Talk:Climate change/Archive 23

As per the request, and after contacting the admin responsible for the protection, I am unprotecting this article. I can quite understand the reasons which lead the admin to protect this article. Currently, my own opinion is that, given the current state of the article, pretty much any edits are preferable to leaving it as it is. This is not to condone the multiple actions of many different editors which have reduced a featured article to this state: I must remind all concerned that disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is a blockable offense independantly of the three revert rule, as has been confirmed by the Arbitration Committee on several occasions.

For the majority of editors, who are editing in good faith, I invite you to consider that the best way of putting your point is to "write for the enemy" rather than engaging in trench warfare. Wikipedia is neither an election meeting nor a saloon bar; our aim is to be useful to our readers. Physchim62 (talk) 03:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Physchim62. that sounds fine. I would like to offer one small comment, if I may; could you please give us some guidance on how to proceed? we seem to keep going around and around in circles around the same issue. I don't know why we're not able to get any traction. Admins seem to come and go, but no one seems able to put some clear ideas on the table on how to proceed, or to take at least some stand on who is somewhat right, on even at least some small part of any of the main issues. So any guidance you might be able to provide on even some small part of this might be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --Sm8900 03:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming Dmcdevit method

Copied from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Global Warming Dmcdevit method:

We'll be trying some of Dmcdevit's thoughts out on Global Warming.

We're unprotecting now. Could folks please keep an eye on the page, and block any Edit warriors on sight? (Note that you can block for edit warring even when there has been no strict 3RRvio, but do be careful of what you call an edit war, nevertheless.)

Hopefully no-one will actually be editwarring, but since we're unprotecting a contentious page, you never really know for sure.

--Kim Bruning 03:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I just posted a comment there. Thanks for the notice. --Sm8900 04:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, who just decided it is a good idea to archive discussions which are only an hour old? why is this being done? It seems like it was done by people who are uninvolved in this article. Thanks. --Sm8900 04:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a good idea, the page was too long. The material's in /Archive 21, and it's easy enough to cut and paste discussions from there if necessary. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

(Note: Restoring this talk section from archive, as it was active as of today. Thanks. --Sm8900 04:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC))

Mediation has got us nowhere, all the discussion has changed little, and edit wars are continual. I believe that the only way to settle this conflict would be through arbitration. What are other people's views on this? Would others support moving the dispute to ArbCom? All other steps seem to have been taken. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 00:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not opposed, but ArbCom has a long-standing policy that it does not handle content conflicts. There are user conduct issues as well, but just now they are minor. --Stephan Schulz 00:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that WP:MEDCOM hasn't been tried yet, and there's also community enforceable mediation. However, as someone who's mostly been watching this dispute from afar (including the threads it's spawned on various noticeboards) I think it's going to end up at arbitration sooner or later. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we just had Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-25 Global warming, where we could not find a full-time mediator, and User:Kim Bruning effectively gave up. Also, Talk:Global warming#Guerrilla_Mediation_opening_here seems to be active at this time, but the guerrilla mediator also has not been very active. I agree that this is eventually headed to ArbCom (for the third time). --Stephan Schulz 01:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer that the term "war" be applied to its customary meaning, instead of as a euphemism for ordinary editing disagreements. James S. 00:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Medcom has been tried. There is a Guerrilla Mediation supposedly underway, although the mediator runs off for a while and the page just keeps rocking. I want the Mediator to be more active, but what can you do? I think CEM is experimental right now. They need some time to mature before handling this page. Arbcom is probably too drastic at this time. I detect impatience in a few folk. Don't worry! If you die tomorrow this page was not that important. And if you live, it will still be here! --Blue Tie 01:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the strangest edit I have seen today! LOL. --Blue Tie 01:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I care about the little things ;-). But seriously, my web browser hang while saving, so I resaved. I suspect the Wiki engine got a bit confused.--Stephan Schulz 01:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

A content dispute like this isn't suitable for ArbCom. I don't think mediation has been allowed to properly run its course here. Some slow progress has been made. A large part of the issue is the huge number of participants which means mediators simply get swamped and can't keep up. If everyone could just slow down for a bit... -- Leland McInnes 01:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Queuing theory. One Server, Multiple Input Channels. Makes me think that one technology based solution would be to limit each participant to 3 article edits a day and 6 talk page edits per day on highly involved articles. Of course that would really stress some folks out. We wouldn't want to be responsible for deaths by stress. --Blue Tie 01:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the problem with this article isn't one that the Wikipedia model can resolve. The Wikipedia model tries to be fair to everyone, and when there's a split in users' opinions that they aren't willing to budge on, the Wikipedia solution is to do nothing or to protect the article from editing ad infinitum. For the article to truly be stable, there would have to be a proprietor who blocks everyone on one side of the argument and makes the official stance the other side of the argument. Obviously the "fair" solution is to include everyone's views on the matter, but one of the requirements the other group has is to not include everyone's views on the matter - and even though that's POV, they're in the majority and very active about reverting out attempts to change it to NPOV (and they can't be outruled as they include several of the administrators and bureaucrats of Wikipedia). So ArbCom is worth a shot, but I predict more of the same. --Tjsynkral 01:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, except ArbCom can actually enforce things. Nevertheless, I think it's a bit drastic and I think we should wait for the current mediation taking place. ~ UBeR 01:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually see it differently. I believe that there is a way for this to be resolved. Let me see if I can write what I see in my mind.

First there are the people who are pov and will absolutely NOT compromise. This is not out of evil but out of a belief that they are serving a higher good. I believe that they will tend to be in a minority. I hope this article would not attract the deviants!Second, I think that most people actually want a really good encyclopedia article. (And by the way, if you want to see one, I would recommend looking at Lochry's Defeat which is up for FA. Compare our article to that one, and this one suffers greatly in the comparison, I think.)Third, I think that if people can get over a lack of trust and believe that the other person really doesn't want to push an agenda but only write a good encyclopedia, we can get past these issues. But it has to be true. There has to be no agenda except to write an article that is good.Fourth, I think that in that situation, you can refer to wikipedia guidelines and rules to help resolve issues and problems.Fifth, I think that we need some system to coordinate. There are too many people who want a piece. This means that there would have to be a plan...an outline ... of the article. And probably not of just the article but of the whole area encompassed by this issue of climate change.--Blue Tie 01:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There are only two possible solutions. Either limited edit wars are tolerated (because they are perpetrated by a few and they cannot change the article to their liking anyway) or some users will be banned. A consensus was already reached. The article focusses on the science. If we discuss politics and other issues then that can't be used to dispute the science. The science that can be included in this article can only come from reputable peer reviewed sources. This means e.g. that the conclusions of the study by Oreskes can be mentioned in the article, but not those of the Oregon petition.

Reverting people who repeatedly violate these basic principles is i.m.o. not a big deal (In some other science articles these sorts of reverts happen every day). But if some adminstrator thinks that it is a big deal, then he/she should ban the POV pushers. I think that any further block on editing this article won't do much good, because the hard core POV pushers won't ever change their behavior. Count Iblis 02:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Count Iblis, you said: " A consensus was already reached. The article focusses on the science. If we discuss politics and other issues then that can't be used to dispute the science." Are you saying the consensus was to only focus on science? Or are you saying the consensus is to also include other subtopics, but not to allow them to question the science? If the latter, can we perhaps try to implement that? I am open to that. Thanks. --Sm8900 04:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, from my view there are several problems with your two solutions:

1. edit wars are a bad thing.
2. no real consensus has been reached yet on the article being about science without a change in the name
3. your decision to limit what can be entered into the article as a reliable source has not been agreed to.
4. your plan to revert people every day is the same as edit warring. However, it is one of the problems that people have been complaining about with this article and as long as this is the approach you take the article will not work.
5. if someone were to to be banned for pov pushing you might suffer instead of others. Be careful what you wish for. --Blue Tie 02:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I just want to note for the record, in my opinion it is the pro-status quo group who are the POV-pushers. They are continually reverting a wide variety of edits, from a wide array of good-faith editors, on many diverse sub-topics, because they say that all such edits detract from what they consider to be the "proper" article. --Sm8900 03:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I tend to think that may be true. It looks like it. It feels like it. --Blue Tie 03:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Grimerking 11:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment and question re this issue

Thanks Blue Tie. to answer the specific question here, I tend to agree with Leland McInnes, above. The mediation has not been allowed to run its course. However, I also feel it is doubtful how much it can ultimately accomplish. I recognize the need for compromise, and am open and amenable to reasonable compromise. However, I'm not sure the pro-status quo group is similarly open.

Let me ask you folks in the pro-status quo group, do you see any need to be willing to compromise on any aspect of this issue? or do you see yourselves as already holding the correct position, holding the line against many less-skillful edits which would add improper edits and insertions to this article.

Alt: valiantly holding the line against knowing or ignorant pov pushers who seek to add destructive edits and insertions to this article. --Blue Tie 03:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to be cynical or ironic here; I am genuinely asking. If any of you do picture yourselves as willing to hear the views of the other side, and to compromise somewhat to reach a resolution, I would be open to hearing it, and some of the genuine concerns you might have in reaching compromise.However, I'm not sure that is the case. That's why I feel the mediation should be allowed to progress further, but I'm still not sure how much it will ultimately accomplish.

Also, how do you see this issue? I assume you feel you are the main check against a range of invalid edits? Or do you see this as a dispute between well-meaning good-faith edits on both sides, with room for compromise? again, I am genuinely asking, and not seeking at all to be ironic. I appreciate your input. Thanks. --Sm8900 03:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I personally feel that there is no need for compromise past the passing mention of controversy that already exists in the form of a summary-style section. As for how I see the issue, I see some editors on the pro-politics side as acting in good faith, and some as nothing more than POV pushers (I will not name names).

Now, concerning the mediation, the first one had little effect, and I highly doubt that the second will produce any results either. We will let it run its course, but in the end, there is only one path for the dispute. I do not know where in Wikipedia:Arbitration policy it says that ArbCom does not handle content disputes; under scope, it is written that ArbCom "will primarily investigate interpersonal disputes," but I do not take that to mean it will not investigate content disputes. Besides, content disputes are interpersonal disputes anyway: they are disputes between persons. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 08:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we discuss Alkivar's conduct on this page? First he put a 1-week protect on the article without so much as a post to the talk page, now he is aggressively blanking sections of the article and archiving still-active talk page discussions. I for one don't think this behavior is right and it's borderline vandalism. --Tjsynkral 04:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Also note that the first edit warring since the last unprotect was done by none other than Alkivar:

Revert

Revert back by Alkivar

Whether or not one revert counts as edit warring is arguable, but it seems like we have a problem. --Tjsynkral 04:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Nah, the first edit warring was done by Jacob Buerk (talk · contribs), and he's blocked. Read WP:AN, it's fun! --Akhilleus (talk) 04:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreee, we have a problem. This is absolutely improper. Something strange is going on here. BTW, anyone want to answer my incisive questions from last discussion. aahhh, I guess not... :-) --Sm8900 04:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Some folks are experimenting with new intervention methods. I'm not sure I agree with all of the methods proposed, but it's worth a try, I guess. --Kim Bruning 04:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

And this is supposed to help the article...or the situation...how, exactly? --Sm8900 04:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure, but note how this is a summary article? I think people are looking at how to get the NPOV discussion away from this article, and leave it at the actual sub-articles, where there are less people (and so it's easier to reach consensus). I agree some of the edits seem a bit drastic, though %-/. --Kim Bruning 04:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

And I'm confused why he's been blocked. He reverted what amounts to blanking of the article, in apparently good faith, and gets blocked? That's MORE than a bit questionable! Kyaa the Catlord 04:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverted without discussion or edit summary. Naconkantari 04:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The user has been unblocked per email. Naconkantari 04:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

And? Last time I checked, wikiquette suggests an edit summary, but when you're watching for changes and they look, sketchy, be bold and take steps. Blanking in the manner Alkivar has been doing would look suspect to anyone who watches recent changes. This is a bad precedent to be making! (There was a edit conflict) Kyaa the Catlord 04:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that Alkivar (as the protecting admin) has been specifically invited to help out by the unprotecting admin. That's a bit more than I bargained for, let's see what happens. :-) --Kim Bruning 04:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd encourage all editors on this page to follow WP:0RR to avoid creating further conflict on the article. Naconkantari 04:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Encourage all you want... but we've already seen that the current "cure" is worse than the illness. Kyaa the Catlord 04:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What "cure" would that be? Naconkantari 04:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Half-cocked, nearly abusive blocking of good faith edits by wikipedians in good standing? Kyaa the Catlord 04:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Be nice. He did correct his move immediately. :-/ --Kim Bruning 04:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice? I'm sorry, three edittors have now been blocked from editting because of making valid edits on the article as of now. This isn't Sparta. Kyaa the Catlord 04:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

:-/ --Kim Bruning 05:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Admins knew the article would be unprotected, and they were looking for possible edit warriors. I've left a message at the admins noticeboard. --Kim Bruning 05:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Good. But this is worse than the disease, we have editors being blocked for making edits, not for edit warring. Kyaa the Catlord 05:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Argh, yeah. So I've also got some people from irc actively watching now, including watching out for hair-trigger admins (sometimes real-time communications can be a boon). Hopefully this will cover all the bases. It's now actually morning again around here. :-/ I'm going to need to sleep soon. <looks bleary-eyed> --Kim Bruning 05:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC) but who watches the watchers watching the watchers?

Well, please follow at least Harmonious editing club guidelines --Kim Bruning 04:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested to see what happens. --Blue Tie 04:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Me three --Kim Bruning 04:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC) <bites nails/>

update: Now TJ... has been blocked. He's made 1 edit on the page which seems to have been an arguably valid edit. WTF? Kyaa the Catlord 04:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This page is starting to look (and sound) a lot more like these guys or these guys. The parallels are almost uncanny. See ya, I'm going to sleep. --Sm8900 04:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe wait a little while before you actually edit, and move slowly, while things sort themselves out. --Kim Bruning 05:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps at some point the disappearance of the FA star can be explained? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It is de-featured. --Blue Tie 05:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, I'd like an explanation of how that happened. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It isn't plainly obvious? --Tjsynkral 05:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Apparently the FARC was closed and the result was that the article was de-featured, but I don't see any statement of the reasons why. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Read the FAR page and you will see a gusher of opinions why this page doesn't come close to deserving FAR in its current state. --Tjsynkral 05:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What that tells me is that you can get an article de-featured by starting a bunch of edit wars and complaining that the article isn't stable. A closing statement might cure me of this misapprehension, if in fact I am mistaken. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've asked Kim to explain why he closed the review, but I expect it will be reopened since it is unclear what motivated the very early closing. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It has been reopened, but the FA star is still no longer on the article page. I am not sure how to put it back; could someone else do so? -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 08:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The edits immediately before Tjsynkral's plainly violated WP:NPOV by taking a firm position on a scientific controversy that different scientists disagree about.(e.g., "40%", "primary factors" vs. insert of "insignificant"). There was no commentary on the talk page supporting this new conclusory evaluation of multiple points of view. That's one way to achieve stability for an article if a different standard for blocking is applied to edits that fail to adhere to the favored POV than those that do on grounds of "edit warring". Someone should add an NPOV tag, but I imagine someone has previously removed one, and I don't want to be accused of edit-warring. -- THF 05:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I added a NPOV tag and had it reverted. Then I added it again and it was reverted. I added it again and it was reverted. I added it again. Then a rather nice admin (part of the POV pushing clique) banned me. Please note that I was editing and not reverting. It appears that Wiki rules only apply to those non-clique members and even then they you aren't actually held to Wiki rules, just the whims of some cliquoid arse. 193.113.57.167 13:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, editing or reverting, from the moment you engaged in making the same change more than 3 times, you broke WP:3RR. But I agree that some admins use this policy quite swiftly here around while at the same time complaining about wikilawyering in "their" articles... --Childhood's End 13:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem with the first section. It says:

These conclusions have been endorsed by more than 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized states, and no individual scientists disagree.^[1] The only scientific society that denies human-caused global warming is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.^[2][3]

It can be demonstrated instantly that there are individual scientists who disagree. But even if that cannot be demonstrated, the statement makes a positive assertion that there are none who disagree, but the citation does not say that. The citation only says that in one study of 928 abstracts, a social scientist could not find any abstracts that clearly disagreed with the mainstream views. That is definitely not the same thing as no individual scientists disagree.

