Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
You wrote this is a major change in content introduced for the first time, aside that it is too POV. Take it to talk as a proposal first
So you are rating your POV above another? You suggest raising it in the talk page, so what is to stop you doing this? You appear to have given yourself special priviliges to vanadalise other contributions. Wikipedia does not need this stuff. --Damorbel (talk) 06:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
You seem to be confusing the idea that an article is to discuss a controversy with the idea that the article is intended to present a controversial opinion. You took out well sourced and reliable opinion on one side of a contraversy with your edit whilst declaring that another editor reverting its long standing inclusion was "blatant vandalism". You replaced it with an unformatted list of references with no obvious purpose or context. This is not helpful--BozMotalk07:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
The edit was originally added by 76.99.183.60 (talk·contribs) with the comment, "The page on “controversy” should be more balanced to both sides of said controversy because that is the purpose of the page." This is a misunderstanding of the nature of the controversy. The scientific or factual controversy happened decades or years ago. The fact that politically or financially motivated groups and individuals are working hard to make it appear that there is still a controversy is a separate issue. Both of these are covered in the article - the latter more thoroughly in climate change denial - and they should not be muddled, either in the lede or in the body. There is a short documentary film around called The sky is pink. It makes the point that the media can make a false controversy out of anything. Someone appears in public and says, "The sky is blue", and media agents, PR companies and think tanks can have well-paid people ready within hours to assert that the sky is in fact pink. This means that by the time of the evening news they will be able to mount a public debate on prime-time TV as to the actual colour of the sky. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. --Nigelj (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Recent edits
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It seems to me that recent edits (e.g.) by Prioryman are softening the mainstream consensus. E.g.:replacing "Issues formerly disputed..." with "Primary issues concerning...", adding "Although the primary issues are regarded in the scientific literature as settled, these secondary issues are still the subject of mainstream scientific debate.", and inserting "widespread" in "Global warming remains an issue of widespread political debate". Some earlier edits also seemed marginal, and perhaps should be reviewed. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Comments from Czalex
Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion
Czalex left the following comments on my talk page concerning his recent removal of a graphic from this article:
Hi, the removed graph in the Global warming controversy article did not add any value to the article but was simply repeating what was already said in the text. In this context it pretty much looks like a piece of propaganda, so why keeping it in the article? Will remove it. cheers--Czalex17:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
propaganda means information, usually with some added bias. I don't know what the bias here is, since this fact is not in dispute. I think the concept he had in mind was overemphasis. TippyGoomba (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
The argument is flawed, as well as misplaced. (The misplacement is moot, as it is now here.) Noting that a graphic repeats what is said in the text is written as if it were an argument for removal. Hardly. On the contrary, a graphic which is not supported by text in the article is a likely candidate for removal. The usual reason for a graphic is to make a point with an image, which has also been made in text.
The editor goes on to say it looks pretty much like a piece of propaganda. Well yes, that's what it is, but propaganda is not, prima facie rationale for removal. (To be sure, some propaganda is sufficiently misleading that it ought not to survive, except in an article about propaganda, but not all propaganda is automatic reason for removal.)
If the editor thinks that the graphic is so misleading that it ought to be removed, AND, if the author's claim is correct that the graphic simply repeats the text, then we should be debating the removal of both, not just the graphic.
The editor would have been on better ground to argue that the text is valid, but that graphic doesn't accurately reflect the text. For example, the text states:
97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
while the graphic, using the exact same numbers, purportedly referring to the same study, says
97–98% of the most published climate researchers say humans are causing global warming
The text, and the IPCC conclusions are far more nuanced than the bald conclusion of the graphic.
As an analogy, if I said that I saw a report that studied economic growth by religious background, and it concluded that atheists contribute to economic growth, I think close to 100% would agree with the conclusion. In contrast, if I said that atheists caused the economic growth of the world, I think many would agree that this is misleading.
Very few scientists dispute that humans contribute to global warming, although there is a fair bit of disagreement about how much. The simplified statement that humans cause global warming is an over-simplification of the actual conclusion.--SPhilbrick(Talk)21:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Do any scientists working in the field actually dispute that humans contribute to global warming? There is of course a tiny minority, mostly retired, disputing the significance, but the AR4 statement is "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." That's qualified by "It is likely that increases in greenhouse gas concentrations alone would have caused more warming than observed because volcanic and anthropogenic aerosols have offset some warming that would otherwise have taken place. The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone."[1] The extent of disagreement may be the extent to which human contributions are not yet reflected in temperature rises, due to declining solar contributions and heat absorption by the oceans, so there may be a greater human contribution than the warming to date. Thus AR4 has underplayed an increasingly strong consensus. . dave souza, talk23:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
(e/c) Regarding your comment that there is a fair bit of disagreement about how much, the peer reviewed scientific literature in the last few years does not contain a "fair bit" of disagreement whether humans are the dominant instigator of contemporary global warming. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I think you guys may be straying a bit off topic here. The main issues, it seems to me, are (1) is the graphic an accurate reflection of the text, and (2) is it actually necessary in the first place? Any thoughts? Prioryman (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Please see WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE, especially where it says "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." If anyone thinks the image does not satisfy that criteria, please articulate your reasoning. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Leroux
Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
I have not engaged in this Leroux controversy, but, yes, that looks good to me. But then, Leroux looks like a legitimate, if dissenting, climatologist to me, too. Seriously. The deletion of his bio seems unsupportable. Yopienso (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's the correct article. The quote is the same, with the last sentence being about manipulation and deception and victims. Thanks for finding the new URL. Binksternet (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if the question is not so much one of his being "legitimate", more being whether it is relevant or proportionate. He's only one individual holding a small-minority viewpoint in his professional community. What makes his statement worth singling out for attention? Prioryman (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. He shows up on lists of (somewhat less than) 400 climate denialists but he was not so very important as to make a list of three or four. Binksternet (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm not really comfortable with
Disputes over the key scientific facts of global warming are now more prevalent in the popular media than in the scientific literature, where such issues are treated as resolved
(my bold). It isn't really clear what is meant by "the key scientific facts" (obviously, if they are facts, they must be resolved, so this is a bit circular) but if the "issues" include, say, climate sensitivity then they would not be considered resolved. I suppose it might mean "global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases" (in which case I agree, these are regarded as resolved, or near enough for the lede) but in that case I'd suggest re-phrasing "the key scientific facts" to be more precise William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Dyson - who says he does know uch about the technical facts of the science - in lead
Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
A quote from Dysons wiki entry says "[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much," It makes little sense to contrast the force of the globes science academies with a fellow who makes great hay of his heretical opinions even though he admits he does not know much about the subject. This would be true in any place in any article (other than coverage of the more foolish aspects of the issue) but it really is silly in the WP:LEAD. Feel free to address his views in the body of the article.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Not to mention the small detail that "Nobel laureate for physics Freeman Dyson" has never won a Nobel Prize, wether for physics or for any other discipline. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Climate change is just a poor exuse for natural temperature change, Im in atlanta and its very cold. Besides the Nobel Peace price is extremely overated this just gives me even more reason to belive that my citations are only deleted because of political bias. Cole132132 (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
peer reviewed articles about Global warming mentioning other factors then human causes
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
There are peer reviewed articles claiming global warming is caused by other factors then humans.
Here are some articles:
@ "MrWorshipMe" [oh no I won't] please also specify exactly what text in the article you're contesting, quoting it and indicating which section it's in. You also seem to be proposing WP:OR on your interpretation of these linked primary sources, please find secondary sources. . . dave souza, talk12:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Undo's
Latest comment: 11 years ago24 comments5 people in discussion
This ref which you restored after being told why it is inappropriate goes to a page of links and does not in itself support any of the text. This other ref which you just added for the first time does not discuss the subject of this paragraph (i.e., whether CO2 leads or lags temperature changes). I will pause for awhile now, but will have more to say in the future probably. I just realized there have been more recent changes to review. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
The first ref, which you deleted had highly relative informaition within it, is true it did have links, but the linkns were specified and containd highly relvant information and scales within them. I will see if there is another more compiled NOAA page but for now please hold. As for the other one it provides a scientific standpoint as well as informative purposes. Cole132132 (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Due to recent edit conflicts I wan unable to add sources in time, it seems like you are stomping on a fire you cant fight. My sources have much reasoning behind them while you delete theme for minute unfufiled causes.Cole132132 (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
between the records: all show low CO2 values [~200 parts per million by volume (ppmv)] during the Last Glacial Maximum and increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations associated with the glacial-Holocene transition. According to Barnola et al. (1991) and Petit et al. (1999) these measurements indicate that, at the beginning of the deglaciations, the CO2 increase either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature, whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations.Cole132132 (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes the sources support the Vostok ice record; however your conclusions regarding global warming are not supported. Please read WP:synthesis as you are taking valid ice core data and drawing your own conclusions/interpretations from them. Vsmith (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
In fact Im not, there has been an 800 year lags in Antarctic ice before that did not match up with temperatures, youre using your personal opinions to destroy truthful knowledge and controversy in order to lessen knowledge to thers about ongoing topics. Please direct all other comments to the dispute noticeboard.Cole132132 (talk) 01:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea what Source 1 refers to; however this text is found various non-RS websites of a mostly fringe and fossil-fuel funded denialist variety. I would give more thought to some serious journalism reporting on a paper found in the peer reviewed scientific literature. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
In response to the most recent post, your comment violates Wikipedia's talk page guidlines, for Libel, it fringes onto many political backgrounds as well as unconstructive comments. It can be removed.-- Cole132132 (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
In terms of fossil-fuel funding of climate science denialism see Climate change denialism. If the quoted text appears anywhere other than I have described, for example, in something that passes WP:RS muster, then this is the place for you to post that so we can talk about it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Source one was a government site, your comment:
"however this text is found various non-RS websites of a mostly fringe and fossil-fuel funded denialist variety"
this is biased as welll as incorrect, even though some of the cites may have been edited people who dont believe in global warming (in fact 1), there is no basic evidence that they are funded by fossil fueled companies. This would mean that you are being opinonated, not to mention your rude way of provoking it:
The complaining party (Cole132132 (talk · contribs) is (dubiously) a new editor. Ordinarily they would be entitled to a great deal of WP:DONTBITE. However, earlier today this user already had experiential education with this DR process. The first time Cole13232 rushed here without meaningful talk page discussion was understandable for a newbie. Coming just hours later this equally frivolous and premature complaint reflects a battle ground mentality on his part. Instead of complaining here, Cole132132 should actually respond to the substance of the criticisms that have been posted at the article talk page. He is posting raw data (WP:OR violation), blogs, linkfarms, and articles on related but nonetheless off topic subjects. He has not replied to the substance of any of these criticisms (last I looked).
In closing, although Cole132132 claims to be new, you know what they say....
The only thing that appears obvious is you provoking childinsh anger to support your own unconstitued beleifs, also for future notice I've gathered almost 10 reliable resouces for my claimes as well I dont know if they're on your "spectrum" but we shall see, anyway none the less your behavior has reflected poorly and can be used against you.
Policy on Libel:
"It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified."
Would some admin please post the {{subst:uw-sanctions|topic=cc}} warning to Cole132132s talk page? I am not an admin or I would do it myself. Thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
For obvious reasons I'll have nothing more to discuss on this, all you have done is used my time agaisnt me even though you clearly violate many polcies, this talk page is for construcive discussion not arguing. I originally intended it that way but your libel comments changed that. Thank you.--Cole132132 (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
If you change your mind and find some sources that meet the WP:RS threshold, and if you agree to abide by our behavioral guidelines while talking about it, I will be happy to discuss propose article improvements based on such sources. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I rather doubt this is going anywhere. I think the removal of Cole's stuff [5] was correct. It contains far too many obvious error (the ice age cycle is 100 kyr, not 400 just for a non-controversial beginning). As for the lags: the material Cole wants inserted is already there, only done far better, as the first bullet point of Global_warming_controversy#Greenhouse_gasesWilliam M. Connolley (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I believe that the greehouse gas section describes very acuratly what some of my concerns were, but I belive a more appropriate title is needed as well as information on how closly in relation the temperature changes occur through the cycles-- Cole132132 (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Two different editors have removed these links but UrbanTerrorist keeps replacing them. Presumably the only possible argument is that they fall under Wikipedia:External_links#What_can_normally_be_linked or more specifically "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[3] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." . Does anyone except UT think they do? --BozMotalk17:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Do those links actually support or illustrate some point of "Global warming controversy" made in the article? Or is he just trying to introduce more fringe argument? That the last set of edits was about adding "PHD" suggests a burnishing of scientific qualifications of someone more notable for his science fiction, who apparently has neither studied nor published on climate change. As his article says nothing about any involvement in the GW controversy, I suspect it is not notable. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think Brin is particularly notable in the debate - I think some of his books touch on the themes, but perhaps not his better ones - and as you say the links themselves don't seem to be obviously useful William M. Connolley (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Temperature predictions
Latest comment: 11 years ago29 comments5 people in discussion
In the middle of the Temperature predictions section there is a paragraph saying
"An example of a prediction that has been tested comes from 1959, when Dr. Bert Bolin, in a speech to the National Academy of Sciences, predicted that by the year 2000, there would be a 25% increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere compared to the levels in 1859. This prediction has proved to be an underestimate. The actual increase by 2000 was about 29%"
Actually, the section has no predicted vs. actual temperatures. Unlike the case with CO2, where we have clear predicted/actual numbers (25% and 29%) for temperature we only show a prediction (no actual) of "1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) between 1990 and 2100."
There are a couple of links to predictions, but those require eyeballing some charts and reading some explanatory text.
Ref 131 shows what appear to be predictions for 2000 made in (I am guessing) 1960 of +0.7 to +1.1C with two measured (no indication as to which the prediction was for) temperatures of +0.7 and +0.8, with no real indication of who made the prediction and when.
Ref 130 does have some predicted vs actual temperatures see "How well did Hansen et all (1988) do?" but for some reason these actual temperature predictions are not to be found in our "temperature predictions" section. So why do we include predicted vs. actual figures for CO2 but not for temperatures?
I am not trying to give you a hard time or push a POV here. I just think you can make your case better by giving us predicted vs. actual temperatures. The section is called "temperature predictions" after all. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you mean. I was referring to the first two - Hansen, and IPCC-via-RC.
