Talk:Global warming/Archives/2007/11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

Solar Variation Clean-up

I did some tidying up -- or attempted to -- on the confusing Solar Variation subsection. There were all these multiple references to Svensmark's stuff, but in a very confusing way: his idea is that galactic cosmic rays seed clouds, and the amount of galactic cosmic rays are modulated by solar activity, and this wasn't made at all clear. I know there are going to be some reverts, but do try to make it less murky and confused at the least. -BC aka Callmebc 23:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"Described by some"

User:Callmebc asked me to explain my rationale for my edit to the following passage [1], in which I removed a remark that the opinions of conservative think tanks Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute are "described by some as climate change denial." My rationale for removing this remark is:

  • As is explained in the Wikipedia style guideline Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms, use of terms like "some people" is to be avoided. Writing in this way makes it easy for editors to covertly add third-party opinions or underhanded jabs against this or that view. A much more concrete, encyclopedic writing style would require an attribution. Who says this is "climate change denial?"
  • I considered the fact that the positions of these two bodies is patent climate change denial by any meaningful definition of the term, and so it might seem silly to challenge the remark. But if it is really so obvious that Cato is a body of climate change deniers (damn the Man!), then what is added to the article by this remark? The reader should easily discern this for his or her self.
  • According to the Wikipedia core policy Wikipedia:Verifiability, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and we are told "Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long." I believe that removing this remark follows the spirit of the rule, because (A) it added nothing to the article and (B) could not possibly be sourced.

--Ryan Delaney talk 19:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If we want to label them that way we need to source it. There might be a source for it in the politics of gw page. I'll look into it later, unless one of you gets there first (my computer cannot load large portions of text, so I need to do it from home.) Brusegadi 22:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it would definitely be better if it were sourced. Still, I'm leaning toward the view that it would be best to just leave that out of the article entirely. It smacks of advocacy to me, since it should be easy for the reader to determine that for herself. --Ryan Delaney talk 06:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Ummm...no. So-called conservative think tanks like the not exactly accurately named "Competitive Enterprise Institute" have been front and center in spreading disinformation about the true state of global warming, including running the disinfo site, Globalwarming.org. (It's been unnerving to see that particular site's high ranking in Google searches.) They are, by any definition, global warming skeptics/deniers, if not outright corporate toadies with zero demonstrable interest in presenting what the true science is actually showing and what the real climate researchers are actually saying. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe the purpose of an encyclopedia, paper or otherwise, is at the very least not to make people less knowledgeable. -BC aka Callmebc 14:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
For future reference, providing one blatantly biased source to counter another is not a strong base for an argument. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 15:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Claim it's biased all you want - numbers don't lie. If they were false, somebody would have sued Mother Jones. They didn't. Raul654 15:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
And that's another thing -- progressive media sites like Mother Jones tend to be meticulous in backing up their claims and in demonstrating verifiability, whereas conservative/right wing organizations/sites like the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Junk Science do anything but that. One side does not negate the other in this case, nor even balance or "counter" unless you want to put it in terms of knowledge versus ignorance, honesty versus duplicity, and such. -BC aka Callmebc 16:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
It may be genetic... Count Iblis 00:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Another incarnation of the "few" war

IceAge77 is POV pushing again on this article, rewriteing it to falsely imply that contrarians are numerous. Raul654 16:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No I am trying to achieve a semblance of neutrality. Claiming two dozen on the basis of an incomplete list is totally dishonest. Iceage77 16:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
You're not doing any such thing. The bottom line is that the IPCC stance on Global Warming does indeed represent the consensus of climate scientists, and the vast bulk of scientists in general. And any attempt to downplay or misrepresent this is both an act of dishonesty and an attempt to make the article worse, not better. -BC aka Callmebc 16:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not trying to dispute there is a consensus. The fact remains a significant minority of scientists disagree with this. Climate scientists who have published a great deal of peer-reviewed research like Richard Lindzen and John Christy. Iceage77 17:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Significant minority? Uh, no. Insignificant, almost negigible minority would be a more accurate description. There remain a dozen-or-so very vocal hold-outs - many of whom have direct or indirect ties to the oil industry. Raul654 17:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Rather than give their number, I'd rather stick with the original wording of "a few". As for the lack of climate expertise... I suppose that is necessary, given the name of the page that is linked to, which is misleading in this context William M. Connolley 17:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's explained on the page. It's inappropriate for the lead of this article. Gone back to the original. ~ UBeR 20:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, I can live with that version. The old ways are he best William M. Connolley 21:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. I changed it again, sorry, in lieu of stuff like this. The idea, I do believe is to improve the article, and keeping it static in sections just to appease people rather than make use of the changing scientific climate, so to speak, is not helpful in making the article better and more informative. I think, but what do I know... -BC aka Callmebc 00:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Replaced Callmebc's edit. The source provided is valid - yes it is an editorial, but hardly "activist nonsense". Discuss further please. Vsmith 02:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
UBeR reverted it twice already -- one more time and he gets a 3RR warning. Yeah, "Nature Magazine" is such a leftist, activist source blatently biased in the favor of science, reason and logic. Shame on them. Gawd.... -BC aka Callmebc 05:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Uber reverted three times today, so I asked him to watch it. Admins have some liberty in enforcing it, and reverts do not necessarily have to be of the same material. Brusegadi 05:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I have to say that I think the current version (Nature) is far more preferable than what was there before. It certainly has a more appropriate citation, and perhaps we can avoid the SMF argument once and for all. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 05:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The sentence created through consensus was the original version I kept changing to; The one William M. Connolley agreed to above, and the one that has been discussed since the start. You should therefore have a really good reason to change it to a lesser sentence. The current, more wordy, inappropriate for the lead sentence says the same thing over repeated throughout the intro and the body ad nauseam. Just before the new, poorer sentence, it says there's a consensus among the academies, etc. The very next sentence, the new sentence by Callmebc, it says the same thing. There's no sense in redundant sentences. Oh, and there's the still the spin game no one has won yet. ~ UBeR 18:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
We'll play the "spot the difference between the source and the spin" game. Lets see who wins. ~ UBeR 07:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't the idea to improve the article, as well as keep it up to date? Climate science is not only a very active field of research, but one with a lot of popular misconceptions, especially in regards to the "consensus" issue. The Nature editorial, from a very recent issue, makes it quite clear that there is indeed a very strong consensus among researchers -- which means that bringing up lists of random scientists, with very few, if any, being active, credible researchers, is misleading and hence not in the best interest of the article. -BC aka Callmebc 23:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Referring back to the edit originally cited by Raul654 [2], I think that the edited section could have been written better, but that Iceage77's proposed version is intensely misleading and the original must be preferred. --Ryan Delaney talk 23:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've put in a more accurate "several dozen". The linked article had 34 scientists listed. This is more than what "a few" implies, and should be a good enough description to cover a list of 20 to 40. rossnixon 03:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
No -- you're counting crows when you should only be counting ducks. Those 34 scientists are for the most part irrelevant to climate research. Hence your edit is grossly misleading and so was reverted. I suggest that you read the Nature article. -BC aka Callmebc 04:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Please explain. If the 34 are mostly irrelevant, why are they listed? And yes VSmith, Nature's articles are reliable sources, but an anonymous editorial with no references is less reliable that the average blog that has a known author and includes references. rossnixon 01:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of the reliability of the opinion/editorial, the sentence is redundant and unnecessary. It will be reverted back to the original, per the consensus and common sense. ~ UBeR 01:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Rossnixon's numbers are WP:OR, counting names in another Wiki article...
As for Uber's spin complaint, I assume he's upset about using a reference that mentions the Nobel Peace Prize, must be quite irritating. Anyhow, I feel the referenced editorial is a valid source (a print editorial in Nature carries more weight than any blog) and far better than the bothersome "few" it replaced. Vsmith 02:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Rossnixon's number is on the talk page, so that's irrelevant. Anyhow, I agree with you, Vsmith; the "A few" is bothersome (it's because it's a weasel word, which should be avoided). The "There are individual scientists" replacement is a much better choice, but that's about as far as the sentence you keep reverting to improves anything. The source is fine, I don't care about what it says or who wrote it. The problem is the sentence you're keen on reverting to. Do you see how a paragraph that states "all major national academies, etc. agree with the IPCC view" and then in the very next sentence states "the IPCC view is the consensus." Or do you not see the redundancy? What you accomplish through this type of redunancy is creating a much longer sentence that adds absolutely no substance, context, or anything remotely meaningful--and this degrades the article. I agree, the sentence there isn't perfect, but you don't remedy that by putting in a lesser sentence. (P.S. game still open). ~ UBeR 03:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I, for one, am VERY tired of the game playing that goes on involving "politically sensitive" articles by people with zero demonstrable interest in actually improving the article, regardless of whatever attempts at wikilawyering they do. In any case I posted a formal 3RR complaint about UBeR. Let the admins sort it out. I'll also revert him to the last good version. -BC aka Callmebc 04:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"In recent decades"

I have looked at this article many dozens of times and always meant to bring this up. "Recent" should only be used around here in comparative descriptions ("...more recent than"). Might we change this? "Since the beginning of the industrial era" perhaps. Marskell 19:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed quite a bit before. I would not oppose "since the industrial era". This is technically when humans began affecting climate through emissions. ~ UBeR 20:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
A pedant might argue for "since the development of controlled fire" :). Anybody else? Marskell 10:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
This unsatisfyingly vague statement may be the best we can do given the facts as they are. We don't have a good handle on when anthropogenic warming began, and it's not a very meaningful question anyway as implied by Marskell's comment above. "In recent decades" implies a lower limit of about 20-30 years ("decades", plural) and an upper limit of about 100 years (where we cross from decadal scales to centennial) which is about right. Raymond Arritt 15:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think "in recent decades" is sufficient. I am in agreement with Raymond. Zoomwsu 17:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Question about language in introduction

This entry says that "most national governments" have signed and ratified Kyoto. Since something like 170 out of less than 200 existing countries have signed and ratified the accords, should this language be clarified? "Most" is vague to the point of misleading understatement. I won't change it till I hear from others...Maybe I'm missing something.Benzocane 19:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well you could say something like "176 nations have signed ..." but I don't think most of our readers care for numbers like that and are unnecessarily specific for the intro of this article. If anywhere, that'd belong in the body or simply in another article. "Most" is both simple and correct. ~ UBeR 20:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Which is more accurate: "most countries are members of the U.N." or "All countries save Taiwan and Vatican City" are members of the U.N.? "Most" reads as indicating a majority; that indication would be misleading here.Benzocane 22:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Neither are appropriate for the lead of this article. Most is fine (so is majority). ~ UBeR 23:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why we wouldn't cite the specific numbers. --Ryan Delaney talk 00:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

UBeR, it would help me understand your opinion -- which I respect -- if you supported it instead of just stating it. Why is a vague and very understated phrase more appropriate than, say, the exact number? Benzocane 01:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Well your two example sentences are inappropriate because you're wanting to change the lead (I link to the guidelines because I want you read them). The lead is supposed to be a concise summary of the article, not a collection of facts not represented in the article. Like I said, specific information would probably be more than welcome on their respective articles. ~ UBeR 01:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I am of course familiar with the community standards regarding leads; the prior, question, however, is whether or not "most" is misleading. If it is, it can hardly be justified because leads are supposed to prioritize economy. I won't make any changes until I hear from others, but I agree with Ryan that specific numbers make the most sense (172 takes up no more space than "most" and it certainly isn't specialized language).Benzocane 04:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It is of course even more misleading to say 172 countries have signed the treaty without mentioning in the same breath that of these 172 countries, 137 countries have *no obligations* beyond monitoring and reporting emissions under the treaty. Perhaps instead of "most" vs 172 we should consider simply stating that 36 countries have agreed under the Kyoto protocol to reduce their CO2 emissions as that number is the information that is actually relevant to this article. The ratification by the other 137 countries is almost totally irrelevant to the efforts to contain global warming which is the context for this statement.Zebulin 08:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The standard should be to have something that's both accurate & clear to an assumed uninformed reader seeking info. And proper context is always a necessity, especially when dealing with numbers. Saying that the DOW went up 100 points won't mean a whole lot to someone who has no knowledge of the stock market -- is that a lot or a little? Saying, though, instead that it went up .7%. In the case of Kyoto, things are a bit more complex because of the politics involved. The bottom line is that only the US and Australia have refused to sign it outright. So whether this is 2 out of 198 (1%) or 2 out of 36 (5.6%), you still end up with at the least not just "most" but an "overwhelming majority" of countries signing the treaty. I think. You think? -BC aka Callmebc 14:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Ugh, Callmebc, you would at least be slightly convincing if you ever got your facts straight. First, both the U.S. and Australia have signed the Kyoto Protocol. Neither have ratified it, however, nor has Kazakhstan, as this article clearly points out. Also, I'm not "overwhelmed," are you? Do you see the problem with using non-npov language? ~ UBeR 17:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
?? According to the list of Kyoto Protocol signatories wiki, it has only Australia and the US as "Not intending to ratify" and Kazakhstan as "Signed but not yet ratified". Perhaps you should correct that article if it's wrong. And wouldn't you say that for a situation where the majority is 94.4%, never mind 99%, a wholly, truly NPOV description would be "overwhelming majority" and not just merely "most"? 60% would be "most," maybe even 70%, but when it's over 90%.... -BC aka Callmebc 19:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Callmebc... Kazakhstan signed it in 1999, and both the U.S. and Australia signed it in 1998. If you don't believe me, take a look at what the UNFCCC has to say. Like I said, try with the facts first, then make an argument--not the other way around. ~ UBeR 23:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Most" is accurate and simple. Let's keep it that way. Zoomwsu 16:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Nah.... See the my reply above yours. -BC aka Callmebc 19:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Quite an unconvincing post. I stand behind my position. Zoomwsu 03:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The weird thing is that Argentina and Kazakhstan once spoke of agreeing to voluntary restrictions... wonder what they get out of it (or think they'll get.) Brusegadi 19:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Overwhelming majority, or the actual number, or the percentage of signatories -- all would be more accurate than "most." I think we are all aware that what might lurk behind this discussion of a relatively minor point is the tendency of certain GW skeptics to consistently understate the existence of scientific consensus. I vote for putting the actual numbers in the entry and keeping editorial nuance out of it.Benzocane 20:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
You're wading in to assumption territory, and I would ask you assume good faith on the part of editors, regardless of their positions on broader issues. I think "most" is simple and concise, and suitable for an introduction. The numbers belong in a lower section. Zoomwsu 03:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
this issue has *nothing* to do with the scientific consensus. This is politics. 137 countries ratified the treaty with no obligations whatsoever but with financial incentives for doing so. How do their signatures reflect the scientific consensus? There is in fact a fairly broad scientific consensus that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are directly enhancing the earths greenhouse effect and that the observed increases in post industrial temperature averages correlate well with the expected effects of those emissions. The kyoto protocol however, does not in any way illustrate that scientific consensus.Zebulin 21:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm just saying the intensity of the tone that surrounds such terminology is displaced intensity from other debates.Benzocane 00:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I say again why not cut through the gordian knot entirely by replacing the statement with one that states that 36 countries have agreed under the kyoto protocol to control their CO2 emissions? The article is about global warming not politics and only the actions of those 36 countries under the treaty would have any impact on global warming. The ratification by 172 countries is irrelevant and belongs only in the Kyoto Protocol article.Zebulin 21:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You're distorting the issue that way, in part evidenced by BC's post. "Most" avoids the political football of which number to use and serves the purposes of brevity that an introduction demands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoomwsu (talk • contribs) 03:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Because it would make the article misleading? In any case, even if we took your "36" number, did you not see the calc a little further up? 2 of 36 equals only 5.6%, meaning that 94.4% of those 36 approved it, with Australia and the USA being in the minority. -BC aka Callmebc 00:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
That calculation is pointless, because neither the U.S. or the United States are apart of the 36 nations required to reduce emissions under the KP, because neither have ratified it. So, if I'm correct, I think Zebulin's argument is that 36 (wiki says 35) of 172 who have ratified the KP (i.e. ~26.28%), which is a minority, have any obligations under the KP. ~ UBeR 00:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

