a an agenda! Best of luck to all.67.141.235.203 21:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
@WMC : To be honest, I am not really certain of where both of you are going with your arguments. But this anonymous user seems to feed on the fact that you are actually supporting that nowhere it is said that all the IPCC participants agree with the IPCC conclusions. Thus, he seems to believe that this is an admission that the idea of a "consensus" is fallacious and that yourself just recognized that it is impossible, in fact, to have a consensus of scientists in regard with the IPCC conclusions...
On the other hand, while I agree with this logic, I will also give you that few scientists officially disagree with the IPCC. But I think there's a gap between this fact and presuming the existence of a consensus. --Childhood's End 19:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
My "argument" was based on a misunderstanding: I thought that the anon believed something about the pages, which turned out not to be true. Hence, this entire conversation has nothing to do with improving or even changing the page, and so is pointless William M. Connolley 20:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I have a feeling everyone reading this page got the point, save two or three whom I will not name.67.141.235.203 21:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that the off-topic discussion has run its course, are there any more comments on whether or not to keep Frank? --Nethgirb 10:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have cut Frank's entry to talk since there has so far been no support his qualifications. But we can discuss more if necessary.

  • Dr. Neil Frank, meteorologist at KHOU-TV in Houston, TX, director of the National Hurricane Center from 1973-1987. "It's a hoax... maybe we're living in a carbon dioxide-starved world. We don't know." (Washington Post, May 28, 2006 [161])

--Nethgirb 05:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Director is the highest post of the National Hurricane Center, a division of the National Weather Service. His opinion surely has as much credibility as the members of the IPCC. Jcc1 13:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
And President of the United States is an even higher post, but it's not a scientific position. Although I may be wrong, I suspect the director of the NHC does management more than research. Do you have information to the contrary? Anyway, it certainly seems he does not pass the "has at least one publication in the last 5 years" test. --Nethgirb 18:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zbigniew Jaworowski

I took out Zbigniew Jaworowski, as:

Zbigniew Jaworowski, professor at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland : "The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false. Therefore IPCC projections should not be used for national and global economic planning." [162]

on the grounds that this is the wrong section, at least based on that quote. I fully agree that ZJ is a skeptic, and probably belongs somewhere, but the basis of his sketpicism is (as I understand it) that CO2 increase isn't anthropogenic. This is so wild and wacky that no one takes him seriously, but it is his view. Should we start a "misc" section, perhaps? William M. Connolley 19:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

"Miscellaneous" isn't particularly informative. Perhaps something like "objections to methodology" which would also include those who don't like models. Your "wild and wacky" has appeal (Abdussamatov, anyone?) but is probably best avoided even where true... Raymond Arritt 20:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that a misc or general skepticism section (which existed previously) would be in order, or such other as RA suggested above. As for ZJ, I think that this comment focuses on the fact that he believes that the IPCC is wrong in its assumptions regarding pre-industrial levels of CO2 and thus, its predictions cannot be accurate... it seems to belong to the article. --Childhood's End 20:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Why pick out that bit? Based on an article titled "Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate" I'd put him in the its-all-solar-guv, section William M. Connolley 20:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Well the paper that I cited focuses on ice core studies... In any event, perhaps he should appear in both sections if his separate comments are relevant in both places. --Childhood's End 20:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
You left out "...especially given that such duplication would make the list appear larger to the casual reader." Hope this helps. Raymond Arritt 20:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I am aware that this would make the list appear longer and that this would cause you much concern, even if all the information that would appear on it is verifiable. I somewhat share this concern too, despite what you may think. On the other hand, I am also concerned that the list would have sections on specific issues but would not inlcude all the relevant information on the ground that some scientists appear in another section already. --Childhood's End 20:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Your "paper" is just a thing on a personal website. Don't be mislead by "Statement written for the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation" - it was not presented. At least the other thing appeared on paper William M. Connolley 20:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

He is already listed in the "it's all natural" section, so I don't see why a new section is necessary. Duplication might be misleading and is also messy because we have to repeat information. Duplication isn't really valuable anyway -- if you believe the warming is natural then you almost surely believe the IPCC's projections, based on the assumption that warming is anthropogenic, are not to be trusted. We have references for each of the quotes so interested readers can follow up with details if they wish. --Nethgirb 22:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't any scientists that are quoted as "opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" be listed here? If you limit what "sketpicism" is like William M. Connolley
"but the basis of his sketpicism is (as I understand it) that CO2 increase isn't anthropogenic" - William M. Connolley
Then you can limit the number of Scientists who oppose the mainstream scientific Theory to your heart's content. all of this information should be in Scientific opinion on climate change but thats another arguement completly. Bottom line. Zbigniew Jaworowski doesn't agree with the IPCC conclusions. The IPCC Conclusions are listed as the "most notable"[163] state of scientific knowledge. That puts him in the Category of Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, does it not? His name is already in there, but I want to clear up what the "admin" was talking about. Removing the scientist for the reason given by William M. Connolley was incorrect.--Zeeboid 17:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I think there may be some confusion... WMC was not suggesting to remove him from the article, just to recategorize him within the article. In any case everything seems fine the way it is now. --Nethgirb 21:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Propose Merging this article with Scientific opinion on climate change

Scientists who Oppose the mainstream scientific assessment belong in the Scientific opinion on climate change. There are too many articles creating POV Forks in this respect. Scientists agree or disagree on the Climate Change issue are still Scientists who have an opinion on Climate Change. The Scientific opinion on climate change is lacking much of this information, and misleads users with the split of the topic. To keep the discussion simple, perhaps we could talk about it in one place, like here: [Scientific Opinion on Climate Change Discussion]--Zeeboid 20:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that is the right approach. The Scientific opinion on climate change article should have a link to this article. But if the two articles are merged, much of the information on this article will be lost. It will be trimmed down by various arguments for balance, etc. RonCram 01:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not nearly as well informed about climate change as the majority of you fine editors over here, but I know a little something about fairness. Should we have a list of scientists who support the IPCC view on the subject to balance this list? I can't seem to find one.Mykll42 10:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
That would be fair, but there would be too many on the list. Instead, Scientific opinion on climate change lists scientific organizations that have stated support of the consensus position. --Nethgirb 10:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
To correct you (because it seems others make the same mistake): Soocc lists organistaions that have made statements - not just those in support. It turns out that only the petroleum engineers oppose; but if others do too they would be listed William M. Connolley 11:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I didn't mean to imply that Soocc only lists supportive org statements. --Nethgirb 13:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pat Frank

Pat Frank is a regular contributor to ClimateAudit. I did not realize he was Professor Patrick Frank of Department of Chemistry, Stanford. Here is a quote: "And my position on anthropogenic global warming, like yours, is that it is alarmist nonsense. Scientific sensibility is the only consistent position we should take." [164] RonCram 01:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to agree on being scientific and sensible. Has Frank been a bit more specficic about what he doesn't like? William M. Connolley 09:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Here is an example of one of Pat's posts-
#30 — It’s wrong to think that North is insincere or just interested in grant money. That’s the sort of argument regularly deployed by the environmental extremists who have malignantly politicized the global warming debate. I think North and the other AGWarmer scientists really believe in GCMs and also firmly believe in some form of temperature HS trend even if Mann’s methodology is somehow flawed. Look at North’s expressed thoughts; they’re mutually contradictory. ‘We don’t know the errors, but the HS is true. We know the forcings and the physics (even though the cloud forcings are ~40 W/m^2 off, ocean heat content can’t be predicted, the parameters are often best guesses, the sun’s influence isn’t properly modelled, and initial condition uncertainties produce widely varying GCM outputs). [165] RonCram 11:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

We have to find a reliable source, of course... the blog comment isn't that, and I'm not sure about the first web site you raised. Here is another comment by him on what seems to be a reputable site: "The original hockey stick has been shown not just flawed but wrong." [166] But that is not really contradicting one of the principal conclusions... --Nethgirb 12:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

ClimateAudit is certainly a reliable source when quoting a scientist about his views. The comment took place on a Pat Frank thread. Steve M does not give people their own thread unless he knows it is them. RonCram 12:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Dubious, but even so he hasn't really said very much. Which cat are you proposing him for, based on the above? William M. Connolley 13:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I just took a look at the link. I agree with Ron that that counts as a verifiable source. However, he hasn't really stated his opinion on the main conclusions. --Nethgirb 13:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

And by the way he is not a Professor at Stanford. He's listed as Staff, with the specific position of "Life Science Research Asst". Look him up yourself. So I'm not sure he has the credentials, anyway. --Nethgirb 13:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Errrm, and given the number of Pat Franks in the world, you'd need to be sure you had the right one William M. Connolley 13:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. Circumstantial evidence indicates it is the right one, since on the web page I referenced above (in which a person named Pat Frank is questioning Gerald North, whom the person named Pat Frank wrote about on Climate Audit) he says he's from Stanford.

(On a lighter note... why do GW skeptics have such correlated names?