Ref 131 shows what appear to be predictions for 2000 made in (I am guessing) 1960 - don't understand. Ref 131 is [6] I think. The first pic has a line showing hindcast/forecast drawn on it, at 2000 AD. That one also includes (last pic) an update on the Hansen 1988 "prediction". It would probably be a good idea to include that pic, or a version of it, in this seciton.
I am not trying to give you a hard time - oh, feel free to, we can take it, if the questions are genuine, as yours are. So why do we include predicted vs. actual figures for CO2 but not for temperatures? - well, because, really, the temperature "predictions" don't mean very much. Certainly not in the context they are meant here. I could go into more detail if you like William M. Connolley (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
If temp predictions themselves do not mean much, then there should not be a section here.... unless of course there is more than one way to measure whether they mean much. (A) people wanting to sow doubt about climate science do try to make hay out of this issue so in that sense they mean much. (B) As for their evidentiary value, we have to ask what could they possibly be evidence of? That the place is warming? We have plenty of observational evidence of that. The best thing I can think of is climate sensitivity... which of course is a hot topic right now, since Trenberth et als paper this month arguing that the models with high sensitivity are more likely to be more accurate. But I dont know much about past predictions so thats about all I can contribute... if they do not mean much the section should go away, but first we should define what (much) means... in part it feeds grist to the denial spin mill.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, this is the controversy article, not a science one. Arguably we should make a better effort to say who talks about these predictions, and why they don't mean much William M. Connolley (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Re: "As for their evidentiary value, we have to ask what could they possibly be evidence of", please see Predictive power. In fact, we should reference the Predictive power page at the start of this section.
Climate scientists continue to make predictions of future temperatures and they are widely reported, so it would seem appropriate for Wikipedia to report how close previous predictions came. If they nailed it every time, that would be a good reason to accept the current predictions. If they were completely off, that would be a reason not to. If, (as appears to be the case) they were close but a little high, that would be a reason to assume that the same is true of the current predictions.
Is there even a controversy about predictions of CO2 levels? I haven't seen anyone question the rather obvious prediction that as long as we are digging/pumping carbon out of the ground and burning it at a rate far higher that any known sequestration mechanism, CO2 will continue to rise. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Climate scientists continue to make predictions of future temperatures and they are widely reported - technically, that's wrong. For example, the IPCC AR4 carefully doesn't talk about predictions, but about projections. See, e.g. [7]. You may say this is a minor semantic quibble, but it isn't, it matters. As to the rest: well, we've only really had semi-decent GCMs since, say, 2000. And a decade to evaluate "predictions" just isn't enough, when the natural variability relative to the trend is known to be large at such timescales William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
And I was troubled by the notion in Guys comment that past margin of error should necessarily define contemporary margin of error. That is not how science works. In between any two scientific results a great deal of data and methodology tweaking might occur. Fact that the last one was off by X is a poor reason to automatically assume the new run, with all the refinements, will NECESSARILY be off by the same amount. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
First, "necessarily" is rather a stretch considering what I actually wrote. As for predictions vs. projections, are you (WMC) seriously questioning me using the term that is in the section title we are discussing?
Predictive power isn't just a Wikipedia page. It is a basic principle that applies to climate science just as it does to any other science. If past predictions were wrong, you don't just assume that some new data or methodology will correct the problem. You have to specify what the improvements are and who thinks that they have solved the flaw in the previous predictions. I am having trouble understanding the objection to giving predicted/actual numbers here, seeing as how (unless I am reading the cite wrong) the past predictions weren't wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
are you (WMC) seriously questioning me using the term that is in the section title we are discussing? No, not at all. You're entirely welcome to talk about predictions. However, you aren't welcome to say Climate scientists continue to make predictions - or rather, if you say it an I point out why you're wrong, I'd hope you'd at least think about what I've said.
Maybe the title should be Temperature predictions vs Temperature projections? Thanks Guy for identifying the issue, I was not thinking about it either until William pointed out the difference. I also agree with William that no one is objecting to talking about these various prediction/projection thingies. I thought we were jointly trying to figure out how to talk about them. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
A quote from the above ("Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15°C and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections.") is exactly the sort of thing that should be in a section titled "temperature predictions". --Guy Macon (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Covers a different period, not peer reviewed, and shows two temp series over a very short period. Oddly enough it shows UAH and HadCRUT3 but not NCDC and GISTEMP, perhaps the first graph in this blog suggests why, and points out "Short term (15 years or less) trends in global temperature are not usefully predictable as a function of current forcings. This means you can’t use such short periods to ‘prove’ that global warming has or hasn’t stopped, or that we are really cooling despite this being the warmest decade in centuries." The clivebest.com comparisons are with a short term extrapolation from the 1990 FAR projections, it might be more interesting to see how the three subsequent IPCC reports have adjusted and developed projections: the second blog shows the 2007 ensemble of models. . . dave souza, talk08:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Right. I wasn't implying that that page should be taken seriously. I was implying that it, and a lot more like it, are widely viewed, and thus that Wikipedia should have solid numbers on predicted/actual temperatures, because someone viewing that is very likely to come here to see if we say the same thing. Sorry for being unclear. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
We should update the RC ref to RealClimate: 2011 Updates to model-data comparisons and discuss the issues it tracks with the the Hansen et al (1988) comparisons. Merchants of Doubt pp. 183–185 discusses Hansen's testimony, and notes that Hansen's "emissions scenarios" were not intended to be predictions, they were "what-if" scenarios. On attribution issues, pp. 186–190 is a source for Jastrow, Seitz and Nierenberg producing a 1990 book which misrepresented Hansen's 1981 figure 5, and helped to convince the GHW Bush administration to oppose carbon taxes and restrictions on fossil fuel consumption. Think we should cover these controversies. .. dave souza, talk10:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
GISTEMPvsHansen1981GISTEMPvsIPCC1990
FYI I've plotted comparisons of Hansen 1981 and IPCC 1990 predictions and uploaded to commons. If someone asks nicely I might do the same for Hansen 1988..... (which would probably be the easiest to include given that it's on RC's yearly update) Sailsbystars (talk) 05:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks! Have added the Hansen1988 and IPCC figs. to the section, with citations to an updated RC report. No doubt improvements can be made . . dave souza, talk20:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
A probabilistic quantification of the anthropogenic component of twentieth century global warming – Greg Laden's Blog outlines findings from Wigley, T., & Santer, B. (2012). A probabilistic quantification of the anthropogenic component of twentieth century global warming Climate Dynamics DOI: 10.1007/s00382-012-1585-8 which looks like a good source, available free online from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-012-1585-8 it explicitly examines the controversial claims made by Michaels about climate projections: "The 2007 statement represents a central finding of the IPCC report. The scientific basis for this finding, however, has been questioned in Congressional testimony by Patrick Michaels.1 If Michaels’ criticism were correct, this would have serious implications for our understanding of the magnitude of the response of the climate system to anthropogenic forcing. Concerns have also been raised about the somewhat imprecise wording of the statement, such as the interpretation of the word “most” (Allen 2011; Curry and Webster 2011).". . dave souza, talk09:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago65 comments15 people in discussion
This soapish thread appears to omit a single specific suggestion for article improvement such as draft text with supporting RSs. If anyone has such an idea, please start a new thread to refocus constructive dialogue. click show to read this thread anyway
Not sure about "Many of the largely settled scientific issues, such as the human responsibility for global warming, remain the subject of politically motivated attempts to downplay, dismiss or deny them ". I particularly do not like the inclusion of the words "politically motivated"? Stupidity is not really a political motivation, and a lot seems to me to be just plain stupid mixed with a bit of Dunning Kruger effect (people not realising that they do not have a clue). Is there an RS for "politically motivated"? --BozMotalk13:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I found "a loose–knit group of high-level scientists, with extensive political connections, ran effective campaigns to mislead the public and deny well-established scientific knowledge over four decades" at http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/ The thrust of that book is that the FUD and denial originated from a specific group of right-wing thinktanks and people paid by them, I understand. WP:RANDY and his mates may believe all this, but the problem originated, with specific motivations, from very intelligent people. That, I think, is the point that is trying to be made. --Nigelj (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
From that source, the denial tends to ideologically motivated and funded by commercial interests, specifically fossil fuel industries. These people use politics to get their way, very successfully. Similarly, the same people campaigned on behalf of the tobacco industries using the same political connections and with funding from these industries: their motivation seems to have been largely free market ideology, and something for them to do once their careers in the cold war became outmoded. I think calling it politically motivated misses out the combination of free market beliefs and industrial interests. Of course it's much broader than these particular scientists, but there are examples of similarities. . . dave souza, talk15:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Your comment was itself "politically motivated" with Americas current two party system it tends to bear presence even more in parties. Besides there is no veritable evidence that opposing companies donate to opposing interest. I even find "denial" offensive because it most commonly refers to a fact. global warming is still just a theory (or a collection of observations). If anything Global Warming is a tighWP is not a WP:FORUM, if there is not change to the article being discussed
here. We can close.trope walker, treading along the thin string of science and using politics as its balance pole.--Cole132132 (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I guess if you're interested in a child's understanding of the topic. Generally, it's more appropriate to consult the scientific literature. Throw some pencils around a demonstrate the three body problem for us if this is unclear. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
No thank you though, its quite clear to me. I have all the jackets I need for the ice age. If you would to prefer to keep reading in the fiction section of science, that's fine, but I prefer non-fiction.--Cole132132 (talk) 02:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Peer-reviewed scholarship is the science fiction section? Quick, throw some pencils around to exclude gravity from this equivocation! TippyGoomba (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
On the words "politically motivated attempts", this page should surely be about a scientific controversy which has a big political dimension, but the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires the page to aim for maximum objectivity and to avoid taking up a political stance. Like Cole132132 I find the words "deny" and "denial" offensive, as a "denier" is someone who disputes an established fact. I do not agree that "global warming is still just a theory (or a collection of observations)" – there undoubtedly is (or perhaps was) some global warming in the 20th century, as in many other periods. It is anthropogenic global warming which is still just a theory, and the scientific consensus on it has always been less categorical than the left-wing political consensus. Moonraker (talk) 03:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
This debate focusses on "scientific opinion on climate change". Our article on that topic says "The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels." The expression "more than 90% certain" strikes me as a foolish and unscientific one - those who assess probability do not talk about the probability of certainty. The matter is uncertain, and many good climate scientists say so frankly. On such a big question, it is actually very unusual for "scientific opinion" to be given more weight than scientific evidence. Scientific fact is based on research, evidence, logical reasoning, theorization, and the testing of theory, not on opinion. If we look (for instance) at the opinion of the members of important national scientific bodies, most of those members are not climate scientists, and so far as they have an opinion in most cases it is simply that their colleagues who are climate scientists deserve their professional solidarity. Such solidarity is not really about science, it is about academic politics. Non-climate scientists who step out of line risk the loss of professional reputation, not to mention career damage: it is far safer for them not to step out of line. So we need to concentrate on what climate scientists themselves say, while recognizing (1) that climate science (unlike meteorology) is a science with no track record of predicting anything correctly, whether by consensus or otherwise; and (2) that climate science is now much better funded than ever before and that this can be expected to continue just so long as its scientists maintain their present "consensus" position on the probability of global warming being man-made and of its being a real threat to human safety and/or survival. In short, cui bono?Moonraker (talk) 03:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Ha-ha, is he a scientist? I wonder where he graduated. In fact Co2 increases photosynthesis in plants making them grow faster, if you want to preserve a forest buy property (oh no! the taxes are too high!).I would bet that in the next 100 years the temperature will drop dramatically, it already is. --Cole132132 (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
No, no citations from blogs, these are just general comments which I do not suggest adding to the article, but I hope they are relevant to whether including some words is justified. Moonraker (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, to be honest, I didn't even read it, the first and last sentences sounded too pretentious. Maybe you should start your own blog, I hear wordpress is hiring. TippyGoomba (talk) 07:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Here would be two articles referring to alternative causes of global warming as well as clear sources, they also mention my proposition for "cycles". [1][2]--Cole132132 (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but either you did not read your sources, you did not understand them, you cherry-picked very small parts out of context, or any combination of the above. Apart from the usual Lindzen quote, nothing in the linked articles conflicts with the current consensus position. Moreover, neither is a good source. The mainstream press is well-known to mangle science in general, and to over-represent minority positions. And the NOAA link points to a high-school lesson plan (which, by the way, includes 3 of our very own Wikipedia climate articles - a nice endorsement). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Well that's funny because you obviously don't understand what your talking about, the first CNN article would be great as it represented mainstream opinions on both sides giving a clear view as to a occurring debate. And as I recall someone said that peer edited reviews were preferred on this discussion, as well as being featured by NOAA (thanks for pointing out the references on this article it should provide useful). "Cherry Picked" ha-ha funny in its own way, just like science that is used to prove this theory.-- Cole132132 (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
That is like saying the few people who think the earth is flat are simply expressing the mainstream view of one side of that "debate", too. You can call such cognitive dissonance "mainstream" if you like but most of us here call it WP:FRINGE. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
You could dismiss Christopher Columbus for WP:FRINGE to in the 1490's , but it wouldn't be smart. Everything must be fairly and smartly documented, like Al Gore; in the beginning he was just one speaker with on silly theory, but now almost everybody's a speaker with one silly theory. Not to mention that in the article it states that there are other scientists with the same theory. And by mainstream I mean CNN and NOAA. The sources that people like you would trust.--Cole132132 (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I would have to check the reference book for that proposal (it explains why it is still taught in most schools) but thanks for the advice (unfortunately its already been taken). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cole132132 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
This discussion has veered off at the wrong level, I'm afraid. No one is arguing that people aren't still actively promoting denial of the high levels of certainty that climate science has produced: what we're debating is why they are doing it. We already have good, academic, history-of-science, and similar texts putting it down to political motivations, free market beliefs and personal industrial/financial interests. Just finding a few more examples where writers are doing the same thing doesn't really help. Are there any more good sources that have researched their motivations? There must be psychological and emotional reasons too, like fear of change, and the old wanting their children to have more of whatever they had, materially, I suspect. --Nigelj (talk) 22:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Opinions of climate and earth scientists
Nigelj, you are kidding yourself in referring to "denial of the high levels of certainty that climate science has produced". As discussed above, "denial" is not properly used unless there is certainty that what is "denied" is incorrect. The flat earth theory, for instance, has no credible supporters among geographers and astronomers, so we could certainly talk of "denial that the earth is a globe" . Also, "levels of certainty" is an irrational concept. Certainty is not the same thing at all as estimates of probability, which is what we are dealing with here, and in this context there is much debate about how to approach such a calculation, and even about whether it is possible. There undoubtedly is "certainty" that global warming is (or was) taking place: so far as I am aware no credible climate scientist disputes that; but there is no "certainty" that that warming is or was anthropogenic, whether in whole or in part, and almost no climate scientists claim that they have achieved certainty of that kind. Take a look at this graph, it shows that there is a real division of opinion among the relevant specialists. At first sight, the numbers on the anthropogenic side look very impressive, but on more careful thought I find the numbers on the opposing side just as impressive. We need to add into the equation the fact that professional climate scientists have a strong financial incentive to hold opinions which encourage public money being put into climate science, and it seems to me that the jury is out. It is helpful to look at the various temperature graphs for the last hundred years (heavily influenced by Northern Hemisphere data, but no matter) and from them all we see that there was global cooling between the 1940s and the 1970s. During that period, many climate scientists were extrapolating their data to predict the approach of a new Ice age, without the world being jolted into any panic. That is a little comical now, but it reminds us that climate science has never predicted anything successfully. Moonraker (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
WP:DTR would seem to apply here. I'm also confused about the relevance to my request for references. The template would, however, apply to my suggestion that Moonraker take his opinions to a blog, rather than post them here without references. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I was focussing on whether the word "denial" is an appropriate one to use, and my comments are mostly truisms which so far as I am aware no serious climate scientist would dispute. If there is something specific there which anyone here does wish to dispute, then can we hear it, please? Moonraker (talk) 04:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that your statement "climate science has never predicted anything successfully" is supported by the facts. Once you filter out the popular press and focus only on peer reviewed papers the predictions have been pretty good. I agree that the word "denial" is pejorative. Mentioning the fact that professional climate scientists have a strong financial incentive to hold opinions which encourage public money being put into climate science is a bit of a hot button, as is mentioning the fact that the the other side has a strong financial incentive to hold opinions which encourage certain corporations to fund them. Talking about either tends to move us away from a narrow focus on reporting what is in reliable sources. What usually happens is that a scientist comes to a conclusion without any financial reason to do so, then those political entities that like the result start funneling private or public money to him. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
(late comment) I am married to a research prof. My social circle if flush with them. Each and every one that I personally know has, at some point in the professional lives, had wet dreams (or the equivalent) of producing the paradigm-busting nobel-prize winning bit of research that will stand current science on its head. The "financial incentive" bit might appeal to some folks' common sense from the outside looking in, but those folks tend to be oblivious to the ego incentive of successfully bucking established trend or the endless grant stream that follows. It's brutal! Everyone is looking for the way to say "bullshit!" but very few have the data analysis to make it stick. Those people win the big awards and endless grant streams. So if we discuss financial incentives that's fine but it has to be with due weight given to reliable sources, and it has to look at the most powerful financial incentive of all - adding your name to the very short list of science game-changers. And how many thousands in nations around the world are driven by that same incentive? Lots! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Guy, while your last sentence looks right for mainstream scientists, on the contrarian side it's belied by organisations like the George C. Marshall Institute which was started by scientists supporting SDI and transferred its area of political interest to global warming. Some of them were also involved in supporting lobbying for the asbestos and tobacco industries. Their motives seem to have combined free market ideology with the opportunity for publicity and industry funding, hard to say exactly. What they don't seem to have done much of is actual science on these topics. . dave souza, talk09:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
That's actually an example of what I am talking about. When the George C. Marshall Institute was founded in 1984 by William Nierenberg, Frederick Seitz and Robert Jastrow, all evidence suggests that they already had a pro-SDI position. Afterwards, foundations like the Bradley Foundation -- also pro SDI -- pumped money into the Marshall Institute because they liked what they were seeing. Nierenberg, Seitz and Jastrow are all dead, so all the scientists who are in the employ of the Marshall Institute were hired after the founding, and the usual situation is that they hire scientists who already fit the positions of the Marshall Institute. It's no different on the other side. Do you think Hadley hires scientists who don't accept AGW and pays them to pretend they do? No. Like the Marshall Institute they hire those who already agree with them.