More "Few" Stuff

I changed the sentence in the lead paragraph regarding the scientists who oppose the IPCC consensus. I used "There are individual scientists who disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC" instead of the previous instance which contained a weasel word ("few"). My thought was this was precise and avoids the weasel word. Apparently Raul disagrees and I can't see why. Zoomwsu 04:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"Few" is only a potential weasel word if it's inaccurate. If it is accurate, then it's the attempt to sidestep it that risks being POV. So the question is: are the dissenting scientists small in number relative to the relevant population? "Individual" is just vague; at worst, it risks the implication that only scientific organizations support the IPCC. I am not accusing you of bad faith, I'm just saying that the accuracy of the term must precede it's POV status. I certainly disagree that "individual scientists" is precise! Precision requires clarifying the proportion of dissenting scientists.Benzocane 04:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The whole problem, and the reason why countless pages have been written on the talk page is because reasonable people disagree on what the definitions of subjective terms are. "There are.." solves the problem by removing any of these subjective terms and sticks to a pure statement of fact. It is also more encyclopedic. Better to perhaps be a slightly more vague than to confuse the issue with subjective terms anyways. Zoomwsu 05:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

user:Osbojos, please explain what is misleading about the statement: "There are individual scientists who disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC". Zoomwsu 05:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

because your proposed language deemphasizes the fact that these contrarian scientists are a small minority. --Osbojos 05:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
In my view, "small minority of climate scientists" is better because it tells the reader what the relative ratio is of the non-supporters to the supporters (few does not necessarily communicate that). And qualifying "scientists" with "climate" is important to indicate that the opinions of climate scientists are, necessarily, far more relevant in this field than those of other types of scientists. - Merzbow 05:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. "small minority" seems most accurate. --Osbojos 05:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not completely opposed to using that wording, but that is something that would need to be cited with a pretty reliable source, which presents a whole host of other issues to endlessly debate on the talk pages. The "There are..." doesn't emphasize anything--that's the point of the revised language. If we can reach a consensus, there is less of a likelihood this battle will continue on. Zoomwsu 05:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Thats what was good about the version that had the nature article. I agree that having too much stuff in the intro is not good, but it was mostly a footnote. What you propose right now is not good because it removes the relative weights of the opposing views. We need something that will convey that. Using 'few' is appropriate here. Brusegadi 05:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
What's the link to the nature article? - Merzbow 06:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Callmebc had added an editorial pub in nature. See: diff and relevant link. Brusegadi 06:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
"few if any will seriously question that what the IPCC delivers is as good a chunk of scientific advice on climate change as anyone could hope to get." - seems a reasonable source for the "small minority" characterization to me. - Merzbow 06:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The thing is, the list of scientist linked is not a list of people who necessarily deny the existence of global warming; mostly they take issue with certain aspects of the IPCC's conclusions. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 07:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I beg to differ. One person used the term "small minority" above, and you said, hey that sounds good, and the other person agreed. That's hardly cause to change the lead. Further, contrary to your claim that the Nature editorial is a "reasonable source for 'small minority'," the source actually states "Few" scientists question whether the IPCC has produced the best advice on climate change. So, in fact, the source quite strongly supports the original sentence, which is "few." I strongly recommend a self-revert in this case. ~ UBeR 21:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
"few if any" seems to appropriately support "small minority" to me, and I prefer the latter wording for the reasons above: it more clearly indicates the ratio of the number of scientists who support the consensus vs. those who oppose it. - Merzbow 23:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, I beg to differ. The Nature editorial uses almost identical the previous AMQUA source, which used "few people." We obviously know the "if any" can be disqualified, so again, we're left with "few." Now, someone, such as yourself, can subjectively say, "hey, that looks like 'small minority' to me." But from a purely objective point of view, which is necessary under WP:NPOV, you can only deduce they in fact meant "few," because that's the wording they chose, so it ought to be ours (if we want to use that source). The obvious choice is to use "few" because it is both used in your preferred source and is what was suggest under the consensus. There is no consensus for small minority and there definitely isn't one for Callmebc's purely awkward and poorly written sentence that suggests randomness (which is appropriately ridiculed by Mr. Johnson). ~ UBeR 03:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I put back the Nature ref and "individual" scientists as before -- you can probably count on a maimed hand all of the scientists in the entire field of climate research who disagree with the IPCC in any significant way. To say even that a "few" disagree without context is like saying a "few" disagree that the Earth is round in an article about the planet -- there will always be people who will disagree on virtually anything you can bring up. Who here knows people who think the moon landing was faked? -BC aka Callmebc 15:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
BC, I think you overly minimize the number of scientists who disagree with some of the IPCC's conclusions. In particular, you're too prone to hyperbole (i.e. "count on a maimed hand"). There are scientists who disagree with the IPCC's conclusions; there are more than a single-digit number; and most are not being "paid off" by the O&G industry. Zoomwsu 23:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
so then you are actually claiming that there is no disagreement on this issue whatsoever? saying that any disagreement come only from a small number of souurces which are invalid and are only non-sources, is, by your own admission, the same as saying there is no disagreement whatsoever at all. --Steve, Sm8900 15:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Umm, did I say there was "no" disagreement whatsoever? I'm saying that you have to put these things in context. Just because, say, your aunt and some random dude in a bar thinks the moon landing was staged doesn't mean you can then casually add "A few people disagree that we ever landed on the moon" in a encyclopedia article about the Apollo missions, especially in the opening introduction. Maybe much further down in an "Odd Myths" section or such, but it would be giving it way, WAY too much weight to bring it up right away as though it was something worthy of serious consideration. Same deal with this "few" or "some" nonsense going on here. -BC aka Callmebc 16:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
That is a ridiculous comparison, as the moon landings are a documented historical event, whereas here we are dealing with uncertain predictions about the future. Iceage77 16:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it's not so ridiculous, unfortunately, and it does indeed directly compares to Global Warming: on one side you have the scientific community; on the other you have a lot of confused or badly misinformed folk courtesy of a lot of deliberate disinformation. -BC aka Callmebc 17:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not ridiculous, as the point is that undue weight is consistently given to skeptics under the claim of neutrality. The skeptics are a radical minority and constantly referencing them creates an image of a divided scientific community when in fact there is unprecedented unity around these issues. But I think we should stay focused: what's at issue is not our beliefs about climate change, but the fact of consensus and the language such consensus demands from an encyclopedia. Even if editors dissent from the scientific consensus, that doesn't justify using language here that obfuscates the fact of that consensus. Little alterations like the proposed one -- dismissing "few" as a weasel word independent of its accuracy -- is POV wherever it subtly exaggerates the existence of dissenters. Even a self-declared skeptic should be able to separate his opinions from the encyclopedia.Benzocane 18:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well this quickly went down the toilet. The objections to "small minority of climate scientists" still make no sense. It's clearly a true statement; if the Nature ref is not as perfectly fitting as you want, another can easily be found. And I think it's clearly the most relevant statement to make in the lead. Why? First, because the opinions of non-climate scientists are not nearly as notable on this subject as those of climate scientists. Second, the reader wants to know the ratio of supporters vs. opponents of the consensus view, and the word "few" does not convey that information. - Merzbow 07:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious if there is a list of the scientists who support the IPCC, sorted by discipline. I wonder how many of them you would consider "non-climate scientists" if you didn't know they were supportive of the inter-governmental panel. Zoomwsu 23:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
See my reply to your last post above. ~ UBeR 07:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting read on the history of global warming

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/04/eaclimate104.xml&page=1 --DHeyward 14:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting in the sense of being a useful compendium of septic nonsense. The first thing it mentions, global cooling, it gets wrong. They even manage to get the date of the first IPCC report wrong! (it was 1990). I think its fun that they seem to be blaming the entire thing on Gore William M. Connolley 14:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The article says IPCC started in 1988 and the contradiction in the first report was obvious in 1991. I didn't see where they actually got the date wrong about the release, just a parsing difference between when it was released and when it the problems with it were exposed. There certainly was hysteria about 'global cooling' in the 1970's even if the science was misapplied by journalists. I know they taught it in schools because we were taught that clear cutting the rain forest would lead to more reflected sunlight and catastrophic cooling. That's anecdotal evidence but it's a gauge of how pervasive it was. --DHeyward 14:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you're being very creative in re-parsing what they say, as creative as they are being in their history. If you can find a decent ref for your anecdotal stuff, do add it to global cooling - thats a new one on me, so it would be nice William M. Connolley 14:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't going to nitpick them on the dates. As for "blaming" Gore, I got the impression they were blaming Gore and IPCC equally, similar to the Nobel committee. I don't have any intention of adding to the global cooling since it's bogus science. The hype, though, was real. I'm not sure what you think they got wrong on global cooling. --DHeyward 17:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The obvious question is "what does this have to do with this article?" My assumption is "nothing." ~ UBeR 20:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
That's an article on the history of global warming in the context of other scientific scares. It's a prelude to a book. It's not an insignificant viewpoint. Why wouldn't it be relevant? --DHeyward 07:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

please elaborate on the reversions of my contributions

Ok I've had some very bizarre edit summaries for the reverts of my recent contribution below )with the part I added in bold):

There is ongoing political and public debate worldwide regarding what, if any, action should be taken to reduce or reverse future warming or to adapt to its expected consequences. Most national governments have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol, aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions but as of 2007 most national governments have not accepted any treaty obligations to control those emissions.

This has been reverted twice. the first time with this summary:

"v., misleading. Most _industrialized_ countries have, and they generate most CO2"

I interpret this to mean that the contributer user:Stephan Schulz means that it is misleading to say that most countries have accepted no treaty obligations to reduce CO2 emissions because he thinks the countries that have accepted treaty obligations to control CO2 emissions are all of the industrialied (annex I under kyoto) nations and that together these obligated nations produce most of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is untrue. The US at the least has not ratified the treaty and currently has accepted no treaty obligations to reduce CO2 emissions. The US plus all of the non annex I nations already contribute more than half of global CO2 emissions. So my statement would remain true even in the sense that Stephen seems to be interpreting it in that most CO2 emissions continue to occur in countries that have accepted no treaty obligations to control them. It also remains true in the simple literal sense that most national government have not accepted any such obligations. So in what sense is my edit untrue or misleading? It is simply informative of the state of progress in international efforts to tackle global warming through CO2 reductions.

My edit was reverted again! this time with the truly bizarre edit summary of:

"rv: POV interpretation of most" by user:BozMo

"POV interpretation of most"??? how is that even possible? I'm at a loss to understand how that summary explains the reversion of my contribution.

I think I need help understanding why people want this edit removed. The current status gives the impression that 172 countries have already accepted a framework that aims to reduce their CO2 emissions when in fact there has been nowhere near such progress. Why is it important to remove that edit?Zebulin 22:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've already given you my take here. First, it should be sourced. Second, the details are inappropriate for the lead of this article. ~ UBeR 23:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

How is the fact that most countries have signed the treaty somehow more appropriate than that most countries are doing nothing about it? If such "details" are inappropriate then kyoto itself has no place there.