  • Pat Frank / Neil Frank
  • Tim Ball / Robert Balling
  • Steve McIntyre / Ross McKitrick

) --Nethgirb 14:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Bill Gray, Vincent Gray

(hmm, and they say everybody else is a conspiracy... ;-)Raymond Arritt 14:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It is great to see you guys have a sense of humor, even if it does open you up to further charges of spurious correlation! Kidding! I did not know Pat Frank was a researcher and not a professor. However, looking at Google Scholar, I think he has published quite a bit and that should satisfy the requirement for a record of scholarship. RonCram 16:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Keeley

I've cut the recently added Keeley entry, pending discussion here. Here's a good quote:

  • Martin Keeley, former Visiting Professor in Petroleum Geology, University College London: "I have come across no rigorous proof that wasteful human pollution has caused any significant climate change. ... The only proof of anthropogenic climate change ever offered, which to my mind is fallacious, is that temperature has increased with Western industrialisation. ... Global warming is indeed a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests, but in need of crash courses in geology, logic and the philosophy of science." (BBC News, December 6, 2004 [167])

My concern is about his qualifications. If you click carefully through his web page [168] you arrive at the page of his CV [169] which lists the UCL appointment: "VISITING PROFESSOR in Petroleum Geology & Basin Analysis, Earth Sciences Department, University College London (honorary position): 2002-2005." I'm not sure that's sufficient for a "record of scholarship". He is on the editorial board of Petroleum Geology. If I'm not mistaken WMC has researched his qualifications already [170] and perhaps can offer an informed opinion. ...? --Nethgirb 16:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well [171] says he has published some stuff. Though not recently. And he does seem to be a visiting prof according to UCL. It may be time to split this page into Climate Scientists and Others; he is definitely an other William M. Connolley 17:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually it seems he has a journal paper currently in press in the Journal of Petroleum Geology [172]. I'll put him back in. --Nethgirb 18:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Ben Herman

Clearly a skeptic Dr. Ben Herman of the University of Arizona's Department of Atmospheric Physics centered his presentation on the "discrepancy" among satellite-based temperature readings, temperature measurements on the ground and what climate models predict. "When you compare satellite, mid-troposphere satellite observations, with surface observations they don't agree with climate models," argued Herman. Climate models, in general, for the most part, have predicted that the mid-troposphere, somewhere between 10 [thousand] to 30,000 feet above the surface of the Earth, should warm more rapidly," said Herman. "In fact, observations have shown just the opposite." Moreover, "there are all kinds of complicated feedback mechanisms that come into play that the models cannot property handle." As a result, Herman believes the temperature predictions being made today are done "off the hat and without any backing." [173]

Record of scholarship? William M. Connolley 20:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
He seems to have a record of scholarship, including at least one paper written with Pielke, Sr. [174] RonCram 20:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
But it is the same one? Seriously, people being listed here need something to identify them as scientists, its as necessary as the quote William M. Connolley 20:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, he is. (http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/publications/pdf/R-270.pdf) Furthermore, you can list everyone on this paper as a skeptic. Read it yourself, but the gist is that what the models predict is inconsistent with what is happening. That is, if its greenhouse effect causing any warming neard the surface then the air at 500 milibars must heat at at least the same rate, yet it does not.
I am not sure that Pielke Sr wants to be listed as a skeptic. It is my understanding that Pielke Sr is more of a "luke-warmer." He thinks man is having some effect on climate, but he is no cheerleader for the IPCC. Back to Dr. Herman. He has been involved in some interesting research. [175]RonCram 21:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Pielke Sr et al may not want to be known as skeptics, because they would be vilified. They didn't put their names on the IPCC assessment reports, they did however put them on this paper.

I cut him away - the source is a blog. And the references from the Blog are dead - here is the text:

  • Ben Herman, University of Arizona Department of Atmospheric Sciences:"When you compare satellite, mid-troposphere satellite observations, with surface observations they don't agree with climate models", "there are all kinds of complicated feedback mechanisms that come into play that the models cannot property handle, " the temperature predictions being made today are done "off the hat and without any backing."[176]

--Kim D. Petersen 22:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joe D'Aleo

Another skeptic. Dr. Joe D'Aleo -- former chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting and a co-founder of The Weather Channel -- argued that recent trends of accelerated global temperature rises are "much more complex" than models show. D'Aleo stressed that "natural cycles are important" in explaining these trends. For instance, solar factors account for 50 percent of warming, according to D'Aleo. "When the sun is brighter, it's hotter." Ocean temperature and volcanic activity are also explanatory factors. The Pacific Ocean warmed in 1995 after decades of being cooler. "El Ninos tend to bring global warming because of the warmth in the tropical Pacific [Ocean]," said D'Aleo. And because of relatively few recent volcanic eruptions, there is less ash ejected into the atmosphere that would block radiation from the Sun. "What does that mean? More radiation from the sun gets through." This produces warming. [177]

Record of scholarship? William M. Connolley 20:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The "record of scholarship" criterion is vague and should be more specific. As a starting point, I propose the individual in question should have published one peer-reviewed paper in the last five years. That's a very low bar. Raymond Arritt 20:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I have not learned a lot. Daleo did write a post that Piele Sr used in his blog. [178] Daleo also co-wrote a book on El Nino/La Nina, but it does not appear to be a commonly used textbook. [179] On the Amazon website, I found a couple of books that quoted him as a respected and innovative meteorologist. [180] I am not sure if this meets the requirement of the group or not. Perhaps others can find more on him.RonCram 21:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of the word "small"

Without a definition of the word "small" which we can all agree upon, it seems either meaningless or POV pushing to put it into the intro. I have taken it out. Please discuss here until we agree before reverting my changes. Thank you. ~ Rameses 23:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop wasting everyones time William M. Connolley 23:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The arguments are spelled out very clearly above. This is getting ridiculous --Nethgirb 02:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the POV wording which has clearly been disputed many times by numerous editors (see above). In its stead, I have put the simple fact that "the 26 scientists listed below actively disagree with one or both of the second and third points." I have also removed the weaselly worded sentence: "Each scientist's views are stated without comment as to their factual accuracy." This seemed to have no purpose other than to cast aspersions on the scientists credibility. If it has a place here, then it also has a place in all of the other global warming articles (and all science articles for that matter). ~ Rameses 02:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
So, you're now opening the possibility of commenting on the factual errors the skeptics' statements? Raymond Arritt 04:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Either you have no idea of the purpose of an encyclopedia - or you don't care. I suspect it is the latter. ~ Rameses 04:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced the well-supported and relevant statement that "a small number of scientists actively disagree with the second and third points", removal of which constitutes a non-neutral POV by omission. I didn't revert Rameses' other changes. --Nethgirb 06:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You may be interested in the following: "Professor Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, one of the world’s leading experts on malaria, was a revelation. He explained how he had to threaten legal action against the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to have his name removed from the list of ‘2,000 of the world’s leading scientists’ who apparently backed its summary published last month. The problem? Professor Reiter didn’t back it, instead arguing that it was a ‘sham’. The IPCC ‘make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed, but it’s not true’, he said." from [181] So that is how they get their so called "consensus". Let's face it most scientists are not going to threaten legal action, they will just write a letter to the IPCC or grumble in private. It is all a farce - as is the complete disregard of NPOV by the cartel running global warming pages on Wikipedia. ~ Rameses 07:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
OK. However, this discussion about threat of legal action falls outside the scope of this article, so I've removed it. (Also, your text was only a minor modification of the text in the article, which probably would constitute plagiarism -- I assume this was unintentional on your part but I'd just like you to be aware of it.) But if you want to establish Reiter's scientific credentials, and a quote in which he disagrees with one of the main conclusions of the consensus assessment of global warming, that would be useful. --Nethgirb 09:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I posted this above so forgive me for the double post, but I see that this discussion is more recent
Despite this thread being inactive for a few weeks I think I have a fair solution. Change 'small' to 'relatively small'. This is both true and IMHO it is NPOV. There are far more scientists who support AGW so relative to that number, this group is small. However, small is completely subjective. Relative to the universe, the earth is small, but relative to an ant the earth is big. Small is only meaningful if it is compared to something else, nothing can be inherently small. What do you think? Prnd3825 19:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William Kininmonth

I cut Kininmonth from the article since his listed qualifications appear to be political, and I can't find any peer-reviewed publications to speak of. I am willing to change my mind of course...

  • William Kininmonth, former head of Australia's National Climate Centre (1986-1998) and former delegate for Australia to the WMO Commission for Climatology : "The magnitude of global warming projected by the computer models cannot be considered reliable because of the errors in poleward energy transport and net surface longwave radiation." [182] (see also Kininmonth, William, Climate Change : A Natural Hazard ISBN 0 906522 26 9 [183])