None of this has anything to do with the evidence, and talking about it just poisons the conversation. Nobody has ever been convinced by that line of reasoning. Far better to focus on peer-reviewed science. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
You really seem to be suggesting equivalence between a free market advocacy organisation which doesn't produce peer reviewed research, and a scientific research centre like the Hadley Centre which has a good publication record. . . . dave souza, talk14:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Different kinds of equivalence. For example, Neo-Nazi terrorist groups and the FBI are equivalent in that in both cases new hires are already aligned with the purposes of the group, and they are equivalent in that in both cases the top management has a strong financial incentive to stay that way -- a Neo Nazi terrorist group leader that starts supporting the FBI and opposing Neo-Naziism will lose his paycheck just as a FBI director who that starts supporting Neo-Naziism and opposing the FBI will lose his paycheck. This in no way implies that those two organizations are equivalent in other ways, and it especially does not imply that the arguments each use to support their positions are equivalent. What I am getting at is this: A Neo-Nazi terrorist group that points out that the director of the FBI has a financial incentive to oppose Neo-Naziism (which he does) is using an argument that will never convince anyone. A FBI director who points out that the top leader of a Neo-Nazi terrorist group has a financial incentive to oppose the FBI (which he does) is using an argument that will never convince anyone. The argument, no matter which side makes it, is simply a distraction from examining the actual evidence. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I think we're basically in agreement, the point I'm trying to make is that for a lobbying organisation all someone like Seitz or Singer has to do is to use his previous prestige to oppose current science, or in the case of the Soon and Baliunas controversy a paper published without proper peer review is instantly taken up by like-minded political ideologues and used to alter government reports. In the case of the Hadley Centre, an example of its work is the HadCRUT temperature record which has repeatedly shown less warming than other global temperature records. as interpolation is not applied to infill missing values in areas such as the polar regions which are warming rapidly. They'd made choices that played down global warming, the opposite of what might be expected from their supposed pro-consensus viewpoint. As NAEG says, scientists are delighted if they can produce peer reviewed work that succeeds in changing paradigms . . 19:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Well I support Moonraker, if you want to know what denial means consult your local dictionary. And for sources of science look a my data, which was meaninglessly deleted. Or even the Vostok Ice Core (have we learned nothing from history?).--Cole132132 (talk) 02:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
On high levels of certainty (i.e. confidence)...emphasis mine
The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the TAR, leading to very high confidence† that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m–2 (see Figure SPM.2). {2.3, 6.5, 2.9}
†. In this Summary for Policymakers the following levels of confidence have been used to express expert judgements on the correctness of the underlying science: very high confidence represents at least a 9 out of 10 chance of being correct; high confidence represents about an 8 out of 10 chance of being correct (see Box TS.1).
In response to "if you want to know what denial means consult your local dictionary.". Please note that the definition does not require "certainty that what is "denied" is incorrect."...
deny, v.
I. To say ‘no’ to a statement, assertion, doctrine.
1. To contradict or gainsay (anything stated or alleged); to declare to be untrue or untenable, or not what it is stated to be.
2. Logic. The opposite of affirm; to assert the contradictory of (a proposition).
3.a. To refuse to admit the truth of (a doctrine or tenet); to reject as untrue or unfounded; the opposite of assert or maintain.
3.b. To refuse to admit the existence of; to reject as non-existent or unreal.
II. To say ‘no’ to the claims of.
4.a. To refuse to recognize or acknowledge (a person or thing) as having a certain character or certain claims; to disown, disavow, repudiate, renounce.
— source: deny, v. OED Online. September 2012. Oxford University Press. 22 November 2012.
The following definition is, in the context of this article, more precise...
Denialism is the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one’s viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.
— source: From denialism blog as cited in Diethelm, P.; McKee, M. (2008). "Denialism: What is it and how should scientists respond?". The European Journal of Public Health. 19 (1): 2–4. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckn139. PMID19158101.
With the said tactics being...
Denialism is a process that employs some or all of five characteristic elements in a concerted way.
Identification of conspiracies. When the overwhelming body of scientific opinion believes that something is true, it is argued that this is not because those scientists have independently studied the evidence and reached the same conclusion. It is because they have engaged in a complex and secretive conspiracy.
Use of fake experts.
Selectivity, drawing on isolated papers that challenge the dominant consensus or highlighting the flaws in the weakest papers among those that support it as a means of discrediting the entire field.
Creation of impossible expectations of what research can deliver. For example, those denying the reality of climate change point to the absence of accurate temperature records from before the invention of the thermometer. Others use the intrinsic uncertainty of mathematical models to reject them entirely as a means of understanding a phenomenon.
Use of misrepresentation and logical fallacies.
— source: Diethelm, P.; McKee, M. (2008). "Denialism: What is it and how should scientists respond?". The European Journal of Public Health. 19 (1): 2–4. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckn139. PMID19158101.
Finally, back to the original subject of motivations...
We do find strong evidence for a conservative white male effect on climate change denialism, whereby conservative white males are more likely than are other adults to espouse climate change denial. Further, we find that those conservative white males who self-report understanding global warming very well—confident conservative white males—express an even greater degree of climate change denial. The positive correlation between self-reported understanding of global warming and climate change denial among conservative white males is compelling evidence that climate change denial is a form of identity-protective cognition, reflecting a system-justifying tendency.
— source: McCright, A. M.; Dunlap, R. E. (2011). "Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States". Global Environmental Change. 21 (4): 1163. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.06.003.
Thanks, both the last source and Diethelm, P.; McKee, M. (2008). "Denialism: What is it and how should scientists respond?". The European Journal of Public Health. 19 (1): 2–4. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckn139. PMID19158101. look very useful for the article, I've not checked to see if they're already used. . dave souza, talk09:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I find it funny how you took so much time to collect illegitimate European sources, the fact is that global warming is a theory. The Merriam-Webster's definition is as stated: refusal to admit the truth or reality. Global warming has not been proven legitimately to both. So I would still find denial offensive, people who theorize alternatives are not "in denial" they're actually just thinking for themselves.-- Cole132132 (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Proof is everything, you don't just blame murder on someone with a chart for that minority's murder rate. You need reputable observations! I do believe that we should be looking into this theory but not making quick assumptions on it, like starting to coin phrases like "Climate Change Denial". Not to mention the good references I've had as well as a graph of the ice core. Happy Thanksgiving. --Cole132132 (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Nope, in science data and theory explaining the data is everything, you're not in a criminal court (I hope). Note well the reliable sources provided by ArtifexMayhem, and enjoy your turkey, dave souza, talk15:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Well thanks for your opinion, but I'm trying to make constructive edits to this article. This is really just your feelings clouding your judgment.--Cole132132 (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
It seems you made some edits, but I don't see either that they were constructive or were discussed here. As a matter of observed fact, you are not discussing specific changes to the article, but the nature of "theory", "proof", etc., underlying how the topic is to be viewed, for which this is not the appropriate forum. As McSly said: "WP is not a WP:FORUM, if there is not change to the article being discussed here. We can close." I second that. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Cole, if you do not know the difference between "proof", "truth" and scientific reasoning (which your comment "global warming is a theory... [and] has not been proven legitimately" shows) you should read up on the scientific method a bit more. Everything from gravity to quantum mechanics, evolution to genetics is theory. Science is theory. It is based on models and observations. When those models appear accurate and predict the outcome reliably, it is taken as "law" (Newton's laws) or "fact". For "proof" you need something that will never change - mathematics.83.70.170.48 (talk) 11:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I am not only discussing changes to the article, but removal of offensive words as well as addition of more scientific debates. Thanks for the tip 83.70.170.48 but I've taken elementary school science and know what I am talking about, denial is doubting an established fact (no accurate data!); global warming is not an established fact. It is a theory based on observations, even then I would say Anthropogenic Global Warming is just a hypothesis. By the way for the little vocab. lesson I would like to state that I want proof of the fact or law based on smart and proven sources, for instance I wouldn't trust CNN because of their unreliableness in the past.--Cole132132 (talk) 19:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Elementary school science?? How hilarious. Ah, Cole, do you realize that at least two (and I suspect at least one more) of the participants in this discussion have Doctorate degrees in science? That your "just a theory" comment is about the lamest thing you could say here? Do you also deny the IPCC's finding the factual existence of global warming is unequivocal? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
And I thought we were getting sidetracked. But, curiously, that takes us right back to the first paragraph with which BozMo opened this discussion, and specifically his citation of the Dunning–Kruger effect: "a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average." If a person "sincerely believes" (AGF!) that he is doing the good fight (and aren't we all?), at what point is denial of objective reality and affirmation of error trollish? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes it would describe you well, but please a Doctorate in "Science". What a vague description. And the last sentence doesn't make sense to me I don't understand your point, perhaps you could rephrase?--Cole132132 (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
That you don't understand any of this is obvious. Equally obvious is that you don't understand that you don't understand, or how utterly clueless you are. Like, does your elementary school education give you some special insight that has been missed by people with post-graduate degrees? Quite unlikely. At any rate, I wasn't talking to you, and this discussion is dead. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Reason?
Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion
Because it is too far removed from the big picture on global warming. The microphysics of cloud formation mechanism is irrelevant in the broader field of climate change research given constraints on clouds from paleoclimate, weather observations, and GCMs. CLOUD is a neat experiment with some neat very prelinimary results, but nothing relevant to this article. Sailsbystars (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually, it's not removed at all. Water is a greenhouse effect in its own right, and cloud cover introduces both positive and negative feedback to climate change.
To summarize Svensmark's ideas (movie), he made the hypothesis that the primary driving factor of cloud formation were cosmic particles interacting with the high atmosphere. He additionally posited that the sun and earth's magnetic fields would interfere with this process by shielding the earth from cosmic particles (resulting in less cloud) when the latter two were stronger than usual.
Delighted by how well the evidence supported his views (ice ages going on and off at precisely the right moments, solar cycles, etc.), he figured it might by of interest to meteorologists and climatologists and published a paper suggesting how it might. He then had a rude awakening. The first group laughed out loud and replied that they knew all about cloud formation; the other laughed out loud, and dismissed him as yet another climate change denialist quack. And both groups agreed that a physicist working in a space institute had nothing to teach then about their respective areas of expertise.