Here is a source that shows that without the US the Annex I countries contribute less than half of the world total of CO2 emissions. Check out table 8. substract the US total from annex I and we see that less than half of the world total of emissions will be in obligated countries. all projections show that share dropping even further. [3]Zebulin 23:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Your statement is certainly factual and I would fully support its inclusion in the body of the article. However, I do not think it belongs in the lead. Zoomwsu 23:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with the WP:TE and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Editors

We know who they are and the intentions behind their edits. While the main page is fully protected yet again, I suggest we have a little discussion about what exactly "improving" the article should entail, especially one that is suppose to be based on science, and a rapidly developing one at that. The promoting and slipping in of fringe and politically-based nonsense keeps getting out of hand. Unlike some other politically charged wiki articles seemingly owned by, shall we say, people of a right wingish/anti-fact disposition, the Global Warming wiki does have more than a couple of people apparently genuinely interested in improving & updating it, as well as protecting it from people who would transform it into a right wing blog outpost. Any thoughts? -BC aka Callmebc 07:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

the above is uncivil. while skewering those you perceive as biased, your own biases have leaked through like grease in a paper bag. quite offensive, and completely lacking in WP:AGF. please reconsider posting in this manner. Anastrophe 07:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. BC, you've betrayed your own bias on a number of occasions, including this one. You are failing to assume good faith on the part of all editors, including the ones you disagree with. BTW, I love how you lump "right wingish" in with "anti-fact". Zoomwsu 23:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

unjustified global warming revert

The number of efforts to actually physically inventory the quality of the USHCN weather station network is exactly 1 and that's the effort that I'm citing. How can you revert for undue weight when I didn't do anything but adjust a categorical statement that everybody thinks that UHI is a minor deal to the more accurate "many" and put in qualifiers as to the recent vintage of the Watts effort data and its partial nature at this time. This was a good faith edit and you might want to consider Wikipedia:Reverting specifically

Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it.

So let me assume good faith on your part and just ask, notwithstanding all the above, do you have any legitimate reason within the wikipedia rules that I might have missed to act as you have? TMLutas 09:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to put a link in to the diff. TMLutas 09:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Basically, that is one study, and as far as I am concerned, it is not peer-reviewed. As I see it, it is as good as taking their word on faith. Most of the article makes claims from studies that have been corroborated by many other studies. Thus, even mentioning that "study" might violate weight issues. Brusegadi 22:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
The rules on that effort are that every station maintainer has to be told what's going on and given the opportunity to challenge the survey form, any diagrams, and any pictures taken as being misleading or wrong. That's a stronger level of independent editorial oversight than academic peer review in a journal. If the site maintainers aren't challenging the CRN ratings as biased, the only thing left that's not peer reviewed is the arithmetic. Look, this is a basic level study, the first ever physical review of 1200+ USHCN stations. There's not much to review here. Either the study is accurate or it is not. If it is not, either the volunteer surveyors are lying and site maintainers will eventually catch on and correct the lies with Watt or Watt himself is distorting the submissions and the maintainers will crucify him for not following his own published standards. It's not rocket science, just basic foundational science that matters for every other study that uses the station data.
Assume for a moment that Watts is not lying, that there really is something wrong, and the statistical efforts to fix UHI have been woefully inadequate. Now either we don't mention the study at all and then, when things become way too obvious, Wikipedia has a 'Pravda moment' and everything changes at once. Studies that depend on the station data being right disappear and major changes in global warming and related articles happen overnight. That's rather ugly and pretty rough on the reputation of Wikipedia. The other alternative is to monitor this study, mention it lightly as possible trouble if trends hold up, and adjust in small ways as the data keeps coming in. Then when it's published, it's old news to people who depend on Wikipedia, the adjustments will be small, incremental, and Wikipedia's reputation does not take a hit over this. In fact, it will be enhanced over other news sources who will have to do the 'Pravda moment' routine.
I've tried to give my best effort to improve the article with respect to this issue. Obviously this isn't popular as two separate editors reverted it and nobody's supporting me. So what's consensus? Is it for ignoring this until its' impossible to ignore anymore and have that Pravda moment? Or is there a better way to introduce the information and keep updating it as new data comes in? I really am curious what everybody else thinks? TMLutas 03:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
When (if) the results are published in a decent peer-reviewed journal (not something like Energy and Environment), we can seriously consider them for inclusion. This isn't discrimination; we've included various things from skeptics that have been published in peer-reviewed articles, even in cases where their findings were later refuted. This article has time and again been mentioned for its solid sourcing from peer-reviewed sources. Let's not weaken that. (By the way, tossing around language like 'Pravda moment' doesn't help your argument.) Raymond Arritt 03:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, 'Pravda moment' certainly has the advantage of being both catchy and descriptive. But catchy and descriptive doesn't help? I wonder what does. Come up with an alternative that isn't long, clunky, and ineffective and I'll certainly adopt it in preference to my own tag. I'll enjoy your literary efforts if you decide to apply yourself.
To be clear, I'm not claiming discrimination. That's a straw man. What I'm saying is that the ground stations are foundational. Foundational data sources are used by a lot of papers and if they are overturned they have a huge effect on the entire debate. By their very nature, they should be monitored especially closely. The ground stations heavily depend on the statistical correction schemes for error being reasonably effective. Any serious challenge to them via physical inspection is something that should be watched very carefully and readers of the global warming article should be given at least a hint of it before the survey is finished and the whole field erupts in an uproar as everybody scrambles to find out how much the ground has suddenly shifted when this eventually gets published. Nobody's seriously challenging the data, the collection method, anything other than its nonpublication so far. They can't attack funding sources. Watts is doing this out of his own pocket so that red herring's not available.
Another thing, if this isn't included after being published in a serious peer reviewed journal, that standard should be applied to all the points in the global warming article in a NPOV manner. How much would be left of the article then? Are you just trying to be provocative with your use of the word 'consider'?
I'm more than open to working out a road map at this point. At 100% completion (minus any stations that don't permit survey) how bad would it have to be (% of stations where CRN error rating exceeds warming signal) before there's a consensus that things have fundamentally changed and a general article review is warranted? Whatever that point is, I would certainly think that 50% is well above the figure. Maybe I'm wrong but I'd like to hear some hard numbers that provide an indication of what's a prudent way to proceed. TMLutas 23:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
You're right the ground stations are important and should be monitored closely. A seriously challenge to them should indeed appear in the article. But a serious challenge requires a peer reviewed article. Perhaps the reason why not one has challenged the data is because it's so stupid or poorly done that it's a waste of time. I really have no idea. I do know wikipedia is not the place to make such a decision. Wikipedia BTW is not a crystal ball. We should not in fact give the readers a 'hint' of something which may very well turn out to be nothing. If the study turns out to be as important as you suggest then our readers should only find out it when the study is published, the same as the rest of the world. As for your point about the article, I'm pretty sure most of the scientific opinions and facts are supported by peer reviewed studies. (Obviously stuff like the opinions of thinkthanks are different matters). In some cases, we may link to a non peer-reviewed summarisation of the peer-reviewed studies which is generally perfectly acceptable and indeed can be better (since understanding a scientific paper usually requires the person has some expertrise on the matter). If you feel the summarisation doesn't accurately reflect the studies then you're welcome to raise the issue here, these should indeed be removed. If the study had receive significant mainstream coverage then there might be justification for including it in another article but definitely not in this article. But from what I can tell it hasn't anyway. Nil Einne 08:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Nil Einne - Peer review is not a black box, a plaster god to pray to. What, pray tell, would adding 3 reviewers do to the reliability of the project when it's virtually all data gathering and <1% trivial analysis?
You assert that Wikipedia is not the place to decide whether to include the project in a wikipedia article. Excuse me? This makes no sense. I think you must have meant something else, please clarify.
Please read WP:Crystal which you seem to be citing. The edit was not about (or not mostly about) the speculative future effect of the project. It was an assertion that the present level of data gathering was sufficient to note. I would be open to a pure 'just the facts' presentation if anybody wants to submit an alternate text
We give people a 'hint' at something which turns out to be nothing all the time. That's why all our keyboards have delete keys. What you seem to be saying is that the turnaround time on ideas being included or excluded should be academic journal publishing cycles. As a simplistic crutch, I can see that being workable most of the time. But it should not become a hard unwritten rule even for science articles as it would cripple wikipedia. Peer reviewed treatments are preferable. They are not the exclusive documents that can and/or should be used in a science article, even one as controversial as global warming. Your assertion that "our readers should only find out it when the study is published, the same as the rest of the world" is neither accurate (press accounts and opinion pieces already exist on this project) nor in accord with Wikipedia's principles. If I submit some of those press accounts instead of the project site, would that be acceptable to the wider community?
You should be aware that I've submitted this information to the relevant pages so far as I'm able to discover which are, in order of relevance Instrumental temperature record, Urban heat island, and global warming. I'm taking feedback from any of these edits and applying them to all three to improve it all so no need to follow me. If you would support inclusion in ITR and/or UHI but not here, please make that clear (that's a general request to all editors btw:). I would be open to arguments that it should be in one or two of these places but not all three.
I think that the edit is important in its own right but it also has wp policy implications that add to its value. That makes it worth discussing fully in talk to a proper conclusion. I've given two areas where I'm open to alternate places and ways to present this information. I believe I'm being appropriately flexible. I hope that this is answered in the same spirit of flexibility. TMLutas 13:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
"What, pray tell, would adding 3 reviewers do to the reliability of the project when it's virtually all data gathering and <1% trivial analysis?" For one thing, it can catch the bias inherent in a project that depends on volunteers. For example, you'll note that stations near high-population densities (see also: Urban heat island) are more likely to have volunteers. (More people=more potential volunteers.) This is not trivial. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 14:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Please also see the discussion at User talk: Stephan_Schulz#global_warming_revert (but if possible continue the debate here, not there). --Stephan Schulz 14:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
In an effort to keep the debate here, I'd like to quote the most relevant part (in the sense of not being repetitive of what's already been said here) of Stephan's argument over there:
"A good reviewer wold e.g. insist that the "2 degrees" error is described appropriately - is it the average error? the maximum error? the range of error? is it a systematic bias or a random error? what is the influence on the national temperature record? and on the global one? As you may or may not know, it is very easy to get a good signal from a large number of noisy sources if the noise is reasonably well-behaved. None of these issues is addressed. They might also ask for a random control sample evaluated by specialists to see how good it matches the volunteer effort."
Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 14:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Ben Hocking - Re: volunteer bias. If there was any sampling going on instead of a network-wide survey, you'd have a very good point for a peer reviewer at survey completion. Read the project goals and you find they're trying to get every single one of them. Volunteer bias is thus not an issue for a peer reviewer.
It is, however, a legitimate issue in the partial data. Thus I'll reissue my question of what would be a final bad stations rate (CRN 4+5 ratings)that should make us all sit up and take notice. Let's say consensus would be 25%. Divide 1221 stations by 4 and you have 305 bad stations. I would say that the edit should go back in when/if the 4+5 stations top 305 because the volunteer bias that does show up as a transient flaw would not matter. If all stations past that point are 1,2, or 3 you'd still hit the 25%. But try as I will, nobody seems to be biting and giving me a reasonable number that we can chew over and form that consensus.
I don't know how often I need to repeat myself regarding the error rates. The CRN set up the error ratings. Watts did not. He merely applied the existing rules which state that if you have paved roads near the station at x or y distance or other such microclimate bias inducing feature you downgrade the station rating to 2,3,4,or 5 based on CRN's formulas. CRN separately says that stations in a particular category have a temperature error rating. Watts adopts their standards wholesale. I think it quite unlikely that a peer reviewer would go after the NOAA's CRN standards via this route.
Requesting a random sample to be rechecked is a possibility for a peer reviewer. It is also a possibility for everybody. The data gathering is transparent and open. I would agree that somebody going back and rechecking the Watts group results would increase reliability. But that's not something special only a peer reviewer could do and thus if I do it or you do it, it would change things in exactly the same manner as if a peer reviewer did it. With transparent methodology and transparent data gathering, peer review's advantage as a method of independent editorial review is reduced to ensuring that the independent review that could have been done, actually has been done. In a case like this, I believe it's a safe bet that others are quietly verifying Watts' results. In fact, querying the USHCN site maintainers as to their signing off on the data that ends up on Watts' site would be a relatively inexpensive way to do it. I wonder how often *that's* been done already. TMLutas 22:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how often I need to repeat myself regarding the error rates. The CRN set up the error ratings. So? Do you know what they mean? I tried to find a description, via Google, searching in surfacestation.org, and looking at NOAA. I couldn't find anything apropos. Without a reasonably description, the value is anywhere from ueless to misleading ("this station always reads 2 degrees to warm" is slighty different from "there is a 95% probability that the worst decadal error will be confined in a two degree interval centered on the true temperature"). --Stephan Schulz 00:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The Surfacestations effort is still very much in its infancy, and does not warrant inclusion until it appears in the peer reviewed literature. It is interesting, however, that the results so far have shown that the aggregate record from the "best" rural stations mirrors GISTEMP closely (see http://yaleclimatemediaforum.org/features/1007_surfacetemps.htm)128.36.28.61 21:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your repetition of other commentors objections that have already been answered. Perhaps if you would read my replies, you could actually move the conversation forward and explain why you feel my replies/answers are insufficient to change your opinion and what it would take to actually get you to budge. Again, peer review is not actually a rule, policy, or guideline that limits scientific article edits. Peer review, if there's something peer reviewed out there, is simply a very good idea, superior to most alternatives in most cases (though I've always been fond of the hand of God writing fiery letters on the wall as a superior alternative).
I'm not sure if I can go along with saying a survey that's over 1/3 done is "very much in its infancy", surely if a person is adult at 18 years old, we're talking about a 7 year old kid of a project. At 7, you hit "the age of reason" and in certain very limited matters, it's common to start taking a child's opinions into account.
I read your link and will get back to you on it as it's time to go home. I'm not entirely sure that the opentemp and Watts groups are so much at odds but other than mislabeling a graph (temperature v temperature anomalies) I can't quickly find any faults to it. TMLutas 22:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Choosing a number, say 25%, would be WP:OR on our part. We choose inclusion based on the impact or acceptance a result had in the wider scientific community. Brusegadi 23:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
If we're actually going to follow WP:RS and at least sometimes use stuff that's on its way to peer reviewed publication when there's nothing better available, I don't see how exercising judgement on when pre-publication material is 'ripe enough' for inclusion can be avoided. In fact, by that standard all the comments I've received about "considering" including the information when it's published seems just as guilty of WP:OR as I would be. I objected to that on other grounds as it being a sort of POV pushing to hold differential standards, not OR to have standards in the first place.
I read through WP:OR and just don't see how your interpretation can sustainably work nor how it is supported in the text. Could you provide some specific quotes from the document so I might understand your concerns better? TMLutas 15:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I say that having us choose a figure like 25% is OR because we would essentially be doing editorial oversight that is supposed to be done by the scientific community. We would be coming together and SETTING a new bound for validity, which we are not supposed to set. We are supposed to include stuff based on how well it reflects the state of the science out there. So the following is good: "the study was published in journal X and several other studies confirmed the results, lets include it." The following would be bad: "I think they did a good job at station assessment and they have assessed over X% of stations, we should include it." Statements like the one preceding this sentence should be made by the scientific community and not us. Brusegadi 23:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that we can avoid even the level of editorializing you're talking about and still include information on the survey so we may not be entirely at odds. How about this for a potential variant? "In a first ever physical survey of the USHCN network, 23% of the total network has already been discovered to have >=2C error ratings (according to CRN's error rating system for urban heat island effects) with the more rural 2/3rds of the network yet to be surveyed." It somewhat understates Watts' results, after all, some rural stations have already been surveyed but I think it's a fair first cut and would welcome proposed improvements to the draft text. TMLutas 22:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Without context, this is grossly misleading. Context should at least include information about what the "2 degree C" is supposed to mean (I asked you before: Do you have a source that describes this?) and the fact that temperature records using only "good" stations correspond very closely to the GISS temperature record.--Stephan Schulz 00:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
128.36.28.61 - Thinking things over, your link would require additional material to be added and does not, in fact, support the de facto policy of immediate reversion that occurred here and elsewhere over this information. If you want to make a sandbox and improve my edit, I would support that. As a more interpretive addition though, it would tend to fail my (apparently scandalously liberal) 5 point standard for exceptions to the peer reviewed rule of thumb since it's non-published, is mostly interpretive, and would thus benefit more from the peer review process. I could see something on the order of 'there's a lot of bad sites out there with some claiming that the bad sites are affecting final results while others maintain that statistical corrections fix the problem'. What I don't like is flat out rejecting what's becoming plainer with every data dump into surfacestations.org, there are a lot of bad surface data sites. TMLutas 15:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
My apologies, I didn't put the list in this article but over at Instrumental temperature record and realized it after I hit submit. Those who have not been following both conversations would therefore be confused.
In short, there should be sensible rules about this sort of thing and I took a stab at them. Not a lot of people seem to have had positive comments so far. The rules I suggested would open a fairly small hole for expansion of admissible information and better follow WP:RS as it is currently written. TMLutas 16:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Watts' work should most definitely be included in this article. His research is quite prominent in the GW community and certainly qualifies as notable. It seems the only hang up for some people is being published in peer-reviewed literature. There is no actual policy stating that scientific article references need to be peer reviewed--this is only a custom (although one I generally support). If anything at all qualifies, Watts' work is a perfect example of the type of source that need not be peer-reviewed to be mentioned in this article. Zoomwsu 00:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support for my proposal. Do you favor any particular version to be included? TMLutas 22:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Watts' work should most definitely NOT be included in this article. Quoting from Anthony Watts:
Linking the SurfaceStations.org project to global warming has been criticised by Gavin Schmidt, who commented "They have not shown that those violations are i) giving measurable differences to temperatures, or ii) they are imparting a bias (and not just random errors) into the overall dataset".
Watts' work has not yet been shown to have *anything* to do with global warming whatsoever. And the reason that science articles should cite peer-reviewed papers ought to be obvious to anyone; without peer review, the author in question could just be making the whole thing up. The thing that protects against this is the desire of the journal in question to maintain its respect and integrity (and hence, commercial value). Quoting from peer review:
The peer review process aims to make authors meet the standards of their discipline, and of science in general. Publications and awards that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals in many fields.
Chris Bainbridge 18:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Template + WGI