--Nethgirb 10:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry just noticed this edit. I must disagree. The guy has published a book, he is a meteorologist with something like 40 years of experience, and he has been involved in material positions within related organizations such as the WMO. He is also notable enough to deserve several publications in the press[4] [5] [6] [7]Unless "I can't find any peer-reviewed publications to speak of" is good enough a reason to cut an obvious skeptic from the list, I propose to put him back. --Childhood's End 14:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
He has a couple of ancient (1970s) papers on convective parameterization. We really need to specify what is meant by "record of scholarship." I've proposed that the person have published at least one peer-reviewed publication in the past five years, which is a very low bar indeed but is a starting point for discussion. Raymond Arritt 14:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I dont think that the fact that an experienced scientist has not published a paper in the last 5 years means that he should be cut out from the debate. So much for experience and wisdom eh? --Childhood's End 15:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea, but there will be screams. How many would disappear? William M. Connolley 22:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Probably not that many. Taking a quick look at the list, of the ones I'm familiar with maybe Balling, Seitz, and Idso would drop off. Singer has had a couple of fourth- or fifth-authorships in the past few years. I don't know about the astronomers and oil geologists. Raymond Arritt 00:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless "I can't find any peer-reviewed publications to speak of" is good enough a reason to cut an obvious skeptic from the list, I propose to put him back. Since a publication record is the gold standard for scientific scholarship, yes, it is a good enough reason. I agree 1 peer-reviewed publication in the last 5 years is OK as a minimal requirement. (Maybe holding an academic research position would be sufficient too...but if you do that, then you should certainly pass the one-pub test.) --Nethgirb 00:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think holding an academic position should be necessary. As a counterexample, Alan Betts is a highly regarded atmospheric scientist who works primarily as a freelancer. (And yes, he does publish.) Raymond Arritt 01:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed -- I was suggesting that holding an academic research position might be sufficient (i.e. as an alternative to having recent publications), not that it is necessary. --Nethgirb 01:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid you guys will have to show in some way how it is necessary for a scientist to have published a paper in the last 5 years before he can have his say in a scientific debate, even if he has remained in touch with the subject in another fashion. That may be your personal view (and how conveninent since most skeptics are experienced scientists less exposed to the need of publishing papers) but beyond that, it remains just a wild attempt at cutting out some dissenters out of the debate. --Childhood's End 13:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
He can feel free to say as much as he wants, but he does not have a record of scientific scholarship if he is, er, "less exposed to the need of publishing papers", as you delicately put it... --Nethgirb 13:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Funny how anybody coming here can claim that a guy with 40 years of experience in meteorology and involvement with the WMO and other organizations "does not have a record of scientific scholarship". --Childhood's End 18:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sci Sch is established by publications, not by heading organisations. If he has no pubs, he has no record of same William M. Connolley 19:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Cant you realize the blatant bias of this arbitrary criterion? A guy who has 40 years of experience working in meteorology circles deserves a say in the debate. Period. He could as well publish a paper tomorrow, or could have done it yesterday. --Childhood's End 19:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Its not at all arbitrary. Arbitrary would be "having pink socks". A criterion of Sci Sch is absolutely fair; it wasn't introduced ad-hoc to get rid of K; its always been there. Sci Sch is almost always publ; if you can think of something else that he qualifies under, fine. But sci admin is no good. William M. Connolley 20:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wibjorn Karlen

Skeptic

[edit] Petr Chylek

Skeptic

[edit] Please Address This Paper

Do the editors of this page believe that the authors of this paper (http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/publications/pdf/R-270.pdf) support the IPCC assessments?

Well... Observations indicate a minimum mid-tropospheric Arctic winter temperature of about �45�C at 500 hPa. This minimum temperature coincides with that predicted for moist adiabatic ascent over a sea surface near its salinity-adjusted freezing point. NCAR/NCEP Reanalysis data show that convective heating maxima averaged over the 50–70�N latitude band coincide both in longitude and altitude with total horizontal energy flux maxima entering the Arctic, indicating the significance of convection over open water on the winter Arctic energy budget. obviously disagrees with the IPCC. No? William M. Connolley 16:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
My suspicions are confirmed. You have no idea what you are talking about. (Hint: read on)
If thats supposed to be tantalising, it isn't. If you want to quote something from it that conflicts with the IPCC, please do William M. Connolley 20:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
No it was quite serious and if you need to ask that after reading that paper it is apparent you have no idea what you are talking about.

[edit] Don't sweat the small stuff

[184]

A great read for all you cool aid drinkers.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.12.145.148 (talk • contribs).

Be sure to also read the comments, where Pielke and Gavin (Schmidt) agree that Pielke asummed the figure to represent instanteneous radiative imbalance (i.e. the current imbalance), while it does indeed describe total radiative imbalance compared to pre-industrial time (the current imbalance is smaller as the Earth has already warmed and is closer now to an equilibrium state for the current forcings than in 1750). What remains seems to be a discussion whether the description of the figure was clear enough. --Stephan Schulz 08:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll agree with that.

[edit] Unresolved Issues

RonCram will you please add the authors of this paper to the 3rd category. (http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/R-321.pdf)

This is becoming silly. Are we to add all papers that don't start with a loyalty oath? William M. Connolley 18:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Enough with the pithy comments, just address the science. If you please.
Pielke himself has stated very forcefully that he is not a skeptic, and that "my view, readily available in many peer-reviewed publications, is for a far greater human influence on climate than suggested by the IPCC". Raymond Arritt 18:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
This page isn't about skeptics, it's about "Scientists opposing...." Please address the issues he brings up.67.141.235.203 01:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Must decline, owing to a conflict of interest. Also please sign and date your comments using four tildes like this ~~~~. Raymond Arritt 18:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
He clearly belongs on this list.67.141.235.203 01:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Not according to himself [185]. So "clearly" he doesn't. --Kim D. Petersen 09:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
This page is for "Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific....". I don't believe the mainstream is claiming that land-use is the driving factor behind alleged AGW. Furthermore, I think a heretic is on the 'other' side of a skeptic from a 'believer'.67.141.235.203 20:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Pielke does not claim this. He claims that the "average" global climate is less interesting than what happens to local climates, and that for these local climates, other effects, like land use changes, are usually dominant. Nothing in this is incompatible with the IPCC, it just deals with another problem. --Stephan Schulz 22:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
If you click on this link [186] you will see that the IPCC assessment conflicts with his research(which I assume he presumes to be accurate). If you propose that the IPCC assessment is the 'mainstream scientific assessment of global warming' I think you will agree that he opposes certain of their conclusions.65.12.145.148 23:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undiscussed move

Could someone move the page back to the old name - There has been a lot of discussions on the title - and a move without more is (imho) not correct. I'm a bit confused about the complexity in how the various redirections would influence a simple move.... Also please remember to move the Archive back - it got lost :-) (its here: [187]) --Kim D. Petersen 02:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Seconded! --Stephan Schulz 08:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've moved it back (I think you could have). I've protected it against future moves William M. Connolley 09:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wingham

There's no category for someone like Duncan Wingham. 'Global Sea Levels will recede' is contrary to the IPCC assessment.Jepp 15:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It certainly is. But since Wingham didn't say that, the relevance is questionable William M. Connolley 16:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
You may question his parameters, but its what his model 'forecasts'. (What, you don't believe model forecasts?)Jepp 18:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Could you please provide a reference? What information are you looking at? MrRedact 18:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Sure. Wingham, D.J., Shepherd, A., Muir, A. and Marshall, G.J. 2006. Mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 364: 1627-1635.Jepp 19:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
And the text you had in mind to assert that sea levels will recede? William M. Connolley 20:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference. It's available here if anybody else wants to read it. This paper does not say or suggest that global sea levels will recede. Wingham says, to paraphrase, that the Antarctic contribution to the rate of sea level rise currently is small and perhaps is negative. But the AR4 SPM also says that the Antarctic contribution to the rate of sea level rise currently is small and perhaps is negative. See table SPM-1 on page 7. You seem to be confusing the Antarctic contribution to the rate of sea level rise with the total rate of sea level rise. According to the AR4 SPM, the Antarctic contribution to sea level rise currently, if any, is small compared to contributions due to thermal expansion, glaciers and ice caps, and the Greenland ice sheet. Read the SPM. MrRedact 22:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
"We show that 72% of the Antarctic ice sheet is gaining 27+/-29Gt yr, a sink of ocean mass sufficient to lower global sea levels by 0.08mm yr."Jepp 22:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
...which is obviously quite different than saying "Global Sea Levels will recede". --Nethgirb 22:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's sufficient to lower global sea levels by 0.08 mm/yr, in the absense of any other effects. But there are other, positive, effects on sea level going on in the world, that are much larger. A decrease of 0.08 mm/yr is a tiny effect compared to the total of roughly 3.1 mm/yr that the sea level has been observed to be rising recently. As Wingham says in the very same paragraph as your quote, "...Antarctica has provided, at most, a negligible component of observed sea-level rise." Antarctica is not the whole world, and Wingham is not under the delusion that it is. MrRedact 00:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
He says it will lower GLOBAL SEA LEVELS.......that is unambiguous. He has spoken in other forums to make that point clearly(not that he should need to for these purposes).
Do a little high-school-level science: The density of water is about 1 g/cm3, so 27Gt (27 x 1012 kg) of water has a volume of 27 x 109 m3. Divide that volume by the 361 x 1012 m2 area of the world's oceans, and you get a sea-level decline of 0.075 mm, which is the same after accounting for rounding errors as the 0.08 mm that he's talking about global sea levels being lowered by in a year. He's very clearly, completely unambiguously, only talking about the Antarctic contribution to sea level rise in that sentence. The only way that sentence could be interpreted as pertaining to the total rate of sea level rise would be if he believed that all other contributions to the sea level rise rate combined are insignificant compared to the Antarctic contribution to the sea level rise rate. Given his statement "Antarctica has provided, at most, a negligible component of observed sea-level rise", he very clearly, unambiguously, does not believe that all other contributions to the sea level rise rate combined are insignificant compared to the Antarctic contribution to the sea level rise rate. If he has stated in other forums that global sea levels will be decreasing, then fine, provide references to those other statements. Because this document does not say that. MrRedact 05:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The assessment report says that Antarctic retreat contributes to global sea levels, Wingham says Antarctic gain is a sink. What is unclear about that? (Thank you for the science lesson!)Jepp 13:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Neither the AR4 nor Wingham says that Antarctica is currently for sure a source or for sure a sink of sea water. ("Current" in this context actually means based on data gathered between 1992 and 2003). Instead, both the AR4 and Wingham give an estimated range for the Antarctic contribution to the current global sea level rise rate that includes both positive and negative values. In particular, the 27±29 Gt/yr in the quote above amounts to a contribution to the sea level rise rate of somewhere between -0.155 and +0.0055 mm/yr. The -0.08 mm/yr rise rate contribution is just the midpoint of the estimated range. As long as the actual Antarctic contribution is anywhere within the overlap of the two ranges, then the AR4 and Wingham are both correct.
It's important here to be careful to compare apples to apples. The range given in the AR4 is for all of Antarctica, and the 27±29 Gt/yr in the Wingham quote is for only the 72% of the Antarctic ice sheet for which good data is available. On page 1633 of the Wingham paper, he estimates a mass gain of about 7 Gt/yr in the unsurveyed interior of Antarctica, and a mass loss of about 10 Gt/yr in the unsurveyed coast, which amounts to a net sea level rise contribution from all unsurveyed areas of about +0.008 mm/yr, which makes the AR4 and Wingham estimate ranges overlap more. MrRedact 17:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stott