It is an un-sourced statement as it is written.

And now, this article makes it clear that at least the following scientists disagree:

Bill Gray,Richard Lindzen,S. Fred Singer,Pat Michaels,Sterling Burnett,

So the statement is wrong that none do.--Blue Tie 05:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

For the moment, at least, I'd like to remove the text "and no individual scientists disagree.[2]" since I don't think it's an accurate representation of Oreskes' paper. We can then discuss what, if anything, should replace it on the talk page. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Blue Tie, I notice you've changed the sentence, but I don't think that's an accurate summary of Oreskes' argument either. The whole point of the scrutiny this article is under at the moment is to make editors discuss proposed changes on the talk page, so why don't we discuss what the sentence should say? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Akhilleus (talk • contribs) 05:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

I have a problem with making a firm statement about the number of dissenting scientists, as if that is a known fact, when we only have one source to back it up -- and that source has been accused of confirmation bias. I think that if we had another source on the number of dissenting scientists, we would be closer to saying something unqualified like "small number of individual scientists who disagree..." but it would be improper synthesis to use Oreskes's essay to say that there are a small number of dissenting scientists. It weakly supports the idea of a "consensus among scientists" (I say weakly because sitting in your armchair and searching a database for a text string doesn't constitute substantial research) but it definitely is not a study on how many scientists disagree. I think that was what the research set out to prove - the consensus, not the lack, or magnitude, of disagreers. I don't personally think we ought to make a run-on sentence qualifying exactly what Oreskes's methods were in the intro - we should just say "some individual scientists disagree" and although not a large departure from "a small number" it does not introduce a factual inaccuracy into the article. --Tjsynkral 06:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Right now there are no statements about the number of dissenting scientists. There isn't even a qualifier like "many" or "few". It just says that there are individual scientists. As far as the "Weakly supports" consensus, I agree that it is very weak. I have argued this previously and I really think the study is bad. That is why it should be counterbalanced. But I did not interpret what it meant. I just quoted its conclusion. --Blue Tie 06:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, now I've edited it twice (taking steps). What do you make of that edit? --Blue Tie 05:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's closer to what Oreskes says, but I still don't like it. Your wording implies that Oreskes only took abstracts into account. Not so. Furthermore, the statement "An abstract review of 928 peer reviewed articles" is unnecessarily specific--this is the lead, after all. The basic point that's being made in the lead is that there's a strong consensus behind the IPCC position, and the quantification and qualification in the current version is not helpful for the reader, in my opinion. I'd simply cut the paragraph off after "These conclusions have been endorsed by more than 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized states." The following sentences probably go lower down in the "Controversy and politics" section, where we link to other articles--if we want to characterize Oreskes' study, we should probably do so in Global warming controversy. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, according to her article she only took the abstracts into account. (To me that is a problem). And here is the problem with not being pretty specific: You will start to use words like "Some" "Many", "Few" "a tiny Amount" and so on, which are going to be objected to by some (reasonably so) because they are not specific and in some cases bad synthesis. They are weasel words. I do not think anyone would disagree that there is a "strong consensus". Where the problem comes in is when you start to describe the opposition. Do you describe it as "small", "tiny", "very small", "insignificant"? And when you are finished describing it, how do you support that judgment of its size and quality? I suggest that if you follow wikipedia standards you must avoid weasel words. So what do you use? --Blue Tie 07:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Oreskes

Why is Oreskes in the intro at all? The article is not about Oreskes, and the Oreskes paper is only a single point of view that is contradicted by the refutation of Oreskes by Peiser[1]. THF 06:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong about Peiser, but as I just wrote, I think we should take Oreskes out of the intro. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. So how do we settle this issue then? There are plenty of people who really badly want to say that as far as scientists go, this is settled and now its just the politicians who are quibbling. There are also people who really badly want to say that it is not settled science and that many good scientists disagree. Other than OR, or unsupported weasle words, how do we support this? --Blue Tie 06:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Blue Tie, I think you've stated the basic reason why there's so much fighting over this article. Why don't we just wait for some other editors to weigh in before making any big changes to the lead? --Akhilleus (talk) 06:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Okie doke! How long do we wait? A day or two?

To me its this lead is all a bit wrong. Really, the lead should require few or no cites. It should all be referenced in the article. itself. And that is one of the big problems with the article. It was really one of the two criticisms I had when I first came to the page: The article needs to be re-structured so that the summary "recounts" the contents of the article. And it should be short and sweet. Then the sections of the article need to cover the details.

Unfortunately I did not, at that time, quite grasp the intentions of the different parties. (I was just trying to make the article flow better and be sort of unslanted. But now that the article has, more or less, been considered to be a matter of science only, I believe that SOME of the debating goes away. But the under those rules the article should also be renamed and a new summary article linking to a fairly large number of sub articles should be created. That one article should be almost like an intelligent train station... giving good information but also helping people get to the place that they really want to go. All of the articles in the group should have navigation toolboxes near the top --Blue Tie 06:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

For reference, here is how I originally tried to handle that two sided debate:

lobal average air temperature near Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.3 ± 0.32 °F) during the last century. 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,"^[4] which leads to warming of the surface and lower atmosphere by increasing the greenhouse effect. These conclusions have been endorsed by more than 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized states. One study of over 900 technical papers found no scientists who disagreed with these conclusions ^[5] although a document called the Oregon Petition contained the names of 14,700 individual scientists who expressed disagreement with some or all of the IPCC conclusions .^[6] The only scientific society that denies human-caused global warming is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.^[7][8]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Tie (talk • contribs)

Well, we can say that "Some scientists say that there is a consensus, while other scientists disagree that there is a consensus" with cites to both -- that seems self-refuting to be sure, but it's consistent with NPOV. Peiser cites several studies showing 25% or more disagreement with the "consensus." THF 06:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Which words in that are weasel words? --Tjsynkral 06:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"Some" would be weasely I think. And in this context, others would also. --Blue Tie 06:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No, "some" and "other" seem innocent to me. And I'm one of the biggest advocates of removing WW from this particular sentence. --Tjsynkral 06:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, well how do you handle the very first example under WP:AWW? Maybe by exceptions? But remember, the answer has to be justifiable to a large body of people who want to make a point by emphasizing one over the other --Blue Tie 06:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus, you may think Peiser is "wrong," but NPOV prevents the article from making that evaluation. If Oreskes is included, Peiser's attempt to replicate Oreskes needs to be included with the same prominence. NPOV and NOR means that it matters little to the article content whether you or I think a particular notable reliable source is wrong or right. THF 06:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That's silly. Editors can and should use their judgment about which sources can be included. It's easy to conclude that Peiser is wrong by reading his study and responses to it. Nothing about the policies you mention constrain us from saying that Peiser is wrong. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like the very definition of WP:NOR to me. -- THF 06:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not think it is right for a blocking admin to participate in the discussion and call the other side "silly" for their views.

I Agree that editors can and should use their judgment about what sources are to be included. If this were my own article, I would deprecate Oreskes. I think her study is flawed in some fundamental way. But there are many who think she is dead on. Well, if they can value her inputs even while I think her inputs are no good, perhaps they could value THF's advocacy of Peiser even while they would think his views are trash.

I will give an alternative reason why Peiser should not be included -- but then the Oregon Petition should be included. Instead of having the article debate itself over its sources (which looks really bad) instead, just let the article present two sides and let the people at home decide what they want to think. I believe Oreskes did something wrong in her study. I also think the petition, while more transparent also has some problems. I do not think either source is actually better than the other. But by including them, we do not need to argue over the sources. We can state.. "This many articles showed no negative views", but .."This petition has at least this many names that do oppose". Let the reader decide. --Blue Tie 07:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just seen the latest edition of the lead paragraph (this version, for clarity) and it seems about right. We note that a peer-reviewed study found a consensus, but then identify that some scientists disagree and by linking to the article, make it clear who is being referred to and their status. The problem with including the OP or Pieser in the lead is that this effectively gives them equal status with Oreskes, which is misleading. The casual reader isn't likely to click through and form an objective opinion based on a detailed evaluation of sources - they'll most likely take the paragraph at face value. Whether we believe Oreskes to be a "good study" is rather irrelevant here, because it's the only one of these three to have been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Making "editorial judgements" about peer-reviewed, non-retracted sources is original research.

Conversely, quoting numbers from the OP as a counter to Oreskes is also OR unless qualified with a fairly hefty statement about their provenance. Pieser's work is similarly unsuitable for inclusion in the lead because it was rejected by Science and partially retracted by its author. Mentions of either of these sources belong perhaps in the controversy article, but not in the lead paragraph of the summary article - that is most definitely undue weight. --YFB ¿ 08:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I find Oreskes in the lead jarring. We already source consensus to the National Academies. We could relegate Oreskes to another footnote (which can provide the current context, footnotes can be more than just literature referenceas). --Stephan Schulz 08:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think jarring is the right way to put it. But, unless I am wrong, some people want to assert strongly that there is consensus on this. If you leave Oreskes out do you also throw out the fact that there are individual scientists (unnumbered) who are in opposition to the general model? --Blue Tie 08:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, first of all, I do not particularly like that opening for a couple of reasons. I think the first sentence in the article is not correct and I think it can be improved and expanded.

Second, I do not think that putting OP with Oreskes gives them equal standing, but if it does, I am ok with that because I think Oreskes has a big problem.

Third, saying that whether we believe Oreskes to be a good study is irrelevant is not true. There are guidelines related to reliable sources that says that just because something is from a peer reviewed journal, that does not make it right. I am not even sure this was a peer reviewed article since it is not described as one but instead is described as an "essay". And on the archived talk page I quote the guidance from RS which gives permission for editors to judge these sources.

Fourth, I agree that Piesers work should be excluded, but I think so for different reasons -- I do not think wikipedia should impeach its own sources.

Finally, I disagree with your conclusion that mention of either of these sources belongs elsewhere. Because, if it is uncited, there is no justification to put the fact that there is disagreement in the scientific arena on this matter. There must be a cite to justify the statement. Remove the cite.. remove the statement. But that will not fly per NPOV. So you need the cite.

However, if we were change this article so that it was renamed "Science of Global Warming" and then the science was described and also the debates among scientists was included as a section or paragraph or whatever, then the lead would not need ANY sources or cites and the details could be handled in the body of the text. On that note, I specifically do not believe that the article should be JUST about the science as it is seen from the majority perspective. It needs to be an NPOV article and not a fork. --Blue Tie 08:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Oreskes does not belong in the lead - it is excess detail William M. Connolley 09:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That is starting to appear to be the general agreement. Be interesting to see if everyone agrees. --Blue Tie 09:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I would support leaving Oreskes out of the lead, which might solve a lot of this argument. The intro currently seems dominated by the controversy aspect, which is rather unbalanced. However, I disagree with Blue Tie that the OP needs to remain there - as I said above, the "scientists opposing... " article provides ample evidence to back up the assertion that agreement is not unanimous, without resorting to citing dubious evidence. --YFB ¿ 09:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

OP clearly does not belong and isn't there so we don't have to discuss it. I've removed Oreskes by restoring an earlier version of the whole para - this restores some sol/vol stuff that was removed for no obvious reason William M. Connolley 09:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I was only discussing it because there seemed to be disagreement about whether it should be inserted. I agree with both your changes (restore old paragraph to lead, reduce economics detail). A small detail I noticed is that the restored paragraph refers to 20 national science academies whereas the newer one had 30. --YFB ¿ 09:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any point in counting them William M. Connolley 13:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's 20 National Academies (or "all who have a formal opinion"), 30+ scientific societies (all but the Oil Driller's Union ;-). --Stephan Schulz 15:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, Stephan. --YFB ¿ 17:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

William, I see you put back the sol/vol information back into the lead after your revert (fine). Are you fine if it is removed, as the exact same sentence appears in the solar variation section. I think either Schulz or Arritt moved it originally (excessive detail?). ~ UBeR 18:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well if William won't answer, what do the rest of you thinking of the sentence? The same exact sentence appears in the solar section, and was originally removed from the lead as excessive detail, if I remember correctly. Thoughts? ~ UBeR 21:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

So apparently I was blocked for making one edit to the page. Not reverting, not doing anything of the sort. The administrator who blocked me never responded to my e-mail, and eventually the hour was up.

We need a template atop the page to warn users: DO NOT EDIT OR YOU MAY BE BLOCKED. Whatever happened to Be Bold? This is a chilling effect when administrators can block someone for making one edit - who is going to try to improve the article when they have to worry about being blocked over it? --Tjsynkral 05:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you have a legitimate case for getting that block removed from your history. It was not right. --Blue Tie

Naconkantari added a hidden note to the top of the page. While this is probably a good idea, I feel like the note should probably say "Please do not make any edits or reverts to the article which are reasonably likely to be contested without first discussing on the talk page." We're all aware of the wisdom of discussing controversial edits, but I think as worded the warning might give people the idea that material should only be added, not removed, which is somewhat at odds with the way things currently work. Thoughts on makign this change? --TeaDrinker 06:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat to my surprise, I see that the sol var stuff has been considerably downgraded - its out of the causes section and is, it seems, proven to be negligible. I'm surprised the skeptics haven't howled about it. I now think it is underweighted and should be moved back up William M. Connolley 09:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably should. But I think there might be another issue. Grabbing whole chunks of the article and deleting it without discussion is not in accordance with the plan that the blocking admins came up with. Its no longer "BE BOLD" with this article. Now its "be timid". --11:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Since irradiance has been declining as part of its normal cycle since ~2001, I think putting solar variation in the causes section is absurd because (1) the peer-reviewed citations say it's insignificant, (2) it has recently been subtracting from warming, which would make it the opposite of a cause. However, I am not opposed to keeping the "Causes" section plural on principle. James S. 14:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 19:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree it should be moved back up. The machine512 18:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The citation requested in the Solar variation section is on the next sentence. James S. 17:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, what is insignificant? The effects of solar variation, or the amount of variation? I don't think that is made very clear, and that statement is jumping to a somewhat vague conclusion which seemingly contradicts the other statements. The machine512 18:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The amount isn't enough to have a substantial influence over the effects. James S. 18:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

How can it be called a "cause"?

Is there any dispute that solar radiant energy falling on the earth has been decreasing for the past five years, and generally stable in the industrial era? James S. 18:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a hypothesis, so yes.—Preceding unsigned comment added by UBeR (talk • contribs)

Who's hypothesis disputes either of those facts? James S. 18:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Solar is generally believed to have increased somewhat from 1900 to about 1950 and been more or less stable since. "Falling on the earth" is a bit ambiguous, as solar radiation also heats the earth if it is absorbed in the atmosphere. And 5 years is too short a time frame to be relevant, as the sun has a 11 year activity cycle. I don't understand UBeR's remark. --Stephan Schulz 18:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The past-5-years stuff is a red herring: there is fairly clearly no great impact of the 11-y solar cycle on climate. This (I think) is attributed to the thermal buffering of the ocean; though I've never seen it properly discussed. The point about the solar variation stuff is that it *has* been suggested as contributing, and that should be mentioned, even if the majority opinion is against it. James S is being unreasonable William M. Connolley 08:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If the majority opinion is that it is not a cause, why do you want it in the causes section? James S. 11:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

For the obvious reason: that this article reports more than just the majority opinion. There are people that believe this stuff and they publish papers on it William M. Connolley 12:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it shouldn't be discussed. If you support it under "Causes" and not under "Related issues" when the majority opinion is that it is not a cause, then you are going against the majority opinion, are you not? James S. 12:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey: Is solar variation a "cause" "in recent decades"?