First, I think the semi-protect template isn't as useful here as other temporarily locked articles, because I believe this article is always on semi-protect. (Plus it's ugly.)

I've swapped back to the "small" version William M. Connolley 21:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Second, an edit by Sln3412[4] change the IPCC statement sentence to: "In the most recent Assesment Report, AR4, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group I (The Physical Science Basis) stated in their Summary for Policy Makers that" most warming since mid-20th is anthropogenic. The previous sentence was "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes ..." I know earlier the user suggested that someone change the sentence to show that it was the WGI (in the SPM) that made the conclusion rather than "just the IPCC," but no one seemed to agree (or respond, for that matter). My argument is that the WGI is very much a part of the IPCC and that their conclusion are very much the basis for the IPCC's stance on climate change, and that the other working groups base their work on the WGI's conclusion (i.e. their views represent a consensus, per IPCC procedures). It is not as though they are independent entities.[5] So I feel trying to differentiate the WGI from the IPCC body as a whole is rather pointless in this situation. I also will argue the conclusions stated in the SPM reflect the same ones found in the full report, so trying to differentiate them in this case also provides no useful context. If any distinction is needed to be made, I suggest it be made later in the article, rather than the summary. ~ UBeR 20:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The SPM is a summary of the full report, and both consistently show the same position. Moreover, the details overwhelm the lead and are clear from the footnote, anyways. --Stephan Schulz 20:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed and removed William M. Connolley 21:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
As always, I defer to simplicity and your judgement. I just thought "The IPCC" was a bit too terse... Thanks. Sln3412 00:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7081026.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7081026.stm probably belongs somewhere but I'm not sure where - likely not in this article William M. Connolley 17:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Why should this have any more credibility than Milloy's survey of the IPCC? Check out the last question: "oh btw are you bought and paid for by big oil?" [6] Iceage77 11:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Why is the BBC more credible than Milloy? Tricky one. I wonder if you can answer that for yourself if you think for just a little bit William M. Connolley 12:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
According to Jeremy Paxman, "the BBC's coverage of climate change abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago". [7] Iceage77 12:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Having said that, they have today published a good critique of the IPCC by John Christy [8]. Iceage77 12:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
[Personal attacks removed -UBeR]. You know full well that JP's quote doesn't affect the BBCs cred. Why are you wasting our time with this nonsense? William M. Connolley 12:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
It is perfectly legitimate to point out which side of the debate the BBC is coming from. May I remind you of WP:NPA. Iceage77 13:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Your comments are a waste of time William M. Connolley 14:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I concur. johnpseudo 15:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
As do I. Anyone who starts out the conversation by putting the BBC on the same level as Steve Milloy isn't playing with a full deck. Raul654 16:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Raul's comment is especially apropos. Raymond Arritt 16:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The amazing thing is that some of them happily state things that are absolutely, incontestably wrong. Are they hopelessly ill-informed, or are they delusional? Those are the only choices. Really, "two saying decidedly that levels [of greenhouse gases] had not risen"?!?!?!!!???? Raymond Arritt 15:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

So what about using the other BBC article pointed out above ([9]) somewhere? Are we going to be consistent in our love for the BBC? :) - Merzbow 22:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
One's a report of a survey and correspondence; the other is an opinion piece. We could use the latter as a statement of Christy's views, sure. Why not hop on over to John Christy and add it? Raymond Arritt 23:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Reader's comments have been published A lot of people are dismissive of the sceptic's arguments. Count Iblis (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolute global mean temperature?

Neither this article, instrumental temperature record or average surface temperature seem to contain the absolute global mean temperature. All references are "anomalies" relative to some period, but the absolute value of the mean during this period isn't stated. Is this standard in climatology, an oversight, or not considered relevant for some reason? For what it's worth, I found "Best estimate for absolute global mean for 1951-1980 is 14C = 57.2F".[10] Chris Bainbridge (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The absolute mean is much harder to determine than the anomalies. Consider two thermometers a thousand kilometers apart that have not been calibrated against each other. You cannot determine the average temperature at both places from them (as they may both be off to an arbitrary amount), but if both now show 5 degrees less than last year, you can indeed determine the average anomaly (and please substiture "two" by "very many", but you get the idea...). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
(conflict) Its a fair point, and far more entertaining than discussing "few". Your reference is a fair one. Anomalies are easier to calculate than absolute values, so people use anomalies; and the global absolute mean doesn't really mean very much. But it should be in the T rec page William M. Connolley (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
(ec a-go-go) Climate change is almost always expressed as a deviation from some baseline rather than as an absolute temperature. This allows us to factor out small differences in the absolute value between different data sets (as Stephan notes above). The baseline period most often used is the mean for 1961-1990. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


As a side note, the baselines for various estimates are also different. For example, when we chart the warming from the 1800's until now, and then also chart the computer models estimates, the use a different baseline. I have no idea what would happen if you overlaid the two (or just corrected the offset from one to another). Here's a previous discussion. The article on the HadCrut3 methodology is very good and the more recent graphs from that office are better than the ones in the article. --DHeyward (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

WGI SPM link

Broken source link for reference 1, entitled "Summary for Policymakers (PDF). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change".

This link is quoted 8 times in support of scientific statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.217.114 (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. I noticed a couple of days ago that IPCC had redone their site, so please report any other broken links. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Indeed it has. Probably had to do with their various changes to the site in lieu of the Synthesis Report. The appropriate link is: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf. I also wonder if the publisher should be listed as Cambridge University Press instead of "IPCC." ~ UBeR (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Aviation and climate change

Hi editors. Recently I found the article Aviation and climate change - by chance, as I realized that none of the climate change/global warming articles link to it. I think, it would be a good idea to add a link to that article here, once the protection of the article is lifted. Where in the article, do you think would be a good place for that? --Splette :) How's my driving? 21:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably the glossary. Try attribution of recent climate change though. It might be a good article to get some details in. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick answer. Yes, that makes sense, I'll add it there. --Splette :) How's my driving? 22:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Locked page

I've requested the page be locked, and now that is, I hope we can end this nonsense edit war. This, like most edit wars, involves the lead, particularly the "few scientists" sentence. Instead of going back and forth between myself and Callmebc and a few others, it would be prudent for more people to discuss. Keep in mind this has been discussed tirelessly before, and I don't expect much to change from past decisions. (It's not like the numbers have significantly changed since last debate!)

Two recent discussions on the particular sentence can be read here and here. Obviously, there have been many discussion on exactly the same thing: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] (just from mid-year and up). Each and every time, the only clear consensus or compromise, whichever you choose, was the current sentence: "A few individual scientists disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC." I personally don't like "A few" because it's both subjective and a weasel word, and would much prefer a neutral "There are," but detractors claim undue weight. Clearly, I can live with that consensus/compromise. What I can't tolerate is two or three people who insist on using terms like "tiny minority" or the one person who suggests the scientists are "random," and choose to use sources that in no way validate their edits. I really don't know what else to say other than to ask people discuss this... again. ~ UBeR 07:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

(This is substantially similar to my comment above). The objections to "small minority of climate scientists" still make no sense. It's clearly a true statement; if the Nature ref is not as perfectly fitting as you want, another can easily be found. Assuming I do find one, consider the following points. I think it's clearly the most relevant statement to make in the lead. Why? First, because the opinions of non-climate scientists are not nearly as notable on this subject as those of climate scientists. Second, the reader wants to know the ratio of supporters vs. opponents of the consensus view, and the word "few" does not convey that information. - Merzbow 07:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I really dont care either way. So, I say, lets go by the KISS rule, and leave it as it was? Otherwise, we are bound to having these pointless discussions that do no more than saturate my watchlist with absurdity. Its the intro. The interested reader will find out the exact fraction of supporters and "playa-hataz" and everything she ever wanted to know. Brusegadi 16:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I hardly find the present discussion pointless, nor unresolvable, nor the status quo text unimprovable. - Merzbow 17:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


How many scientists, out of how many total, have publically disagreed with any of the how many IPCC conclusions in some way? Are we talking about in public or in private? Opinion or peer-reviewed work? How many points and to what extent? If I'm a scientist, and I am interviewed and I answer a question with "I think the low-end estimate of a 2.5 C rise a bit too high, and it's more likely half that." then am I one of those "disagreeing"? Or do I need to publish a paper proving something to "disagree"? The issue here is the question is not answerable because we don't know what the question is; "a few" is vague, because what it's saying they disagree with, and how, is vague also.
Why not something more like "Here are some of the scientists that disagree with various aspects of some of the IPCC's conclusions." Or whatever. You get the idea. Just a pointer to the other article.
Oh, and can somebody specify that the WG 1 SPM in AR4 is the source for "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes, "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"[1] via the greenhouse effect." instead of just "the IPCC"?Sln3412 19:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Those are questions better asked at list of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. I can agree, however, that "a few" is too much a weasel word to ever to be useful or meaningful. ~ UBeR 23:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
You're missing my first point I think, UBeR. Tell me specificly what "disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC." means. "A few scientists" is a vague and inexact subject, and it introduces an inexact predicate. What's wrong with that?
But my point is why not just change it to something totally meaningless on this page like Oh, "There is not universal agreement with all aspects of the IPCC's conclusions made in their reports, please -go here-." (To see what the disagreements are, who's making them, and how much they disagree.) I don't know, word it better. Send them to that page and don't discuss it on this one AT ALL.Sln3412 00:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
That's what you call an POV fork. ~ UBeR 01:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The big problem is that there is no clear data on scientific opinion that is acceptable to the crowd here. A while back, I tried referencing a study [1] that showed that approximately 45-50% of the scientists surveyed concur with the IPCC perspective, while significant minorities (15-20% for each) believe the IPCC overstates or understates the influence of anthropogenic CO2 forcing. Unfortunately, this study was not accepted in the scientific opinion on climate change article because of its self-published status, among other (IMO) petty justifications.