Stott was recently added. The reference [188] includes the following quote: "Moreover, the latest research has shown that there has probably been no real warming, except that which is surface-driven." Can anyone provide a reasonable interpretation of what he means by "surface-driven" warming? --Nethgirb 01:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I took "surface-driven" to refer to the sun's warming of the earth's surface. He says "Serious new research at The Max Planck Institute has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor", and says "My own instinct is that our ability to change the reflectivity of the Earth's surface will, in the end, prove to have been far more important". At any rate, the greenhouse effect isn't a "surface-driven" effect, since it takes place in the atmosphere, not at the earth's surface. It looks to me like he meets the criteria for this article, and I think the "we don't know why" category is the right category for him, in light of the 30 climatic factors he lists to the left of his essay. MrRedact 03:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
While i agree that Stott is a candidate for this page - i don't agree that the quote is sufficiently clear - nor that the article is so. I could agree with most of what is in it - and still accept the IPCC projections. My take is that Stott is mostly concerned with exaggeration and the focus on one particular variable (CO2). If he is honest (and i believe that he is) then he would know that the Solanki research that he is refering to (at Max Planck) is stating that the Sun at most can be responsible for ~30% of the warming since 1970. --Kim D. Petersen 15:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's another quote that perhaps is clearer: in The Great Global Warming Swindle, Stott said "Isn't it bizzare to think that it's humans, you know, when we're filling up our car, turning on our lights, that we're the ones controlling climate? Just look in the sky. Look at that massive thing, the sun. Even humans at our present 6 1/2 billion are minute relative to that." MrRedact 19:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I can still agree with that quote - and consider the IPCC projections correct. It is bizarre, and we're not controlling anything - and the statement about the Sun is also 100% correct - turn off the Sun and you'll notice it quite fast. --Kim D. Petersen 20:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, how about this one, in which he refers to global warming being primarily due to human actions as being a "myth": In response to the question "Why do people believe [global warming is] our fault?", he responds: "Every generation appears to want a myth, and therefore when we come to look at a change in climate now, people want to explain it in terms of human action and human faults. In other words, we always need a Noah myth, and a Noah myth that says we have sinned. When carbon dioxide came along, which could be seen to come from things like fossil fuel burning, it was a gift to servicing this kind of myth. Instead of saying we have no control over the elements, we had a feeling that we did, but it was not a benign control it was to do with human sinfulness, human greed. And particularly American greed, hence in Europe, where it had an even greater attraction. So I think one of the reasons we particularly like ‘global warming’ is that it seems to fulfil this long history of myths about human action in relation to not just the environment but in relation to goodness and the Garden of Eden and all the rest of it. It’s a great myth."[189] MrRedact 22:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that "myth" passage; it says less about what he thinks about the principal conclusions, and more about why he thinks other people think what they think about the principal conclusions.

How about: "Perhaps unsurprisingly, therefore, the myth [of global warming] is starting to implode. ... Serious new research at The Max Planck Institute has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor[.]" From the second sentence, I can only conclude that he thinks it is at least quite plausible (the solar research is "serious") that CO2 is not to blame. --Nethgirb 00:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The second half of that quote is the same as the very first quote I gave, above. It certainly suits me as being adequate. Kim, however, didn't think it was adequate, because the Solanki research that Kim thinks the quote is referring to states that the sun is at most responsible for ~30% of the warming since 1970. However, Kim, regardless of what the Solanki research says, one way or another Stott is stating that research indicates that the sun is a far more significant factor in global warming than are human effects. For the purposes of this article, it doesn't matter why he promotes something as being true; whether he's being dishonest, he's mistaken, he's interpreting the results of the research differently, he's referring to different research done at the Max Planck Institute, or whatever, it's irrelevant. The only thing that's important is what his stated beliefs are.
The sentence fragment "Serious new research at The Max Planck Institute has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor;..." leaves it unclear as to what it is that the sun is a far more significant factor than. But the second half of the sentence makes it clear that it's being compared to human effects on climate change: "... Dr Bill Burrows, a climatologist and a member of the Royal Meteorological Society, has concluded: 'Perhaps we are devoting too many resources to correcting human effects on the climate without being sure that we are the major contributor.' "
I'm going to go ahead and change the article to use the "...the sun is a far more significant factor..." quote, because I think it's a stronger quote than what's there currently. I'm also going to move him to the "...mostly due to natural processes" section, since the quote supports that notion. MrRedact 02:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, sorry MrR, I somehow missed the fact that you'd also suggested that quote. I agree with your most recent comment on its appropriateness. I'm not entirely sure that he should be in the "natural" section though; that individual quote does seem to put him there, but in light of other quotes on that page (e.g. "Human influences on climate are multi-factorial. Unfortunately, we know precious little about most of them."), I'm not so sure. It could go either way though, so I'm not terribly committed. --Nethgirb 03:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's not really clear to me, either, which section he belongs in. Originally, I thought he belonged in the other section, and I can still see the argument for putting him there. I mainly moved him because I figured that to those readers who only read just the new quote, it would look like he was in the wrong section if he wasn't moved. But I'd have no objections if you or someone else wanted to move him back to the other section. MrRedact 04:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Professor Bjarne Andresen, Professor Christopher Essex

The second quote given for Andresen is just a third-party paraphrase, and so doesn't belong in this article. The original paper that prompted the quoted article is here. Andresen does have a solid record of scholarship.[190] The question in my mind, which I don't have the time to research tonight, is whether the TAR already sufficiently takes into account the variety of ways in which a "global temperature" can be defined to be consistent with the Essex/McKitrick/Andresen paper. MrRedact 02:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Everyone on this Report

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/ISPM.pdf65.12.145.148 00:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to add the authors of this report who meet the scientist credentials. I'm going to attribute this quote to each: "The hypothesis that greenhouse gas emmissions have produced or are capable of producing a significant warming of the Earth's climate since the start of the industrial era is credible. However, the hypothesis cannot be proven by formal theoretical arguments, and the available data allow the hypothesis to be credibly disputed." Should I list all names as one line item or seperately?67.141.235.203 14:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I think all the names should be listed on one line since it is the same quote. RonCram 00:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with RC and with anon that it's a good quote for the "cause is unknown" category. Please note however you have not quite copied the quote exactly -- not a big deal, but it would be good to fix that before including the quote. Also given the nature of this article, it might be a good idea to flesh out their qualifications here on the talk page first. To get us started:

  • Clark: already on the list
  • Kininmonth: discussed above and rejected (without any opposition)
  • D'Aleo: discussed above, little info on qualifications found
  • McKitrick: extensive discussion above but this report is new info

--Nethgirb 01:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Essenhigh

Skeptic [191]67.141.235.203 18:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. All the standard sceptic "arguments", up to the "our emissions are less than 5% of the natural flux". Is he notable and has a record of scolarship in the natural sciences?--Stephan Schulz 18:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
He's an engineering professor at Ohio State who works on (guess what) coal combustion. He knows just enough about radiative transfer to make the usual errors (see here), but competence in the scientific principles relevant to climate has never been a criterion for this list. Raymond Arritt 02:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Many papers/reports contain errors as pointed out by your colleague with regard to the 4th assessment.65.12.145.148 03:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Added - changed the title to Pf. of Mechanical Engineering, as this is the title on his homepage [192]. --Kim D. Petersen 22:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Does MechE count as a natural science? --Nethgirb 23:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Strictly no, though natural sciences and engineering often are lumped together as in Canada's NSERC (their equivalent of the U.S. NSF). Raymond Arritt 02:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
But the question remains; does an engineering professor who specializes in coal combustion have the credentials to merit mention in a list of scientists with opinions on global warming? If so, then the field is wide open for just about anyone to be be counted on both sides. Such a dilution would result in a meaningless article. --01:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Skyemoor
In this case the answer is clearly "no." One needs to be careful; e.g., at some universities the hydrology program is in the Civil Engineering department, so you could have a groundwater hydrologist (definitely relevant to climate) who would be a Professor of Civil Engineering. Raymond Arritt 01:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boris Winterhalter

"As a marine scientist, I am very much aware of the difficulty in measuring Sea Surface Temperature or even more difficult, sea surface air Temperature and therefore the centennial rise 0.6 C by IPCC can not be taken at face value. Anyhow, a global warming is probable, but I agree that the connection between GHG and T is far from proven." From a book review he did. [[193]]67.141.235.203 20:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: some kind of current-ness to research

I propose (following RA) that the criteria for inclusion in this page include some form of still-engaging-in-scienceness; and that the best measure of this is publications; and that at least one publication within the ISI index in the last 5 years is a weak but tolerable criterion.