As long as the first one-sentence paragraph includes the qualifier "in recent decades" then I will maintain that solar variation is not a "cause." Agree or disagree; why or why not? James S. 18:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

After two days, nobody is willing to offer an opinion? James S. 17:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The ice caps are melting on Mars also. How did we cause that? IT'S THE SUN, STUPID!!! Mankind has little or nothing to do with it. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html Nirigihimu 18:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Read page 2 of those old news, and please refrain from personal attacks. --Stephan Schulz 19:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Just as an aside, the phrase "Its the _______, Stupid" is sort of a joke in the US. It comes from Clinton's campaign against Bush Sr, where he used a slogan "Its the Economy, Stupid". Now people fill in the blank. --Blue Tie 03:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

There is significant text missing from this article, namely the 7 or so points (paragraphs) that discussed many facts opposing either the hypothesis that the globe is warming and whether or not global warming, if it is occuring, is significantly or even mildly affected by human activities.

I may have this archived - I will look and submit for review, but it is my belief that it was maliciously removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jzeman (talk • contribs) 13:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

I'm not convinced by the entire removal of the econ para. What was left there seemed a fair discussion of the large uncertainties: propaganda section was unjustified William M. Connolley 13:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm baffled: Sm has reinserted [2] the over-long and badly pro-Stern biased econ section. Even if well-written it wouldn't belong; as written, it certainly doesn't William M. Connolley 15:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears properly-sourced and referenced. If it were well-written, in what way would it not belong here? --Sm8900 15:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The entire section places undue weight on one of dozens to hundreds of economic impact studies. Hal peridol 16:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

To clarify - the Stern review is not representative of most of the studies of the impact of galobal warming on the economy. I provided some information from the IPCC AR4 SPM concerning the equivalent social cost of carbon emissions, based on a number of studies, that James put in. I believe that that is a sufficient summary of the overall economic impact. As William points out, it does discuss the size and to some extent nature of the uncertainties. Hal peridol 16:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Hal. Are you saying that the other sources, other than Stern, were written by you? Thanks. --Sm8900 16:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this will help your reading comprehension:"information from the IPCC AR4 SPM".Hal peridol 16:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps I was unclear. I simply meant to ask, did you add the material on sources other than Stern. I was not meaning to argue over the material. Thanks. --Sm8900 16:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah - my apologies, I did misunderstand. I posted a few quotes and some info from the SPM to the talk page, in an attempt to reach some consensus with James, because I thought (and still think) that the article as it stands is too long. In particular, there is already quite a lot of information on possible effects and impacts in the various sub-articles. James actually added this part to the page. I'm trying (not so successfully, I guess) to steer clear of the Global warming topic right now, since it's a huge time sinkhole even just trying to keep up with the changes. Anyhow, thanks -Hal peridol 16:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Hal. No problem. Thanks for your help. if the econ section is the result of several editors, who added referenced sources for different, balanced views, then I feel that it is a balanced, well-sourced section. Thanks. --Sm8900 16:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no justification for such a long section on econ. I've cut it back down to the first para. James S has a distinctly POV desire to include as much Stern as possible but Stern is an outlier William M. Connolley 08:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

As much Stern as possible? I trimmed that section down from what you deleted, and put it in line with the other sections, covering what other people had added in reverse chronological order. I didn't write any of its original text, although I did clarify some wording.

Stern is an outlier, because he is the first to have computed through 2200. So, he should be given additional weight. Mention of the other studies should be removed because they stop at 2100.

"has a distinctly POV desire" is a personal attack. I think you are unhappy because you got caught when you said that the "vast majority of economists ... simply don't accept (Stern's) values" which is not true. Do you have any support for your characterization of the vast majority of economists? James S. 10:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Mention of the other studies should be removed because they stop at 2100 is absurd, and a fine example of why you got banned. Stern is an outlier because of his discount rate. I disagree with JQ re others views of Stern William M. Connolley 10:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The difference between a present value computation of an asset which takes a short view and one which takes a long view is that the one which takes the long view is better. There is no way Stern could not be familiar with perpetuity calculation. Do you have any evidence to back up your characterization of the vast majority of economists or not? James S. 10:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You appear unable to accept that the discount rate is the main issue with Stern. But this isn't the Stern discussion page William M. Connolley 12:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The choice of discount rate is controversial, but I think it was made for what may or may not be a good reason. That doesn't change the fact that there are no other prior reports which attempted to be as accurate. James S. 13:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Childhoosend just removed the paragraph altogether - I have restored it. I'm guessing that he either didn't read the massive discussion of what content should be included or just disagreed with it. Whichever, I don't believe there was a consensus to restrict the article to science only. QmunkE 14:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I did not notice this was discussed (I adjusted the intelligibility of the title above). I agreed with the reasons WMC gave for the almost complete delete of this subsection. But I disagree that the remainder should be kept. With ranges from 10 to 350$, it merely gives the idea that economists cannot measure the cost and that we're floating into pure theoretical speculation (which only serves some advocacy agendas). This should be deleted. The link to "Economics of global warming" in "See also" is enough. --Childhood's End 15:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, there is has been plenty of contentiousness in this article. the goal now is a positive tone. We've had enough edit wars, deletions and reverting. Let's give ouserlves a brief breathing space, where cohesive good-faith entries will not be deleted wholesale. if you disagree, add your own counter-balancing information. I know that sounds imperfect, but that is how most controversial articles work these things out. Again, I feel that if a good-faith editor wants to add something, we need to have a period right now where we do not remove entire chunks of text added by good-faith editors. Please do not do so. Saying you really believe it needs deleting gets us right back to the same irreconcilable argument. What I am suggesting offers a more constructive way to pursue this. thanks. --Sm8900 15:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

?! I guess I missed the part where it was showed that my edit proposal was bad-faithed. I guess I also missed the part where you actually commented on my proposal through these 7 lines of ranting.

WMC deleted most of the section, what I wanted to support. And I still in good faith (must I say?) suggest that the remainder of this section, which now mostly comes to saying that the estimates go from 10 to 350$, merely points out that this cannot be measured by economists and that we are floating into pure theoretical speculation. Again, the link in the "See also" seems enough. Does this seem reasonable? --Childhood's End 15:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not say you were bad-faith. I said we need cooperation and compromise between several editors of good faith, to move beyond the pattern of contentiousness here. There is nothing conciliatory or compromising if one good-faith editor deletes material wholesale by another good-faith editor. The way to handle that positiviely is for you to add your own counter-balancing information. The point is that working together does not mean removing just most of the other's material, instead of all of it. that is still a zero-sum game. The way to create cooperation is to put several views on the table, and work through them. that may sound messy or slow, but that happens to be, in a general sense, how most Wikipedia entries function. --Sm8900 16:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Since this is the main article on Global warming it needs to include discussion on all topics related in some measure - summary style does not mean stripping stuff down to a meaningless comment - it means summarise the content of the article briefly. The "See also" section on this article is already enormous as is commented below - it's not an excuse to exclude information which is relevant to the article but might be controversial. If a section on economics is not included then that's another reason for this article to be de-featured since it would no longer satisfy the criteria for comprehensiveness. QmunkE 15:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm not sure where I read the comment on the See also section, must have been archived. QmunkE 15:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No. We had a straw poll on this, and the favourite was to keep the article focussed on the science. But I disagree over the entire removal With ranges from 10 to 350$, it merely gives the idea that economists cannot measure the cost - I think it correctly gives the impression that measuring the cost is rather difficult. The para left here is the first para of the econ article, and that seems appropriate William M. Connolley 15:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I must say that I am at a loss here. Provided that it only "correctly gives the impression that measuring the cost is rather difficult", with all the insistence to focus on "almost-certain" material when it comes to the science (thus rejecting "sideline" explanations regarding global warming), this standard should be lowered when it comes to economics? The results of economics science show by themselves that they are at best uncertain about this topic. --Childhood's End 16:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

William, we also had several edit wars, and several blocks and protections by different admin. Again, there is not a consensus on this. Please do not bring up the supposedly immutable results of various straw polls. that gets us right back to the same arguments. Ok, we did have some good-faith polls. Some good-faith editors want those to be binding. others want them to be non-binding. there is nothing binding about straw polls. If anything, they indicate that there are good-faith editors on boths sides of the issues. There is no reason this article cannot strive for a better, more positive tone, instead of contant delete, edit wars and reverts. I would appreciate it if we could all work towards this. You can be a valuable part of this. I hope we can all work together. thanks. --Sm8900 16:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sm: I appreciate that you want to forget that the straw polls have all gone against you. But there is nothing "good faith" about ignoring them. As to the econ bit - you are forgetting that the author of that screen has been banned from this page for tendentious editing. Ch: there is no insistence on almost-certain: there is an insistence that we should present the mainstream view as mainstream. As far as I can tell, the mainstream econ view is that they don't really know: so its appropriate to present that, briefly William M. Connolley 16:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

William: I find your tone totally counter-productive. i don't care if a majority voted against me in the straw poll. i do not find that binding. i do not care if I am outnumbered two to one. The goal of Wikipedia is not to abide invariably by the majority; it is to be fair to all sides and objective, as an encyclopedia should. i did not say that straw polls are totally unhelpful; sometimes it is good to get a general sense of how people feel, in order to pick a direction for the article. however, if there are two valid points of view in the poll, the minorty poll is not shut out just because less people voted for it, as long as it does have some support.

There you go again William. Behaving like the admin bully, you so clearly are. There are a lot of contributors to this article. Not all of them had the chance to vote in your straw poll, set to your timescale. You constantly try to push your POV and use your admin rights to silence any objections. I seriously suggest that you either give up your precious admin priviledges or leave this debate. Grimerking 14:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel that Grimerking's message contains some very valid concerns which could be discussed. I am not saying I agree with all the wording, but I hope we can address these concerns in some manner.--Sm8900 14:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not tell me "there is nothing good-faith about ignoring straw polls." Straw polls can be misworded and mishandled, and subject to debate, just like anything else. If you created a straw poll that is fine. I am willing to discuss it, but in no way is anyone obligated to accept it as binding, unless we all agreed on the wording beforehand.

I find your tone to be extremely unhelpful right now. Why are you accusing me of "wanting to forget that the polls all went against" me? As I indicated, i want to do no such thing. Why are you accusing me of anything right now? I did not accuse you of anything. As I mentioned, i believe we can all work together towards a more positive tone which can be helpful to all of us. i hope others will be willing to support this goal. thanks. --Sm8900 17:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sm is correct in pointing out a encyclopedia is to be fair to all sides and objective, the idea being that the reader takes in all the informatoin and does with it as they please. You william have much to learn from the polls. you learn how many people feel as they do. Could you tell for us, the percentage of people for and against the poll you are bringing up if you feel the poll is important? here, i'll do it for you. the vote was 8:16. Thats one third with one view, and two thirds with another. That is hardly a consensus wouldn't you agree?

It is scary how often, william, accusitions get thrown around, isn't it? I hope that we are learning from your example as a seasoned wiki editor, what is approperate, but I much approve of Sm's "lets work together" view then your "um... here is a random new reason why that shouldn't be in my Global Warming article" stance. Give wikipedia a break, and work with editors, not against them.--Zeeboid 17:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I can somewhat agree with "As far as I can tell, the mainstream econ view is that they don't really know: so its appropriate to present that, briefly". So, in this regard and so that the "we dont really know" is fairly clear, how about clarifying this section to something like : "Some economists have tried to estimate the aggregate net economic costs of damages from climate change across the globe (the social cost of carbon (SCC)). Such estimates have so far failed to reach conclusive findings; in a survey of 100 estimates, the values ran from US$-10 per tonne of carbon (tC) (US$-3 per tonne of carbon dioxide) up to US$350/tC (US$95 per tonne of carbon dioxide), with a mean of US$43 per tonne of carbon (US$12 per tonne of carbon dioxide). --Childhood's End 19:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the sentence, "The US government has ordered scientists it employs to refrain from discussing subjects related to global warming," is a fair summary of the underlying articles, so I intend to replace it. However, in doing so, I am not making "war," even as it is defined in WP:EW; nor am I engaging in a "revert duel." I am reversing the previous editor's deletion of that sentence because I believe they for some reason were not aware that the sentence correctly summarizes several events in the underlying articles. James S. 15:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The sentence is clearly controversial; nor is it obviously approriate in a global article. Nor is it anything to do with the science. I encourage you to leave it out William M. Connolley 15:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

How can you possibly say that the threat of loss of employment for insubordination, for which I think we have half a dozen uncontested examples, is not a direct assault on the integrity of the scientific professions? There is no question that the US government provides lucrative career and pension opportunities for employees willing to follow orders, even if those orders conflict with the necessity of uncensored scientific communication. When lobbyists can offer campaign contributions in exchange for control over scientific reports, that most certainly is controversial, and that is exactly why it belongs in the section discussing controversy. James S. 15:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Have there been countries other than the US asking their scientists to refrain from discussing their areas of expertise? James S. 18:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

How about this sentence?

US officials, such as Philip Cooney, have repeatedly edited scientific reports from US government scientists,^[9] many of whom, such as Thomas Knutson, have been ordered to refrain from discussing climate change and related topics.

James S. 16:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you please provide a direct cite for your statement that scientists were ordered to rfrain from discussing this? Also, how about this phrasing:

US officials, such as Philip Cooney, have repeatedly edited scientific reports from US government scientists.^[10] It has been alleged that many scientists, such as Thomas Knutson, have been ordered to refrain from discussing climate change and related topics.

That seems more NPOV to me. thanks. --Sm8900 16:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"It has been alleged" is a weasel phrase. Please see page 30 of Donaghy, T., et al. (2007) "Atmosphere of Pressure:" a report of the Government Accountability Project (Cambridge, Mass.: UCS Publications). James S. 16:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

it is not a weasel phrase. I would suggest we not use labels on each other's ideas. You can simply explain why it is or is not warranted in this cse. I am trying to help you. please do not create a contentious atmosphere where none exists. If you have a different view, that is fine. Using labels for my simple suggestions creates a tone of cotentiousness. I would like to be able to simply discuss this article. Thanks. --Sm8900 16:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Calling something an allegation implies that it is still in dispute. Officials don't deny that there have been specific orders to refrain from discussions, because those orders are documented. I'm sorry if I offended you, but I hope you would call my choice of words weaselly if they implied a controversy about something that was not in dispute. James S. 17:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi James. I appreciate your helpful reply and positive tone. the answer is no, i would not call your words weaselly in such a case. Those words get overused much too often around here. I have written frequently for articles on Mideast issues, which are more contentious then these. In those articles, people still do not use labels, as it is understood that their views are at odds, and they do not need to refer to such general terms to indicate that. i understand the use of such terms sometimes is meant to help to identify an underlying issue, but I find them to unhelpful generally. I appreciate our ability to discuss the substance of this. --Sm8900 17:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If the order are documented, then that sounds good. Could you please cite that direct fact in your text? thanks. --Sm8900 17:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Added. James S. 17:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

James, I agree with your material, only that the summary on the GW page is not intended for details. Summaries do not rely on references, so this material belongs on the Politics of global warming article. Putting this here begins to bring in non-peer-reviewed, non-scientific material to this page, which we've achieved a consensus on remaining focused on global warming itself, not the political fallout from it. --Skyemoor 17:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not aware of any such consensus having agreed to that. i think one of the ways to solve the edit war is to foster a greater atmosphere of inclusiveness here. there is no consensus on what you just described, and in fact that is part of the reason for edit wars occurring.