My point is, until there is an acceptable source that surveys scientific opinion (I am NOT talking about unscientific editorials or pronouncements, no matter how "reputable" the source), we cannot describe the proportion of scientists who disagree with the mainstream assessment. Hence my suggestion to use the "there are..." wording, which does not make any judgment on the proportion, but merely states a known fact. Zoomwsu 23:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No, again, I don't think so. Write neutral languge saying nothing, that is simply a link to the list of those that disagree somehow and why about what. Sln3412 00:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
"Write neutral languge saying nothing". I hope you're not serious. We're editing an encyclopedia here, not negotiating a treaty. Kaldari (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


Proposed changes

Because of the protected article status, there are some changes I've proposed. Some source URLs need to be changed because of changes to the IPCC Web site.

~ UBeR (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the broken links. I've left the AGW for now, as its a) generally useful b) might potentially be more contentious, thus should be left until protection is lifted. ---Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
AWG may not be used on *this* page, but it is used other places and, thus, adds value. On the other hand, under *Adaptation and mitigation* (and other sections), most references to "Global Warming" should be changed to "AGW" since nothing we can do will be worth anything UNLESS the warming is due to people. In this context, it is very important to make the distinction. Q Science (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Thats hoping that some of the proposed "geo-engineering" solutions do not mess up the world. This only applies if the geo-en stuff is seriously discussed in the article you link to. Brusegadi (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

A place for sceptics

Can we add to this page a section for the skeptics to voice their opinion? This article is basically one sided and the other side has no chance of changing this page as of now, too many people will just change it back. If we add a new section label something like "The argument against" or what ever, we can stop arguing about many things that we are arguing. It's possible that many of the skeptic will have very valid points to convey, with sources to back it up. This way most of the article will be for explaining/proving this theory but a part of it will be for people, including skeptical scientist, to show their own evidence. I believe this is a place to have a real discussion on the topic which means that both side must have places to say what they believe. I have done personnel research that have valid points, such as the lag between temperature and CO2 change throughout history, that are not addressed in this article. (for those who want a citation: http://icecap.us/docs/change/Greenhousegasesclimate%20map.pdf) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.24.156 (talk • contribs)

  • See Talk:Global warming/FAQ #11. Criticism sections are discouraged. This article is about Global warming, not the Global warming controversy. If you don't believe your arguments are notable enough to warrant inclusion in the main text of the article, they might belong there. If you believe your arguments are actually relevant to the topic of Global warming itself, go ahead and present them here instead of assuming that we will reject them without a reason. johnpseudo 19:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • You are mistaken about the purpose of Wikipedia. We don't do original research, but rely on what reliable sources report. We strive for a neutral point of view without giving undue weight to minority and fringe positions. The talk page is emphatically not the place to have a general discussion on the topic itself - see WP:TPG - although many of us (not excluding me) fall for it over and over again. If you have notable, reliably sourced positions to include, by all means do so. It would be very helpful if you would understand the current state of the science, though, to avoid arguing strawmen. Your example point is well understood and fully accounted for in the standard view.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is basically one sided and the other side has no chance of changing this page as of now, too many people will just change it back.

As pointed put above, this article reports on the scientific perspective on this issue. The "other side" does have an equal chance to get their ideas published in the scientific literature, provided their ideas are scientifically sound. This wiki article must do with whatever is published in these journals. So, there is no inherent bias against climate skeptics. Count Iblis (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a link to a complete sceptics article in the *lead paragraph* of the article. That is more than most articles offer.Zebulin (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Spam

For an article that gets as many edits as this one, I can't believe there was spam sitting in the Further reading section for 4 months! Congratulations to Andreisaioc for the improbable feat! Kaldari (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finding it! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
That--coincidentally, of course--coincides with the date someone took a much-needed break from overseeing the article. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible resolution to "the few" argument

I'm terribly sorry if something like this has already been said.

I can't help but see an problem in the way the last part of the intro flows. Suggesting that it is even relevant that "a few" of scientists disagree with the mainstream assessment of global warming only feeds the misconception that scientific consensus is based on the subjective opinion of scientists and not on a convergence of many empirical (and otherwise), peer reviewed studies that converge on a given conclusion (recent warming trends can ONLY be explained with recent increases of CO2). I believe the inclusion of this sentence PERIOD is inappropriate for encouraging the reader's understanding of the topic. I recommend it be replaced with something more relevant to the scientific method, like "and to date, there exists not a single prevailing alternative hypothesis to contradict the IPCC's assessment of recent warming trends."

Much of the skepticism around global warming seems to be borne of a misunderstanding, and therefore lack of confidence, in the scientific method. Skepticism is built into the scientific method. We are talking about science here, and let's be sure the article itself in confident in saying this.

I know the editors are trying to maintain neutrality here. It may be relevant that there are dissenting points of view among scientists. But among these scientists, there exists not a single published, peer reviewed theory that "debunks" the AGCC theory. I believe this is what is important, not their respective opinions (some of which are based on unfounded scientific "ideas" (global warming comes from the sun), or belief that the IPCC is "politicized" (see John Christy's opinion article published by the BCC)).

I won't post the edit myself, I merely suggest this be discussed and considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veloce (talk • contribs) 15:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying but disagree. It's quite notable that not an insignificant number of scientists are critical of the IPCC conclusions and many have offered ideas AND research that supports their positions. Just because the AGW theory hasn't been definitively "debunked" is no cause to ignore the notable and critical opinions of dissenting scientists. Zoomwsu (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Ideally we'd do what Veloce suggests. There's no need to include small-minority positions in the lead; they are more appropriately mentioned in the main text. The problem arises from a well-intended but unwise attempt to accommodate editors who tenaciously promote these small-minority views. Thus we mention the small-minority position in the lead, which then requires that we qualify the small-minority position as such, which then leads to conflicts over the precise wording, and round and round we go. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I can't help but to agree. I think a sentence about it in the "Causes" section where it mentions other theories would be a more suitable. Perhaps something like "This attribution is clearest for the most recent 50 years, for which the most detailed data are available. (Some/There are/nothing/w.e) individual scientists disagree with the scientific consensus that recent warming is mainly attributable to elevated levels of greenhouse gases, and other hypotheses have been suggested to explain the observed increase in mean global temperature." ~ UBeR (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I've not been involved in this debate before. How about "These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries, though there is some disagreement from individual scientists." I didn't search the histories extensively, so please, no stones - I'm just suggesting an alternate wording to try to break the impasse. :-) ATren (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt the wording really matters that much. So long as it's supported by a source we don't need special rules to protect it. It's been under constant attack because it's always either unsourced or sourced by a reference that was obviously discussing a different number. It's like having a big bullseye painted in the article and being annoyed that people keep taking shots at it. If properly sourced people may not like it (and many other things about the article) but they won't have a leg to stand on in unilaterally removing it.Zebulin (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC
This is true and why I left "Few" alone when that (shaky) source was in there. For lack of a better source we can only either say there are "few" dissenters based on quaternary or remove the whole sentence altogether. Or say something NPOV which obviously pisses our climate bloggers off. --Tjsynkral (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it is clear that the http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630 source mentioned above is much better than the shaky source used earlier. It is clearly discussing exactly the number the sentence is referring to. So long as the wording used fits with that source I expect the level of attacks and attention to that sentence will drop to that seen in the rest of the article. Probably even lower since the sourcing for some other items is somewhat less obvious.Zebulin (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
This could work. Per that source we could state the "overwhelming majority" agree, which carries the natural implication that there are others (an underwhelming minority?) who disagree. But whatever we do, it will be challenged all over again in a couple of months. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I've heard that before but if done right they will spend more time challenging other parts of the article. It's like whack a mole but I've seen at least one unstable article achieve greatly improved stability with this workmanlike approach.Zebulin (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
One problem would be getting a link to the Wikipedia article, albeit poor quality. One possibility is what I suggested above in reply to Dr. Arritt's post that it shouldn't be in the lede in the first place. ~ UBeR (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
"Overwhelming majority" is a literal quote from the proposed source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that after I posted. See what I changed above. ~ UBeR (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we clearly have enough material here now to resolve this. How do we formally initiate the process of forming an interim consensus so that we can get the article unlocked and get on with improving content that actually matters? I have already suggested some wording but I don't much care what wording is used so long as the source backs it up. I recommend we either proceed with:

"These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC the vast majority of scientists working on climate change are in agreement with them.[2]"

or we have a suggestion of:

"and to date, there exists not a single prevailing alternative hypothesis to contradict the IPCC's assessment of recent warming trends."

although that one, needs a source before it's likely to solve any of the editing magnet problem.Zebulin (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I support this version. Zoomwsu (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
It could work, though I'd prefer "overwhelming" to "vast" since that's what the source actually says. We shouldn't link to the "scientists opposing" article since it includes many who haven't done science in a long time (and some who never did, except according to the tortured criteria for inclusion in that article). Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I like overwhelming better too to be honest. the wording change was intended fluff out the copy edit changes but if we can get away with "overwhelming majority" so much the better. Including the list is a useful way to defuse editors trying to add their exceptions. Concerns about the linked list are probably best hammered out there. A link to some sort of article that gathers up sourced dissenting views (such as they are), is probably prudent for an article that is such a fringe magnet. It's like linking to moon hoax in an Apollo article that keeps getting edited by hoax advocates as an alternative to addressing it in the main article itself or trying to ignore the fringe zealots.Zebulin (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm good with "overwhelming", but I still think a link to the dissenting scientists is appropriate, although not in the lead. Zoomwsu (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
"How do we formally initiate the process of forming an interim consensus . . . ?" See WP:CONSENSUS. ~ UBeR (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
That's just the normal consensus page. it doesn't state at what point blocks that await consensus can be lifted.Zebulin (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Just wait until it expires. ~ UBeR (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
If we have consensus, and everyone promises to play nice, someone can ask Tariqabjotu to unprotect. But to be honest I don't mind the R&R. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Changed to the new wording and unprotected. Good luck! Kaldari (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
An accord of four people can now be considered a consensus. Interesting--probably one for WP:CON as well. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to continue debate. My only concern is that there is enough agreement to diffuse the edit warring. Kaldari (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I know it's a quote, but shouldn't that be "an overwhelming majority" instead of "the overwhelming majority"? Sln3412 (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

References

  • I am wondering if some kind of agreement was made in the past about whether to link to a pdf or the html page of a given reference, as often both options are available. Or maybe even a WP guideline exists about this issue? To me it seems that in this article for most references a link to the pdf was given whenever possible.
  • Second question. I went through the references of the the section 'Causes' and find them quite messy. 1. There are references to two papers of Henrik Svensmark: "Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges" . Astronomy & Geophysics 48 (1): 18-24.  and "Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth's Climate" (PDF) . Physical Review Letters 81 (22): 5027–5030. . Does it make sense to cite both? I just had a quick glance at them but it seems the main point of the two papers is the same: the influence of cosmic rays on the climate. That brings me to the next point. Both papers were given as references for the sentence One such hypothesis proposes that warming may be the result of variations in solar activity. Are cosmic rays and the solar activity the same thing? From my understanding solar activity in the context of global warming refers to our Sun only?
  • Last question. The reference: Forster, Piers; et al.. Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing (PDF). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 188-193. by the IPCC is given as a reference for the section In contrast to the scientific consensus that recent warming is mainly attributable to elevated levels of greenhouse gases, other hypotheses have been suggested to explain the observed increase in mean global temperature. In other words, the IPCC report (which represents scientific consensus) is given as a reference for 'other hypotheses' (such as solar variation) that are in contrast with the scientific consensus. That doesn't make sense to me. Yes, the pages of the IPCC report that are given as a reference here, deal with solar variation but they are part of the consensus and not conflicting with it. --Splette :) How's my driving? 01:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Re solar/cosmic rays: After direct solar variations have been ruled out as the cause of recents global warming (the effect is to small and the distribution of warming is all wrong), the sceptics have now discovered Svensmark. His idea is that cosmic rays are important cloud condensation nuclei - more cosmic rays -> more clouds -> higher albedo -> climate is cooler. For very long time periods, this has been linked to the sun's movment through the galaxis. However, it is also claimed to be linked to solar activity via the chain high solar activity-> stronger solar magnetosphere -> less cosmic rays penetrate. Several of the links in either of the two chains have come under scrutiny and not held up well. But the theory has the advantage of being complex and impressive, and hence easily used to impress laymen. But I digress - yes, Svensmark belongs into solar. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I see. But do we need two of his references in the same sentence? --Splette :) How's my driving? 15:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The two references to similar papers was probably a bit of an overkill, which arose after a person came demanding for evidence that other hypotheses exist. One of them could probably be removed. Check with other people though. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Re: points one and three: There is no de jure agreement, that I'm aware of, or any stated guidelines that would suggest linking to PDF in favor of HTML or vice-versa (there may be though). De facto, however, it appears direct links to the PDF is favored in this article, which is also what I prefer personally. As for IPCC Chapter 2, that was given as a source to demonstrate that in fact solar variation is discussed in the scientific literature, where as the aforementioned person complained that it was not. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

GWC?