In favour:

  1. William M. Connolley 13:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Our attorney friend is attempting to argue on details (4, 5, or 6 years), but the 5-year criterion is reasonable. This scientific field is moving so fast that a record of scholarship based on very old work is not relevant. Raymond Arritt 15:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    The arbitrary character of a decisional criterion is not a mere detail. --Childhood's End 15:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Nethgirb 00:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC). It would make very little difference if it were 4 years or 6 years; the exact number doesn't matter.
    You just showed why such a criterion is arbitrary and must be rejected. --Childhood's End 13:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    The general form of the criterion is anything but arbitrary. Your attempt to turn the unimportant details into a federal case is ineffective. --Nethgirb 07:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    You should not speak about what you do not know. Besides, you proved beyond redemption how arbitrary this criterion is ("the exact number doesn't matter"). You're not helping yourself by tring to get your way out of it. --Childhood's End 01:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kim D. Petersen 02:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC). 7±2 years is probably also good - this gives reasonable consideration to the people with emiritus titles.
  5. Skyemoor 01:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC) 5 years recent research in directly climate-related research and publication in peer-reviewed journals. There are too many engineers and unrelated science researchers (or otherwise) that dilute the meaning of "scientist" in this context. Skyemoor 01:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    Science researchers that dilute the meaning of scientist... Climate activists can provide awesome thoughts sometimes. --Childhood's End 01:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
You've taken my statements outside of their context and then beat on the strawman with a personal attack. No wonder you choose to use small text. --
Out of their context? 2 lines is a context? It's up there for all to read anyway... --Childhood's End 13:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I am of the view that this would be a wild-defined criteria (why not 4 or 6 years) and an obvious arbitrary attempt at restraining even further the dissent in the global warming debate (it is well known that most skeptics are experienced scientists less exposed to the need of publishing papers on a regular basis and climate activists are thus pushing for publications as the absolute criteria for credibility). It is not necessary for an experienced scientist to have published a paper in the last 5 years before he can have his say in a scientific debate. (last paragraph was unsigned - was this from Childhoodsend ?)
  1. User:birdbrainscan There are a lot more people with some science degree who are willing to chime in on this debate than there are people who have done any relevant research on the topic itself. I think we should focus on people who have studied climate in some way. Martin Keeley stands out for me as a prime case to exclude. He's never worked in academia at all, only in the oil industry. He does have a long record of publication on petroleum geology, but nothing scientific on climate at all - only an editorial.


Against:

  1. --Childhood's End 14:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. We need a criteria for inclusion. I see no sense in a putting a 5 year limit on publishing. It is not reasonable. If someone published in the 1970s, they still have a record of scholarship. The concept of "still-engaging-in-scienceness" is not a reasonable requirement. By this standard, we would exclude many Professor Emeritus types whose record of scholarship is unquestioned. These are type of scholars who know the Global Warming is based on badly conducted pseudoscience. This is just an attempt to silence these skeptics. RonCram 15:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Professor Emeritus is no real scientific standing, it's a figurehead that simply notes a professor is retired and no longer fully active in their field. --Skyemoor 09:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. The complete history (as you all know, the more data you have the better). If it was accurate at its time of printing, and fits wiki's guidelines, there is no reason to create another filter.--Zeeboid 21:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. There should be multiple criteria. a or b or c. Your criterion could be one. User:Jepp|Jepp]] 22:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Beyond caring:

  1. The 'global warming cartel on wiki' (as someone here recently called it) is getting hillarious. Anything to keep the freak show list small, huh? How long do you wager, until the only ones allowed on the list will be disabled nazi eskimos who live in Lesotho? 76.64.135.239 02:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The Disabled Nazi Eskimo Anti-Defamation League would like to speak with you on line 1. Raymond Arritt 03:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Raymond, that was funny. Keep up the humor and I will put you on my Christmas card list. RonCram 17:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that: (1) The purpose of the present proposal is not to make the list shorter, but rather to make the existing requirement more specific, so that we can all edit this page with less argument and in a less subjective manner. (2) Even if the proposed requirement is more strict than the status quo, quantity is not quality. If you want to advance the skeptic cause, a small list of highly qualified people such as Lindzen is probably even more effective than a lengthy list of unqualified "freaks". --Nethgirb 07:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Nethgirb, here is the list of people the proposal would cut from the article: Claude Allegre, Lee Gerhard, Zbigniew Jaworowski, Marcel Leroux, Frederick Seitz (former president of National Academy of Sciences), Fred Singer, Philip Stott and possibly even Hendrik Tennekes. This group has some eminent scientists among them, including former professors of climatology. The purpose of the proposal is clearly to delete some of the most eminent names from the list of skeptics.RonCram 17:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Singer would stay, and probably Tennekes. Seitz hasn't done any science in many, many years. I'm not sure about some of the rest; they're outside my field. But we need some kind of objective criterion to avoid the long, drawn-out debates that we've had on other contenders. Raymond Arritt 18:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually you'd both be wrong - Seitz [194], Gerhard [195], Allegre [196], Jaworowski [197], and Tennekes [198] stay. Stott [199] and Leroux [200] are possible drop-outs (depending on what's accepted as publications). Note that i've only done a preliminary look here - so Stott and Leroux may still apply. --Kim D. Petersen 00:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Still not convinced about Seitz. Notice the apparently recent dates actually reflect the dates when very old articles were converted to electronic format. The dozen or so that I clicked on were originally written between 1937(!) and 1958. I didn't have the patience to go through the whole list. Raymond Arritt 00:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
You are probably right. I hadn't noticed that these were reprints - afaict there are only two new ones - a necrolog and a history of semiconductors before WWII.... --Kim D. Petersen 01:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Raymond, the current criterion -as I understand it- is that they have published in natural sciences. I think that is good enough. The 5 year limit is arbitrary and appears to designed to cut some of the most eminent skeptics.RonCram 21:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
5 years may be too short, but 30 is too long. The field moves far too fast to consider the remarks of someone who hasn't actively participated in science in decades. Raymond Arritt 21:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Ron, I don't have time to research everyone on the list but I took the first person on your list. Claude Allegre has a number of publications as recently as 2006. [201] So maybe it's not as much of a problem as you thought. --Nethgirb 23:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Simply publishing in natural sciences is far too vague; Someone studying raccoon reproduction would be given the same numerical weight as a paleoclimatologist. The research would need to be directly climate focused. --Skyemoor 01:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not vague I think, but broad. You're right, we're giving all sorts of scientists equal weight. I don't personally care too much whether or not we restrict the article even futher; it would make the article different, not necessarily better or worse. Making the "record of scholarship" requirement precise seems more important. --Nethgirb 02:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a notable source that says that a five year limit on publications is a standard criterion that should be upheld before a scientist can reasonably be expected to express credible opinions about climatology? "The field moves far too fast" looks like OR to me. --Childhood's End 04:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a notable source that shows who can be identified as a climate research scientist if they are not actively (or recently) performing research and publishing in a directly climate-related area? --Skyemoor 01:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Can you define climate scientist? I may then be able to answer your question. --Childhood's End 01:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't actually use that term, but you are begging question: this thread refers to the qualifications we are discussing, so reread it. --
I think it would be fair to hold the skeptics to the same criteria as the so-called 'consensus'. Can anyone tell me what it takes to be a member of the 'consensus'? Because if it just means being an IPCC contributor/reviewer then the above mentioned raccoon researcher would be eligible to be a skeptic.....65.12.145.148 02:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree, if you're qualified to be part of the consensus, then you are qualified to be a skeptic. Prnd3825 17:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't see why there would be any issue with this. --Skyemoor 17:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh man, what a lot of back and forth. Whew. Look, let's not start a long thread about a definition of "climate scientist" - it's just a name. We're interested in the views of people who have studied the climate in some way. This will include, for instance, climatologists and atmospheric physicists; some may call this "planetary science" or "geosciences." Paleoclimatology is related. The point is to find people who have done research on how the climate works, and not people who have studied a lot of other things and now want to comment on the climate. Petroleum geologists are scientists, but are not climate scientists. The best way to see who has done research on climate is to look at who has published research on climate. To count as research publication, the venue should be peer-reviewed. Also, university professors are the most likely to count as doing original research on this topic. Persons working in industry (e.g. oil exploration) are using science more than creating new science. Persons working at a "think tank" are generally not doing original research to create new science; they are publicists. They do "research" only in the sense of reading what others have published, but they don't have labs, instruments, or collections of measurements which they analyze.Birdbrainscan 17:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jane Francis

  • Jane E Francis Professor of Palaeoclimatology, University of Leeds: "What we are seeing really is just another interglacial phase within our big icehouse climate." and "It's really farcical because the climate has been changing constantly... What we should do is be more aware of the fact that it is changing and that we should be ready to adapt to the change." [202] [203]