I would like to see one simple principle accepted here. We can agree that we all have some diverse views on the scope of articles. Let's try agreeing that if others make good-faith edits, we can try just letting them be. That is the path to greater co-operation. We can slowly let an atmosphere of greater inclusiveness prevail, and take a look at the overall product after a certain period of time. I think that would be a good course of action for all of us. Thanks. --Sm8900 17:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no such consensus. ~ UBeR 17:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You admitted so yourself in the following discussion(emphasis mine). --Skyemoor 19:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"Apparently a lot of the editors here have been very stringent on using only the "research published in the leading peer reviewed journals that are well cited by climate scientists should be included" for referencing science material. It appears William added a link to his blog for one of the statements in the solar variation section. Surely, there should be some peer-reviewed paper indicating the information we have in the article? ~ UBeR 21:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)"

First, I'm saying there's no consensus in reply to your statement that this article is to be 100% natural science. Second, on the peer-reviewed sources, I was pointing out that de facto we have used peer-reviewed and published materials to cite scientific material in this article. That is why I pointed out the blog being used as a reference. However, it appears everyone disagreed with me, and agreed that trifling sources like blogs can be used. ~ UBeR 19:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I missed that debate. I'm still in favor of using only information that can be found in the leading peer reviewed journals. Of course, if the contents of an article is also reproduced on some blog then it can be preferable to link to that blog instead to the journal Science, which can be accessed only if you are subscribed to that journal. I would thus not approve of the link to William's blog unless it can be shown that what he has posted on his blog is published. Count Iblis 20:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you, Count Iblis. In fact, I used a direct quote from you, which I thought was perhaps the norm on this article, that only the "research published in the leading peer reviewed journals that are well cited by climate scientists should be included" for referencing science material. Even though a guideline allows almost anything, I suspected we'd keep high standards for such a pretentious article. However, William, Skyemoor, Schulz, and Arritt all disagreed. ~ UBeR 21:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It may be prudent to do a review of the summaries. I've just cut one paragraph which while probably correct, wasn't mentioned in the source article (not to mention poorly sourced - which is why i noticed it). The summaries should be short concise descriptions of the various articles, and (imho) not include new stuff that isn't a reflection of the material or text presented in these. Am i completely wrong in this? --Kim D. Petersen 22:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you are absolutely correct. We have the regrettable situation at the moment that people are editing the "summaries" to suit themselves, and paying no attention to the individual sub-pages. We could avoid a lot of controversy (here) if the sub-pages were sorted out first William M. Connolley 11:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Mr. Pertersen and William. The summaries should be reviewed or at least sourced. ~ UBeR 20:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. By the way Kim, I appreciate you asking about this in such an open, constructive manner. I do not know of any consensus here which says that various subtopics have to be restricted and cannot go beyond simple summaries. If some good-faith editors wish to expand some subsections, I feel that is a legitimate contribution which we should be willing to accept, or at least to evaluate individually. --Sm8900 20:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry this is not how I took it. What I am agreeing with is that the summaries within this article should be checked to see if they are in fact accurately summarizing the sub-articles, or the claims should at least be sourced. ~ UBeR 21:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly the summaries must comply with all NPOV and verfiability policies - if content contained in the sub-articles is poorly sourced this needs to be addressed, but there is no reason it shouldn't be a parallel process between this article and its related topics. Contrary to a comment which was made earlier regarding sources in summary sections, I think that all material needs to be sourced explicitly if it includes specific claims - the same sources used in the sub-articles should suffice. If such sources do not exist then that is a problem, and the material should either be included and tagged with a view to removal if a source is not rapidly discovered, or simply removed. QmunkE 21:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This article should abide by WP:RS which does not exclude sources other than peer reviewed journals. I would not even have a problem with some limited inclusion of William's research (he is an expert, particularly in models) but I would want to keep that to a minimum (as I expect he would also) and it would be best if items could be supported not from blogs.

Having said that, the purpose and title of the article make a difference. If the article is renamed The science of global warming then it should significantly favor peer reviewed articles. It is, after all, a science article. But if it retains its current name, Global warming it must be larger and broader than it is now and include topics that are not going to be covered in peer-reviewed journals.--Blue Tie 01:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Blue Tie, for the second time, please read WP:NPOV which states "Views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skyemoor (talk • contribs) 02:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Doesn't matter. The policy does not say "quote us in the article". "Tiny" is a weasel word. shall we get a third opinion on this?--Blue Tie 02:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

How about "teenie tiny minority"? :) Maybe there is too much emphasis on the numbers here. Every single time some viewpoint or idea is expressed must we state "9 scientists believe this", "400 believe this"? What purpose does this serve, to inform the reader that one is right and the other is wrong through vague numbers? The machine512 03:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we should have the percentage. James S. 11:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with machine512. How about "minscule"? or "like wood shavings"? There are just so many ways to go here. Wow. --Sm8900 20:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well - for once i agree with Blue Tie here - that sentence is too much, it reads better as "....other hypotheses have been...". But i still have problems with that paragraph. Particularly this sentence "have been proposed to explain all or most of the observed increase in global temperatures" - i have been tempted several times to add a tag to that one.... First of all - what hypotheses are these? And secondly - can anyone mention even a single hypotheses which explains "all or most"? (for instance solar variation cannot explain the lack of stratospheric warming). --Kim D. Petersen 02:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that it is only for once. I hope that we may find areas where we can mutually agree. --Blue Tie 02:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "tiny" should go, it clearly has a dismissive and pejorative element in this context that renders it weaselly. - Merzbow 17:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There might be another way to say it, without being pejorative. And no I can't suggest any... but I am sure that native-english speakers will have some ;-) --Galahaad 19:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

So can we all agree we should go back to the original wording, which was: "Contrasting with the consensus view, other hypotheses have been proposed to explain all or most of the observed increase in global temperatures . . ."

Also, in accordance with Mr. Petersen, I would be fine with changing "all or most" with "some," as I believe it would be improper synthesis to say "all or most" without any such evidence of this. What do you guys think. ~ UBeR 21:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Uber, above.--Sm8900 21:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes "Contrasting with the consensus view" already implies minority, stating "tiny minority" afterwards would be an unneeded redundancy. The machine512 23:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me like both sides are in a consensus that "tiny minority" - unsubstantiated by any sources - ought to be removed. --Tjsynkral 00:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that relying upon the editorial to declare that there is only one scientific society is marginal. Unless they did a poll, that source is simply someone's opinion. For the sake of honesty the quote should really read "and the American Quaternary Association believes that there is only one organization that denies" or something like that. But I have not argued for that because, frankly I suspect that there might be others but I do not know of any; it reads better the way it is and it is not that important to me. But it might be important to others and I would not argue with them.

However, to rely upon that editorial for the use of the weasel word "few" in this article is stretching the limits too far. WP:AWW does not say "weasel words need to be cited". It says they should be avoided. Lets get them out of this article. They are just bait for debate anyway. Remove that. --Blue Tie 02:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence (beside your own gut feeling) of any other scientific society that does? If not, then I see no reason why the reference already provided is not suffecient. Raul654 02:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope. But also note that I specifically said I was not arguing against that. So why exactly do you bring this up? If someone else wants to bring it up, I think its a valid point but I do not particularly care that much. I just think the source is sketchy. It is "debate by proxy". --Blue Tie 02:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The source reflects an opinion of an advocacy organization that there are "few" disagreeing scientists. This is not a statement being made with a claim to factual accuracy - it only reflects the opinion of an organization that has a vested interest in minimizing the scientific contributions of scientists who oppose their stance on global warming. I think it is inappropriate to use this source to claim either that AAPG is the only scientific society in disagreement or that there are "few" opposing scientists. Ironically I would be sooner inclined to believe Oreskes on that than this (well, since the other side used the word first) propaganda. --Tjsynkral 02:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Some points: (1) The statement is not an editorial. It's an "article... presented by the Council of the AMQUA" [3]. (2) AMQA is a reliable external source—not an advocacy organization, but a scientific society which "is a professional organization of North American scientists devoted to studying all aspects of the Quaternary Period, about the last 2 million years of Earth history." [4] (3) The standard for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. As AMQA is reliable source which uses "few", it is acceptable to use that wording even if this was derived just from the council members' personal opinions. That is, it is not our job to decide ultimate truth; we just give citations. Now, if there are comparably reliable external sources which challenge that wording, then it might require revision. Do you know of any? --Nethgirb 03:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the statement is an editorial. I would hate to get into a debate about what constitutes an editorial but I have a hard time reading it and thinking that any reasonable person would not recognize it as an editorial statement. Sure, it is an editorial presented by a committee, but that does not make it any less an editorial. And sure, it is an editorial by an esteemed committee, but again, that does not make it any less an editorial.

I understand that the standard for inclusion is Verifiability, not truth. That is why I used the term "debate by proxy". In essence it means that "if I can find someone else whose opinion I can quote, then I can include it in an article". While that is a valid wikipedia standard (at least for now), I would hope editors would not really do that because it opens the floodgates of debate by proxy. Shall we go there? Its a bad downward road.

If you really truly want to go down the road where all we need to do is find some source somewhere that provides support for a position as long as it meets minimum WP:RS standards (and then we do not exercise any judgment on them) we can really screw this article up big time. Is that what you really want to support? I am not in favor, but the rules do allow it. --Blue Tie 03:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Blue Tie, I suppose whether we call it an "editorial" or not doesn't matter much, so we can agree to disagree there. Also, I see your point that "debate by proxy" could get ugly and certainly I have experienced this :-). But that is not the current situation. The situation is that we have a reliable source (by your own admission) explicitly backing up a statement, and a huge amount of supporting evidence from many reliable sources. If you think the statement is incorrect, at a minimum we need to find some comparably reliable sources which state otherwise. Then, we can try to exercise good judgement in deciding what is fair. But the current situation is not the opinion of a reliable source vs. another reliable source; it is the opinion of a reliable source vs. the opinion of certain editors here, who as far as I can tell have provided no external citations in this discussion. --Nethgirb 03:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I say it is a reliable source per wikipedia standards (which are not exactly my standards) but even so, my problem is that it is being misused. It is not that the statement is "correct" or "incorrect" it is that it is a statement of opinion, not a statement of fact. Yet it is reported in wikipedia as though it were fact. That is a misuse of the source. That is debate by proxy. If you really want me to search high and low far and wide for some other debate by proxy source to counter it I will do so. But why should we injure the article that way? Just take the weasel words out. That too is per wikipedia policy. The policy on weasel words does not say that they are ok if cited. It says do not use them. So lets just not use them. --Blue Tie 21:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Nethgirb, I guess you're wrong. The statement by AMQA is not an article. It's been published in the forum of EOS, the same way both the answer by Corbett and Singer were. They are part of an open discussion of different views, but they do not constitute scientific articles (even if they are reviewed before being published as any journal must be doing). To come back to the first arguement of Blue Tie, even if he doesn't say what he says (or let's say he doesn't mean what he writes ;-) ), I would like to make a few comments: if there is any official statement by any other scientific society opposing the AGW that can be referenced, anybody is free to add it. However, for the time being, the statement (which does not even need to be backed-up by a reference IMO) holds. And your suspicions or anybody else's feelings has no voice in the matter. So for the sake of honesty, I don't think the quote should read 'the American Quaternary Association believes', but more something like 'To date, there is only one sientific society which has officialy critisized/oppose/... the predominant [...]'. If anybody can disprove it factualy, that is obviously easily amendable.--Galahaad 15:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not know what you mean by "he doesn't mean what he writes". What did I say to cause you to feel that way? However, I already have said, I am relatively unconcerned about the AQA opinion that there is only one organization. Probably it should not be reported as a stone cold fact, but that is not my concern. My concern is the use of the word "tiny". --Blue Tie 21:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"Nethgirb, I guess you're wrong. The statement by AMQA is not an article." It's not a peer-reviewed scientific research article, but I didn't say it was. In fact it is referred to as an "article" in the PDF itself (in a note I would guess was written by the AGU, at the end of the first page). Nevertheless, I accept your criticism that considering general usage of the term "article", possibly "statement" would be a more appropriate term for this piece—but my main point is that "editorial" is misleading. It's not "an article in a newspaper or magazine expressing the opinion of the editor or publisher" [5]; instead, it's a statement about science (and communication thereof) written and endorsed by 18 scientists comprising the council of a scientific society which was not involved in editing or publishing the publication. --Nethgirb 10:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Even an editorial in a peer-reviewed journal is reliable if there is no contradiction to it. Has anyone suggested that there is a second scientific society which agrees with the AAPG? James S. 11:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to suggest something on this. Part of the way to build a better tone of inclusiveness is to not overly label one side or the other with various terms, but to simply focus on how to fully present one's own side. That is how to build a positive tone, and also how to build a better encyclopedia entry.

How would a good entry or a good Newsweek article be written on gun control, abortion, or another issue? Would it say one side was "tiny," and the other side is not? Or would it simply try to present both sides, fully and fairly?

I understand that you would say, "yes, but in this case it truly is tiny." That is not the point. If we want to start trying to have a better tone of trust and cooperation here, one good way to start might be to not try to find terms to label or categorize each other's views, but rather to find ways to use more objective terms to refer to various sides, fully and fairly. I feel that can be helpful to all of us.

The whole crux of this issue is whether there are two sides to this. Arguing over how to depict each of them just gets us right into the same arguments again. The way to build a better tone is by finding ways to objectively present both sides fairly and fully, at least for now. I feel that can help all of us, and help us all create a more positive tone here. Hope that sounds good to everyone. thanks for your help. --Sm8900 15:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There are more than two sides. You find a whole spectrum of opinion. When there is a strong controversy we need to explain how much of a controversy it is. The number of deniers has been falling, and we should probably include that, too: the number of people who were skeptics and now are not (many if not most of the skeptics from 10 years ago), in comparison with the number of people who have changed their published opinions on the matter from mainstream to skeptics in the past ten years (zero.) If 0.06% of climate scientists dispute the mainstream, then we should find a source for all those quantities and include them. James S. 16:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please clairify. "The number of deniers has been falling." does this mean, the number of reported deniers, the number of actual deniers, the number of deniers that are alloud in a wikipedia article based on the opening paragraph/qualifications of what a denier is, the perception of the public, the activity of the deniers, or what? Do you have any sources that compair the number of deniers over time? If you want to get technical... Unless you know: 1. the total number of people with on opinion on this topic. 2. the actual number of supporters, and 3. the actual nummber of deniers, it is hersay and assumption and opinion to say anything about the deniers falling in number.--Zeeboid 17:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

We have a list of former skeptics who are now in the mainstream, Category:Former global warming skeptics, but as far as I can tell, nobody who ever went on record in the mainstream has become a skeptic. Anyone know of any such people? James S. 18:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

So we are to base this on our ability to categorize articles on people in wikipedia, or even disputed polls? I think any objective and prestigious scientist will agree that the Earth's climate system is enormously complex (and the understanding of it is probably one of the most ridiculously large undertakings in science, and in reality even more complicated than for example quantum mechanics), and attribution of everything to one point is an extreme oversimplification. But yet we as people like to categorize things through polls and other studies, and this in the long run could very well be misleading. The machine512 21:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi James, There is also Category:Former global warming supporters currently with two entries, but I have not checked these out to see if their inclusion is warranted. Replying to your earlier comment, it would be great to include actual numbers and I'd be interested to see if you have references for them. --Nethgirb 20:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is that we're allowed to use opinions (or facts, by that matter) of sources such as AMQUA, so long as they attributed to the particular person or organization stating them. One very important underlying principle of Wikipedia is that it is not truth, but rather verifiability.