I don't see why the GWC gets quite such a high priority [18]. I'm inclined to remove it William M. Connolley (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm undecided on this one. It could be useful to have something to the effect "this article focuses on the science; if you want to read about political babblings go somewhere else" but the GWC article is so weak that we probably don't want to point to it. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, take it out. What remains of the Global Warming controversy decreases every day. Even the Republican presidential candidates acknowledge warming, at least most. The skeptics are going the way of the flat earth society. Following this "While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC, the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change are in agreement with them.[4]" the article could have "See Climate change denial " -SagredoDiscussione? 20:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
It's probably good to keep it in the see also links. It's importance may actually increase as serious debate about mitigation continues.Zebulin (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Its already in the navbox William M. Connolley (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Zebulin, I think we've decided to keep "See also" links in the glossary, because the section gets bloated otherwise. I do believe the article link is already in the glossary; if not, feel free to add it. The article is also linked to in the lead. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Im with Uber on this one. All those links should go in the glossary page, otherwise the see also section gets clogged. Brusegadi (talk) 05:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotection

With the recent level of IP vandalism I've semiprotected the article for a while. I assume this will be uncontroversial but if anyone has concerns I'll unprotect. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Good. It should be indef... Brusegadi (talk) 05:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The IP edits may be interesting to social scientists studying the global warming controversy/denial, though. :) Count Iblis (talk) 14:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Highly Politicized

This article does not represent a neutral point of view. However, I am not suprised since the topic is highly politicized, and spin is used to promote political decisions. These two specific words should be mentioned as a disclaimer, and that its effects are only predicted by models and unknown, untested, and speculative in nature. Buildings being built in wikipedia have disclaimers on them because they are "future projects", so claims about global warming are no different than fortune telling. Since when has using scientists made speculation part of the scientific method? I think this article superbly misses the point that pollution and waste of ALL TYPES are stupid ways to go about doing things where better ways are known, and we are making guinea pigs of all our planet's species. However, destruction of habitat and environment isn't really a new phenomenon solely related to global warming, we have been doing this for centuries, again, not to excuse it.

Despite this, the effects are not adequately addressed, particularly in the "benefits" column. All processes create problems as well as create opportunities. Particularly important of note is that 11 million sq miles of land (Russia, Canada, Kazakhstan), or a fourth of the world total, if warmed sufficiently, will have the potential to be far more arable and economically active. Of course, this may mean more destruction, but that is totally up to how we make it. While its true that arid regions may grow, they currently don't support much population anyway. Also, the idea that "tropical diseases" spreading are a bad thing is a Western stereotype. These diseases have been long ignored by the West, and it's time they find cures for them. Especially since ever greater numbers of Westerners now travel to the tropics because of globalization. —Preceding comment added by Doseiai2 19:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Read the main article on the effects, and note that predictions made by various models have indeed been tested. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 19:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Testing predictions? HA! It's like Merril Lynch predicting where the euro will go in 10 months. The may be correctly "guessing" that no major catastrophe happened, and the general trend, but certainly can't give me an exact figure. Wake up, folks, this isn't science! Doseiai2 19:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Funny you should mention Science. Here is an excellent article by them that compares predictions to observations. If you don't have a subscription to Science, you can find the article in your local library. It's from the 1 February 2007 issue and titled "Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections". Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Coincidence is not science. Science must be right every time. Sorry, but even major magazines are guilty of fortune telling. Science may be involved in producing data that shows past trends, and even then its based on a collection of discrete point values, but prediction itself isn't science! Doseiai2 19:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be best if the supposably offending "speculative" portions of the article were gathered together in a "future trends" section rather than tagging the entire article with a speculative "Disclaimer". In any case there is nothing speculative about observed historical data on global warming to date. Furthermore if the "future trends" section focuses on current models of climate change and their predictions rather than focusing on the predictions themselves then it would not be in any sense "speculative" either. it would just be a description of climate models.Zebulin 20:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
You were obviously unable to read the article. The article compares recent climate observations to past projections, this is not the same as matching "past trends" as you suggest. Yes, prediction itself isn't science. Who suggested otherwise? There is a lot of theory here (I assume you've read the article), and you were lamenting on the lack of predictions. Now that I've shown you where you can read up on how well past predictions have done, you're now lamenting that predictions aren't everything. I'm possibly mischaracterizing you, but re-read what you wrote to understand how it looks that way to me. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Nobody appears to be lamenting a lack of predictions. Rather they wanted to tag the entire article as speculative. My comment was merely a description of how that would be inappropriate.Zebulin 20:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that comment was directed towards Doseiai2, who said "its effects are only predicted by models and unknown, untested, and speculative in nature". I would argue that was a complaint about the models being untested, i.e., having a lack of tested predictions. Are you suggesting that I read too much into that comment? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 21:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
my apologies! sorry to muddy the waters. Your comment was well said.Zebulin —Preceding comment was added at 21:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the entire article should be tagged as "politicized", and the part about future trends as "speculative". My points was that 1) scientists are learners, and we are increasingly using them as know it all teachers. Yes, they probably can make educated guesses better than anyone else, but its still an educated guess. 2). Climate data is still discrete. Scientists are doing a great job at collecting enormous amounts of data, but their main fault is they are still discrete data points. Also, if you didn't notice, I am totally against spewing unnecessary carbon as this statement I think this article superbly misses the point that pollution and waste of ALL TYPES are stupid ways to go about doing things where better ways are known, and we are making guinea pigs of all our planet's species points out. Doseiai2 20:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

encyclopedia articles are supposed to miss such points ;) Wikipedia articles are not intended as vehicles for any sort of public service message however sensible it might be. It doesn't matter what your views on "carbon spewing" might be or if readers of an article might not read an important relevant piece of advice. If the article misses such points then it is working as intended.Zebulin 20:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Sure, while we're at it we can make sure that we mark quantum mechanics and general relativity as speculative, too. Is that what you're suggesting? (After all, scientists are just learners and not "know it all teachers".) We're presenting the science here in as neutral a way as possible. How is it different from other science-based articles on Wikipedia, or are you seriously suggesting this for all scientific articles? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 21:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
We here at Wikipedia are not interested in your points. If you have a suggestion for amending the article, then by all means we would be more obliged to listen. Rather than talking about the topic and making clearly false statements about science, try to focus on the article--otherwise we can't help you. ~ UBeR 21:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello! Most of my article was the suggestion on how to improve, but you obviously attack me more making a 1 sentence opinion, UBER!

Encyclopedias have a mandate not to misrepresent. Global warming and carbon should be discussed under the greater framework of pollution in general. The word "pollution" is mentioned only once in the middle of the article, and a key point that it is but one of the many "types of pollution" is not even addressed. This key point along with the disclaimer in the "future predicitions section" that it is speculative should be added as Zebulin had suggested, I'd do this myself if it wasn't locked. Doseiai2 21:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

So this is my list of requests to the administrators:

  1. Add that carbon is but one of the many "types of pollution".
  2. Move predictions, but not theories to a section, and place a disclaimer on that section only that it is speculative in nature. (Theory is how things work, prediction is how things will turn out in the future, predictions can be based on theories and that's ok, but the prediction itself is speculative)
  3. Place an article wide disclaimer that claims and even scientific research may be politically motivated, and should be further investigated in detail.
  4. Add to criticisms section that scientific data collected, despite increasing amounts, is still discrete point data (location x,y,z adn time) instead of continuous data over the whole earth and all time. Of course, I make no claim how to collect better data, only that it must be interpreted as not fully complete.
  5. Beef up the area of potential opportunities created
  • Opening up of Russia, Canada, Kazakhstan, and Greenland for more arable land
  • Opportunity to tackle long ignored tropical diseases

Sorry for any confusion this has caused. In the future, I will give a rquest list like this. Doseiai2 21:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Request denied. --Stephan Schulz 22:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Now that you've listed some actual proposals, I would like to address some of them. First, carbon (dioxide) in itself isn't a pollutant, but I know what you're saying. We already list the other major greenhouse gases in this article and there's no need to go off on a tangent about other pollutants. About your earlier proposal about making this article simply about pollution--that isn't possible. The pollution, and even the air pollution articles are already too big. This is a separate topic that is deserving of its own article. Second, theories are based upon hypotheses, which are often times predictions and projections (because of x, y). See here for more on the scientific method. Third, our readers are typically not children; they can think and deduce by themselves. Fourth, I can't say I would disagree. ~ UBeR 22:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. This isnt science AND this article is *not* neutral. Where is the statement that the neutrality of this article is disputed because at least one person besides me disagrees with the neutrality. At least place that at the top. Its junk-science, at best. And, if the Wikipedia continues to approve the quality of this particular topic's content then it will force me to consider what other topics are also suspect.

After having read the article, and watched its evolution over the past year, and having read this discussion page, I noticed that anyone who even tries to interject an alternate view or dare add an opposing view gets pounced on. It follows, perfectly, along with any of the blogs and the forums out there. Those who attempt to show that there is a considerable amount of population that disagree with the belief that humans changed an entire planet's climate in the span of a few hundred years (out of 4+ billion years of continual climate changes, shifting continents, solar radiation changes, bombardments from space and so on), are deleted.

This entire global warming topic is definitely off kilter and NOT neutral. There IS another side to the conversation. It is spin and the media loves it because it brings ratings and, well, its far better than reporting war and terror so they run with it. Also, corporations left and right are jumping on the bandwagon (and thats all that it really is - a bandwagon) because it brings them publicity. Not everyone is buying into this human-created theory and there are a LOT of raising of eyebrows during these conversations. No one disputes that the climate is changing - its always changing and who is to say what is "normal" with this planet? Species have come and gone and so, too, will we. Its a fact a life. It is complete arrogance to even think we could destroy the planet and even more arrogant to think we can REVERSE this so-called destruction of the climate. I have to laugh at it all. And I am not the only one laughing.

You either MUST believe in this global warming BS or you're labeled a skeptic and shunned. Its ironic that, one of the most controversial topics (Jesus), there is alternative points of view allowed to be written right into the topic. Views from the Jews, Hindus, Buddhist views and even from views of the Islamics toward Jesus. Why allow those other views right in the open and not only on the talk-page? Because we HAVE TO BE politically correct now, dont we? And those alternative views are right there in the open, not just in the "talk page" that almost no casual reader sees. Where are all of the references to alternative views in this topic? There are hundreds of blogs and forums that disagree but yet none show up here. I have been continually amazed at the one-sidedness of this absurd topic. MediaPlex 23:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a specific suggestion for the article? Is there a specific claim made in the article that you disagree with and can provide a counter-argument against (with citations)? johnpseudo 00:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"Current models for the development of the global climate system do not incorporate the reaction of marine organisms nor the processes that they influence." from "Scientists discover biological mechanism for enhanced carbon consumption in the ocean", Physorg, Nov 12, 2007, http://www.physorg.com/news114071511.html. This shows the climate models are off, whether a little or a lot. How much they are off isn't the point. My point is that we don't have or know all the inputs yet. Climate change isn't a simple A+B reaction. It's very complex and those who claim to know it all and make predictions based on their know-it-all-ness are always leaving stuff out! It's an evolving science that keeps incorporating new data. We know numerous things that can change the outcome rather easily, from cometary strikes, to marine organisms, to solar output changes, methane eruption from the oceans, nuclear winter, to volcanic eruptions. Science is like a carbon atom having 6 protons, no process we know of can change that, whether a rogue black hole sucks up the earth or not, carbon will have 6 atoms. Climate change predictions on the other hand are subject to "as long as certain things don't happen". Well, things DO happen, that is reality. This is precisely why I proposed that "predictions" should have a warning disclaimer. Doseiai2 (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"Remember that all models are wrong; the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful." Quoth the statistician George Box. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not advocating censoring models, nor care to discuss their usefulness. I am simply advocating putting a disclaimer on using them to predict the future, similar to what wikipedia has on buildings under construction, in effect, they are "models in development" or "models under construction" Doseiai2 (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds silly. What do you mean by "model" -- only complex climate models? Every science uses models of all types. A very simple energy-balance model produces much the same answer as a long-term climate model for the case of global warming. Analogous models of different complexities are relied on heavily in economics, physics, even biology. To evaluate which sciences used "models" at any given moment and tag those would constitute original research. bikeable (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
In the intro, it says "Climate model projections summarized by the IPCC indicate that average global surface temperature will likely rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the 21st century". First of all there is the qualifier "likely". Second, there is a range, which is quite large. Thus the disclaimer that you want is effectively there already William M. Connolley (talk) 13:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Unlock proposal

The "few" is constantly challenged but I haven't seen it improved upon. I don't think locking the article is a good idea. I propose unlocking it, but with the additional rule of 1RR (or perhaps 1/7RR) for that particular sentence. Leaving the article locked till we all agree on that sentence means leaving it locked forever William M. Connolley 18:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good plan (and we want to remove the block) but how do we label the 1RR on that sentence so no one does it by mistake? Comment text not shown on the page? --BozMo talk 18:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it needs labelling - there are only a few people warring on it, and they will all read this. Anyone who does it by mistake can be offered the chance to self-revert to save themselves. But an inline comment would be OK William M. Connolley 19:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, situations like this are precisely what the ability to include a hidden comment is useful for. If the article is unlocked on the basis of this 1RR rule then it would seem very strange indeed to not comment the relevant portion of text.Zebulin 19:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
1RR is an unnecessary evil (just kidding of course). But we've tried that before, and I don't think it turned out well in the long run. I'm fine with unlocking the article--one of the edit warriors has already been blocked for a week. But, if the current sentence is the proposed one to keep, that ought to be made clear to anyone who wants to go around making un-agreed-upon changes to the sentence.
Also, I'd like to point out the edit war also involved other parts, such the Kyoto sentence and the SV sections. But I think we can be responsible and discuss these without a full lock on the page. ~ UBeR 23:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Either the current version or UBeR's "There are individual scientists..." is fine. If we do a 1RR on that sentence we'll need an inline comment and someone willing to enforce the terms. Although I think I could do so impartially, as an involved admin I'd rather not. My preference would be for a 0RR; we continually waste far too much time warring over this point. Raymond Arritt 23:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I have not been monitoring this article long enough to know the history here, but I generally agree with UBeR's point and believe that the "There are individual scientists ..." wording is preferable because it doesn't imply anything regarding the number of such scientists and, therefore, should remove the objections from a purely numerical perspective. The fact that the wording still refers to individual scientists should suggest to the reader that their numbers are low which should satisfy those concerned about WP:WEIGHT. Having expressed my opinion I defer to the existing group dynamics on the issue. --GoRight 03:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
A 0RR or 1RR reeks of censorship.
I would like to see a vote. I would expect to see "a small minority", "several dozen" or "some individual scientists" to be more popular than "a few". rossnixon 01:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Per your edit summary, Wikipedia isn't a democracy. In any case, I wouldn't mind a vote, but I also don't think I would be surprised by the outcome. (Of course, voting has little to do with actual consensus building or meaningful discussion, per applicable Wikipedia rules.) ~ UBeR 01:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with UBeR. What we can do is the following. Why don't the involved editors explain in detail his/her views? On the talk page OR is allowed. E.g., you are allowed to argue on the talk page that you think that the true number of dissenting scientists is a few hundred. Just explain what you think is the situation regarding the consensus. Then explain why you think that way, what sources can you give to back up your point (they don't have to be Reliable Sources, we just want to know how you formed your opinion).
It is better to do this without people commenting on the views of others. You just write your own opinion. Then we can discuss which views are backed up by Reliable Sources and which are not. The people who hold views that are not backed up by reliable sources can then say that they may be right, but that their views are not based on the type of reliable sources that this wiki article must be based on.
This procedure prevents people from engaging in "wiki politics" by going to the hearth of the matter first and only later bringing in the wiki rules. Count Iblis 02:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've unprotected it and added an inline comment to the sentence William M. Connolley 10:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked DH for clearly breaking 1RR on this. I've also removed the prot and left a note with the protecting admin William M. Connolley (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I've left you a note regarding that. You should seriously reconsider. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
A good way to unlock but yet preserve would be to allow information to be added, but not removed or modified. In other words, lock sections, but don't keep from others from adding new sections. Don't know if wikipedia has a way to do that. Doseiai2 (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Mortality Rates

I know that some of you are annoyed at me because of other articles, but this was not my addition. I only provided additional citations. I would ask that you don't take your annoyance at me out on others, if in fact that is the case here.