The idea then dawned to do CLOUD, to test Svensmark's hypothesis -- since testability and refutability are what science is all about. And CLOUD's results make glorified jackasses of the meteorologists and climatologists who initially laughed out loud. Naturally, one can't jump to conclusions, since other processes are involved when going from a cloud seed to an actual cloud, or to material climate variability for that matter. But it's still worth a mention imho since the idea fed (and still feeds) the controversy. 77.71.249.240 (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Cole, I do not know enough about the subject to agree or disagree with Sailsbystars, but I do know that whenever people get their dander up about alleged omissions the better approach is to take your own time to study the subject so that you can post some proposed draft text with RSs on the talk page for us to discuss, if you think it would improve the article. Here is one potential resource for background on the subject.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I seldom bother to -- especially on controversial topics such as this one -- because of all of the reverse edits that follow. But whoever hangs around here is most welcome to rephrase my reply to Sailsbystars as needed, or to simply post a short reference to CLOUD somewhere with a link to Svensmark's page. (It has the most of the gory details.) 77.71.249.240 (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Yup. If you take a fringe pov, AND cannot be bothered to explain just why the majority view might be wrong, then you have nothing to offer, and deserve to be reversed. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
All Scientific issues aside, the measured temperature has not risen since 1998.
This is a simple FACT that must be in the top section. A 15 years period up to date
cannot be ignored or buried in all other information.
Yes, I'm aware of the "too warm because of" in 1997, and the "15 years is not enough",
which used to be "8 years is not enough" in 2005 ... and yet the temperature has not risen
in 15 years, which is not a "statistical blip", esp. with CO2 levels raising in the same period.
Latest comment: 11 years ago29 comments10 people in discussion
This thread lacks any specific quotes with supporting citations to support the editors' proposals. Too much
Multitudes of arguments in this debate are scientific, based in science, or at least pretending to be. On occasion, these arguments are quite compelling -- on both sides of the fence -- and come from fairly high profile scientists. But then, trolls immediately take over. The result is that there's little to no reliable information. Including, sadly, in scientific journals, since genuine scientists love to troll too. Imho, this article would gain from a clear-cut "they say/they reply" section, with utmost attention given to presenting the viewpoints of both camps, in their full glory, complete with the counter-argument of the other camp. Or then, maybe I looked in the wrong place and missed it, and the article failed to direct me to it. 77.71.249.240 (talk) 16:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I think the problem with this article is that there is hardly any scientific controversy remaining about global warming. There is no doubt that GW exists, and there is almost complete certainly that human activities are the cause. There is still work to do on questions like 'how fast?', 'how long will such-and-such an action take to have how much effect?' and 'what are the best things to be done?' I think that your question stems from your idea that scientific journals cannot be trusted "since genuine scientists love to troll too". What this article mostly says is that most of what people see as unresolved controversies about global warming were in fact manufactured by small but influential groups with a view to delaying political processes. --Nigelj (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
In my view, you quoted the key language from the opening post, and that language is evidence that the IP's main purpose in this thread is to disparage the professional scientific literature... which renders this thread WP:SOAP and WP:FORUMNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
"Pretending" to be scientific? "[L]ittle to no reliable information"? There's a definite non-neutral POV. You overlook the principle of WP:WEIGHT, where competing perspectives are to be presented in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. On this topic the weighting would be about 30, even 50, to 1. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I dunno, it seems to make sense to me. For some reason, none of these "global warming" articles show both views very well. There are still plenty of people who don't believe climate change, so, since this article is called "global warming CONTROVERSY", why not make both sides look equal? They practically are, only there are probably a few more people who believe in climate change.72.80.200.132 (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Which shows your continuing lack of understanding regarding a key Wikipedia principle called WP:WEIGHT: we do not "make both sides look equal" when in fact they are not equal. That "plenty of people" think otherwise is beside the point: we do not weight articles by popular opinion. especially when the popular opinion is driven by adroit propagandizing. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I myself see much bias rooted within the comments of this post I think the proposal is perfectly fine. Besides the figures and "scientific consensus" is clearly dated or false. Global warming is clearly not an established fact. In school we have specialized debate classes for the subject. There are organizations of scientist's consisting of around 30,000 members against global warming. Don't spend time biasing a talk page and making it a soapbox. Just consider what people have to say and don't go to denailism, which is in itself rooted more in advocates than opposers. Not to mention that there is very little evidence to back your claims, it is a scientific controversy my friend. A BIG one, and those who try and deny it will get ice in the face when confronted.--Cole132132 (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
It might be good to point out that "balance" has a technical meaning within the media, where if one side of the political spectrum claimed the earth was flat, balance would mean presenting both sides as having equal merit on the question. We dismiss this practice with utter contempt in scholarship (and on wikipedia). This may be a the problem with our skeptic friends here. If they would tell us where they were getting all this crap from, it would clear the matter up a bit. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Look, maybe we shouldn't make both sides look EXACTLY equal. But look here: the article's called "global warming controversy". It has almost nothing to do with actual controversy, it is almost completely just another excuse to squeeze in more global warming alarmists. Maybe the sides arn't equal, but they're pretty close. Here's a list of scientific organizations that dissent:
This article just seems a little biased to me. If you look at the old version of the "scientific opinion on climate change" page back in 2005, it has plenty of evidence for both sides of the arguments. Its just recently that people have been insisting that somehow global warming is a settled issue. However, there is no more evidence now for it than there was before, just more bogus statistics.72.80.200.132 (talk) 04:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Scientific organization? The kind that do science? How about citing some of their scientific work. Let's see one article affiliated with these scientographers. Title, author, and journal. Go! TippyGoomba (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) So I looked at the 2005 version of the article. I note that it has less than 20 references. The current version has 244, which is by any standards a vast improvement. Can you suggest any reliable sources (particularly science papers) which you would like to add to the current article? If not, I think we can safely hat this thread as unrelated to improving the article.... Sailsbystars (talk) 05:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Before we decide what evidence to add, we have to decide whether we're going to change this into a response format. However, if you want a good source, look up "international climate science coalition". It has some great stuuf about how global warming isn't happening. Besides, this article isn't called "global warming controversy according to scientific organizations". It doesn't matter whether or not the orgs on that list are ALL scientific or not, because they are still opinionated, and this page should have their opinions.72.80.200.132 (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Your suggestion of adding would violate WP:RS. I looked up "international climate science coalition" but couldn't find any scholarship. Got anything else? TippyGoomba (talk) 02:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Funny that you can't "find any scholarship". The ICSC has a board of 40 members, nearly all of which have PhDs. In contrast, the IPCC's main leaders are politicians. If you believe the IPCC is credible (and I do), the ICSC is also credible. And, as JJ rightly pointed out, your opinion, sadly, just doesn't matter. You have to look at the FACTS.72.80.200.132 (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
What do you mean? If you want to find all their degrees, just look at "who we are" on their web site. If you want to find papers they've published, those are also found on the website. What more do you want?72.80.200.132 (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
A reliable third party published source or sources showing both that they're significant to the topic, and how they've been received by mainstream science. . . dave souza, talk18:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ya know, I'm pretty sure I'm friends with at least 40 PhDs at this point in my life.... all of whom have published stuff. Maybe we could get together as a group. Then we could all be cited on wikipedia for whatever the heck we wanted! But wait, that doesn't make any sense..... Surely wikipedia has a policy to prevent that sort of shenanigans. An it does, at the policy on self-published sources which basically says don't use them. In the sciences, what this means is that if, say, scientists from the ICSC published literature about climate change in the climate science literature it would be a necessary, but not sufficient condition for inclusion in wikipedia. This prerequisite is not met. In fact, the vast majority of members of the ICSC have no climate literature publications at all. So thus, not useable as a source in a wikipedia article, much less useable as a source for completely rewriting the article. Sailsbystars (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, if you forty PhDs got together, that would be pretty reliable. Why not, anyway?. Besides, these scientists HAVE published papers. Just look on their website, and you'll see all kinds of papers posted there. As for secondary sources, I don't see why we can't self-publish, since self-published IPCC quotes are everywhere on wikipedia, but anyway, you can find all sorts of stuff published by the heartland institute talking about them. And please don't bash heartland. It, like any other organization is capable of being bashed, but the fact is its not going to lie about what the ICSC believes.72.80.200.132 (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
We should make this article so that it gives more strength to the "skeptic" side of things, just to be fair. Here's an example of what we can add:
"The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) today called on world leaders to announce a common sense approach to climate change instead of yielding to popular, but misguided demands to restrict greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to ‘stop climate change’."
^Manhattan Declaration Opposes Global Warming Alarmism p.1 -Heartland Institute, 10/8/08
Also, we should add petitions such as "the petition project" that have thousands of scientists disagreeing with global warming alarmists.Cybersaur (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
When you look at all the requests for cites in the numerous posts since early Dec, and these are the best this editor can do, it's time to start thinking about sanctions to prevent further disruption, IMO. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
"Sanctions?" I think if Wiki were to start "sanctioning" people for spouting their own POV on Talk from time to time, there would be very few of us left... If you are an editor on a page that is as noteworthily controversial as "Global Warming Controversy", you have to expect people to pop up from time to time who want to throw in their 2 cents - even if most of the time it's stupid. Ckruschke (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
With respect, I say "Well duh" for the "pop up from time to time" type of comments, which this is not. From this sock, here and on another article, we started dealing with RS-free soapboxing back in Dec 2012. At what point does nonstop soapboxing behavior hurt the project? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Good question. I've been dealing with multiple IP sock puppets for the last year plus on a family of pages that I watch. Maybe I'm just beyond the "we've gotta do something to stop this moron..." stage and into the bitter, disgruntled, "this fool is never going to stop" stage. Wasn't trying to belittle your opinion. Respectfully - Ckruschke (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
There is, but I forget where it is. In order to get partial or complete control on IP edit, I think the disruptive edit count has to be pretty high. Not sure we meet that here... Ckruschke (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
Those 72.80* addresses are the dynamically allocated addresses used by the self-admitted User:Cybersaur, who is either too clueless or too lazy to login in to his registered account. His usage hardly amounts to WP:sock puppetry ("use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose") as he is not portraying himself as more than himself. Trying to block him on that basis would be petty. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Wasn't suggesting that. Eventually one of us might request a block under WP:DISRUPT for inadequate responsiveness to requests for RSs. I was only pointing out that when that happens all of the requests for sources that have been made to the various accounts need to be considered en masse. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I would greatly appreciate it if you all would cast out any revengeful biases towards me. I am not trying to be disruptive, and I never was. I found a fundamental flaw in the recent Wiki edits on certain topics. Some of my contributions have been accepted, and some have not. I responded appropriately to everyone, and it makes absolutely no difference what my IP is. If you want to know, I keep switching computers. In fact, I even used my friend's computer once, because I was over there. Every time people have asked me for a source, I have either given one or argued that we had to settle whether or not the article needed change BEFORE I looked for the source, because I am very new to this and I was hoping someone with more experience than me would listen to my perfectly logical views and change it. I would ask you all to remember that Wikipedia tells us all to be open to new users.Cybersaur (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Besides, I checked out the "disruptive editing" page, and it only mentioned VANDALISM. Anyone who thinks I'm vandalizing or just trying to be troll definitely hasn't been reading my comments. While you may feel that my edits are foolish, you will find multitudes of people just like me who believe the exact same thing. In fact, arounf here I don't know a single person that'd disagree with me. I am offering completely reasonable suggestions, which everyone thinks are "foolish" because none of them comply to their personal views on the subject.Cybersaur (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Same old, still no good quality sources backing constructive proposals. . 17:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC) - — Preceding unsigned comment added by dave souza (talk • contribs)
Cybersaur, NAEG was wrong to accuse you of sockpuppetry, but Dave is also right that at this point you're trolling. You're saying we should use a known oil company shill organization which promotes ideas that range from misleading to outright wrong on equal footing with the most prominent scientists in the world. This violates WP:UNDUE and WP:Weight. Put up some sources from the science literature or stop wasting out time. Sailsbystars (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I think I've responded to that "weight" argument about five thousand times. THe only thing "weight" says is that dissenting organizations should not get AS PROMINENT A POSITION as the widespread view, which I am in no way disputing. I only want it to be MENTIONED, not given a prominent position. I don't think ICSC is an oil company, but even if it was, so what? Who ever said that ALL oil companies are evil? And as for the "misleading" view, of course YOU all think its misleading, because you disagree with it. For me it's not at all misleading, because I believe this organization knows what it's talking about. Outright wrong? That's a personal opinion, not fact.72.80.189.192 (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Probably all of them. And I would agree with the comment by Prioryman (censored! by Cybersaur) that the real issue here is "politically-motivated [ideologues] with no expertise in the field". I presume Cybersaur objected to the appellation of "nutter" (or was it "no expertise"?). I am tempted to delete his entire initial paragraph (above) because he used "alarmists", which is used pejoratively by the skeptics. (Whoops, forgot, isn't "skeptic" also pejorative?) If Cybersaur wants to apply "the rules" that tightly he should study up on WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, WP:POV, etc., because he is way deficient. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I am certainly not trying to be bossy. I only deleted that because Prioryman's comment was every bit as "abusive" as mine, in fact more so. All I said was that the IPCC was run primarily by politicians. This is a simple fact, not an abusive opinion. Prioryman said "the ICC is just a bunch of politically controlled nutters", which IS an opinion. I personally had nothing against Prioryman's comments, but if other people are going to delete MY comments, I'm going to delete any comments that are WORSE and MORE ABUSIVE than mine, because it's only fair.72.80.203.156 (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
In your apparently now-deleted reply to my deleted comment, you said: "The ICSC, however, is NONGOVERNMENTAL, which means they are NOT funded by the government. Those folks obviously arn't just in it for the money. They just want people to know the truth." [8] Right, so they are truthers? That's unsurprising, I suppose. Whenever someone says "They just want people to know the truth" it's a pretty good sign that they're going to start spouting fringe nonsense. Prioryman (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
It seems you all are just trying to start an argument. I was not trying to bash the IPCC, yet YOU WERE trying to bash the ICSC.I am not misinformed. The leader of the IPCC is not a scientist, and I happen to know that a good many of its board members arn't either. It may be that the ICSC, is "sprouting nonsense" (which, by the way, insults the organization), but I see no reason to think that an organization run by the UN would do anyhting less.72.80.192.180 (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Nice catch, Tippy Goomba, we've gotten WAY off topic. Anyway, I was saying that we should give a more prominent position to those who renounce global warming ideology. At the beginning it says that there is a "strong consensus". Many organizations and scientists beg to differ, which makes this article completely one-sided (and DON'T say I'm violating WP:weight, we've been through that SO MANY times). Besides, there is a more fundamental problem here. The article title is "global warming controversy". Maybe it used to talk about controversy, but now its just another excuse for climate alarmists to cite their views. This makes the article not even live up to its own title, because it hardly even mentions controversy, if at all. I therefore propose one of three changes to make this article legitimate:
1. The article should be changed to contain more information about dissenting scientists, even individual scientists
2. The article should be have its title changed. If it doesn't even mention controversy, it shouldn't be called that
3. The article should be deleted. If we settle that there is a scientific consensus, and that there is, in fact, NO CONTROVERSY,(which I, being a researcher on this topic, think is ridiculous), then why is there any need to keep this article? If there isn't any controversy, why do we have an old, outdated article on the "global warming controversy"?