I have seen the Wikipedia rules repeated several times in this debate, but IMO, we could very well use more stringency with this article than with some others on Wikipedia (and this applies of course to references coming in support of any of the different trends). It is most surely true that Wikipedia allows blogs, etc ... (I must confess that I certainly know much less about that than many people here), but I think that, considering the extremely high degree of controversy regarding this topic, and the relative importance of having this article as balanced and objective as possible, we could apply to ourselves higher standards than usual. My definition of higher standards being of course avoiding as much as possible references to blogs, forums, opinion articles or editorials in generic media ... at least as far as the science is concerned. But it is just my very subjective opinion of course ;-) --Galahaad 22:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, and I think Count Iblis does as well. He stated what I thought was perhaps the norm on this article, that only the "research published in the leading peer reviewed journals that are well cited by climate scientists should be included" for referencing science material. Even though a guideline allows almost anything, I suspected we'd keep high standards for such a pretentious article. However, William, Skyemoor, Schulz, and Arritt all disagreed. ~ UBeR 22:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that if a blog or any other source is of really good quality, it will use serious citation/references supporting its statements (or those can be easily identified and found). For example, William's insertion of the link to the realclimate web site (for the solar variation), IMO, was not a good idea (completely indenpendtly of what I think of the qualitiy of the site itself). But as the statements made in the realclimate page were supported by a peer-reviewed article, reference to this article could have just replaced the reference to the site. (Although I wouldn't be opposed to referencing both a popular summary and the scientific paper, as long as "everybody" agree that they say rigorously the same thing.) Similarly, the reference to the Duke university press communicate (about solar variation) can advantageously be replaced (or completed) by a reference to the JGR paper. --Galahaad 15:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, regarding the Duke link, I do not know what Mr. Salsman was getting all up in arms for. Albeit a "press release," it was a summary of a published scientific paper by Duke researchers. Now that the paper is cited, I don't really seem him screaming at it anymore. ~ UBeR 21:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It ought to go in the article, not only couldn't I edit it, but there doesn't seem to be anywhere listing the evidence that contradicts the assertion of the global warming fraternity - it really ought to be in the article - can someone help?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.111.119.165 (talk • contribs).

This appears to be summer-only for Sweden, whereas the article looks at hemispheric records. And its an unpublished dissertation. You want the "history" section William M. Connolley 14:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I highly believe that the introduction of the article should be changed to reflect that Global Warming is the IDEA that yada yada yada, and not presented as a definite fact.

First

The first part is in the lead. The part called into question currently reads:

"An increase in global temperatures can in turn cause other changes, including a flooding of coastal cities, an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, reduction in agricultural yields due to changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation, increases in the ranges of disease vectors, reduced summer streamflows, further melting of glaciers, and species extinctions.

"Remaining scientific uncertainties include the exact degree of climate change expected in the future, and especially how changes will vary from region to region across the globe. Efforts are underway to reduce or reverse future warming, and, in some instances, to allocate future generations the responsibility of bearing the brunt of the expected consequences. Most national governments have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol aimed at combating greenhouse gas emissions."

However, it originally read, and should read:

"An increase in global temperatures can in turn cause other changes, including sea level rise, and changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation. There may also be increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, though it is difficult to connect specific events to global warming. Other consequences may include changes in agricultural yields, glacier retreat, reduced summer streamflows, species extinctions and increases in the ranges of disease vectors.

"Remaining scientific uncertainties include the exact degree of climate change expected in the future, and especially how changes will vary from region to region across the globe. A political and public debate also has yet to be resolved, regarding whether anything should be done, and what could be cost-effectively done to reduce or reverse future warming, or to deal with the expected consequences. Most national governments have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol aimed at combating greenhouse gas emissions."

Read carefully and notice overly catastrophic and rhetorical speech, "such as bearing the brunt," in comparison to "deal[ing] with"; "flooding of coastal cities" with "sea level rise"; removal of "difficult to connect specific [weather] events to global warming"; etcetera. It is also in violation of WP:LEAD, in that it does not adequately summarize the article, because all mentions to politics and controversy have been removed (save, of course, Kyoto). ~ UBeR 21:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Second

The obvious is "Contrasting with the predominant scientific view, other tiny minority views have been proposed to explain all or most of the observed increase in global temperatures . . ." instead the better, "contrasting with the consensus view, other hypotheses have been proposed to explain all or most of the observed increase in global temperatures . . ." (It is also proposed to change "all or most" with "some.") This, however, is probably better discussed in the section on this page already made to cover the issue. ~ UBeR 21:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Third

I believe the the paragraph: "Some scientists supporting the mainstream scientific opinion on global warming criticize what they call the "catastrophism and the 'Hollywoodisation'" of some of the expected effects. They argue that sensationalized claims cannot be justified by science.^[11]" should be included in the "Effects" section. ~ UBeR 21:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, if people are looking for other views, there's always this, published in Nature, and probably many more from respected scientists. This isn't a unique criticism of the catastrophism at all. ~ UBeR 00:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Fourth

Controversy and politics should be globalized to avoid U.S.-centric rhetoric often associated with Wikipedia. ~ UBeR 21:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts are appreciated. Thanks. ~ UBeR 21:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

At a first glance, I agree with number one. Number 4 would be good, but there really is not much controversy about this elsewhere. In Europe, essentially all political parties, from the Greens through to the Conservatives, acknowledge the IPCC position and only discuss how fast which measures may be taken (and sometimes how these avoid hurting local industry). --Stephan Schulz 22:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

And I assume political legislation and debate comes out of that. Yes? ~ UBeR 22:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

1/ I do agree. I prefer the sea level rising notion, which is certain in the current likely scenarii, to the flooding of coastal cities which is more dependent on other factors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Galahaad (talk • contribs) 22:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

2/ I think the use of 'consensus' in the first part of the statement would permit to remove the 'tiny minority' in the second part. I think also that the evolution of the alternative explaination have often (maybe not for all) tended toward the conclusion that 'some' of the warming may be not related to the GHG, but not 'all' and maybe not 'most'. So I would welcome also the second change --Galahaad 22:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

for #1 agreed, #2 (see above discussion), #3 disagree (2 reasons: 1. Undue weight 2. Editorial oversight shows that the paragraph is controversial (even to the 2 scientists [7]), #4 yes - but that would remove alot of controversy (as per undue weight of US centric views)- which will probably end up in another edit-war (unfortunatly). --Kim D. Petersen 22:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh and btw. for #4 that would imply serious changes in the sub-article, since that article is predominatly US-centric. --Kim D. Petersen 22:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

1, agree. 2, agree. 3, agree. 4, agree. The machine512 00:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

On 4, from what I've seen I know Tony Blair made some statements where he did a "U-Turn" on Kyoto, and was criticized, this should probably be included somewhere. However further research is needed into this subject, and as for the underlying articles I recommend the same. The machine512 00:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with 1 and 4; I'm not fond of either wording for 2, but I'd like to look at the other discussion before committing :) - and I don't think that 3 would belong in the "Causes" section - possibly the "Effects" section? Thanks, Hal peridol 02:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry guys, for point three, I meant the paragraph should be in the "Effects," not "Causes" section. Thanks for pointing that out, Hal peridol. ~ UBeR 04:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with all 1. The language correctly describes the expected effects. 2. It is deliberately deceptive to state that hypotheses have been proposed when they are known to have been rejected. 3. Why do you want to say "some" when you know the number is two? 4. This is the English Wikipedia, and the US abuses have been the worst in the English-speaking world. James S. 23:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Response to 3: It's far greater than two. Response to 4: English Wikipedia does not mean we don't report on events outside of the West. Your Eurocentrism is duly noted.[8]

As far as those who have used the term "Hollywoodization" it is just two. Please remember to sign your name when making comments on talk pages. James S. 11:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I am removing, as have many before me, the link to the globalboiling.com site from the external links collection. It does not seem to me to be the best of the best when it comes to representing the science, issues, ect. around global warming. A great deal of data is presented, but it is not done so in an accessible form for a layman, since the interpretation is lacking; the site also appears to be linked to theories which do not have mainstream acceptance, such as earthquakes caused by solar radiation. I suggest there is a need to discuss this before adding it back in. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker 23:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I have twice removed a link to Globalboiling.com as spam. The editor who originally inserted it appears to be a spammer, of the 25 edits the account has made over the last month 19 have been related to attempts to insert global boiling or related sites www.electricquakes.com into the article. I would contend that Geopilotwiki (talk · contribs) is directly related to the sites in question and thus his attempts to re-insert the links (despite other editors finding them spammy [9] [10] ) are pushing WP:EL#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest.

Teadrinker your allegations that i am a spammer are libelous and completley unfounded. I demand a retraction. Personal attacks are contrary to the rules of the wiki. The only people who claimed it was spam are yourself and one other person who ecensored the link obvoiusly without even looking at it. The only reaosn i hadto repost the link was the censorship campaign itself. Don't make this discussion personal. Geopilotwiki 00:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)geopilotwiki

Right, so for starters, you're responding to Megapixie's comments, not mine. Indentations (made with colons) usually mark a new person's comments. For talk pages, try not to interupt other people's comments to insert your own; it makes things hard to read. And remember, be short and to the point. These conventions make talk pages easier to read. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 00:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The actual content of global boiling is basically a collection of images linked directly from NOAA webservers with little or no commentry, with amazon.com pay per click links located at either end. Megapixie 23:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

again wrong. it is completely commented (and would it be bad if it wasn't?)and the links are from a collection of satelitte feeds which noaa also links them and they are doing what hundreds of other weather websites legitmately do as a simply google image search on the satelitte links can show. thereis nothing wrong with it. the data is public data.

What globalboiling DOES do uniquely is show through a unique collection and justaposition of images from amny sources the actual effect of the water temperatures on the weather patterns and storms and pole ice just like the global warming wiki article references therefore it is very relevant not to mention interesting to those interested in global warming. Geopilotwiki 00:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)geopilotwiki

Megapixie you are an abusive editor and censoring a relevant site.You are simply now trying to support a bad edit decission. this is not personal. don't make it so.

Even my whole discussion I posted on this discussion page about this censorship of this link is now gone.

globalboiling.com is very readable to the expert and amatuer. In any case there is no requirement that a site be easily readable by someone without any knowledge in order for it to be a good link. i would argue few of the links are as readable by the amatuers as is globalboiling.com.

Furthermore all the other links at the wiki global warming article have amazon or even direct book sale links!the link http://www.aip.org/history/climatefor example blatantly pitches a book on the first page with very little other info presented to the reader except "buy the book".why haven't you deleted it megapixie!but you kniow what? I think the link should still stay and i don't have anything to do with it or the book. why? becuase it is better to err on the side of more info than less.

Anyway Amazon referrals are not a reason for exclusion of a link. They also don't qualify a site as commercial or primarily advertising or spam or a reason to exclude a link. most sites today include some sort of amazon referral links. that doesn't make them primarily commercial.Clearly globalboiling.com isn't commercial since the data is presented freely.

Frankly very few of the other links fro the wiki article do much to educate the reader except take them through huge organizational pages eventually asking them to contribute somehow. in fact in comparsion globalboiling is far LESS commercial and MORE relevant than the other links if data is what people want.

I am sorry but first megapixie called my link spam which it obviously is not and now he comes up with nonesense that doesn't even match the criteria for other links already here.

And furthermore -no- I STRNOGLY disagree that the link should stay unlinked until discussion. what are you afraid of? that a few people might actually visit the website?

or have you become too censorship driven thinking the global warming page is your entitlement to control. It isn't. It is a public wiki. unless rules are clearly violated, public contributions should stay first not the other way around.

Unless some overwhelmng reason is given it should stay. That's what wiki is . Poster's stuff stays unless blatant abuse is shown - NOT the otherway around. wiki is not PRECENSORED.

anyway the site is good and very relevant and it is abuse to keep targeting my adds with conesorship.regarding my wiki activity - I like the global boiling site. WHY SHOULDn't I start my first contributions to WIKI with the sites I like! Did you see my patent contributions as well? nothing to do with globalboiling.com Clearly megapixie my contributions extend beyond the globalboiling link.But even that shouldn't be a criteria. are we to deny contributions from people becuase they only refer to one really great thing they have found? of course not.

Don't you contribute the sites and ifo that interests you megapixie? of course.

The link is good and appropriate and very interesting. it should stay.furthermore the way you guys put new contributors through the ringer when they try to contribute frankly is against the spirit of wiki. wiki is not yours. it is all of ours.

now also i ask that you peopel respect the fact that the general public can't continue to return to these pages to protect their contributions. i ask that you "regualrs" leave it alone. it's not spam and you are making it too hard for the public to contribute. it should not be a contest of who has more spare time to keep reediting a page and that's what you are doing.

it's a great link and people who read the article will appreciate the additonal data the link provides and isn't that why the wiki has links!thanks. sorry for the rant but i have had to waste days of time just to get one good link that will help people understand global warming on a supposedly public wiki. Geopilotwiki 00:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC) geopilotwiki

That website crashed my computer last night with all the java applets running. :( The machine512 00:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It didn't crash mine, but the page was rather slow to load. The important point, though, is that it doesn't contain anything that can't be found elsewhere, with less sensationalistic commentary. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

akhilleus i repsectfully say you are actually contributing to the reverting problem problem and in danger of violating the three revert rule along with megapixie yourself since you are obviously working together. Despite my appeal to stop censoring links akhilleaus in league with teadrinker and megapixie seem to be violating the three revert rules when i pointed out that megapixie was already almost doing it. you cannot violate the spirit of the three revert rule by working with three others to repeatedly censor a good link to globalboiling.com. i repectfully ask once AGAIN that people stop censoring this relevant informative link to data on global warming. any logical person will clearly see globalboiling.com is a relevant and good link for the article on global warming.

Regarding your statements:The collection of DATA CANNOT be found elsewhere. only the indivual feeds can in widely disparate places.It is the unique assembly of data that when juxaposed shows the effects of warm oceans on storms etc. to my knowledge it is the ONLY website that does this ingenius thing. I have watched storms on the feeds and been able to clearly see them building becuase of the warm water sensor displays just underneath.

It has a lot of data. Of COURSE it will be slow. but if each image was on a differnet page then it wouldn't fullfill the objective of data juxaposition would it?

I never had a javascript problem on the page. Yes it has a lot of java but it is for the large image animations. your computer may have too little java memeory allocated.

i am redding this and taking it to appeals unless you stop workiongwith others to censor this in violation of the three revert rule. this is silly. you should be censoring this link.dont make it personal.if one of you does reverts it again i will ask for revocation of your admin status. clearly you have other agenda against this page becuase it is so obviously relevant. I suggest you take a breath before reverting the page again and actually ask yourself whether you feel you can justifiy precensoring readers ability to access the public global warming data and on what justification you are deleting a good link in violation of wiki goals and rules.My hope is you will do the right thing but its pretty obvious that a group has claimed unsupportable control of this wiki and acting together to exert it in violation of wiki policy.