I've cut the above from the page. First because i believe the 2 references to be fairly unreliable sources (and i believe that they are taking this out of context). I looked a bit into Francis - and a recent article such as this one - makes me very much doubt that she is a sceptic - or that she in any ways is refuting the consensus. Please keep in mind that there are two timescales here: deep time (geological), and short time (human span). Comments? --Kim D. Petersen 00:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... the article you cited ends up with this quote from Francis : "The point is that the Earth takes care of itself. The Earth's cycles are so much bigger than human beings, that we're just an irritation on its skin. The planet has been hotter than now and it's survived - but will we?" --Childhood's End 19:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
That same quote gets circulated round and round the skeptic blogs. But it's from 1997. Lots of people have changed their minds since then, and she may have also (assuming the quote is reliable, which is open to question as you say). One of her recent projects is concerned with the possibility that "future global warming may allow the spread of forests back into high latitudes once more",[204], and she begins a 2002 book review with the sentence "With the impending change in vegetation types and their distribution due to global warming,..."[205] A 2003 conference abstract says "It is clear that if efforts to prevent global warming are not successful, then the polar regions will become very important for forestry as the ice caps recede." Those hardly sound like the words of a skeptic. Raymond Arritt 01:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. I am a skeptic and agree with both of her statements. Nowhere does she mention anthropologic, which is kind of the main point of the IPCC assessments. Second point, there is no consensus.65.12.145.148 03:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Wrong on both counts. Note she says efforts to prevent global warming. If it were natural (such as from solar variations), it couldn't be prevented. Raymond Arritt 03:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I noted that, and also noted that she called your position farcical. And most reasonable people think that efforts to prevent global warming are farcical. She also said “Some media coverage of global warming has certainly been a little bit dramatic,” she says. “I’m not saying that we shouldn’t try to curb CO2 emissions. But we need to see it in context and understand how the climate system works. The Earth is a very powerful thing, more powerful than all of us.”65.12.145.148 03:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
But that quote is from 1998 [206], which is too old for our purposes. --Nethgirb 03:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The more recent report clearly overrides the ancient one. I also have a personal email from her This is a very old report and does not represent my views (in fact it never did). which is no great surprise. She should stay off the list William M. Connolley 08:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to document such emails as this? I was considering emailing her myself.. It would be nice to have such things documented, so that they do not return again (such as has been the case with Pielke Sr.).. These are after all ultimate verification.--Kim D. Petersen 10:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
One option might be to have her send an email to WP:OTRS, which would document it. In general communication from a person isn't a good way to verify facts, but in a case like this, where we are attributing an opinion to people, it starts to slip into WP:BLP areas. In general though, given the fact that this is a developing field, anything more than 3-5 years old should not be considered as evidence, unless it is coupled with more recent activity. Guettarda 12:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the first part and disagree with the second. 1- If we can obtain Francis' actual opinion directly from her, that's the best way to validate what's on the article. But this must be made public and verifiable, rather than to come here and say "I've got an e-mail from Ms. Francis and she says that". 2- But you cannot presume, only because time is passing by, that a person changed his/her mind about opinions published earlier. In fact, you are only allowed to presume that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, a person has not changed his/her mind. To say that Francis has perhaps changed her mind since 3-5 years or more and thus should not be quoted is OR. --Childhood's End 13:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Nice try, but the argument doesn't hinge on whether someone changed their mind. The intro says "This article lists scientists who have, since the Third Assessment Report, published research or made public comments opposing at least one of the conclusions listed above." The TAR was published in 2001. Given that JF's quote was from 1997, she should never have been on the list in the first place.
Are you using again this arbitrary criterion to delete another credible scientist from public scrutinity? If Francis believes that the Earth's far past gives us clues that what we are experiencing is natural warming, TAR is not likely to have changed significantly what she believes. --Childhood's End 14:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
What's arbitrary about someone who is no longer a skeptic? Back in 1998, roughly 98% of the scientists were unclear about AGW, given trends then. Now, roughly the opposite ratio feels that way. Former skeptics who now are convinced about AGW should not be listed as skeptics now because that would be deceitful. I would entertain your rationale to the contrary if you have any. --Skyemoor 15:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
This brings to mind a broader point: the skeptics need to be more careful, as the ploys they are using here could backfire. Suppose they put someone on the list who is very obviously not a skeptic (recall the Wally Broecker episode). The person in question could demand that Wikipedia retract the defamation; Jimbo would likely ban the person who posted it. Raymond Arritt 13:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to help you here, although this is obviously trolling and a ploy to instill fear about publishing skeptical comments. You should understand that a person who has made a public comment cannot sue Wikipedia because this comment is being cited by Wiki, unless this comment is used in a consciously misleading way to defame that person or something of that kind. On the other hand, if a comment was invented to make look like a skeptic someone who is clearly not, then that person would have grounds. But that's not what's happening here. Please refrain from further trolling.--Childhood's End 14:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The Wally Broecker case is very real - so there is no trolling or intimidation involved here. It's primarily because WB is well known and because of the validation checks and discussions done here on the talk page - that he didn't end up on the list. In this case - where the quote is very old (which btw. isn't arbitrary but has been the premise of the page since the beginning) and is retained from sources that we cannot verify (the fossils page) - it becomes important. I btw. agree that we have to consider the same criteria as for WP:BLP. I raised the question not because of suspecion (i was already convinced - see above). But because emails have been used earlier - both to confirm (as with Orrin Pilkey above) and to refute (as with Giese above) - so it would be nice to have these archived in some way. --Kim D. Petersen 14:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Please stop this ridiculous sidestory. It really is intimidation. If Wikipedia had any such concerns, Bushism would have been deleted, but it survived a deletion request by a wide margin. Just look at the quotes in the 3rd section (Other famous bushism), all taken from the same dubious blog. In the deletion discussion, someone pointed out that the article was a violation of the policy on libel against living people. The answer he got is this : "libel certainly does not figure in here. It's very very difficult to commit defamation against a public figure in the United States. Nothing in the article crosses the line. So let's just take the legal question out of consideration." And the deletion request was turned down, as I said. --Childhood's End 13:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Short answer: there is a difference between a public person/politician and the persons that are on this page (or nominated for it). I'm not interested in your politics - so i'm not going to comment - sorry. --Kim D. Petersen 19:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
And I have an email from McIntyre saying that Connolley misrepresents his position on this page. Where shall I post it?67.141.235.203 14:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
First, get an account and login so that we can at least take you a slightly bit seriously. Then see the above WP:OTRS, so that we can put McIntyre on the record (if indeed you do have such an email). --Skyemoor 15:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be better to let the person copy the email to the OTRS people directly, rather than having one of us forward it. Guettarda 15:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Taken seriously? I thought this page was satire. Look up under McIntyre's Blog section of this page. That's all the comment that needs to be made. As Connelly pointed out above, there is no consensus. This page is the straw man, set up to oppose a consensus that doesn't exist.

By the way, just as a sidenote in case it went unnoticed, Dr. Jane Francis seems to work for the White Rose Palaeobiology Group, which shows on its front page a quote from Jacques Joseph Ebelmen (1847) that says : "Many circumstances nonetheless tend to prove that in ancient geologic epochs the atmosphere was denser and richer in CO2, and perhaps O2, than at present". This may not prove she is a skeptic by itself, but she seems to work for a scientific organization that identifies itself with the idea that the Earth has seen more CO2 in its atmosphere than at present. I'd still like to see this e-mail that Mr. Connolley claimed he received, just in case... --Childhood's End 18:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, that is part the standard scientific opinion and in no way conflicts with the IPCC. During the Ordovician, a drop in CO2 from 7000ppm to 4400ppm accompanied a major ice age. 250 or so million years ago, the atmosphere had 35% oxygen. See Earth's atmosphere#Evolution_of_the_Earth.27s_atmosphere for a short overview. Of course, back then a lot of things where very different, including the position of the continents and the energy output of the sun, so this is largely irrelevant to todays climate science. --Stephan Schulz 20:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, thanks for this info, it helps in some way, but it seems that these scientists disagree with you on the relevance of this with "today's climate science". As I pointed out, they identify themselves with this - it's not as if they think it's irrelevant... --Childhood's End 20:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, maybe I should have chosen a more careful phrasing. Of course any understanding of different climate systems has a chance of improving our understanding of today's climate. What I wanted to point out is that one cannot naively transfer simple conditions from the Ordovician to today (as in "look, back then there was 15 times more CO2 in the air than today, and they had an ice age, so CO2 has nothing to do with warming!" - and yes, I have seen this position). --Stephan Schulz 21:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Who is this Mr Connolley of whom you speak? But as to the substance: the email is a sideline, and would not be enough by itself. The important point is that her recent statements override the old ones. This article is not a history of anyone who ever was skeptical. BTW, you "white rose" stuff is so obviously pointless its hard to know why you bothered with it William M. Connolley 19:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
So, you cited an e-mail as evidence but once you're asked to show it, it's not enough by itself? Now I would ask you to show it anyway; that would be kind on your part and would show that you're not building up stories on these boards. --Childhood's End 19:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The recent references are evidence enough, so the email is simply a red herring you're dragging around. --Skyemoor 19:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Skyemoor i agree completely with your statement. But i still think that it would be nice to be able to (in controversial cases, ie. those where the quote/documentation can be interpreted both ways) provide an email as documentation - for either include/exclude (funny enough in both the cases i mentioned earlier (Giese,Pilkey) the email provided the confirmation contrary to the (subjective) POV of the corresponding editor - so it can be useful. --Kim D. Petersen 20:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Considering the special status that WMC has in climate-related articles and how binding his opinions are for yourself and the usual others, it does not seem like a red herring to be interested in whether he did receive such an e-mail or not. How can you not be interested in the reliability of WMC's claims? --Childhood's End 20:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm interested in my claims. My claim is: But as to the substance: the email is a sideline, and would not be enough by itself. The important point is that her recent statements override the old ones. I also claim you're trolling, and encourage people not to feed the trolls William M. Connolley 23:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Your accusations of trolling against people who have different opinions than yours are not new - that is trolling. Now, considering your high involvement in climate-related articles, bring forward this e-mail if you please so that we know that you're not making false representations here and there to support your edits/positions. --Childhood's End 13:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
WMC pegged it when he said you were WP:Troll trolling. This red herring is merely one of many examnples. Your attempts to deflect admonishment and turn the argument to your opponent is a well known legal trick. --Skyemoor 11:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Re legal trick, you do know that CE is (or claims to be) an attorney? Raymond Arritt 12:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Your defense of WMC's unjustifiable actions show much about your neutrality. If you were neutral, you'd be curious just like me to know whether or not he did received that personal e-mail from Dr. Francis. --Childhood's End 16:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about Raymond, but I am curious - not because I doubt William, but because I'm naturally a curious person (in both senses, I guess). However, I also know that you do not publish other peoples correspondence to you. --Stephan Schulz 17:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
That's a really fair point. But then, why come here and claim that you got a personal e-mail supporting your position if you're not to publish it? At best, it remains trolling. --Childhood's End 21:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it's the opposite of trolling. It tries to shorten a useless discussion (not that it worked in this case). There is nothing to support inclusion of Jane Francis because she simply is not sceptic. --Stephan Schulz 22:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Then as I said, you're supporting what should not be supported (an administrator who refuses to clarify whether he told the truth or not). You cant be neutral doing that. --Childhood's End 01:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's try a definition here. I understand trolling as picking fights that will not inform the ongoing discussion but merely distract. I'm afraid this is a losing battle for CHE: there's no way that Francis fits the criteria for inclusion, and you have to see that recent statements outweigh older ones.