I don't think option three is a good idea, because there are THOUSANDS of scientists who dissent, previously mentioned, but at least we should take that option rather than keep it the way it is: another excuse to talk about the so-called "consensus".72.80.192.180 (talk) 06:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't quite understand your point. I thought that everyone's point here was that there was no controversy...that my sources saying that there IS a controversy were flawed. If there IS NO CONTROVERSY, why should we have a page talking about it? I really don't see why I need any sources, because I think the entire article should be restructured, not just part of it. I even suggested that it might be deleted, or the title changed. I don't understand Stephen Schulz's arguments either...please put them into more understandable terms. Remember, my point isn't that we need more sources saying certain things, or that we need to change X part of this article; my point is that there is a FUNDAMENTAL FLAW in this article that makes no sense.72.80.192.180 (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I have two suggestions: (1) title change, and (2) abolish. If anyone has any reason to reject my recommendations, and a GOOD reason at that, we can then continue to discuss specific source changes. Please no one say I "don't have suggestions". I have TWO, VERY CLEAR suggestions.72.80.190.67 (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
If you want to abolish the article, then the road ahead is WP:AfD, i wouldn't give you good odds. As for the other thing, you haven't proposed alternative titles. So, no you haven't made any suggestions ... and you haven't made any rationales at all. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Global warming appears to be happening, be skeptical of it, and support rational challenges to it, but until (or if) convincing evidence arrives that it is not happening, we have no other option but to conclude that - yes it does appear to be happening, and it does appear that human activity is, at least in part, the greatest source behind it.
Sorry, but the evidence for "Global Warming" does not then follow into, QED, into the conclusion that human involvement is the greatest source of that warming. That is a completely false statement and is the basis for much of the disagreement that the US is seeing on this issue. I continually see these Red Herrings thrown out in the public - "You say you don't believe in "Man-Made" Global Warming, but that really means you don't believe in global warming itself and since we can show you that global temps have been rising, this proves that you are a knuckle-dragging troglodyte and thus your whole argument against "Man-Made" Global Warming is without merit"...
The earth has been warming since the early 1800's - this is a clear fact - anyone who lives in London can see every winter that the Thames no longer freezes over as it did for over a hundred years. What is fuzzy is the cause. NO research has conclusively shown that man is the main culprit of the global warming we are experiencing. Yes - some research indicates that humans have some input, but when researchers need to make educated guesses as to certain variable inputs - which could cause a huge sway in the output - this does not define Clear Evidence. Warming/Cooling cycles on Earth have gone along for millenia on Earth and only an idiot would say that human activities 2000 yrs ago had a global impact. So who is to say that the current cycle isn't 95% the reason for the current warming with other natural variables such as solar input, the percentage of water vapor in the air, and ocean temperatures (I'm spitballing here - I'm not saying these have to be the variables) are 4.95% of the reason, and humans are 0.05% of the reason? Obviously these are just numbers I'm throwing out, but who is to say this isn't reality - are we fighting over weather to curb carbon emissions when if we were to not just reduce them, but eliminate them completely, it would have effectively ZERO impact into the current warming cycle. These are questions and concerns those of us who are "none believers" just don't see being answered and the basis for the global warming "controversy".
Long winded comment, but I continue to be bothered by these 100% answers that have no evidence attached to them...Ckruschke (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
Is humanity-through the burning of carbonaceous fuels increasing the inventory of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? The evidence is yes. Is carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas? - Yes. If you don't think it is, then take a trip to Venus.
You are of course quite right that the planet has cooled and warmed in times past and we are currently in a natural warm period. However the problem is, these are cycles that did not have the same potential for catastrophic warming as a continued use of fossil fuels does. With our closest planetary neighbor serving as an extreme example of what CO2 can do- Venus.
Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments7 people in discussion
It starts right away describing "In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus" and refering to IPCC report (via 2) as the concensus.
Statements like "No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view" refer to biased article no longer available for download, and the entire introduction fails to refer to any of the scientific reports that produce opposing views. Since no opposing views are brought up, there is no controversy, making the entire header invalid. Article should probably be renamed to "Debunking opponents to Global Warming - A HowTo for the rest of us." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.15.17 (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Eh? The IPCC reports are an agreed summary of the scientific consensus at the time they are produced. What evidence have you otherwise? Perhaps you're thinking of the political and commercial controversy so ably espoused by the WSJ and Daily Mail.... dave souza, talk23:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Dave, there is actually a dispute over whether the IPCC reports are "an agreed summary of the scientific consensus". Part of the dispute has to do with the definition of "consensus". For Wikipedians, a supermajority of 80% to 85% is generally accepted as a consensus. What is it for scientific consensus? What percent of climate scientists would have to object to the AGW theory for us to say (editorially) that there isn't a consensus?
I bet if only 50% of climate scientists said they accepted the theory, we wouldn't call it a consensus. How about
How about 97-98%?[9] But you know all this, Ed Poor (talk·contribs). If you're not sure, there are dozens of links to other well cited articles in a nav-box at the bottom of this one. People have been fact-checking and quibbling about every detail in these articles for some years. Remember? Now, if you have new evidence that the IPCC have been discredited or that the UN or the Royal Society has been disbanded, let's have the links. You're not going to overthrow a worldwide scientific consensus by the sheer force of your rhetoric alone, you'll need references and new evidence, I'm afraid. --Nigelj (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Surveys
Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
Instead of listing only surveys cited by AGW theory advocates, are we allowed by Wikipedia policy to cite surveys which dispute the "consensus" argument?
according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies ... a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem. [10]
Like I said above, AGW is not a theory, but observed fact. What special information did those 1,077 respondents have that eluded the majority of the world's climate experts? Like Galileo supposedly said after recanting: the earth still goes around the sun. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
We had discussed this paper before. It's a study that analyses how people who disagree with the consensus construct their rationalisation. The groups surveyed have been especially selected to be likely to be "sceptical" (basically, they are oil and gas industry professionals). The Forbes editorial takes the results completely out of context and misrepresents the paper. Please read the original source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps more related to GW conspiracy theory, but the Indy reports that of the US public, "37% of voters believe global warming is a hoax, 51% do not. Republicans say global warming is a hoax by a 58-25 margin, Democrats disagree 11-77, and Independents are more split at 41-51. 61% of Romney voters believe global warming is a hoax" according to this survey. Lizard people leas popular. . . dave souza, talk20:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Emblematic of the context of this controversy: on conservapedia.com Einstein's theory of relativity is an unproven theory pushed by liberal governments that "misleads people into stop reading the Bible". What we deal with is not minor, "honest" differences in viewpoints of similar seeking intellects, but a clash between rational objectivity and deep-seated irrationality. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I valued Stephan and Dave's observations because they both addressed sources. In fact, after their substantive additions I thought this thread was pretty well done. There is nothing to be gained by "piling on" with Generalized Anti-Skeptic Bitching. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Who's bitching? I was trying to point out that (even, for the sake of argument, assuming good faith and sincerity by all parties) there are some really deep issues of conceptual framing here. Or (as Stephen said), it's about how people "construct their rationalisation." If you want to proceed on a different basis, fine, have fun. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Viewpoints of the two main sides
Latest comment: 11 years ago10 comments8 people in discussion
The advocates of AGW theory maintain that their talking points are undisputed facts:
there is a strong consensus in the scientific literature that (a) global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that (b) the trend is caused primarily by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.
no scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this supposed consensus
the key scientific facts of global warming are now treated as resolved, in the scientific literature
Should Wikipedia declare that this argument is correct? Or should we attribute this viewpoint to the side which is making it?
Is there another side? Are there any verifiable sources which disagree with any of these three points? And if so, should we summarize the viewpoints of these verifiable sources?
To put it another way, is there any policy at Wikipedia which requires us to deny the existence of a controversy over over how much agreement or disagreement there is over AGW theory? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
AGW is not a theory, but a solidly based observation; it is our best take on objective reality. That no scientific body ("of national or international standing") disagrees is a plain statement of fact (can you cite any exceptions?); there is no "other side" to it. We don't deny that there is controversy in the public arena (that is what this article is about), but what little alleged controversy as to the factual existence of AGW is so minor that it comes under WP:FRINGE. Which can be interpreted as saying that we are required to not promote fringe theories. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
No prominent skeptic with scientific training doubts that CO2 (for instance) causes some warning, or that the climate has warmed appreciably since the LIA. As with most things in life, it's a question of (ahem) degree: recent climate history, and recent studies of climate sensitivity, seem to indicate that the anthropogenic contribution to global warming may be much smaller than that predicted by model-based estimates -- some of which (eg James Hansen's) published by individuals with a strong personal interest in demonstrating CAGW. So -- no, the science isn't "settled". Nor is questioning the present consensus "fringe". Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
That is what some notable sceptics say when they enter the area of civilised debate. It's a question of degree. Anthony Watts is a good example. But then later, when he returns to the safety of his keyboard, he approves submissions from guest contributors who believe global warming is a hoax - or he recommends a book that promotes the same message. Plus there are other sceptics who spend much of their professional career attempting to discredit climate researchers because (ahem) God would never allow humankind to muckup the environment. — ThePowerofX22:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Per Delingpole, that's "the great Anthony Watts – founder of the most widely read and important sceptical website of the lot, Watts Up With That? " [11] -- which itsef is pretty entertaining. "I'd rather eat worms." Heh. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
“What I learned,” she said, “we have to listen to each other, even when we don’t agree, even when we think we hate each other. We have to listen to each other’s narratives, not interrupt defensively or with hostility, but really try to open our hearts and listen with empathy.” NewsMax
Let's stop accusing each other in Recent Changes of breaking the rules, and figure out how we can cooperate to present a neutral account of the controversy over AGW theory. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
how we can cooperate? - well, you need to learn how to talk to people, and how to respond rationally to criticism. In the section above, you present a piece from Forbes that supports your viewpoints. Others have commented, and ripped it to shreds - correctly, in my opinion. So now you need to respond (rather than starting yet another section). You need to either accept their criticism, and withdraw your suggestion that we use the survey as Forbes presents it; or find some rebuttal. Just withdrawing from the conversation is unsatisfactory; it makes you look like a troll William M. Connolley (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I didn't add anything to "support my viewpoints" but rather to describe the controversy neutrally. There are two sides:
AGW theory supporters
AGW theory opponents
The only question is whether the opponents are merely on the fringes or comprise a significant percentage of scientific thought. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago18 comments7 people in discussion
I took this recently added bit out:
Work led by Terje Berntsen of the University of Oslo, Julia Hargreaves of the Research Institute for Global Change in Yokohama, and Nic Lewis, an independent climate scientist, found lower climate sensitivities and suggest that there is a 90% probability that doubling CO₂ emissions will increase temperatures by lower values than those estimated by the climate models used by the IPCC.[2][3]
Lower than IPCC's findings. Wouldn't it have been better to simply clarify that point rather than deleting this informative paragraph in its entirety? Robinlarson (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I am neither endorsing or rejecting the content of this addition at this time, but I agree with WMC that discussion of X belongs in the section that discusses X. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I think Talk:Global warming/FAQ Q21 applies. This is only one paper. Also, looking at the paper, the results seem to be very sensitive to exactly where the temperature record is cut off. This does not mean the result is necessarily wrong or without value, but it does mean that we should wait for some formal reactions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I am not so sure where this content should be, but since it was duplicated I left one version in the CS section, following WC argument (though I do think a summary belongs here and a more detailed discussion in the CS article) and until consensus is reached here. Now, my take on the ongoing discussion. Stephan Schulz argued this is "just one paper" but if you read the Economist article carefully it is clear that there are more studies/papers, and even there are earlier studies that found lower estimates of climate sensitivity (WC: than those of the mainstream climate science used by the IPPC - range 2°C to 4.5°C with a best estimate of 3°C, and the values reflect projections of several climate models). We can look for the primary sources/papers later (if the content is to stay I think we should have these references and not just the Economist), but according to the Economist article the following work argues for lower estimates of climate sensitivity:
Terje Bernsten: 90% probability of doubling CO2 emissions will increase temperatures only 1.2-2.9°C, most likely 1.9°C
Julia Hargreaves: 90% probability of doubling CO2 emissions will increase temperatures only 0.5-4.0°C, mean 2.3°C
Nic Lewis: doubling CO2 emissions will increase temperatures only 1.0-3.0°C, mean 1.6°C
Earlier studies
Reto Knutti, Piers Forster and Jonathan Gregory, Natalia Andronova and Michael Schlesinger, and Magne Aldrin. All these authors found lower climate sensitivies, and the following examples are cited:
Piers Forster and Jonathan Gregory: 95% probability of doubling CO2 emissions will increase temperatures 1.0-4.1°C, mean 1.6°C
Magne Aldring and others: 90% probability of doubling CO2 emissions will increase temperatures 1.2-3.5°C
When I did the original edit, I did not wanted to expand too much on this issue, neither on the ongoing discussion about the several possible causes of the hiatus (which is already partially covered here), and that is why I think a consensus summary should be added here, and a more detailed discussion in the CS article.--Mariordo (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
And then there's Fasullo and Trenberth's 2012 paper that suggests most estimates in these ranges do a poor job with respect to clouds, and that estimates in the higher ranger (3C+) do a much better job. This is the reason we have the single-paper rule, and prefer literature review type papers instead of single result papers. At best we can cover the uncertainty and efforts to figure it out, nothing more. Here's a non-RS SkepSci post about it in plain english for background purposes only.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I fully agree, the uncertainty needs to be covered and present the two sides of the issue, so we can have NPOV. The Economist covered the weaknesses of each approach to the problem.--Mariordo (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
The Lewis stuff is unpublished, so shouldn't be in there. Essentially, we're just cut-n-pasting from the Economist to include that text, so really its a copyvio William M. Connolley (talk) 07:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
This page is something of a POV joke. Aren't controversies supposed to be presented with NPOV? The first few sources are all pro antro'warming and some go so far as to claim that 'balance' is bias, while an other lead source is devoted to slamming the scientists who don't follow along with the anthro' hoax. 'Hoax' in that CO2 is heavier than air, readily combines with water, and if it wasn't absorbed by global rains and the oceans (which btw cover 3/4's of the planet's surface) we would have all suffocated long ago from volcanic eruptions, forest fires, industry, etc. Where did all the CO2 from the past disappear to? If this is the controversy page why doesn't it mention that ex IPCC members have taken exception to the IPCC's questionable usage of 'computer models', cherry-picked and distorted data, etc? Why doesn't this page cover the underwater volcanoes in the arctic Sea causing the arctic ice cap to melt -- all the while ice mantels in Greenland and the Antarctic grow in thickness? Not a peep about this phenomina! This page is an IPCC / anthro'warming promotional piece. Robinlarson (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