Geopilotwiki 00:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)geopilotwiki

There are many sites which discuss global warming; there is no requirement that we link to all of them, nor would any policy or guidline suggest that is a good idea. Editors can and should be judicious about their choices of pages to link to. I have my doubts whether it meets WP:EL for a variety of reasons: I question the relevance of current storm formation information, since any given storm is influenced by a multitude of causes. The page does not tie into current research through citations or references, and for the most part does not explain why this data is remotely relevant to global warming. The section on earthquakes together with the link to the electricquakes.com site is very close to original research, which is prohibited in the EL guidlines. Finally, as other editors have expressed, the tenacity with which you have been adding the link back does raise questions of a conflict of interest. On this point I would be satisified if you would simply declare that you are not an author, contributor, owner, webmaster, or any other in any other association with the globalboiling site. Those are my WP:EL concerns. Even if we admit all of them, it simply is not a good exposition of any topic directly related to global warming. Together with the accessibility and readibility issues (in terms of site design), I can't see adding this site as an external link. --TeaDrinker 01:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Geopilotwiki won't be able to respond to this message quickly; he's been blocked for 3RR. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Geopilotwiki. this link is useful, and should be included. --Sm8900 13:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, then you are both wrong ;-). Seriously, the page is an unorganized mess. Whoever has has created it also has created a number of extremely dubious other sites, i.e. this is a poster example for an unreliable source. It is also, at best, a collection of primary sources. Use of primary sources is not encouraged anyways, and if there are some of value there, we can get them directly from the original, usually recognizable and responsible, creator. --Stephan Schulz 13:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Non-notable amateur website containing numerous scientific errors and personal conjecture. It has no business being linked here. Raymond Arritt 13:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree - any relevant/useful information on that website is pulled from other sites, such as NOAA. Hal peridol 13:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoah, major edit warring going on here. Can I offer some tea? Kyaa the Catlord 13:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks rather minor. This is not worth discussing. The site is non-notable and non-useful and is being spammed by its creator. It doesn't deserve a place. Re-adding it now is clearly tendentious editing and should lead to short blocks William M. Connolley 14:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree this site should not be linked. Paul Matthews 14:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The site contains numerous unsupported scientific claims (e.g. "It's now the global boil and it's happening and will cause super hurricanes the rest of our lives."), is horribly slow to load and looks awful. In no way should a featured article link to this site. QmunkE 14:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Glad we can have a thorough general discussion on this. Thanks. --Sm8900 16:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That site is useless. i like how the creator is trying to tie earthquakes to globalwarming. What won't people blame on Global Warming? even if the earth was cooling i bet people would credit the cooling with global warming. Gavinthesavage 20:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to keep harping on about this but:

There are ZERO in-line citations in these three paragraphs, and the vast majority of the content is a discussion of the Greenhouse effect which is then discussed again in further detail below in its own section. A statement like "Adding CO2 or CH4 to Earth's atmosphere, with no other changes, will make the planet's surface warmer" really needs a reliable and relevant source. Can these either be removed, or sourced and the greenhouse effect content merged with this? I'm guessing the major problem in doing this is that Greenhouse effect is very poorly sourced at the moment, so it isn't possible simply to copy the references from there. QmunkE 09:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Para 1 - and the phrase you quote - is supported by the ref in the lead of the GHE article. Para 2 is adequately supported by the GHG article, which is linked in para 0. I can't see any point importing refs for it William M. Connolley 10:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The point is that if someone comes to this page and reads the comments in isolation (i.e. doesn't go to Global warming) then they aren't going to be able to tell what the sources for these comments are. I'm going to insert a source which actually discusses some of the science of the greenhouse effect but I'm still not convinced that the section isn't a) too long and b) poorly sourced. QmunkE 10:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree it could do with work

Here is another point. The article seems to misqoute the IPCC report, twice. "The IPCC concludes that phenomena such as solar variation and volcanoes have probably had a warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950, but a cooling effect since 1950.[1]" in the causes section, and "Other phenomena such as solar variation and volcanoes have probably had a warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950, but a cooling effect since 1950.[1]" in the lead. Where does this come from? I can't see it in the IPCC report. Perhaps this came from the previous IPCC report? Paul Matthews 13:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Its not a misquote, because its not a quote - it would be in quote marks if it was. Once upon a time it was correctly ref'd to SPM fig 4, before someone re-wrote the refs William M. Connolley 13:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont see where the IPCC report concludes anything about solar variation and volcanoes.Paul Matthews 14:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just told you. Its in figure 4 William M. Connolley 14:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The information is also given in the text:

"Simulations of the response to natural forcings alone (i.e., the response to variability in solar irradiance and volcanic eruptions) do not explain the warming in the second half of the 20th century (see for example Figure 4a). However, they indicate that natural forcings may have contributed to the observed warming in the first half of the 20th century."

and "The warming over the last 50 years due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases can be identified despite uncertainties in forcing due to anthropogenic sulphate aerosol and natural factors (volcanoes and solar irradiance). The anthropogenic sulphate aerosol forcing, while uncertain, is negative over this period and therefore cannot explain the warming. Changes in natural forcing during most of this period are also estimated to be negative and are unlikely7 to explain the warming." [11] Hal peridol 14:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, first, that's not the source being cited in the text. The SPM is. What the SPM says is: "It is very unlikely that climate changes of at least the seven centuries prior to 1950 were due to variability generated within the climate system alone. A significant fraction of the reconstructed Northern Hemisphere interdecadal temperature variability over those centuries is very likely attributable to volcanic eruptions and changes in solar irradiance . . ."

To touch on the original subject of this discussion brought up by QmunkE, I agree there is bit of redundant material in the causes section. Mr. Petersen has proposed to actually review our material here to see if it is indeed accurately summarizing the sub-articles. I agree and proposed to actually source our information, if need be, as most of these summarized articles are shoddy. ~ UBeR 17:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The quotes are from the third page of the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) from the 2001 IPCC report Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis. I was under the impression that that was the SPM being referred to. If I am mistaken, I apologize. Hal peridol 17:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No, we were talking about the AR4 SPM, where essentially the same information is presented as a set of figures. I'd would be good to have explicit textual quotes to avoid this misunderstanding. BTW, when is the full AR4 due? --Stephan Schulz 18:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - interestingly it's Fig. 4 in the older one as well (hence my confusion)! Still, the figure itself (i.e. SPM-4 2007) is fairly clear. I think the full WG1 report is due out in May, so the traffic here will doubtless get worse before it gets better - anyhow, sorry for the confusion.Hal peridol 19:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The statement "The IPCC concludes" is blatantly false, so I have removed it. The statement appears to based on selective interpretation of fig 4, which breaks wp:or. Paul Matthews 08:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with Hal's quote from TAR-WG1? It's the last published full report (and AR4 Fig 4 seems to suggest this will not change in AR4-WG1). I can see that it wants a better cite, but it's certainly not "wrong". --Stephan Schulz 08:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to removing "IPCC concludes" - I've removed it myself. But restored the rest. I don't understand the "selective interp" bit William M. Connolley 08:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The report does not say solar variation and volcanoes have had a cooling effect since 1950. The current wikipedia article makes this false statement twice. This is POV and OR. Paul Matthews 14:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

To quote: "The warming over the last 50 years due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases can be identified despite uncertainties in forcing due to anthropogenic sulphate aerosol and natural factors (volcanoes and solar irradiance)". This sentence estyablishes that the natural forcings considered here are volcanoes and solar irradiance. The next sentence deals with sulfate aerosols, and is followe by: "Changes in natural forcing during most of this period are also estimated to be negative and are unlikely to explain the warming." What else do you need? Or do you have a better version in mind? --Stephan Schulz 15:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, what are you quoting from? I can't find that quote in [1]. Hopefully this is the source of the confusion. There was an interesting article on BBC radio this morning about how the hype and exaggeration can lead people to disbelieve GW entirely and so play into the hands of the skeptics. Similar remarks were recently made by meteorologists Collier and Hardaker. By having false or misleading statements or misattributions in the wikipedia article there is a real danger of this. Paul Matthews 08:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

What is [1]? I find it, as described, on page 3 of the WG1 SPM of the TAR here. It's bullet 3 and 4 of the last bulletted list on that page. --Stephan Schulz 07:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not being sourced. The AR4 SPM is, which speaks nothing of cooling attributed to solar/volcanism since 1950. ~ UBeR 19:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The AR4 has diagrams (in Fig. 4) to the same effect. And the TAR SPM refers to the full report, chapter 12, which discusses the issue in large detail, but comes to the same result: Solar is minimal and uncertain after 1950, combined solar and volcano is certainly negative.--Stephan Schulz 13:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[1] is obviously [1] in the gw article that we are discussing. But even the thing you are citing now doesnt support the statment. Furthermore solar effects can only be accurately quantified since 1975, not 1950 Paul Matthews 12:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Using automatically generated reference numbers is problematic, as they can vary. Better copy the link. Given that there is an extensive documentation in the TAR, can you come up with a phrasing that is more to your liking? --Stephan Schulz 13:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore solar effects can only be accurately quantified since 1975, not 1950 - true (and one reason to discount the solar-warming-ists). But people make best-estimates, and these are what are used. The article doesn't say "definitely" after all, but only probably William M. Connolley 13:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Would this belong somewhere in the article? [12] --Childhood's End 15:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No, not really notable. Might belong in radiative forcing if you can bring yourself to be interested in an unfashionable article William M. Connolley 16:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's to specialized for this article, as it's essentially a what-if. It might, however, have a place in mitigation of global warming, as it adds some caveats to reforestation (plant trees in the tropics, not in high latitudes). Also, the original article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences would probably be a better source. The Economist article reads surprisingly unhyped, but necessarily will have simplified things a lot. --Stephan Schulz 17:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Funny how one person can come here and condescendingly claim that a publication such as The Economist is usually "hyped"... --Childhood's End 20:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Funny how you can misread what I wrote. Popular press renderings of scientifical paper are usually overhyped, because the sensation sells. --Stephan Schulz 20:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I see; sorry for that. But if you read The Economist more often, you would not have been surprised by the article's lack of hype... :) --Childhood's End 21:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. --Stephan Schulz 21:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Destroy all of our most precious ecosystems to cool the planet! Not much different than the forced sulfate emission idea. Other than that, it's an interesting theory, but not necessarily sure if merits inclusion here. ~ UBeR 21:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a weird thing, but it suggests the difficulties of comprehensively modeling climate. --Blue Tie 14:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to remind everyone of the following hidden comment at the beginning of our article:

**Note!**

Please do not revert any non-vandalism changes to this article without first discussing on the talk page.

Thanks

William, I noticed you deleted an entire chunk of text of well-sourced text regarding glaciers. I see no reason for this. If information is valid, coherent and well-sourced, i do not think it needs to all be deleted. however, i did not restore the entire chunk of text, but rather just one basic part of it. --Sm8900 13:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Err yes I did, but since this wasn't a revert I'm not sure why you're quoting procedure. As to the question: this is a *summary*: listing things which are *not* causes belongs in he sub-articles not here. And the S+V stuff is probably not true either and there is no reason for it to be here William M. Connolley 14:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem 1: The last part of the following sentence violates WP:SUMMARY (it is not in subarticle and is a minor detail) and WP:NPOV (Undue Weight: a small detail that emphasizes one viewpoint).

There may also be increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, though it is difficult to connect specific events to global warming.

Recommendation: Excise the sentence fragment and combine the rest with other effects per WP:Summary, as follows;

"Increasing global temperatures are expected to result in sea level rise, changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation, changes in agricultural yields, increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, increases in the ranges of disease vectors, species extinctions, glacier retreat, reduced summer streamflows, and other effects.

Problem 2: The following sentence violates WP:SUMMARY (it is not in subarticle and is a minor detail), WP:AWW (“some” when the real known number is two), and WP:NPOV (Undue Weight: a tiny minority viewpoint);

"Some scientists supporting the mainstream scientific opinion on global warming criticize what they call the "catastrophism and the 'Hollywoodisation'" of some of the expected effects. They argue that sensationalized claims cannot be justified by science.”

Recommendation: Excise the two sentences from this article, unless justification can be supported that removes the three violations.

Please comment. Thanks, --198.151.13.10 16:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

#2: the problem exists but this is a poor example. Mike Hulmes comments would be better. Not sure if they are notable enough for this article though William M. Connolley 17:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Support both - I would make these edits if could. James S. 17:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

1. 1 - Agree with rationale presented, and it will also help condense the lede.
2. 2 - Agree. And if two scientists, then I don't even think it merits inclusion in the daughter article. --Skyemoor 18:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, it seems like this whole thing was written by Skyemoor in the first place, but nevermind that. This seems like a direct (and probably shoddy) reply to the people who have agreed to use these sentences rather than the overly-biased and incorrect sentences Skyemoor was disruptively including. So to address this, I must first point out to the author of this, whoever it might be, that point #2 is moot, as no where in this article is any such paragraph or set of sentences included. However, I proposed that they be, and people are free to voice their opinions on that suggestion here. But, of course, as William points out, there are many more than just two scientists who feel similarly. "The language of catastrophe is not the language of science . . . to state that climate change will be 'catastrophic' hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions which do not emerge from empirical or theoretical science," or so says Hulme himself. And, of course, there is no problem with #1. My regards, ~ UBeR 22:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from your personal attacks against Skyemoor. Who is Hulmes and what does he expect scientists who study catastrophes to say? There is no question that precipitation increases with temperature, and with it, storm strength. If certain editors who want to take issue with that fact wish to mold the article to their personal beliefs, then their references had better be superior to the references of those who oppose them. James S. 23:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

They're not attacks, just plain observations. Hulme is director of Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and prof. at UEA. Much to your dismay, I'm sure, he is also a very large critic of the Stern Review. ~ UBeR 00:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a baseless accusation, which borders on an attack. I highly recommend that any anonymous users create an account. --Skyemoor 00:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear anonymous user writing from a Science Applications International Corporation IP, if you just register an account you can make those edits on the page yourself. See WP:PROT for info on Semi-Protection.

Also, the section "Increasing global temperatures are expected to result in sea level rise, changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation, changes in agricultural yields, increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, increases in the ranges of disease vectors, species extinctions, glacier retreat, reduced summer streamflows, and other effects." is an attributability disaster as many of those claims aren't backed up by any citation. I think the current version of the page doesn't use that sentence anymore. --Tjsynkral 00:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Text from SM900 that has provoked revert war;

"However, some researchers believe that warming at the end of the last glacial period is not to be due to methane release, but rather to natural variations in the Earth's orbit (Milankovitch cycles) which would have triggered the retreat of ice sheets by changing the amount of solar radiation received at high latitude and led to deglaciation.^[12]"

If I may be so bold, but is this exactly what you meant? Or did you mean that the initiation of the last warming cycle was Milankovitch based? There's a significant difference. --Skyemoor 14:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I was attempting to adhere to the sense of the cited, adequately objective research paper. I appreciate your question, and that is probably a valid distinction. However, i would not claim to be able to analyze all the science points of this issue. I would simply like to present a general overview of various theories, in a way that is helpful for most readers. Thanks for your useful discussion of this point. --Sm8900 14:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what you're getting at, Skyemoor. ~ UBeR 17:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Quick question: Is this a "however" or is this more of a "correlation" or "contributing factor"? --Kim Bruning 18:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point, Kim. It could be seen as a "however" by those seeking to refute the idea that global warming results from human activity. However, proponents of that theory could also cite this, as another reason to actively address global warming, since if there are some factors beyond our control, that only gives us more reason to address factors that are within our control. So this all goes into our overall understanding. BTW, thanks for finally giving me a chance to express how much of a crisis I believe global warming to be, which has been my viewpoint all along. Thanks. --Sm8900 19:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point, Kim: if this is truly a however in opposition to the consensus, then it would have to been shown as at least a significant minority position, else it would fail Undue Weight, which is why WMC might have deleted it. Plus, "some believe" is the same WP:AWW as "some say". --Skyemoor 19:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is everything either a minority or majority position with you, Skemoor? who the heck said anything abiout challenging a "majority" view? Why is everything an ideological war with you guys? did you ever hear of simply giving people the facts? --Sm8900 19:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sm8900 in a science article undue weight is an important guideline, otherwise the articles go from providing an overview of the topics to being a unusable mesh of relevant and irrelevant hypotheses and speculation. I have to say that the top quote reads to be as utter nonsense - mixing timescales and causes in a way that gives no sense at all. Milankovitch is short long term - the Clathrate gun hypothesis is referring to specific instances in the long long term.