For those who are interested, some of the details, diagrams, and quotes from the second study are available at this website which you undoubtedly won't consider WP:RS but if you read past the bits you don't like the information is there.

--GoRight (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Who expressed annoyance? You added some cites, which motivated me to look for others. I found that more recent results tended to give different answers than the older work, and so I edited the text and replaced the cites you gave with the more recent ones. Stephan then deleted the material as being too US-centric. I'm not annoyed with Stephan for doing so, and it's puzzling that you should think anyone is annoyed with you here. Just the normal give-and-take of article refinement. Carry on, everyone. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mention any names, but in your case your lack of annoyance is duly noted.  :) --GoRight (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with you in particular. As far as I am concerned, this topic is fine to be discussed in Effects of global warming. Given the rather different results of various studies, I don't think this can be easily summarized. If we find a consensus that it has to be summarized, I would e.g. suggest "Warmer climate may directly influence mortality rates, but it is not yet clear in what direction" to reflect the various sources. But anyways, WP:SUMMARY suggests that we should first hash it out in the detailed article, of which the section here is only a summary. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
In this particular instance, I agree that the evidence is conflicting since both sides can produce references to support their positions. So I simply choose to spend my time on other battles going forward. But we are all aware that on a variety of topics on any number of pages that if you are collectively against something you have sufficient numbers to enforce your will regardless of the evidence at hand. In the end these pages become a tyranny of the majority, or possibly even a tyranny of a well organized minority, despite the ideals expressed in the wikipedia policies. This much is evident on the GW pages, IMHO, and I am certain that others agree. --GoRight (talk) 04:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it should first be included in the effects article, and then summarized here. I also agree it's U.S.-centric--because that was the focus of the study. But if you're going to remove things for being U.S.-centric, at least be consistent throughout the article. ~ UBeR (talk) 05:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, why do you say that the second citation doesn't support the statement. It makes the general observation that people are less adaptable to cold than to warm. While this text comes from the website mentioned above the substance is from direct quotes from the article:

"Actually, with respect to any temperature rise due to global warming, the research team found “For both men and women mortality was higher at low temperatures, suggesting a lesser ability to adapt to the cold.” Based on another related study, they state “In England and Wales, the higher temperatures predicted for 2050 might result in nearly 9,000 fewer winter deaths each year.” Laaidi et al. conclude “our findings give grounds for confidence in the near future: the relatively moderate (2°C) warming predicted to occur in the next half century would not increase annual mortality rates.”"
Doesn't 9,000 less winter deaths annually equate with lower mortality?

At any rate, if you are determined to keep the reference out I guess there is nothing to be done. --GoRight (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ummm...without the actual text of the studies, it's hard to figure out. But in general, no "9,000 less winter deaths annually" does not "equate with lower mortality". That depends on how many more people die in spring, summer and fall. Also, these studies talk about modern, developed societies in mid-latitude countries, and hence are unlikely to generalize directly to the world. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
There's also the work by such investigators as Martin Beniston, Christoph Schaer, and Sonia Seneviratne arguing that future climates are likely to produce more high-mortality heat waves like the summer 2003 heat wave in western Europe. Taking the different studies together, the bottom line is that there's likely to be fewer deaths from cold but more deaths from extreme heat, and we can't say at present which way the balance is most likely to tip. The AR4 WGII report discusses all this in more detail. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, if you all are determined to keep the references out it is obvious that you have a group with sufficient numbers to prevent any dissent or opposing views from being expressed, at least none that you don't "agree" to allow to be expressed. So there is nothing to be done. --GoRight (talk) 04:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Huh? We gave some reasoned discussion of the science, and you respond with indignant commentary about squelching dissent. I'm not sure whether that's a non-sequitur, a red herring, or a simple failure to communicate. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Quite right. The consensus of the organized group is that what we are doing on these pages is having "reasoned discussion". I stand corrected. There is nothing else to be done. --GoRight (talk) 05:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll openly admit that I'm on the skeptical side of the global warming debate... but as far as the squelching of dissent goes, GoRight, I'm not seeing it here. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 06:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
In this particular instance I will even agree. In this discussion of mortality rates legitimate exchange and debate has occurred and so this is not an example of an organized squelching of dissent. There are a myriad of examples, however, where views and concerns are simply dismissed out of hand and enforced through numerical superiority alone and, in fact, no serious rationale for their objections are ever even voiced.
Just for the record, note that having numerical superiority does not imply any violation of WP:AGF nor am I claiming that it does. They clearly believe that they are acting in the best interests of the articles, as am I. I do believe that objectivity and neutrality are compromised under the current circumstances, however. --GoRight (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe part of the problem comes from hearing the same debates over and over again. Relatively new people who have not heard them before might pose them in good faith. To those who have been watching a topic long enough to have heard the same debates several times, however, it seems like repeating a debate just for the sake of repeating it (i.e., good faith is not necessarily assumed). It's a human flaw, and one we should all work on. That said, there's nothing wrong with kindly introducing a newcomer to where in the archives that debate has been discussed before (referring to the archives without a specific pointer is much less helpful). Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I will admit that I have not read every discussion on every archive page of every GW related article.  :) Out of fairness to you all I will pledge to read through any pointers to explicit discussions in the archives before pressing a point too strongly. Out of fairness to me I reserve the right to reopen a discussion if I have something new to add or if I simply believe that further discussion is warranted. I do intend to be WP:BOLD and in some cases to try and assert WP:CCC if I disagree with past decisions. --GoRight (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. The archives are only meant to help us avoid repeating old discussions. New information or insight is always welcome. It might also be helpful to point out the reason that many of us seem to agree on several issues (I'm thinking of WMC, RA, KDP, and SS off the top of my head) is that we have a similar background in sciences, including advanced degrees. That doesn't mean we're always right, of course, but it does explain why we often have a similar (although not identical) POV. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I reckon we haven't really discussed mortality rates, or at least not in a very long time or thoroughly enough, so to suggest to read the archives of a discussion when none exist seems rather moot. ~ UBeR (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I took Ben Hocking's point to be more general in nature than just this mortality rate discussion, but your point on the specifics of that are noted. --GoRight (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Your interpretation of my point is correct. AFAIK, UBeR is also correct that this mortality discussion has not been had before (although WMC, SS, RA, or KDP might know better since they've been around longer). Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 21:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Well if that's true, then it probably hasn't been discussed in quite some time, as I said above. I find it relevant and pertinent to discuss. ~ UBeR (talk) 03:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

country or region specific information in the main GW article

Recently we had a source concerning possible implications of global warming on mortality in the US removed from the article as too detailed and region specific to deserve mention here and being more appropriate to the effects of global warming article. I found and also removed a specific reference to possible contributions of global warming to the extinction of a particular species of butterfly native only to california. However this edit [19] appears to highlight the need for some clarification of what place if any country specific information has in the article. The text removed and then reverted back into the article did indeed relate only to specific countries and indeed it appears in the main kyoto article. When is it appropriate to insert information specific to certain countries in this article and when is it not? I perceive the need to establish some guidelines here to avoid rampant edit wars of people including region specific details because other specific information has a long history of being in the article or removing country specific information simply because other country specific information was removed simply for being country specific.Zebulin (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I would also try to weight in the importance of something regional to the world. The golden toad is sometimes mentioned as the first specie to go extinct because of gw. Although confined to Costa Rica (and maybe Nicaragua) it would be appropriate to mention because of the significance of being first. This is just an example, so dont take it too seriously, but my main point is that if you can find notability in some other aspect, then its regional confinement can be overlooked. Brusegadi (talk) 02:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
As I said above, if certain information is going to be removed for being U.S.=centric, at least be consistent throughout the article. This should also for anything that's overly-specific when it's not important for such a macro-level article to do so (e.g. the butterfly). I recall that the toad information was already tried to be added, but was promptly removed. ~ UBeR (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
It has to be kept general. Even if we tried to include one specific effect per continent, there would be a never ending war over which effect got included and which did not. The other problem is that it's nearly impossible to conclusively attribute events to being caused by GW. The golden toad [20] is a good example. I got mighty tired of breathing smoke from forest fires last summer and think the blame is primarily GW. The evidence is, I think, fairly strong, but there are still other possible causal factors for fires. The cause section of the killer 2003 European heat wave [21] has several citation required tags and only one reference. A reference that says, "global warming probably contributed. Emphasize probably. 20,000 to 50,000 dead, and I don't think we can even go there. - SagredoDiscussione? 04:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Climate Change

I think that this article could be merged with climate change becasue they are pretty much the same thing. Global warming is basicly the climate changing in an upward trend.Chessmaster3 (talk) 00:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. In fact, read the "Terminology" section of this article. Climate change is quite a bit broader than global warming, and WP:SIZE would have us have separate articles, as the scopes of each topic are quite different. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Historical Data

If the carbon dioxide level from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ is plotted on the same time scale as fossil fuel usage from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm it is discovered that the carbon dioxide level started to increase about 1750, a century before any significant fossil fuel use. If average earth temperature from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html is plotted on the same graph as fossil fuel use it is discovered that there is no correlation between rising fossil fuel use and average global temperature to 1976. The hypothesis that since 1976 increasing carbon dioxide level has caused the temperature to rise is refuted by the carbon dioxide level and earth temperature determined from the Vostok ice cores. If these are plotted on a precision time scale it is discovered that the change in atmospheric carbon dioxide level lags earth temperature change by hundreds of years. See e.g. http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/Climate_Change_Science.html. Also, if average global temperature from C. R. Scotese and carbon dioxide level from R. A. Berner are plotted on the same graph as shown at http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html it is discovered that 440 million years ago carbon dioxide was over ten times the current level while earth temperature was about the same as now for over two million years. Many may have the ability and initiative to evaluate these historical data and if they do, the number of people who question that human activity is a significant contributor to the planet getting warmer will increase accordingly. Dan Pangburn (talk) 09:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the article, not the concept of climate change itself. As I'm sure you know, it is not acceptable to add your own original research to article pages. Instead, all facts on this encyclopedia should be verifiable. If and when this analysis is published in a peer reviewed source, then it would make sense to discuss where this information might go in the treatment of global warming in this encyclopedia. However, what you have posted here is not currently relevant to the article, and so this is not the place to discuss it. Enuja (talk) 09:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The material does not address the concept of climate change. There is no original research but simply presenting legitimate data sources. All facts are verifiable at the data sources given. It is relevant because it refers to cause which is a section of the article. Dan Pangburn (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe WP:SYN is more apt. If the material does not address climate change, then it would be synthesis to present it in a way that did (unless a reliable source did so first). Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Friends of Science and mysite.verizon are not reliable sources. Sorry. Your best bet is sticking with the peer-reviewed research published in scholarly journals. ~ UBeR (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

These 'not reliable' sources provide a vehicle for access to convienent graphics generated from credible sources e.g. CDIAC, Scotese. Dan Pangburn (talk) 08:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: Take a look at the new "UN HDR 2007/2008"

  • This annual UN Report on Human Development was publicly presented this week in Brasilia and this year theme is "Fighting climate change: Human solidarity in a divided world". You can find the pdf version at [22]. At least take a look at the Executive Summary. I think it does have valuable info, that at least ts worth mentioning in the 5.1 Section on Economic effects or perhaps in the Climate change article. Eventually it might belong to any of the controversy articles, since the UN is making a very strong political statement here and providing an answer for those asking to give priority to the third world problems, as now this report presents global warming/climate change and poverty as one problem. Anyway, it does have very smart figures regarding carbon related themes by countries. Because this is quite a sensible subject, I leave to you guys who have been working very hard on this article to decide where this new info belongs to, if it deserves any space at all.Mariordo (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It was the sun that won it!

As I was looking for some information to tell me the likelihood of seeing the sun at various times of day, I came across the following: http://star.arm.ac.uk/~ambn/345epb.pdf.