It may be cheap, but it is correct. If you do not understand the basics of atmospheric mixing or the basics of the carbon cycle, and think underwater volcanoes are a significant influence on the polar icecap, then your understanding of the topic is so far from the basic level of competence required to contribute usefully to this article that I cannot imagine anything factual I could say to help you understand the domain. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Schulz that any edits that don't support the majority position should be deleted promptly. There is no point in suggesting that there is any merit to encouraging controversy in this matter. There is only one correct position to take, otherwise there will be chaos at all levels of this discussion. Santamoly (talk) 04:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Stephan touches upon a key point: the notion that certain disputes can be resolved by merely statements of fact fails when a party has not the competence — nor, I would add, the willingness — to assess those facts. When either of these applies, failure to recognize them can (and does) lead to chaos. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I still do not see the benefit of battleground piling on, and I notice you deletedarchived the thread on your talk page where I've been accumulating diffs showing your battleground attitude. Note I filed an ANI about Robinlarson from this article. Should I include you too next time? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
How about "no"? I was not intending to "battle" anyone (certainly not RL), just to raise a point about our general approach to certain recurring problems. I really don't see what you are complaining about, other than I agreed with another editor. (Would I then be disruptive if I disagreed?) And I am beginning to feel that you are hounding me. (Hopefully just a misunderstanding?) But all that can be discussed in the on-going discussion on this on your talk page. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Article is lacking in many 'controversial' topics
Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
This page is obviously lacking in a broader view. It doesn't discuss the phenomena of under water volcanoes and melting ice. The page doesn't mention anything about ex IPCC members, like Christopher Monckton and others taking exception to the IPCC's usage of computer models. The article has little to nothing to say about the inherent flaws and manipulated data associated with computer models. In the interest of page improvement I tried to add a good variety of links to cover these issues that are presently lacking, but sources like National Geographic, NASA, and the findings of ex IPCC members were called "fringe" by one editor and the presentation of the many links covering these things were called soapbox. This seems like a convenient way to suppress other views. In the interest of article improvement, is anyone interested in including these ideas at all? Robinlarson (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Credibility = near zero; due to claim that Monckton was a "member" who "contributed" to IPCC reports; At the time any publicist stuntman could sign himself up as a "reviewer". Yippie skippie controversy? Nope. But its good for his speaking fees and royalties, I suppose. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm... You put "member" in quotes. Are you attempting to say that Monckton is not an IPCC member??? There are other ex IPCC members, like *Myles Allen who have taken exception to IPCC tactics and fundamental data manipulations. Tell us how you would write them off also. Robinlarson (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, of course Monckton isn't an IPCC member. He never was, and as far as I know his claims to the contrary are as false as his claims to be a member of the House of Lords. He is somewhat well known for making untrue claims, so I'd advise you to treat him with a pinch mountain of salt. Prioryman (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago34 comments10 people in discussion
Hatted per WP:NOTFORUM (unhat if you think this discussion will actually lead to suggestions for the article!)
The article doesn't mention that CO2 is heavier than air and readily combines with water. Does anyone know of a source that mentions that it readily combines with water and as such is scrubbed out of the atmosphere by global rains and oceans which cover 3/4s of the planet's surface? If CO2 is heavier than air how does it remain way up in the atmosphere to cause the greenhouse effect? I read somewhere awhile back that water vapor is the main contributor to the greenhouse effect. The article doesn't mention this either. Robinlarson (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Guys, is there any way we could create some kind of protection filter for this page that would only allow those with a basic science education to post here? Prioryman (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, he (or she?) does have a point... sort of.. after a fashion. We don't have anywhere on wikipedia that I can find that explains why the atmosphere is well-mixed.... Sailsbystars (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
This article is about the controversy, so you should have a diploma in political science to post here. To put it less facetiously, these questions are off-topic. Does the article atmosphere not explain how the gases are distributed in the various layers? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I found in Atmosphere of Earth "Above the turbopause at about 100 km (62 mi; 330,000 ft) (essentially corresponding to the mesopause), the composition varies with altitude. This is because the distance that particles can move without colliding with one another is large compared with the size of motions that cause mixing. This allows the gases to stratify by molecular weight, with the heavier ones such as oxygen and nitrogen present only near the bottom of the heterosphere." And even I can start to understand it. 18:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Ah good, I figured it would have to be somewhere, but it's not linked in obvious places where I would look if were asking the question "Why doesn't CO2 fall to the bottom of the atmosphere" like Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere and the Greenhouse gas article doesn't explain what well-mixed means and that the implication is that greenhouse gasses are uniform through all the layers of the atmosphere that matter for planetary energy balance. Sailsbystars (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Itsmejudith, are you actually saying that editors "should have a diploma in political science to post here"? Are you saying that all editors here have such a diploma? What Wikipedia policy are you referring to? Please stop with the BS suppression tactics and address fair and legitimate questions regarding the gaps of basic information present in this page. The controversy revolves around how the science is viewed, or ignored, as the case may be. Mention of some of the basic science should be included for context so people will understand what the controversy revolves around. There is also controversy that melting arctic ice is caused by undersea volcanoes, not "global warming". The page doesn't even mention this controversy. Robinlarson (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
It seems you're responding to the wrong contrarian meme. I think Robin is trying to argue not the "volcanoes emit CO2 so humans don't matter", but rather that "Volcanoes under the Arctic ocean are melting the ice cap," which is a new one to me. Sailsbystars (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Duh? Prioryman, the melting is caused by sea warming from the numerous volcanoes that have emerged 'beneath' the arctic, not by CO2 in the air, which still exists in minute quantities.. Again, the page fails to mention this controversy, and the last time I checked 'controversy' is the theme and title of this page. "No controversy"?? Thanks for that insight at least. Robinlarson (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
That's a new claim to me as well - I've certainly never seen anything about lots of new volcanoes popping up below the Arctic. I'd ask Robin for a citation but I expect he'll just point me towards some fringe nutter's blog. Prioryman (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
It's CO2, not CO2. Please. See carbon cycle. CO2 dissolves in liquid water, forming carbonic acid. This is a major effect, and results in ocean acidification. About half the CO2 we release into the atmosphere is indeed absorbed by natural sinks, most of it by the oceans. This is a mixed blessing, however. To my knowledge, CO2 will not react with water vapor in significant amounts, basically because there is nowhere for the H+ to go. Even liquid water will not absorb CO2 without limit, as you will see when you shake a can of Coke and open it. In fact, it will absorb less if its warm (again, try a warm can of Coke). None of this is controversial even among so-called "sceptics" with a basic understanding of science (like e.g. Richard Lindzen). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
If you know where to look, Turbosphere explains that the atmospheric constituents are well mixed. So, the weight of CO2 is irrelevant. This comes up more often with respect to CFCs, which are even heavier, but that's also irrelevant. Its covered in Ozone depletion#CFC_weight. I don't think its a common point in the GWC (you'd need refs to people making this point if you think otherwise) so I don't see why we should cover it.
OTOH, the lifetime of CO2 stuff *is* a point of issue on the veering-off-towards-the-wild-fringes-but-not-quite-there-yet, as has been said Greenhouse_gas#Atmospheric_lifetime explains reality, so all we'd need would be some refs to people making the "CO2 has a short lifetime" error in order to include the error and the correct answer in this article William M. Connolley (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Stephan Schulz, thanks for also having the presence of mind and capacity to at least embark on a scientific discussion instead of looking for childish ways to suppress any discussion. Now let's take that one little Coke can, warm or cold, and consider how much CO2 it contains in just that one can.........now consider the oceans, many of which are cold and ice cold, and contains salt, enhacing its ability to interact with and break down other compounds. Also, acids are inherently unstable and neutralize when they come in contact with other compounds and minerals and the ocean is filled with them. If the oceans, which cover 3/4s of the earths surface, didn't absorb CO2 at the rate they do, animal life and humanity would have perished long ago from suffocation and from all the accumulated and polluted air from centuries of volacnic eruptions, forest and grassland fires, not to mention more than two centuries of industry. Do we need 'computer models', charts, 'bells and whistles' to figure that? I don't claim to know all the variables, but I do know there are many of them, so it's no wonder so many scientists take exception to the ones who carry on as if they do know everthing. This page fails to mention several important controversies. Along with volcanic activity under the arctic sea, ex IPCC memebers coming forward, etc, the article also doesn't mention the controversy surrounding the ocean's ability to absorb CO2, "mixed" or unmixed. In fact the word 'absorb' doesn't even occur on the page. Cheers. Robinlarson (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I studied the carbon cycle at school. I was 13 years old at the time. I'm sorry that your education (home-schooled by any chance?) omitted it but I'm afraid Wikipedia is not the place to come for remedial education. Quite honestly, if your understanding of a scientific issue is below that of a competently educated eighth-grade school child, you're really not well equipped to participate in a discussion on this page. Maybe there's a book you could read or a class you could take, but I really don't think a talk page on Wikipedia is the place to give you a basic education on issues like the carbon cycle. Prioryman (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Dr. Connolley, I disagree that it's covered adequately. Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere has pictures show heterogeneities in CO2, but doesn't explain how CO2 can vary locally at the surface, but not so much in the stratosphere where it actually matters. The Keeling curve article has but a single sentence on why Keeling's curve was better than all of those which came before. "Prior to Keeling, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was thought to be affected by constant variability." - this was due to siting CO2 observatories near local sources of CO2 (another contrarian meme is using these old measurements to claim CO2 was higher in the past). So I think it's well worth making sure that information on mixing makes its way into climate articles like the two I've linked in here. Sailsbystars (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Mixing of gases in the atmosphere
I concur with hatting the prior thread, but I do hope we can have some constructive discussion about why the gases in the atmosphere don't settle out according to density. Obviously, circulation plays a bit part. Anybody? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
(ec)We don't. That's the burden we have to bear in a free society. We can try to educate, both about the issue and about their lack of qualification. We can point out the Dunning–Kruger effect, and, in the end, we can hope, with Jefferson, that "Truth will do well enough if left to shift for herself", and we try to "tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it" (sentiment Jefferson's, emphasis mine). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
If you know where to look, Turbosphere explains that the atmospheric constituents are well mixed. So, the weight of CO2 is irrelevant. This comes up more often with respect to CFCs, which are even heavier, but that's also irrelevant. Its covered in Ozone depletion#CFC_weight. I don't think its a common point in the GWC (you'd need refs to people making this point if you think otherwise) so I don't see why we should cover it.
Actually I've stated that its well known, not actually explained it. I still think its not a notable part of teh controversy so shouldn't be covered on this page, but perhaps this will feed into a useful addition elsewhere. Also, SBS objected:
Dr. Connolley, I disagree that it's covered adequately. Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere has pictures show heterogeneities in CO2, but doesn't explain how CO2 can vary locally at the surface, but not so much in the stratosphere where it actually matters. The Keeling curve article has but a single sentence on why Keeling's curve was better than all of those which came before. "Prior to Keeling, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was thought to be affected by constant variability." - this was due to siting CO2 observatories near local sources of CO2 (another contrarian meme is using these old measurements to claim CO2 was higher in the past). So I think it's well worth making sure that information on mixing makes its way into climate articles like the two I've linked in here. Sailsbystars (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
OK, so that too is perfectly well understood. Gases don't separate out based on weight, because turbulence mixes them far faster than gravity separates them. That applies in the absence of sources and sinks. Near the surface there are strong inhomogenous sources and sinks (power plants, forests). These generate anomalies, which the circulation and turbulence homogenises. Far from the sources and sinks, and higher up in the atmosphere, these anomalies fade out William M. Connolley (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
As to whether it's part of the "controversy", expert testimony that "Carbon dioxide is heavier than air. Where it sits in the atmospheric profile, I don't know. I am not an atmospheric scientist to know that but presumably if the atmospheric-- if the carbon dioxide is close to the surface of the Earth, it is not reflecting a lot of infrared back."[12]. . . dave souza, talk15:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
diffusion and molecular kinetics are also at play, no? - yes, but only once turbulence has mixed the anomalies down to a very fine scale. Diffusion is trivial on large scales - I forget when it starts mattering, but certainly not on meter scales, probably not centimetre, maybe not mm William M. Connolley (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I'm well aware of the physics involved, but our readers currently on wiki might not become so educated. The Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere article (in a section entitled "distribution" or something like that) seems like a great place for it (with maybe a slight expansion in the Greenhouse gas article). But I don't know appropriate sources to cite to properly include it, which is why I haven't WP:SOFIXIT'ed. I agree that it isn't much relevant to this article. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, I couldn't tell whether you were asking or pointing out that our article didn't say. Anyway, hopefully its useful to lay it out here. Now its just a minor matter of finding refs to support it :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah I agree its not really relevant here either, but as several regular climate eds are here, I thought we should keep going. I am interested in this because I've seen some comments on blogs where yahoos are saying the measurements in Hawaii (where CO2 is pushing 400ppm) is because its settling out of the air due to its density so we shouldn't be alarmed. That's obviously hooie. But the immunization against hooie is good information NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, please give us plenty of accessible information about the science. Ensure that there is the right amount in all the relevant articles (although I still suspect we have too many articles, and too much overlap). Think about those of us who have only basic scientific literacy. Spell it out without dumbing down, because we need the public to be able to shoot down the gross canards on sight. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Air temps at earth's surface
Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments7 people in discussion
the satellites show 16-years of no GW. I wonder when the clearly biased wiki pages of the subject will reflect this? maybe at 20-years with no GW? 25? 30? I just want a number we can all agree that indicates GW theory IS wrong. If you can't provide this number, you really have no theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.165.25 (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't need to try again. I'm well aware of the link you've provided. I'm asking when this fact will show up in wiki? you can place any explanation "againt" that fact in here, too.