But even then the discussion is somewhat mute - as the related sub-article doesn't say anything like this... --Kim D. Petersen 20:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that wikipedia should not catalog every single discussion on global warming in this article. And undue weight is an important consideration, though it is subjective: What is one person's "excess" is another person's "insufficiency", so it is a bit hard to gauge. However, summary style helps. Staying with facts and not expressing judgment about them also helps. There must be a way to resolve these issues. I think that it would help to have a concept for the article, an outline and then flesh in the details. --Blue Tie 14:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

To be more specific: Milankovitch cycles are still considered the primary cause - CO2 and methane feedbacks are the secondary ones - i don't think they can be seperated. On the other hand in the longer term paleo-records we have some very sharp peaks in methane (at times combined with extinction events). Please read Clathrate Gun Hypothesis. Different timescales. --Kim D. Petersen 20:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, just about everyone agrees that Milank stuff *times* the cycles and must initiate (de)glaciation; but also that CO2 feedbacks are necessary to amplify it to the observed signal. Hence However, some researchers believe that warming at the end of the last glacial period is not to be due to methane release is badly misleading William M. Connolley 13:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that there are concerns or questions about causation, correlation and multiple correlation among the editors. correlation is not causation but multiple correlation complicates the issue and gets to chicken and egg types of questions. (Maybe there is a study on the matter) I would expect, that if this is something the article is going to address, the minimum case should be to simply state the initiating cause as a summary. A more complex case would add some statement about the subsequent, more complex interactions. The only concern here is whether adding the more complex case increases or decreases that hard to measure aspect of "undue weight". --Blue Tie 14:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

including eight glacial cycles timed by orbital variations with interglacial warming periods warmer than current temperatures. What is the basis for saying warmer? Is the claim that all 8 periods were warmer? If not, then the text needs correcting. If so, where is the predominant citations to support this? --Skyemoor

I'd like to hear the rationale for this as well - i can buy that the interglacial 450.000 years ago was warmer - but not all of them (or at least according to Hansen(2006) they most likely aren't. The sentence needs to reflect this uncertainty at least. As it stands now it reads as if all periods where warmer. --Kim D. Petersen 19:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence to support the claim that the last eight interglacials were warmer than 'current temperatures' (and what is meant by 'current temperatures'?). This statement should be removed from the article because it is not supported by the literature. For those who believe it is, lets see the references. JP 205.189.26.38 20:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone agrees that the causes section was no great, and there was a lot of repeats between the main bit and the GHG section. I've tried to fix that by reordering some and moving others into a "feedbacks" section.

In principle, the feedbacks apply to most forcings - solar for example. However, there is a rub - if you believe that solar has caused most of the variations, you believe that the GHE of variations in CO2, CH4, and presumably water, is small. So you can't worry about, eg, clathrate releases if you're a solar-ist. Fortunately none of the solar folk get this far, so I've just left it unresolved.

And the article could mention the major negative feedback - R=rhoT^4 - possibly William M. Connolley 20:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the new sub-section helps. Thanks. ~ UBeR 23:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The introduction is painfully agenda driven at the moment, it needs to summarise the observed increase in temps, the scientific theory of Global Warming (both natural and anthropogenic). The IPCC has absolutely no place in the introduction. Grimerking 07:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The IPCC reports are acknowledged as the best summary of our knowledge on glbal warming by essentially all scientists, scientific societies, and governments. Even Lindzen and Christy acknowledge this. --Stephan Schulz 08:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, why is nothing in the introduction referenced? There are many 'statements of fact' with nothing to back them up. Is this deliberate? Grimerking 07:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. WP:LEAD suggests that the lead summarizes the article, and quotes go into the corresponding section below. We have some references to the most fought over points in the lead just to avoid revert wars.--Stephan Schulz 08:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Checking out WP:LEAD, it now suggests that the lead should be "carefully sourced where appropriate". Should we duplicate some references, or do we decide that that is not appropriate?--Stephan Schulz 08:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Grimerking. This is one of the problems with the article and several editors have mentioned it before. It was my first criticism of the article. The article has structure problems and the lead is part of the problem. Many edit wars could be avoided if the article were structured better. I have tried to discuss methods to improve the article on this basis with no interest in any pov except npov. This continues to be my biggest complaint about the article itself.--Blue Tie 13:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason that the IPCC is in the intro is because of the sources zealots. The article *could* just say (and I would be happier with) The observed global average air temperature near the Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.3 ± 0.32 °F) during the last century. 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. but of course people would complain that it was unsourced. Apart from that, the article does what GK wants, as far as I can see. Perhaps GK/BT should put a proposed alternative intro on the talk page for discussion William M. Connolley 14:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

To reply to Grimerking, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article. Citations you are looking for should be in the body. However, information in the lead that doesn't appear to be cited elsewhere should be cited in the lead. For that reason, we could remove the citation to the volcanism/solar on temperature to and since 1950, since the same exact sentence appears later in the article and is cited. But I won't do that, lest I be screamed at by the usual suspects for making good faith edits. Of course, as I have argued, the sentence shouldn't be in the lead in the first place. ~ UBeR 19:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is disappointing, even for Wikipedia standards, when it comes to neutrality.Many of these facts are flat out false and many of these assumptions are almost laughable. As for 'sources', all I'm finding are a ton of unreliable sites.The very language of this article is unbalanced.I'd suggest one of those "The Neutrality of this Article Is Disputed" notices on the front page of this article , but seeing as the major editors (meaning people with enough time on their hands, due to a lack of life, to win a foolish edit war) and moderators (who declare it featured and one of the best articles on Wikipedia to make people actually believe a lot of this stuff) are all for this thing, that would be futile.--squeakytoad 16:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you, perhaps, give any examples? It would help. ~ UBeR 19:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

And make sure you cite peer reviewed sources that reflect more than an insignificant minority. --Skyemoor 03:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you et al. have already agreed to use trifling sources, like blogs, because, of course, they're reliable sources. ~ UBeR 07:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

As long as this article is just "Global Warming" it must cover the full spectrum of topics that average searchers might expect or want to find under such a general article. In that case, any reasonable source is ok for the article. On the other hand, I can see some reasonable (though not total) restrictions on sources for an article labeled "The Science of Global Warming" and a limit on the kinds of things covered. For example, political issues would probably not be covered or, if covered at all, be limited to some statement about how the scientific studies are used in political debates (which I think has been commented on in scientific literature too). --Blue Tie 16:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason why blogs would be automatically unacceptable in all cases - for example, RealClimate and Jeff Masters' blog are by professional climate change scientists and a professional meteorologist respectively. As WP:V says, "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field." —AySz88\^-^ 16:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree generally, but I also note the guideline says that if it is notable and worthwhile it will probably be covered under other sources with better editorial review. In the case of RealClimate, I think that there can be a valid nexus or constellation of issues revolving around Conflict of Interest, Reliable Source, Original Research and so on since at least one of the editors is a contributor here. That raises a special problem. I do not particularly have a problem with quoting such sources, but I think that the liberality in sources should extend all around if the article is "Global Warming". Otherwise, aside from being a problem of COI, etc, it is also out of balance and pov. If it is going to be a very narrow, hard science piece that only takes from peer reviewed published sources (which is an extreme standard not supported by wikipedia, but I do not mind it), then it needs to be renamed. --Blue Tie 16:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

And of course I agree with that, AySz88. I understand the guideline allows for most anything, but what I and Count Iblis have petitioned for is using just the very best sources for such a pretentious article (i.e. published, peer-reviewed scientific literature). Of course, others disagreed for no other reason than to disagree. ~ UBeR 17:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I would close my eyes to wikipedia standards and agree with UBeR and Iblis' position if the article were titled "The Science of Global Warming" or perhaps "Global Warming Science". But "Global Warming", is too broad to keep it limited to just hard core sources. Even then, doing such limitation, is not in strict accordance with wikipedia guidelines, but I think a case could be made for ignoring that rule in that instance. But it would have to be done cautiously and per NPOV peer reviewed papers that were not in harmony with Global Warming would be admissible content. Perhaps the NPOV rules are pesky for some folk. I know they are for me, but I think that they are a good way to avoid conflicts if adhered to. --Blue Tie 17:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I was speaking only about scientific information. Sorry I didn't mention that this time. ~ UBeR 17:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

What intrigues me is that such charts as this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png are used without any logic behind them. I know most Americans will believe anything if you show it to them in chart format, but anyone care to explain how scientists can tell C02 levels for the last 400,000 years when such ability to monitor this has only been around for fifty some years? Oh, I'm sure they've got some "complex" absurd logic behind these assumptions (speaking of which, why isn't that anywhere in the article?), but these "facts" are invented to prove an already-decided result. Were Newton alive, he'd kill himself. This isn't how the scientific process works. You've got information about CO2 levels in the Jurassic era, when these same scientists haven't even decided which species were alive at the time, or how long ago any of this actually was. Where is the skeptics approach here? Global warming isn't some new and radical concept that the "facts are screaming". It's written about in some of the oldest science fiction novels. Farmers and scientists used to speculate about it in the settling of the old west, when they'd have several bad seasons of hot, crop-scorching weather. It is an old idea brought about once more when very convenient.--squeakytoad 05:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The image you refer to does not contain any temperature data, so your question is misposed. And if you click on the image, you go to the image page, on which User:Dragons flight has carefully documented which sources he has used - all but the recent direct record at Mauna Loa is derived from ice core samples, and the literature is fully referenced. Any modern science is build on "the shoulders of giants". We cannot and do not want to include everything from Newton's laws to the second law of thermodynamics into this article. --Stephan Schulz 07:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I meant CO2 levels, not temperature. Mixed up my words there. Fixed that. As for the explanation, as absurd as this is, I'm not going to bother arguing it. My main point here isn't about the information being true or false, it's about displaying the information from both view points. Yeah, I know you're all going to say "But their information is false, and ours is right, so go away." However, this information is included because it's stated as fact by some scientists. Many other scientists however, state other facts. Both provide "evidence" to their claims. All I'm seeing in this article is what one portion of scientists say. But you can tell by the very derogatory way in which those who oppose these ideas are spoken of in this article, that it is run by a ton of incredibly biased individuals who will refuse to have it any other way. And I was not wishing for any of Newton's laws to be placed in this article. I was only stating in that section of my paragraph that Newton would be appalled by the methods used by many of the scientists quoted in this article. Preconceiving ideas and then seeking out, overemphasizing, or inventing facts to back them up, at the same time ignoring any facts that even put a slight chink the armor of their theories. --squeakytoad 08:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you're helping yourself here - you're just making a succession of errors. The gaph is the last 400kyr - not the Jurassic. And what does My main point here isn't about the information being true or false, it's about displaying the information from both view points mean? The info in the graph is true - how would you display it from another viewpoint? And which viewpoint do you mean? That of the young-earth creationists who think the earth is only 6kyr old? William M. Connolley 08:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The Jurassic part was unrelated to 400k. I was addressing another portion of the article. --squeakytoad 09:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Such lines as "Fossil fuel companies have spent large sums of money for public relations to downplay its importance" are the biased lines I'm speaking of. First of all, its "importance" here is stated as fact. "Environmental groups have launched far-reaching campaigns." Why isn't this written "Environmental groups have launched far-reaching campaigns, spending billions of dollars, in a desperate attempt to provide whatever evidence works towards their goals to get people to believe them."

I think it only fair that both sentences be written the same. It is written that the government is "editing reports" and "denying claims" for their own means. Denying the evidence is something government have been doing for thousands of years, but so are scare tactics. Yes, it is convenient for the Bush administration to deny these claims, but it is also very convenient for these other administrations to support them. Only one side of the coin is being show here, people. Why are the people using it to their political advantage not being written of in the same way? At least Bush lives by what he says and burns tons of fossil fuels, disregards the environment, and ruins the planet. But many of these supports of the environment are not living by what they say. They are not taking the measures they themselves proposed to keeping the planet safe. Sure, what Bush is doing may be wrong, but at least he's not a hypocrite. My point is, if you're going to take the cynics approach towards one group, to retain neutrality, you must take it towards the other. --squeakytoad 05:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm in total agreement with Squeakytoad. This is all the 'anti group' want - a fair and balanced article with a NPOV. Of course, the clique 'owns' the page and won't allow 'dissenting' (neutral) views to be expressed. Grimerking 08:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Squeakytoad takes the same attitude on evolution [13]. I'd suggest that Conservapedia might be a more suitable place for your contributions.JQ 08:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's worth noting that that was written in 2005. My opinions on many matters have changed quit a bit since then. It's also worth noting that it is incredibly unintelligent to call anyone who disagrees with certain theories of global warming conservative. How in any way is global warming a conservative/liberal issue? It's also worth noting that I don't go looking through your past records whenever I need an excuse to ignore what you're saying. It's also worth noting that you are among the sad group of people who define themselves by being either "left wing" or "right wing". It's also worth noting that your statement was not worth noting. --squeakytoad 08:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Apologies on the personal attack. Removed it. --squeakytoad 09:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough if you've changed your views - I thought they were inconsistent with what you said in discussions above. You make a good point "How in any way is global warming a conservative/liberal issue". In most places, it isn't. The great majority of people of all political persuasions accept the science. But in the US (and until recently in Australia also), it's been a requirement for conservatives to reject science if they want to be regarded as genuine Republicans/libertarians. Backing an obvious loser like this is bad for conservative parties, but for some reason they've kept on doing it.JQ 10:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't like to categorize "liberal and conservative" and "democrat and republican". All that kind of thinking will do is get in the way of making proper voting decisions. I should point out however that many conservative Republicans do not back the current US president. Hardly anyone does anymore.

As for my little aggravation back there, I got quite irritated that you would, first of all, go bringing up my views from over a year ago (This last year I've done quite a bit of studying, reading, thinking, and reasoning, and have many changed views. I was also pretty stupid back then. Most people are when they're in high school.) Secondly, it was really irrelevant to my request that this article be more balanced. I really don't have a firm standing in my opinions on global warming, as I'm still somewhat uneducated in the area, as most people are (including most of these scientists quoted around this article). The problem I see is that all these scientists have predetermined results, and are trying desperately to find, overemphasize, or invent facts to make their point, despite our understanding of the atmosphere being quite limited. A number of the facts on this page are quite obviously wrong and a lot based on assumption, but I'm not asking that they be removed (and no, I won't say which. I already screwed up on that earlier and made myself look stupid).

All I'm asking is that this page be neutral and balanced, as all Wikipedia pages should be. When you have several groups of scientists all stating something as fact, all with their displays, studies, and "evidence", you have to put up all that information, not just what the major of editors of this article want people to read. As I said, sure those denying global warming entirely and ignoring all the information they're given, and sure, they're backed by those fossil fuel companies. And perhaps they deserve to be spoken of in a very derogatory way, but that's not what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is about stating the facts. It's also about stating all the facts about both sides. If we're going to talk about the money and efforts spent by one administration to deny this stuff, we have to talk about the enormous amounts of money and efforts spent overemphasizing global warming, and in many cases, such as Al Gore's film, presenting false facts. If we're going to talk about the evils of the fuel companies, we have to talk about the hypocrisy of these environmentalists who fly around in their private jets and consume more energy in their mansions, conventions, and corporate projects than most towns.

All I'm asking for is a fair hearing on all accounts, regardless of whether you or I agree with those accounts. --squeakytoad 12:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

ST, you started off with Many of these facts are flat out false and many of these assumptions are almost laughable. As for 'sources', all I'm finding are a ton of unreliable sites, were asked with examples, and haven't really produced anything. Please present some of these false facts that you assert William M. Connolley 12:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Squeaky, I suggest that you inform yourself first. There are no two equivalent positions. There is the mainstream consensus as expressed e.g. by the IPCC reports, supported by all major scientific societies, including the US NAS, the Royal Society, and the other G8 national academies, supported nearly unanimously in the peer-reviewed literature, and formally accepted by all major governments, including, somewhat surprisingly, the current US government.