As for the significance of the older quotation, I don't see it as equating to "AGW is a hoax" or even just "AGW won't make much difference to us," but something more like "paleobiology shows there were vastly different atmospheric conditions in the distant past, yet life survived; we could look at AGW in that context and see that the biosphere will somehow adapt and evolve beyond its effects" - that's a long-term planetary science and evolutionary biology outlook, distanced from the issue of what AGW might mean for the economy, agriculture or storm damage over a mere 200 year time scale. Hence the comment about GW being a passing skin rash, from the planet's point of view. I think it's an instance of "humans are awfully self-important, given our short time in the vast sweep of planetary history and biology" (But of course we humans have to worry about the much shorter term of the next century or two.) Could that be what was intended by the "farcical" reference?

Oh and by the way, much as I respect WMC, I don't just toe whatever line he proposes here; I'm doing all I can to learn the science for myself. This term I'm attending two courses, a grad seminar on GW and a 3rd yr. physics course on radiative effects in the atmosphere. I'm up to my ears in journal papers in the assigned readings (though I don't think I'm up to 928 articles yet. :-) Birdbrainscan 14:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks for trying to bring this discussion somewhere. Let me only add one more comment about trolling, as I think that the best example of trolling we could have is someone coming into this discussion, claim that he has a personal e-mail from Mrs. Francis herself telling him that the quote does not reflect her position, and then refusing to show the e-mail once asked to. You would expect that this sort of behaviour would have come from an anonymous IP address messing around, but no... that was from William Connolley on whose claims many editors here rely for their own edits. I'm unfortunately alone to see the obvious problem here, and will therefore give it up, but I wont accept being called a troll by an administrator who leaves us wondering whether he tells the truth or not to the WP community on talk pages.
As for Dr. Francis' "old" quote, while I agree that it does not specifically address a particular point of the GW mainstream theory, it still shows overall that she believes the warming is probably natural rather than anthropogenic. The three quotes provided by RA all show that she believes in a global warming (like most other skeptics) but they show in no way that she no longer believes that the warming is natural rather than anthropogenic. And I have also read the article provided by KDP, which is full of poetry and nice things, but which ends up with "The point is that the Earth takes care of itself. The Earth's cycles are so much bigger than human beings, that we're just an irritation on its skin. The planet has been hotter than now and it's survived - but will we?". This does not prove by itself that she is a skeptic, of course, but it certainly does not prove neither that she changed her mind with regard to the older quote. Now, add this up with her organization's web site which features the following quote as a slogan : "Many circumstances nonetheless tend to prove that in ancient geologic epochs the atmosphere was denser and richer in CO2, and perhaps O2, than at present", and you are left wondering how they can come to the conclusion that she changed her mind since 1998.
To sum up, I agree with you that these more recent references invite us to differentiate between long-scale and short-scale, but where I disagree is that they do not allow us to claim that she changed her mind about the natural warming hypothesis. --Childhood's End 19:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe there is a misperception that attenuates your understanding of the science; yes, there were times in the distant past that there were higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. It was absorbed by plant life, and then sequestered through a number of processes due to diverse events (e.g., asteroid strikes, etc). That's where the coal/oil/natgas we extract came from originally. If we put it back into the atmosphere, then we will create conditions that are outside the realm of our current climate (i.e., habitat, agriculture), resulting in impacts to rainfall patterns, temperature ranges, violent weather events, etc. Hence the "it's survived - but will we?". --Skyemoor 19:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I've read over the White Rose website. Did you notice the date of the little caption slogan you are so excited about? It's from 1847! I'd say it's there as a tribute to Jacques Joseph Ebelmen as a founder of paleoclimatology, not a subtle hint that the site participants are climate change skeptics.
Anyway, you are grasping at straws if you want to count Jane Francis as one of your AGW skeptics. Take a look at the last two paragraphs of the more recent Guardian profile [207] (as cited previously):

She does sometimes despair of our stupidity, thinks we live in ridiculous places and has a movie on her computer that shows the areas that are going to be inundated as the ice caps melt and the seas rise. Something like 65 metres of potential sea level rise is trapped in the ice so London is gone and Cambridge will follow. Leeds is OK, but Florida goes as do Bangladesh, the Pacific islands and Holland. She has just been to Shanghai and saw it had been built on the Yangtze delta. She thought: "Well, how long is that going to be there?"

So she believes the ice caps may well melt and flood these areas. The last paragraph leads off with "We fiddle too much with natural systems" (implying that we are implicated in these changes); then the part you still choose to cite "The earth will take care of itself [...] The planet has been hotter than now and it's survived - but will we?" Why do you even think that quote helps your position? She's not saying that AGW doesn't matter because "the earth" will surive. She's saying we may be threatening our own survival.Birdbrainscan 21:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that you misunderstand what I mean instead. As I said, I understand what you just said above. My point is that this does not show that she changed her mind if what she said previously indeed is a skeptical comment towards anthropogenic warming. Besides, the fact that the quote on the White Rose website is old and dates back to 1847 can only show how important they think it is to today's context no? If they felt it was irrelevant now, why would they advertise it? But as I said also, this does not prove by itself that they are skeptics, of course. I'm just adding up things and asking questions that some people here want to avoid. --Childhood's End 17:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
In other words, you have no evidence that she is or ever was a "sceptic". --Stephan Schulz 17:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
How do you arrive at "that some people here want to avoid?" We've now expended 4090 words on discussing if Jane Francis is a skeptic. Where exactly is the avoidance? She has a screensaver that shows how GW-driven sea-level rise will flood massive amounts of coastal habitation; she asks "The earth ... has survived - but will we?" In all her extensive peer-reviewed publication, you haven't shown a single hint of AGW skeptical argument on the science in print. If Francis were another Balling or Michaels, shouldn't you be able to find at least something published by her in this direction? At least Balling and Michaels have put it in writing.Birdbrainscan 17:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Read again the original quote and what I said previously, as I have nothing to add to this. I'm not going to let this discussion derail on the issue of whether it is necessary to have expressed skepticism in a peer-reviewed publication before a scientist can be considered a skeptic. This is only an attempt at creating a tool of censorship. I can be a skeptic by my concerns published in the media. Besides, Francis is out of the list now, isnt she? Why argue any further? --Childhood's End 18:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Have you really nothing to add? Excellent. Then we can end this discussion, which has been entirely pointless for rather a long time - a lesson to us all in not feeding the trolls William M. Connolley 20:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Who's trolling again? --Childhood's End 20:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
But didn't you say you had nothing to add? Raymond Arritt 21:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Please try to be civil. Accusations of trolling coming from a trolling post, I can dismiss, but this is getting off-limits... --Childhood's End 21:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Secondary sources?