But shouldn't people reading the GW controversy page be aware - at the top of the page - of the actual 16-year data - of the actual air temperature, which was predicted to rise rise rise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.165.25 (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
A tangentially-related thought on the "warming predictions," we might want to add, either to the Temperature Projections section here or one of the other areas discussing the utility of the models what are the different range of projections used in the models. For instance, changes in CO2 are factored in, but potential changes in solar emissions are not (one of the reasons why the warming is running lower than projected so far). Sailsbystars (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Really? So you've never even entertained the thought the man-made Global Warming(MMGW) isn't real? You really feel so sure of yourself that this page is merely a "what the deniers/idiots say"?
Do you realize what a wiki blunder it is to actually admit, here in the talk page - but not in the GWC page itself, that the models have practically failed to predict the ambient temperature for 16 years ("warming is running lower than projected"), all while CO2 levels have reached 400 ppm?
Why doesn't the GWC page indicate this clearly, at the top? Isn't that a good enough reason to question MMGW for a scientist? (I hate republicans, god believers and fetus lovers, BTW)
Which is why I've made this argument into a single number, which you refuse to provide. "you" is everyone who call people questioning MMGW as "deniers". Surely, if the air temperature will stay at current levels for the next 20 years, even you would admit that the original GW and/or MMGW theory "had serious problems"?
I wonder if you guys actually understand that "warming is running lower than projected" is basically the same as "our model was wrong". And if so, why isn't the GWC page clearly state that the 20th century models were wrong (ya, we forgot the heat would go in the ocean?!)
You've setup the GWC page so as NOT to present a good, simple reasoning, up to date, why many people with engineering and scientific background feel MMGW is not or should not be regarded as a non-controversial scientific theory. You've made all of "us" into modern Galileo ... WHY?
If and when MMGW is generally considered as wrong, don't you wish at least the GWC page have some fall-back reasoning to establish wiki's impartiality?
As it stands now, you've practically bet the farm, wiki and overall human belief in science on a few hard-data points and correlations - fed into a model that failed to predict the current state. Why has the scientific community taken this step?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.165.25 (talk) 09:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Except the climate system has five parts. You're talking about the temperature at a single spot in one of the parts (air at earth's surface). The air has other points (eg edge of space, lower edge of stratosphere, etc). By mass, the air is a small part compared to the ocean. Analogy time: Think about that big jacuzzi in the glass-walled room at your fancy ski chalet. Even if the air is the same temp as the water, which holds more heat, the air or the water? See thisNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Cook et al: Scientific consensus
Latest comment: 11 years ago43 comments6 people in discussion
Two days ago, Cook et al. released a study called "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature", a review of nearly 12000 abstracts. This paper, in my eyes, should be mentioned in the article. Since my English is not good enough, I did not implement this myself.
-- Philipp B (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Philipp. The article is quite clear in its conclusions and it could/should be included into the article easily. If no one else does it, I will as soon as I have some time. Regards. Gaba(talk)16:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
same here; Several of the authors, including lead John Cook, are involved with SkepticalScience which is a blog. It is to be expected that someone will complain saying Cook=SkepticalScience=non-RS blog so we should look for language that makes it clear this study is part of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, not just another blog post. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
You didn't hear what I said. There can always be complaints. Whether they make a good point is another matter. I was suggesting we at least discuss the merits of trying to head off lame complaints before they get made. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh I understand what you mean now and I agree that nonsensical complaints are abundant. Well I really can't think of anything simpler than saying it's published in a highly respectable and peer-reviewed scientific journal. What do you have in mind? Regards. Gaba(talk)18:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I did not have anything specific in mind, except whoever sits down to draft might want to think about it. We occassionaly say, "In a literature-review study reported in Journal X, researchers found Y. ref blah blah." NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
The Cook article is misleading and propagandistic, but your paragraph does a decent job of summarizing and referencing the claims made by/for it. FWIW, the chief problem with the Cook article is that it deliberately redefines "the consensus view" to a much weaker form in order to to find its "97% support". It used to be that "the consensus" was that human CO2 emissions are responsible for the majority (>50%) of recent warming. Had Cook had used that definition, his paper shows 0.5% (65 out of 12,280) studies "support the consensus" (category 1, "explicit endorsement with qualification"). Meanwhile, 78 out of 12,280 papers implicitly or explicitly reject the consensus view (categories 5-7 combined: 53+15+10). So one way to interpret Cook's own findings is that more papers rejected than accepted the view that AGW is the most significant cause of global warming. (You can verify the article counts using Cook's own search engine here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=search - use a single space as the search term to get article counts for each category). But I don't know that there's a good secondary source for this info yet - it's mostly blogs and blog comments so far. --Blogjack (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Having thought a bit more about it, we really do need to fix this discrepancy - it weakens the article. The second sentence of our current article defines the consensus in a way that is inconsistent with the consensus that Cook is claiming has 97%. At the top of the page our article says (emphasis added):
>in the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decadesand that the trend is caused primarily byhuman-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.
A reasonable interpretation of that "primarily" is that more than 50% of the warming trend is human-induced. But the consensus Cook claims to find is:
>Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
...by which Cook clearly just means causing *some* global warming, a view which is not often challenged. If we keep Cook's article in, we should probably change the text to somehow make it clearer that his finding of 97% support is NOT for the same "consensus" as that defined in the first paragraph of this article, but is for a much weaker, watered-down notion of AGW. --Blogjack (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Blogjack, thanks for letting me know you liked the way I summarized the article. I'm not sure I follow your reasoning, specially the part "by which Cook clearly just means causing *some* global warming". I'd say that actually the opposite is truth. By saying "the consensus position that humans are causing global warming" the fact that humans are responsible for the majority of global warming (or even all of it) is implicit. You have to twist the interpretation quite a bit to fit the some you want to fit in Cook's conclusion. In any case, the paragraph is reliably sourced so unless you have a source for your interpretation of Cook's results, the current version should probably remain. Cheers. Gaba(talk)02:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
>"the fact that humans are responsible for the majority of global warming (or even all of it) is implicit."
Right, that's my point. It's suggested by what he says in the abstract, but it's not implicit in what he actually *did*. Cook had a specific category for papers that estimate human impact >50%; the vast majority of the papers he's counting as part of the consensus were NOT in that category. He counts as part of the consensus papers that just "implicitly" support AGW, meaning they assume some warming exists or even just assume that CO2 is a greenhouse gas - and those are the vast majority of the papers he's counting as part of his "97%". If he actually restricted his calculation the way you say is implicit, he would have found a lower level of support. There are lots of sources on this, but they're all blogs - I haven't seen anything with real heft yet. Um, here's two examples from blogs: http://www.staatvanhetklimaat.nl/2013/05/17/cooks-survey-not-only-meaningless-but-also-misleading/http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/on-the-consensus/ --Blogjack (talk) 02:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Blogjack you are incurring in WP:OR and WP:SYN by analyzing an article and coming up with your own conclusions; we can't do that. Unfortunately blogs are WP:SPS and can't be regarded as WP:RS. Regards. Gaba(talk)12:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Is it really WP:OR to merely read a study and see what it says? That's all that's necessary to notice that the ambiguous phrase "consensus position that humans are causing global warming" in this paper clearly means some global warming, not most global warming. The primary reference for this is Cook's paper ( http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf/1748-9326_8_2_024024.pdf ), most notably table 2, the descriptions of endorsement levels 2 and 3 along with the text on that same page "To simplify the analysis, ratings were consolidated into three groups: endorsements (including implicit and explicit; categories 1–3 in table 2)" . I admit that I did additional WP:OR in order to verify that conclusion - ran searches on Cook's database, looked at side conversations that included Cook's coauthors - which is fine, OR is allowable on Talk pages - but the results just confirmed the impression one gets by reading the study. The relevant WP:RS is the study itself. Did you read it? It's quite short. Cheers. --Blogjack (talk) 15:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Here are the first 3 entries from "Table 2" Blogjack just talking about.
Level of endorsement
Description
Example
(1) Explicit endorsement with quantification
Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming
'The global warming during the 20th century is caused mainly by increasing greenhouse gas concentration especially since the late 1980s'
(2) Explicit endorsement without quantification
Explicitly states humans are causing global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a known fact
'Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes contribute to global climate change'
(3) Implicit endorsement
Implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause
'...carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change'
"What is the significance of the papers that express no position on human-caused global warming?"
"Naomi Oreskes predicted in 2007 that as human-caused global warming became settled science, fewer papers would see the need to explicitly endorse the consensus. For example, no research papers on geography currently need to state that the Earth is round. Our results confirm this prediction: As the field progresses, scientists feel less and less need to waste the valuable real estate of the paper’s abstract with an affirmation of settled science.
"Moreover, most of papers that expressed 'no position' in the abstract went on to endorse the consensus in the full paper. We determined this by asking scientists to rate the level of endorsement of their own papers - a way of rating the full paper rather than just the abstract. More than half of the papers that were rated as 'no position' based on their abstract were self-rated as endorsing the consensus."
No, that FAQ item discusses the significance of papers that express NO position, which was category 4. That was not my concern. I'm focused on the significance of the papers in categories 2 and 3. Papers that express WEAK support for AGW. To get to a 97% number, almost none of the papers counted in the numerator were in category 1.
The definition of "the consensus" used in the intro to our main article is clearly just endorsement level 1, that "humans are the primary cause of recent global warming". The definition of consensus used in Cook's paper was endorsement level 1, 2 or 3 (which account for 65, 934, and 2934 papers, respectively ( source: blank searches at http://www.skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=search ). The description of category 3 states that it includes articles that merely acknowledge that greenhouse gasses cause warming. So it was this very very loose notion of "consensus" he's supporting here, one that is much WIDER than the narrow definition used at the top of our article. That ought to be accounted for - the fact that "the pea has moved under the thimble" and support for one premise is incorrectly being used to imply support for a different one. --Blogjack (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Blogjack could you please present a version of the edit you are proposing accompanied by a WP:RS? Otherwise what you are doing is simply WP:OR and WP is not the place to discuss it as per WP:NOTFORUM. Regards. Gaba(talk)18:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Concur (with Gaba). Also, the paragraphs in italics utter the word "abstract" four times. Despite the lead in question's narrowly-read wording, the discussion includes cats 2 and 3. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Gaba: Ideally, I'd like to see the entire article use clearly defined terms throughout, not do things like randomly switch between two distinct definitions of "consensus" in a confusing way. But that seems like too big a project - for now I'd just like to stem the tide and stop additional ambiguities being inadvertently introduced to the article. So with regard to this one section, I suggest we make a tiny tweak to simply acknowledge the ambiguity here which mostly involves the word "endorsed". Currently the last sentence says this:
Of those papers in the sample that expressed a position regarding AGW (33.3%), 97.1% and 97.2% according to anonymous ratings and authors’ self-ratings respectively, endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.[41][42]
I suggest we just change the word "endorsed" to either (a) "endorsed or were consistent with", or (b) "explicitly or implicitly endorsed".
Better still would be to also remove the word "consensus", if I can get you guys to agree with that - it's not just ambiguous here, it's also entirely unnecessary due to the clause that follows the term. If we made both changes, the revised last sentence would look like this, still referencing the same sources:
Of those papers in the sample that expressed a position regarding AGW (33.3%), 97.1% and 97.2% according to anonymous ratings and authors’ self-ratings respectively, explicitly or implicitly endorsed the position that humans are causing global warming.[41][42]
Here's another reliable secondary source, that says "This technique [or 'characteristic of scientific denialism'] of impossible expectations was illustrated in another blog post claiming that only papers which quantify the human contribution to global warming count as endorsing the consensus. Most climate-related research doesn't quantify how much global warming humans are causing, especially in the abstract; there's simply no reason to." --Nigelj (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Nigel: My "impossible expectation" here is just that terms be clearly defined and used in a way consistent with their definitions. The word "consensus" is being used in two different ways. If the term were clearly and consistently defined, the problem described in the paragraph you quote would simply disappear. It's a pure misunderstanding due to people using terms with assumed rather than explicit definitions. --Blogjack (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Agree partly with Blogjack (about the word "consensus" in our text). I edited the paragraph to remove what I thought was unimportant detail, add some important detail that was left out, correct an error, remove a cite to a blog (though it is an excellent one), and as Blogjack suggested delete the word "consensus".
"A 2013 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Research Letters analyzed around 12,000 papers published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature between 1991 and 2011, identified by searching the ISI Web of Science citation index engine for the text strings “global climate change” or “global warming”. About 1/3 of these papers expressed an opinion about global warming in their abstract, and of these, 97% endorsed the position that humans are causing global warming."