On the other side are a small number of scientists expressing an incoherent set of criticism, from "we don't know exactly" (which is really not in conflict with the mainstream) to "it's cosmic rays!". None of the alternative views has significant support, and per WP:WEIGHT they do not get equal weight in the article. When you have a serious, notable addition with a reliable source, by all means suggest it. --Stephan Schulz 12:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There was once a time when the majority of scientists believed the earth was flat. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the scientists are wrong about global warming by that. That sentence just came to mind. I could concede that it would be difficult to discuss all the different views on the subject. The article could use a little less "this is solid fact" and a little more "these are well-educated assumptions" or "in the opinion of" or "it is not thoroughly proven". I'm not saying that needs to be stated, but perhaps the language could be reworked so that people realize that not all this stuff is 100% accurate, no matter how much some of these scientists and editors want to kid themselves. Also, as I said (and as so far has been ignored), many of the derogatory statements toward disagreeing parties in this and related articles needs to be reworked to be more neutral. Also, if we're going to write about the dark side of one group, we have to write about the dark side of the other. All these articles are painting the environmentalist groups as heroes who can't go wrong. Many of them have done more than their fair share in this to earn a serious amount of disrespect. But all I'm seeing here is "fossil fuel producers are spending money to downplay this information" and "these politicians are editing scientific reports". --squeakytoad 14:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Squeaky, some of your points are valid I think but please try and make them clear and concise. Please give the statements you object to so we can discuss them. An example of a 'flat out false' statement is "The IPCC concludes that phenomena such as solar variation and volcanoes have probably had a warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950, but a cooling effect since 1950". When I questioned this above, Connolley attempted to defend it ("it's in Fig 4") and then agreed to drop the "concludes". The danger is that if false or misleading statements are given, those attempting to approach the subject with an open mind will see this and may end up assuming that the the whole GW story is a fabrication (which it certainly isnt, in case anyone is interested in my view). Paul Matthews 13:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I do indeed defend it - I'm just happy to drop the concludes, it makes no difference to me. However, one notable feature of that discussion is that we knew what we were talking about - unlike ST, whose complains now spread to myth of geodesy. I see he brings in the familiar "100% accurate" stuff, a common complaint amongst those who haven't read the article and noted the many caveats already there. And where do we mention env groups as heroes? From STs complaints I would conclude he is reading a different article William M. Connolley 15:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Since the spherical Earth claim now came up for the umpteens time, I've put it into the FAQ. Do we even mention a single environmental group in the article?--Stephan Schulz 15:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Right... well, I'm done. This discussion takes up quite a bit of page. When everyone gets bored of reading it, I have no objections to its deletion. Cheers. --squeakytoad 08:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The following link provides valuable information on what it would take to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and what technologies would allow one to do so. One can access this information through video streams, power point slides, or a transcript.

http://nsl.caltech.edu/energy.html

131.215.220.112 06:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The article's guiding philosophy as presented in its first sentence (the definition of the concept) is where the article goes wrong relative to pov. From there on, it never recovers.

The philosophy is this: Global warming is a contemporary issue, hence the only history that is relevant is recent history.

In itself, this is a non-neutral point of view. However, it leads to other pov problems and is contrary to wikipedia policies. The article should start with the the recognition that Global Warming is a phenomenon that is believed to have occurred throughout the measured history of the earth's atmosphere.

This definition does not deny it is happening now. It does not deny that mankind may be involved. But it also recognizes a fact of history that may have a bearing on the way that readers interpret the information in the article. It sets the tone for how the article should proceed. In my opinion, without this change in the basic definition (which is easily attributable to many reliable sources) the article will remain fundamentally flawed. --Blue Tie 16:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Global warming, as it is used, however, implies only the recent warming. At least, that's my understanding of how it's been used in contemporary literature. ~ UBeR 19:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

GW, indeed, implies the recent warming. Thats what everyone means by it. Just a little lower down in terminology we explain that it could mean other periods but usually doesn't. And of course the article has sections on pre-ind and pre-human GW. Getting hung up on the definition is not useful. The articles present focus is the obvious one, and you can't shift that by shifting the defn William M. Connolley 19:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That it is frequently used that way, does not mean that we have to be limited to the popular notion. This is an encyclopedia and should be encyclopedic. To my mind that means factually oriented and typically more broad than the average reader -- it should help expand horizons if appropriate and reasonable. I think that the notion that it "implies" recent warming is not the same thing as it meaning that it is the same thing. The notion that "everyone means" it is original research. And most importantly, limiting it this way, also creates an automatic point of view.

If we describe global warming as something that has happened in the past, and something that will happen in the future, it takes it out of the context of something odd or abnormal in the geological age. Then the question is: is it odd in the period of human history? In other words, it puts the whole idea of "Global Warming" in perspective. Perspective is always important in covering any topic but I would think that it is especially important for something "Global", measured over decades or centuries at a minimum, and affecting all weather and climate systems. I am surprised that it is not an important consideration for the article.

I also point out that I am not negating the sense that it popularly means recent history. Indeed I believe that should also be included in the first or second sentence, because it should be expressed as a contrast. This is how other sources actually do it. And excluding the long term from the definition as this article does, is a mistake. Finally, I have previously detailed numerous definitions of the term global warming and validated that the long-term , repeated aspect is a part of a plurality of the definitions, including one that was from a dictionary specifically devoted to scientific terms. On the other hand, the current definition in this article includes the word "observed" which is not found in any but one slightly obscure definition. That it is found in even one definition might be cause to include it (I think there are reasons to debate that), but under that rule then the sense of global warming as a long-term, repeated phenomenon should definitely be included because it is found far more frequently.

(I also object to the word "observed" because global warming may or may not occur whether observed or not observed. It is irrelevant to the concept. It would, however, be relevant, in my opinion, to an article titled The Science of Global Warming. But that is not this article.)

I am not sure that I have done so, but I hope I have made my points clearly so that my view is understood. I think the problem of perspective is most important but I also think that the fact that the plurality of definitions also includes this concept should enlighten our editing. --Blue Tie 20:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think anyone denies that climate has always been changing and always will (which is why I don't understand why we use the word "equilibrium" in this article). What's being disputed, I think, is that the term "global warming" applies to these previous climate variations. ~ UBeR 21:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I can demonstrate its use in that context if that would make a difference to your views. --Blue Tie 23:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you've previously suggested changing the defn and got nowhere with it. You're using the same arguments as before and I doubt you'll get any further this time. All this stuff about broadening the average reader is irrelevant - as I've pointed out, its already in the article William M. Connolley 21:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right, it got me nowhere. But I do not attribute that to rationality. I attribute it to a failure to deliberate. Ignoring my points is not the same thing as addressing them and ignoratio elenchi is a logical fallacy. Moreover, if it is already in the article, it should certainly be in the summary. --Blue Tie 23:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The article you want is called climate change as it covers the changes thru time. Global warming is about the current (post industrial revolution) increase in temperature due to the greenhouse gases belched into the atmosphere by human activity. Climate change covers the natural cycles through time - both the ups and downs and periods of stasis, a global warming article as you would want only applies to the upswings in that cycle and would thus be a misnomer. It isn't popular usage rather it is the scientific usage of the term which is the focus of the current article - and it should remain that way, with the popular press and political blathering relegated to the sub-articles. Vsmith 23:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, you are not in agreement with William and UBeR that the popular usage governs, but rather the Scientific Usage, is that correct? --Blue Tie 00:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That's probably a false dichotomy. :-) Of course, what Vsmith is suggesting in the latter part is little more than POV forks. ~ UBeR 01:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I am confused by your reference to false dichotomy. It seems to me that you and William are saying the article should abide by popular press and popular culture definitions and Vsmith is saying it should abide by scientific definitions. What Vsmith says is a reasonable approach for an article focused on science. Perhaps you are saying that the popular press and the scientific views are the same and that is why it is a false dichotomy? But Vsmith says that they are different and should be handled differently. So, somehow Vsmith is not in agreement with you and probably not with William.

Anyway, I have made several points above and no one has addressed them.--Blue Tie 14:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the false dichotomy is that in this case the popular and scientific usages are the same, Vsmith's implication to the contrary notwithstanding. People have addressed your point; it's just that they don't see things your way. It's deeply troubling that when people don't see things your way, you find that evidence of irrationality and "failure to deliberate" as you say above. Raymond Arritt 15:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

So you see it as I do, that Vsmith was not in agreement with UBeR and William.

You are right that people have said that they do not see things my way (except apparently that some people see it my way on what Vsmith said). But that is not what I was talking about. I said that they did not address the points I raised. To simply wave a hand and dismiss is ignoratio elenchi. Furthermore, some of the points I raise are about following wikipedia guidelines. If a person disagrees about following wikipedia guidelines and policy this is probably not the place to edit. I repeat: The points I raise have not been address. All that has been done is to arm wave denials. --Blue Tie 16:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, if the term "Global Warming" is used the same way by the popular press and by science, then this article should not just be about the science area, since it addresses a larger venue of topics. --Blue Tie 16:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Not at all convincing. There is an article (Global warming controversy) for the unscientific aspects of this subject. We've been over this too many times with you. --Skyemoor 17:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Arm waving. POV Fork. You have never been over it with me before. --Blue Tie 17:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

CR. Good grief, the popular usage follows the scientific. Was that all just to avoid responding to the main point I was making. The article you want is climate change for global cooling and warming cycles through geologic time due to non-anthropogenic causes. The current global warming is exceptional and a departure from the natural cycles. Now Blue tie, can you address that - rather than endless talk about who I supposedly disagree with? Vsmith 23:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, to respond directly: No. You are wrong. The article I want is this one. This one is about Global Warming. Global warming (according to scientists and according to non-scientific literature) includes BOTH current and ancient times. This is true, even if you do not choose to believe it. This is one of the problems with this article. It does not properly define global warming. From that bad definition comes other problems. Would it make any difference to you if I could prove my point from a host of reliable, neutral sources? Perhaps even peer reviewed articles? Or is your mind made up regardless of the evidence and you just will not change your mind? --Blue Tie 05:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick check at Google scholar tells us that the scholarly definition is primarily the recent warming - you have to go beyond page 10 in the search results (i didn't check further) to find a paper that goes beyond the current warming. --Kim D. Petersen 08:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree completely with Blue Tie. There is no reason this article should not have the scope he describes. As a good-faith suggestion from a good-faith editor, there is no reason we cannot adopt this. This is a good idea, actually. (My note previously cited the wrong user. Sorry) --Sm8900 13:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure there is a reason it should not have that scope: the reason is that it is a non-neutral pov. --Blue Tie 05:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, redefining the term away from its most common use (i.e., the recent warming) would reflect a non-neutral pov. Raymond Arritt 14:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not if global warming has basically been defined as anthropogenic climate change. In which case pointing out that there are other theories is legit but one need not waste time talking at length about paleo-climate (though it should be mentioned.)Ken 21:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If it is really so important to you then create a page for Global warming (paleoclimatology) and provide a disambiguation link at the top of this article. If you can make a strong case that the resulting Global warming (paleoclimatology) is what people expect to be looking for when they search for "Global warming" then you cna get things reversed and have that page be the global warming page with a disambiguation link to this one. I suspect, however, that you will simply end up with the created page being merged into Climate change. -- Leland McInnes 15:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that NPOV requires that all eras be covered, although more focus should be given to recent events. --Childhood's End 15:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Which is precisely the situation we have at present -- the article focuses on recent warming, with a "history" section for the more distant past and links to sub-articles. Raymond Arritt 16:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with that. As a sidenote though, I dont see why, among all the opinions available about climate history, we should give mention of Ruddimans'. --Childhood's End 17:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a legitimate question here about POV. If term global warming is defined as anthropogenic climate change then that should be clearly stated. Ken 21:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the terminology section lays it out pretty well. I think Blue Tie's problem right now is the lack of sources that define "global warming" in the way he does. And I think it's going to take a bit more than Merriam-Webster definition too. ~ UBeR 23:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right. The terminology section makes that quite clear. There is no argument here. Ken 14:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There is ongoing political and public debate 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 combating greenhouse gas emissions. Unquote.

Note: Political and Public debate are not the same. The actual debate over AGW in public is certainly not resolved. The political debate seems done and dusted (actual high-ranking environmental politicians consider the debate over) with many western govts (particulary E.U bloc) accepting AGW as fact, citing Stern, IPCC etc. As a result, and despite the debate not being resolved in public these Govts are pressing ahead with measures, at a national and local level. --Dean1970 23:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The debate doesn't seem to be so much about disputing global warming, but rather "what if any action should be taken to reduce or reverse future warming or to adapt to its expected consequences." ~ UBeR 23:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

My point is this, and it maybe a minor one, but it's a point nonetheless. The E.U isn't using the "what if" approach. AGW is considered a fact in their estimations. AGW is not considered a fact in Public. They're pressing ahead with measures (not debating "what should we do if anything"). --Dean1970 23:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, the debate isn't over facts of AGW. It's about what to do next and how to do it. ~ UBeR 00:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

AGW is considered a fact with a 90+% probability by the IPCC. Few things in politics are ever that certain. And the European public certainly shares this estimate. I don't know which public you refer to.--Stephan Schulz 00:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the American public? ;-) ~ UBeR 00:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Then there is globalization of the text to consider. --Skyemoor 12:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact I wouldn't call it debate, the fact that a certain documentary is part of the curriculum in secondary education across europe smacks more of hysterical alarmism than reasoned debate. --Dean1970 23:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Public debate differs greatly from Political debate, the former can debate all they want and it wouldn't matter to the latter. The E.U considers debate about AGW done and dusted and are pressing ahead with measures (no what if) despite the debate not being resolved in Public. Referendums over the E.U constitution have proven beyond doubt that the public doesn't always agree with the Political desires of Brussels. Public and Political debate vary greatly, they're not the same. --Dean1970 00:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You are quite right; the debate is almost exclusively a US phenomenon now, with Australia admitting AGW wrt their severe drought. So this sentence needs globalization, or removal to the GW Controversy. --Skyemoor 00:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

See this is where you're getting into too much semantics. By definition, the U.S. has "admitted AGW." Again, nothing really to do with "admitting AGW." ~ UBeR 00:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again, a single event is pinned upon 'Global Warming'. Droughts in Australia are hardly exceptional. Grimerking 12:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ever thought about asking the Australians how they would like doing without their breadbasket? [14] --Skyemoor 01:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

An excellent observation. Australia admits AGW as fact based on a recent weather trend to press ahead with measures despite the longest recorded hot spell in the world occuring in that very country at Marble Bar, W. Australia 100'f (or above) for 162 consecutive days Oct 1923-April 1924, I could cite this month (2007) as being unusually very cold as an argument to say that AGW is flawed so no measures are needed.

Stern is now an advisor to U.K govt, Gore is on record as saying the E.U will lead the way. Political debate weighs more to accepting AGW as fact, the public debate is not resolved. The two vary greatly. --Dean1970 00:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

100 days is a long time. This drought, however, is 6 years long...so far. --Skyemoor 01:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it probably belongs in another section. "Politics of AGW". Just raising a point though. Thank you all for responding. --Dean1970 00:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the ozone section should read like this:

OzoneThe concept of global warming and ozone depletion are commonly conflated, though the two issues are very different and have different roots there is a relationship between the two.

And maybe some detail on how they are related.

I know that many in the public confuse the two issues (though that may be less common than it used to be) but there is a link and the present description I think is misleading. Ken 21:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)