Given the questions above, it really shows the importance of secondary sources - that listing people as sceptics should be based on their being described as sceptics by a reliable secondary source (supported, given BLP considerations, by their actual comments). Guettarda 15:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide secondary sources that show that all the scientists in the world not listed in this article as "skeptics" actually support the theory of anthropogenic global warming? --Childhood's End 17:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I can't, which is why I would never suggest that such a statement be included in this article. It's common knowledge that the vast majority of them do, but that's a different issue altogether. Guettarda 17:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm starting to be dubious of all this 'common knowledge' stuff. I wouldn't mind actually, seeing a list of scientists who support all this doomsday rot-gut with a couple of important qualifiers - those being: 1) made statements to the effect in the last 5 years with 2 independant sources, 2) Published in the last 5 years, 3) Made the typical doomsday style predictions about what will come "if we don't take action now", and most importantly 4) is openly conservative politically (because I personally believe that the modern enviromentalist movement is mostly an attack on capitalism in favour or socialism rather than done out of any genuine concern for nature or the planet, and hence global warming has become a political issue). Would there be any interest for such a list, other than my own? I wonder how long it would be...76.64.54.175 04:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, since "typical doomsday style predictions" are not part of the scientific opinion, those might be hard to find. --Stephan Schulz 07:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Just look at what came out of the summary of the Fourth Assessment Report : "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level," the scientists said. The report blamed man-made emissions of greenhouse gases for fewer cold days, hotter nights, killer heat waves, floods and heavy rains, devastating droughts, and an increase in hurricane and tropical storm strength — particularly in the Atlantic Ocean.[208]
Oh, a scientific survey from that famous scientific publisher, Fox News. Right. Why don't you go and read the AR4 SPM and find out what the science really says? --Stephan Schulz 14:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
You should pay more attention. That was from some media organization called Associated Press - Fox only took it... --Childhood's End 14:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree - there should no shortage of scientists warning of dire castrophes like droughts, famines, hurricanes, floods, rising sea levels (poor Holland and New Orleans (noted Scientist Al Gore speaks of the 20 feet of water that will cover Manhattan)), increased pestilence resulting in spread of diseases, etc. Or is the media mis-reporting the scientific findings and decieving us on purpose (and this is in no way limited to FOX news!)? If the media is just scare-mongering, I would think it would have been a priority of the scientists to correct the record, to stop the endless tripe about drowning polar bears, et al. If they let this kind of misreporting stand, one must start to question their motives a little... Of all my qualifiers, I would think the toughest one would be the 'politically conservative' bit.76.64.54.175 14:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Using political leanings as a filter is the ultimate in POV. Science must be divorced from such machinations or else all you would be left with is political propaganda (indeed, much of what one sees today). Now, this is an article talk page; how do you suggest to improve the article? --Skyemoor 17:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The funniest thing is when people think that scientists or the UN are immune from political bias while they know that the strings are pulled by politicians... --Childhood's End 18:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems you are speaking of the current US Administration. -- Skyemoor 18:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes I forgot that one... the UN and the current US administration love each other so much ! --Childhood's End 19:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
We agree Skyemoor absolutely - science must be based in facts. But I would argue that if man made global warming is science, then it can stand on it's own merits and politics, and as such, you'd expect scientists who believe in global warming to be split almost equally in left/right political leanings since personal politics don't change facts. Anything less than a 50-50 (or say 60-40 since 50-50 is basically impossible) split would indicate to indicate - to me at least - a lack of facts, and surplus spin. Simply put, as a conservative myself, who has become highly dubious of this research fearing it hijacked by the left, judging the degree of politcs in the matter with a list of scientists with a similar outlook as myself would be genuinely informative (that's why I floated the idea for such a list in the first place).
As for improving the article, I still think that the thinking leading to it's creation is suspect (as an afront to the people listed, and intimidation against others lest they join the list) and hence wonder if the article should even exist. That said, the article has undergone great improvement since I first saw it and made my tongue in cheek comment some weeks ago, and that has somewhat placated my cynisism -- thank you all for that. But rest assured, I was serious when I asked whether there was any interest in a conservative pro-global warming scientist list -- if for nothing else than to judge relative sizes of the two positions because all this "vast majority"/"small minority" talk really is making me curious to the actual relative sizes (and the restrictions I stated are basically the same as there are for this page - except the list would be half as large as the complete list, right?). Are there any reliable numbers that compare apples to apples (as opposed to memberships in organizations vs individuals who publish opposing points of view in publications which often advocate the opposite point of view)? Can someone tell me a few names of conservative pro-global warming scientists?74.14.117.17 03:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
So far as I know there aren't any surveys of the political leanings of GW scientists. I do know several scientists who accept the consensus view and who are conservative but it would be an invasion of privacy to give their names. (I'll self-declare as a registered independent whose political views leave people utterly disoriented, so that's probably not useful as a data point.) For what it's worth Bill Gray, a prominent GW skeptic, calls himself a "flaming liberal." With all due respect I think that dividing a scientific issue into liberal or conservative is abhorrent. See mu.Raymond Arritt 04:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, of course, the argument if fallacious. You do not expect a 50/50 split, at most you'd expect that the distibutions are independent, i.e. you would expect the same proportion of left/right in scientists supporting the IPCC view as in the set of all scientists (or all climate scientists? Or all humans? You need to define the basic population you draw from). But even then, many scientists (just like Ray) have a complex political outlook that isn't easily classified into left/right. --Stephan Schulz 08:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, we would have difficulty with the theories of gravity and relativity (to only name two) if we were looking for a roughly equal split of scientists pro and con. --Skyemoor 10:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
You misundersdtood me (easy to do since I typed it after a very long day and made many errors - my apologies). I was simply interested in the conservative subgroup of pro-global warming consensus scientists. If politics has nothing to do with the science, I tried to argue, you'd expect an even split amongst the scientists (convervative/liberal) who support and who oppose a theory (the sizes of the groups can be different (like in the theories you mentioned) but the ratios you'd expect to be the same (since facts are politically neutral)). And as Stephan correctly pointed out, this ratio does not need to be 50-50 either. I attempted to point out that a large differnece in the ratio (conservative:liberal) between sceintists who support and those who oppose a theory would indicate to me problems with the theory itself - since the 'facts' are being interpreted differently based on ideology (if the ratio in both groups were constant but skewed too far from the population as a whole, that also begs questions but not necessarily with the theory itself).
That said, Ray probably has a point and such distinctions should probably not be made - maybe it makes for a interesting poll, but not for an encyclopedia (heck - I'm dubious about whether or not this list should exist at all for similar reasons, so I should be consistant). I do have one request though, when considering new restirctions on the names of scientists who belong on this list (secondary sources, publish recently, etc) on top of the existing restrictions (no blogs, publish, etc), please don't propose any restrictions that you would not find acceptable on a list such as the one I had proposed.74.14.117.17 06:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"I attempted to point out that a large differnece in the ratio (conservative:liberal) between sceintists who support and those who oppose a theory would indicate to me problems with the theory itself - since the 'facts' are being interpreted differently based on ideology" -- I see what you're getting at, and the statistics would be really interesting to see. But this reasoning is flawed. At a high level, a theory is either:

  1. Supported by logical reasoning based on evidence.
  2. Not well supported or open to subjective interpretation.

If I understand correctly, your argument is that if evaluation of a theory is correlated with politics, then this indicates that the theory must be mostly of the second type, and thus there's a problem with the theory. But that is wrong, because political biases can cause failure of logical reasoning as well, or failure to seek out evidence. After all, humans are not perfect logical reasoning machines. The theory may be entirely true and well-supported by evidence, yet people with a certain political party (which may have an established stance on the theory) will tend to see what they want to see, blinding themselves to some of the facts. Thus they may arrive at incorrect conclusions about a particular question more often than those of another party whose members are less biased, or even just differently biased. --Nethgirb 10:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem is, between two parties with different views on a theory, who is to determine which party has the political bias you just described and which has not, if any? --Childhood's End 13:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
This talk page is for discussion towards improving the article, so let's stay on track and away from bottomless pits. --Skyemoor 13:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lee Gerhard

In the discussion on currentness of research, Lee Gerhard's name came up as one who might be excluded. Kim Peterson linked to a google scholar search that shows recent publications. I've looked a bit closer at these. To sum up: all his journal papers have been in AAPG Bulletin (American Association of Petroleum Geologists). His geo papers span 1971-82. His recent writings in the same journal have all been on arguing against Kyoto and minimizing GHGs as drivers vs. solar.

Here's a link to a search on the AAPG Bulletin site showing his writings: http://aapgbull.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/search?field_name=fulltext&field_value=&andorexacttitle=and&author1=gerhard&fmonth=Mar&fyear=1921&tmonth=Mar&tyear=2007&RESULTFORMAT=1&hits=10&sortspec=relevance&sendit=Search His geo writings are both long ago and not related to climate (they're about finding oil, as that's the area of science this journal covers.) His recent writings don't appear to be original research on climate so much as commentary. He's definitely a skeptic, but if we were sticking to people who publish on the science of climate, I'd have trouble justifying his inclusion.

I read through the powerpoint linked by his entry, and he assembles lots of charts from other people's research with his own read on what they mean. Slide 23 uses a pie chart I recognize from a quite dodgy skeptic site I recently looked into, which had very fishy numbers claiming that two-thirds of the rise in CO2 from 280ppm to today's 380ppm was natural, not anthropogenic. That's just nuts of course, but it underlies the 0.28% anthropogenic share of GHEffect the pie chart claims. (95% water vapour, 4.72% volcanoes, ocean life and animals)

Anyway, I feel Gerhard is pretty borderline. He's still publishing, but not from direct research of his own; he's just putting up other people's graphs and discussing how he reads them. Birdbrainscan 15:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

He therefore is not applicable to the concept of a scientist in this field (or even a scientist alone). --Skyemoor 15:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict with Skyemoor - hi there.) I reformulated the Google Scholar search term as author:"LC Gerhard" [link] and found more articles and some textbook work by him - geo stuff up to around 1995, then a lot of writing on climate policy since 1996.Birdbrainscan 15:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
At the moment, the criterion for "scientist" for this page is very low - one p-r paper ever in any subject. An attempt to change that failed (above). Arguably there should be some means of marking people with current research status and climate expertise; but the usual suspects will shriek and (based upon the poll above) there is no consensus to do it William M. Connolley 15:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
He is a Scientist, correct? He is "opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" Correct? wether or not he has performed his own direct research is becides the point. many scientists draw on informaotin from others. To argue someone should be removed for this reason is just an active POV push to limit who is on this list. WMC's typical view backs this up. Thanks for chiming in William.--Zeeboid 16:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
If the list is not to be limited perhaps it should be compared to the estimated (1988-1989) 4.1 million FTE researchers in R&D [209].Hal peridol 14:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
By WMC wacky criteria, I believe JT Houghton (who incidentally is not a skeptic but is a nut) would not be eligible to be listed here.67.141.235.203 20:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems the consensus dogma(assesment reports 1,2, &3) was written by non-scientist(according to Mconnelly) then further edited by bureaucrats(according to the IPCC). How scientific.... 67.141.235.203 23:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Keeley

Why are you adding that he is a entrepeneur and wealth creator?? That's irrelevant!! What if he's a surfer or butterfly collector, would you like to include that?65.12.145.148 22:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It's the very first thing listed on his web page, so presumably that's how he see his main role -- that was the reason for "self described..." It's clearly not just a hobby. Following your example, if his main professional activity was surfing or butterfly collecting (not just as a hobbyist), then yes, that should be noted. Raymond Arritt 22:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
After visiting his site, I agree.65.12.145.148 23:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/c/i/Talk%7EScientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming_5ae7.html"