Now as Billy Connolly has turned me into a global warming skeptic, I found this article extremely interesting - particularly the estimation that cosmic rays have added 0.55C to forced heating in recent years.

My advice, if you're a student thinking to hang your career on the peg of climatology - don't there's no future in it - and in around a decade you'll be looking for a job like the rest of them!

88.111.0.121 (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

A very interesting point, and I'm sure it will get overlooked like every other piece of contrary evidence. Bugsy (talk) 17:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
There are a few comedians here who don't seem to understand the concept of "improving" an article.
  1. This post specifically says it was posted to alert others to a link of interest
  2. It gives the pertinent information being a 0.55C rise.
  3. It makes some general light hearted comments directed at no one in particular.
  4. This is a discussion page, if the global warming inquistionists, can't stomach even the listing of an article on the discussion page what hope is there of an unbiased main article ... to be frank absolutely none.
  5. If you've read the article, and it isn't relavent at least let other people have the chance to read it rather than acting contrary to many rules of WIkipedia and simply deleting anything you disagree with.

Bugsy (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I admire the thoughtful and reflective way in which you refer to those who disagree with you as "global warming inquisitionists" and "comedians." Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
So you want this source vetted here before placing it into the article? The article is from september of 2000. [23] Before adding it in any way to the article I'd want to make sure we don't have a more recent peer reviewed publication that supersedes it. I seem to recall this very idea being addressed in one I read not too long ago.Zebulin (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Driftwood, as I originally said, I found the article and thought it interesting - but because nothing contrary to the myth of global warming ever gets into this most biased on wikipedia articles, I wouldn't waste my time trying to convince the inquisition that the world isn't flat. ... but I thought others might be interested to read it but no doubt it has already been dismissed as bogus science long ago. If I come across anything else that ought to be in the article, I certainly will post a link, but I'm not wasting my time trying to make this article NON-POV as it is impossible. Bugsy (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Anything you post here will be examined in light of it's relevance to improving the article. You say you posted it here for the benefit of the others but those others will be using this page to the same end as this "inquisition". They will be examining it's relevance to improving the article. No matter how "interesting" a source may be at the end of the day if nobody can find a way to improve the article with it nobody should be surprised if it doesn't go any further than discussion here.Zebulin (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
i removed the commentary under WP:FORUM, because the original post actually says nothing related to improving the article. it's just general commentary, with some cute banter thrown in, and bugsy's comments are uncivil. seeing as i'm an AGW skeptic (i reject the hysteria mongering that GW adherents engage in), the ad hominem shoe Bugsy is trying to force on me simply doesn't fit. Anastrophe (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
In any event, we already have the main conclusions of the article offered here covered in the current GW article especially in the portion copied below:

"One such hypothesis proposes that warming may be the result of variations in solar activity." with several sources

I don't see how the article you supply would be more appropriate than those sources. Also note that the authors of the article you cite do not go so far as to claim that it must account for most of the warming so it does not conflict with the information already given in the article.Zebulin (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. In their conclusion, they even go so far as to say that the trend they observe for low clouds is the reverse of the one they would expect:
"This is in the opposite direction to the trend predicted for low clouds by the cosmic ray - low cloud correlation."
Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 22:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1468-4004.2000.00418.x is more apt. ~ UBeR (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

July news in Science

I reverted a recent change [24] by User:Samsee because I don't believe it belongs in the lead of this article, and, after reading the linked article that Samsee added, I think the sentence used was misleading. I couldn't find the source used in this article, but I haven't checked related articles yet. It does look like a good reference to use in the Climate models section of this article, in the main article Global climate model, in IPCC or IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. The article link is [25]. Samsee, for future reference, please add cited references as inline citations. If you have trouble with the format, please ask for help on the article's talk page. Enuja (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That edit seems to extrapolate from the source and a little wishful thinking... Brusegadi (talk) 06:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Extinction rates

User: Samsee uses Botkin et al (2007) (and UBeR has move this to the effects section) to claim that "some researchers believe the projected rates of extinction are overestimated". I've looked over the paper, and I'm not certain that that is a fair summary. As far as I can see, the authors are skeptical about the accuracy of the predictions, and make a number of suggestions on how to improve them, but they do not make a strong statement about any systematic bias. Can someone else with some time on his or her hands check this? --Stephan Schulz 16:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed the authors make suggestions on improving projections, but they certainly say "current projections of extinction rates are overestimates," based on what they believe to be specific problems with forecasting methods (which they hope to fix with their suggestions). ~ UBeR 17:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
To begin with, it isn't "some researchers", it's "Botkin et al.", but more importantly, this really isn't a good conclusion to draw from the paper. It's a "we think...but we really don't know" throwaway statement. They don't say which estimates they think are overestimates. The paper is about ways to improve forecasting. It isn't a review of current estimates. Taking a single, unsubstantiated point from the paper is wrong. Guettarda 18:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
In no way shape or form is the statement in it's original context a throwaway statement. If necessary I can quote the relevant bit of the paper. It is not necessary that we find and post an individual review for each estimate ever made when there is a paper right here addressing weaknesses in extinction modeling prior to the publication of the paper.Zebulin 19:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
"I can quote the relevant bit of the paper". Please do. Explain how you drew this conclusion in the context of the paper. Also, would you please explain where you got the as of early 2007. This isn't supported by anything they say in the paper. Guettarda 20:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The as of 2007 simply places the time of publishing into the context of the GW article. The authors could only examine models published up to no later than their papers publishing date. I don't think this is a critical point as it can usually be left to the reader to determine time of publishing but it can be included to head off deletion by pedants. I've caught flak for pasting source material to discussion, but before anyone condemns me this time please note that it was explicitly requested:
"Fossil evidence and recent ecological and genetic research, along with specific problems with present forecasting methods, lead us to believe that current projections of extinction rates are overestimates. Previous work has failed to adequately take into account mechanisms of persistence. We note a Quaternary conundrum:While current empirical and theoretical ecological forecasts suggest that many species could be at risk from global warming, during the recent ice ages few extinctions are documented (Willis et al. 2004). The potential resolution of this conundrum gives insights into the requirements for more accurate and reliable forecasting."
This is not "throw away" text. This is a statement that can attributed directly to the source. There is are not even any throw away qualifiers used (ie "in our opinion", "One might speculate", etc...) Even if there were it wouldn't preclude ascribing the opinion directly to the authors. I honestly don't see where you have a leg to stand on in removing the sourced sentence from the GW article.Zebulin 22:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The as of 2007 simply places the time of publishing into the context of the GW article - the article cites only one paper from 2007, and it cites that as a positive example. The article does not say anything about time frame. It's totally inappropriate to make a jump like that based on when it was published. (If it was published in March, 2007 it was almost certainly written no later than September 2006).
  • The authors could only examine models published up to no later than the publishing date - maybe, but it isn't for you to decide what they looked at or didn't look at.
  • This is not "throw away" text - how the heck not? It's a gut feeling. Using a primary source to attribute it to the main global warming article is entirely inappropriate.
  • This is a statement that can attributed directly to the source - yes, it can be attributed to Botkin et al. But it isn't one of the conclusions of their paper, and it isn't supported by any evidence in their paper. It isn't a statement that's based on the literature. Using it here is misleading and a misuse of a primary source.
  • There is are not even any throw away qualifiers - did you miss the lead us to believe in your quote? It isn't a conclusion based on data - it's a feeling. The cite no data. They analyse no model performance. They report on their gut feelings. Which is fine, because that isn't what the paper is about. Is that really so hard to understand? Guettarda 22:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you notice how my original wording reflects closely with the authors present in their paper? It's for a reason. The 2007 bit is good to leave out. But the peer-reiviewed researchers believe (per what I wrote) projected rates are overestimated. This is exactly in tune with the paper. It would be inappropriate and original research for you to say the scientists are wrong. Likewise, it would be inappropriate and original research for me to say they are right, hence my original wording. ~ UBeR 22:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Searching on "overestimate" (several hits) and "underestimate" (no hits) lead me to believe that the article is about the accuracy of the predictions erring on the side of overestimating. I don't know enough about this field to determine WP:WEIGHT issues, but I would point out that "Botkin et al." in this case is Botkin, Saxe, Araújo, Betts, Bradshaw, Cedhagen, Chesson, Dawson, Etterson, Faith, Ferrier, Guisan, Hansen, Hilbert, Loehle, Margules, New, Sobel, and Stockwell. How many of these are PhD holding scientists versus lowly graduate students (such as myself), I don't know, as that is an awful lot of names to be on a 10-page paper. (Of course, I've seen papers in particle physics with more than 200 names on them.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 19:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure, the authors of the paper include some really big names. But that's beside the point - the question is what are they saying. The paper is about the limitations of current means of forecasting species extinctions as a consequence of global warming, and ways to improve estimates. Contrary to what is being asserted in the article at present, but nowhere does it conclude that "current projections are overestimates".
The paper uses the word "overestimate" three times - once at the top of page 228 and twice in the second column on page 231. In the first instance, they say "[various evidence]...lead us to believe that current projections...are overestimates". This statement is not supported by citations, and it does not say which estimates they're speaking about. Thus, it cannot be taken as a conclusion of the paper, but rather an opinion of the authors.
Statement on page 231 give the idea a little more weight, but still doesn't say what the article says. Here they say that "niche theory models are likely to overestimate extinctions" and "global estimates of extinction due to climate change (Thomas et al 2004) may have greatly overestimated the probability of extinction as a result of the inherent variability of niche modeling". So yes, absolutely, many niche models may overestimate extinction rates. Great. So now all we need to do is figure out how many of the extinction estimates are niche based, figure out which ones of them are the types that are likely to overestimate extinctions and...
The simple fact of the matter is that Botkin et al. aren't even calling Thomas et al. an overestimate - they are citing it as an example of a "global estimate of extinction". They point out quite a few flaws in that paper, but never said anything about what they thought the effect of those errors were. If the authors of the paper are not specific, we can't make them be more specific than they are. We can't cite their "gut feelings" as evidence of anything. Guettarda 20:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
"[various evidence]...lead us to believe that current projections...are overestimates" - this is a clear statement by the authors of this paper. Your statement that this must be cited in the paper does not follow from policy. The paper is published by a reliable source, the authors are reliable scientists. - Merzbow 21:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
And therein lies the problem with using primary sources - the danger of quote mining. If you don't understand how to read scientific literature, you shouldn't be using it as a source. Guettarda 22:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
You will have to take that matter up on the appropriate policy pages.Zebulin 22:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Policy pages? We have a policy called WP:NOR. You can either choose to follow policy, or you can choose to ignore it. Guettarda 22:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not OR to accurately represent a primary source. It's done throughout the entirety of this article. ~ UBeR 22:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
But the primary source is not being accurately represented. It's being given meaning which should not be drawn from the text. Guettarda 22:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
You think we are misreading their text. You apparently say that the authors only make suggestions on how to improve extinction modeling while offering no information on the kind of bias those suggestions are meant to address. Is that what you are trying to say?Zebulin 22:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Uber and G. But quote-mining is not good. Having read the intro and the conclusions/recommendations, the primary conclusion of this paper appears to be uncertainty, which is why I suggest the compromise of "uncertainty" William M. Connolley 22:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The wording "uncertainty" contributes no new information to the article. It doesn't improve it in any way. It was already understood that the models contained uncertainty. If you look at the problem the suggestions in the paper are meant to address you will see that overestimation was the issue.Zebulin 22:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem, William M. Connolley, is that they certainly do believe there is uncertainty, but that it has erred in overestimating. ~ UBeR 22:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, as I've said. At the moment though my main point is that this is the wrong place for the war. I'm pretty sure that you have previously agreed that sub pages should be thrashed out first and am hopeful you'll agree with that here William M. Connolley 23:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the context of the sentence within the GW article and the way in which the source was actually used I agree that it probably is not necessary to date their findings to early 2007.Zebulin 21:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest a re-organization of the last few sentences of this last paragraph in the not-further subdivided "Attributed and expected effects" section. Here is the current state of the paragraph.

Additional anticipated effects include sea level rise of 110 to 770 millimeters (0.36 to 2.5 ft) between 1990 and 2100,[3] repercussions to agriculture, possible slowing of the thermohaline circulation, reductions in the ozone layer, increased intensity of hurricanes and extreme weather events, lowering of ocean pH, and the spread of diseases such as malaria and dengue fever. One study predicts 18% to 35% of a sample of 1,103 animal and plant species would be extinct by 2050, based on future climate projections.[4] However, few mechanistic studies have documented extinctions due to recent climate change[5] and one study suggests that projected rates of extinction have been overestimated.[6]

As you can see, the last two sentences talk in a larger amount of detail about extinctions than the rest of the first sentence talks about the other effects. I suggest we have a two sentence paragraph, with the second sentence covering both species distribution changes and extinction. How do you all feel about

Species distribution and timing of seasonal biology have already changed (cite Parmesean and Yohe, 2003, or a more recent review), and some species are expected to go extinct (cite Thomas et al.), although the number of expected extinctions is under debate.(cite McLaughlin et al and Botkin et al)

How does that sound? Enuja (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)}

I'm not sure there is evidence of a debate concerning the number of extinctions. It's quite possible that the Botkin's papers findings are already being used to address those particular flaws in extinction models.Zebulin 22:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Contrary to what these guys are insisting, the Botkin paper does not address expected numbers of extinctions at all. It cites no numbers. Even in the paper the criticise most (Thomas et al.) they don't address specifics of the results in any way. Guettarda 22:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Nor do we. Based on what they believe to be specific errors and other research, they believe the projections to be overestimated. Simple. This is what I wrote in the article. ~ UBeR 22:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This edit war shouldn't be occurring here. This section of the GW page should reflect whats on the effects page. It would be less disruptive to wiki to have the edit war on a lower traffic page, if we have to have one William M. Connolley 22:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC) I also suggest that this section is longer than it should be William M. Connolley 23:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)