I like it! Your new version of the text addresses some of my concerns but is MUCH more readable than either what I suggested or what was there before. You made it better. Medals all around. :-) --Blogjack (talk) 06:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
That covers the review of abstracts, though we should add "1.9% rejected this position, and 1% were uncertain". We still have to outline the second part of the study, where they asked authors of papers about what the papers said. To quote the paper, "We emailed 8547 authors an invitation to rate their own papers and received 1200 responses (a 14% response rate). After excluding papers that were not peer-reviewed, not climate-related or had no abstract, 2142 papers received self-ratings from 1189 authors. The self-rated levels of endorsement are shown in table 4. Among self-rated papers that stated a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. Among self-rated papers not expressing a position on AGW in the abstract, 53.8% were self-rated as endorsing the consensus. Among respondents who authored a paper expressing a view on AGW, 96.4% endorsed the consensus." Obviously we have to summarise that in our own words, and "endorsed the position that humans are causing global warming" can be substituted for "consensus". . . dave souza, talk07:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Dave, but it also now emphasises - without explaining - the lack of mention in 2/3 of the papers' abstracts: "In recent years, fewer papers have taken a position on the cause of global warming in the abstract. This was predicted by Naomi Oreskes in 2007, who noted that scientists will move on to focus on questions that are not settled. Some blogs advanced a related logical fallacy by claiming that this shows 'an increase in uncertainty.'"[14] If we're going to go into this 1/3 - 2/3 thing, then for NPOV, we absolutely have to also cover what Oreskes, The Guardian writer Dana Nuccitelli, and Cook himself, have said about it too. Previously the text skated around it, and I personally think that was a better solution per WEIGHT as there isn't much to be gained by going into it: 'A few denialist bloggers have tried to emphasise something, but a lot of very sensible people, including the paper's author, say they're talking nonsense, by using a predictable logical fallacy argument.'--Nigelj (talk) 08:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree and was waiting to let dust settle on what we have argued about adding so far.
N, I already quoted that same bit from the Guardian's blog page. I'm uncertain whether it qualifies as an RS. Dana, as you probably know, is a biggie at SkepSci and was a co-author of the paper we're talking about as well as co-author of the blog column in the Guardian. If you want to try to explain the 1/3-2/3 bit go for it. And then there's Dave's comment that should be worked in alsoNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Dave and Nigelj. NewsAndEventsGuy, the word consensus was there because the article explicitly uses it, thus I believe it should be re-inserted. Dave, that bit was there before but got lost after NewsAndEventsGuy's string of edits. How about something like this:
A 2013 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Research Letters analyzed around 12,000 papers published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature between 1991 and 2011, identified by searching the ISI Web of Sciencecitation index engine for the text strings “global climate change” or “global warming”. About 1/3 of these papers expressed an opinion about global warming in their abstract while the remaining portion stated no position. As proposed initially by Dr N. Oreskes, this large portion of papers expressing no opinion is to be expected in consensus situations where the focus of the discussion will tend to move from matters that everyone agrees with to questions still disputed or unanswered.[4] Of the portion that did express a position, 97% endorsed the "consensus position that humans are causing global warming". These results were confirmed by requesting authors to self-rate the level of endorsement in their own papers.
Although I am grateful that you got the ball rolling by adding the Cook study, Gaba, the methodology details that I deleted really did not explain why a "position" on global warming could be found in only 1/3 of the abstracts, which is what I think Nigelj is what Nigelj was getting at. As for the revised text, one problem is that you are again citing John Abraham and Dana Nuccitelli's blog, which I love and quoted above myself, but as for a source in an article it is still only HOSTED by the Guardian. It's still a blog. It appears to be non-RS though I would be happy if anyone can demonstrate that one of the exceptions applies. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
As a first step in addressing this (without getting into Oreskes prediction just yet) how about changing my own last version (quoted above) so that it concludes instead
"About 1/3 of these papers expressed an opinion about global warming in their abstract, and of these, and the authors of about 2/3 said an opinion was expressed in the body of their paper. In both groups, just over 97% endorsed the position that humans are causing global warming.<ref name="Cook2013"/>"
NewsAndEventsGuy I was referring to the part in my original version that explained the self-rating asked to authors, which is what Dave referred to above; not to the 1/3 - 2/3 part Nigelj referred to (I should have been more explicit in my comment, sorry). That's why I added the last sentence to my proposed edit ("These results were confirmed by requesting authors to self-rate the level of endorsement in their own papers"), as to address Dave's concern.
Regarding the 1/3 - 2/3 bit the blog can easily be discarded (in fact, I've now removed it) since my version also includes a reference to Oreskes' work. The issue with your new version is that it doesn't address Dave's concern about the authors' self-rating and it also doesn't address Nigelj's point about the reason for that 2/3 having no position taken on AGW in the abstract (ie: what's stated in Oreskes' work). I'm also not sure about your last proposal since it strikes me as a bit convoluted and unclear. Perhaps other editors thinks it's clear enough? Regards. Gaba(talk)13:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
@Dave Souza, Gaba and I seem to disagree whether the text I added (underlined in my immediately preceding comment) adequately reports on the author's self-evaluation as you suggested. I tried to do it very concisely. Do you think my underlined proposed change does what you had in mind (even though I still haven't said anything about the tiny fractions that reject the consensus)?
@Gaba, I agree I still haven't said anything about Oreske's prediction or the lack of "earth is round" sort of thing in geography papers as a reason. Let's see if we can make step by step progress. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't really see the need to invoke Oreskes here at all. The text on Cook is much more readable (and appropriately weighted) as an overview without going into copious detail and trying to answer arguments that haven't yet been made. The skeptics have lots and lots of better avenues to attack Cook's paper - "only 1/3rd expressed a view" is not a particularly salient one. Oreskes' point is here intuitively obvious - I wouldn't bother making it until and unless somebody actually tries to make the argument it answers. (Frankly, even going into detail about self-rating seems like overkill - the self-rating stage was mostly a sanity-check for the top-line results). --Blogjack (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
@Blogjack, since you offered no specific objection to my proposed edit, underlined in my last italicized text above, does that mean you could live with that addition? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy: In your proposed edit, I find the claim about "2/3rds" a little misleading as stated, but I'm not sure how to better reword to fix it. Your proposed wording implies 2/3rds of the paper authors said their papers endorsed the consensus but the 2/3rds number comes from a self-selected sub-sample, the 14% who chose to respond. So it's actually "2/3rds of those who responded to a followup survey --Blogjack (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I've reviewed the wording, and propose the following. Note that the study both rated various positions to find which was the consensus, and showed what percentage expressing an opinion supported that consensus. The paper notes the expectation that a large percentage would not express an opinion, and we should cover that point. We should also be clear about the numbers and percentage response rate to the request for self-rating papers.
A 2013 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Research Letters analyzed around 12,000 papers published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature between 1991 and 2011, identified by searching the ISI Web of Sciencecitation index engine for the text strings “global climate change” or “global warming”. About ⅓ of these papers expressed an opinion about global warming in their abstract, and of these, the consensus position endorsed by 97% of the papers was that humans are causing global warming. A large proportion not expressing an opinion had been expected, as Naomi Oreskes in a 2007 study noted that scientists tend to focus on disputed or unanswered questions. The study invited authors of the papers to rate their own papers, and got 2000 responses (14% response rate) which rated over 60% of self-rated papers as expressing an opinion and, of these, 97% endorsed the same consensus position.
Thanks Dave, that works for me..... though I still think this entire article should be exported/merged to the various "main articles" associated with each section, leaving a very condensed outline-like navigation aide. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for nitpicking, but I made some minor changes to Dave's version. Specially the last part struck me as a bit confusing with the mentions of 14%, 60% and 97% in the same sentence. Tell me if you think this reads easier:
... About ⅓ of these papers expressed an opinion about global warming in their abstract with 97% of them endorsing the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. A large proportion not expressing an opinion had been expected given that, as noted in a 2007 study by Naomi Oreskes, scientists tend to focus on disputed or unanswered questions. Over 8500 authors were invited to rate their own papers, which resulted in almost 1200 authors self-rating more than 2100 papers. Out of these self-rated papers 60% expressed an opinion on AGW and of these 97% endorsed the consensus position on AGW.
Yeah that was confusing to me too. My turn to tweak,
... About ⅓ of these papers expressed an opinion about global warming in their abstract with 97% of them endorsing the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. According to the researchers, they had expected that a large proportion of the papers' abstracts would not express an opinion whether humans are causing global warming because the short abstracts in scientific papers tend to focus on the new questions that were explored, without extensively repeating conclusions of prior research.(((note to ourselves: here cite Guardian Blog - self-statement exception - seeWP:BLOG))) To assess the full text of the papers in this analysis, over 8500 authors were invited to rate their own papers. The responding authors self-rated 2100 papers, saying that 97% of those papers which expressed an opinion on AGW endorsed the consensus position.
Mmm the second sentence is a bit of a mouthful and I'm not sure this part "To assess the full text of the papers in this analysis" is really necessary... Let's wait to have some input from other editors and see what they think. Sounds good to you NewsAndEventsGuy? Gaba(talk)02:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah OK, FYI I'd like to explain what I tried to accomplish with my wording. Besides taking out some "extra" statistics that struck me as distracting from the main conclusions, I was also thinking of the readers who don't know an abstract from an abscess. The "assess the full text" bit was to help them instantly "get it", even if the structure of scientific papers is new to them. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Image
Latest comment: 11 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion
Not really. It doesn't look like it summarizes the view of anyone I can think of. There probably is someone who will accept that it summarizes their view, but the set of such people is, IMO, quite small.--SPhilbrick(Talk)02:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
At present I have no opinion, yay or nay, about whether or where to use this, but IMO it's certainly use-able, if it helps illustrate some point in an article.
(A) It's CC3.0 w/ attrib licensed by SkepticalScience
(B) RS Links to data and peer reviewed lit on which this is based are in this blog post that accompanied the original (I think 'original') release of the graphic.
The POV problem is one weakness, but not the main one. The main one is that it isn't accurate. Seems like that is kinda important, no?--SPhilbrick(Talk)11:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
To claim it's accurate, you'd have to find even ONE self-defined "skeptic" who agreed with the view portrayed as "how skeptics see it". You can't, because this chart is based on one alarmists' view of what skeptics would have believed about past events (given various assumptions) rather than what skeptics actually believe. (Incidentally, even as a rhetorical argument, this chart is now pretty weak. It was stronger a few years ago when that last blue bar wasn't longer than any of the prior ones.) --Blogjack (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I am not questioning the numbers or the fitted line segments. While I haven't checked those, it seems plausible those were done correctly. What I question is that either the red lines or the blue lines are accurate summarizations of the position of any group. I can't image that anyone who believes global warming is happening (as I do) thinks that the red line adequately captures the warming argument. For example, I trust you are aware of recent discussions about the heat content of oceans, which isn't captured by surface temperature measurements. As for the blue lines, the implication is that one group of people have, on multiple occasions, pointed out a decade long flat or downward sloping line as evidence of something. While I am aware that much has been made of a recent flat trend, the blue line aspect of the graph is misleading unless someone can show this argument being used extensively on prior occasions. I'm not aware that this has happened. Do you have RS links to such discussions (other than the current decade or so?)--SPhilbrick(Talk)15:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I've read each of those, and made reference to the recent arguments. As the source points out, some have noted that the trend line has been flat (in the mathematical sense) in recent years, and as each year is added to the period, the arguments are repeated. Yet none, as far as I am aware, have made reference to the six periods identified in the graph. Surely a graph with six sections, five of which are not referenced by any source you have identified, is not an accurate representation of the argument? Do you disagree?--SPhilbrick(Talk)17:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I must not have been clear in my prior comment with the expression "I suppose you have a point", sorry. What that meant was, "I agree there appears to be a lack of RSs to support the claim that Skeptics made arguments based on blue lines towards the left of that the image, more or less, and so it can not be used in its current form. " NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
This article appears to be too long. Excluding references, it comes in at almost 80 KB. In my opinion, some of the content should be moved to sub-articles.
I suggest that sections of the article be revised from top to bottom, starting with "public opinion". In my view, this section is heavily biased towards views in the US and the UK. These two countries only account for 5% of the world's population. Enescot (talk) 09:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd advise against fractionating the article into smaller pieces, it just makes the topic harder to follow. While it is true the point you make about the percentage of population, keep in mind that, for example, the US is responsible for 45% of auto-related CO2 emissions:
“
The United States has 5% of the world’s population and 30% of the world’s automobiles, but it contributes 45% of the world’s automotive CO2 emissions
The article is on the large side, and per the rough guides at WP:SIZESPLIT reaches the "Probably should be divided" threshold. That said, the article has already gone though some aspects of the natural, and easiest first step, that is, moving to new articles and writing this one in Wikipedia:Summary style. However, that process is not complete.
Thus one option is to make a list of all the existing sections here, identify sections where a separate article and summary have not been created, e.g. Global_warming_controversy#Temperature_projections. If any of these section could justify a stand-alone section, with the section in this article trimmed to a summary, it would help.
A second related task would be to review those sections that are already in summary style, e.g. Global_warming_controversy#Authority_of_the_IPCC and determined whether the section in this article is as succinct as is appropriate, or if material from the stand alone article has crept in to this article. Without having done a full review, I suspect some of the summaries could be tightened, especially in view of the fact that each has a link to a main article.
A third type of consideration is to determine whether the existing article has wp:weight issues, as suggested by User:Enescot, perhaps there is too much emphasis on US or UK views. I reject the notion that the volume of auto CO2 emissions is the right metric. I think there is a weighting of view that are sourced to the US and UK because this is an article about the controversy, and there's where much of the controversy is taking place. I could be wrong, and I confess I'm not an expert on the literature in other locations, but I have read some articles concluding that the controversy is more prevalent in the US, so it is unsurprising to me that the sources and views would reflect that. I'm not arguing that nothing should be removed, just that the rationale is weak, at best. However, I think, in general, an organized review of the article with an aim to cut it back to under 50K is worthwhile.--SPhilbrick(Talk)16:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Although I have not yet made up my mind how to limit the article size I agree that it is getting long and we need to prune and/or restrict addition of new stuff. When this thread appeared I was debating opening a discussion of the first sentence of the article. We know there is controversy surrounding this issue. Is the first sentence based on RSs? Or are we doing our own WP:OR by defining the scope and content of the "controversy" ? Before we can prune/restrict in a smart way, or improve/build a smart sub article tree, seems like we should review the opening thesis of the article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I didn't write it, but it appears to me that the first sentence is an attempt to summarise the whole article in the broadest possible terms. In the body of the article we have 13 subsections under 'Mainstream scientific position, and challenges to it' and a further five under 'Political questions'. The opening sentence mostly consists of a list representing the locus of the debate:
whether global warming is occurring,
how much has occurred in modern times,
what has caused it,
what its effects will be,
whether any action should be taken to curb it,
and if so what that action should be.
Per WP:LEDE, a summary of the cited content of the body of an article such as this does not need extra or repeated citations. The question may be, do these six broad areas adequately summarise the content of the 13 + 5 = 18 subsections? In other discussions similar to this I have in the past resorted to the argument that we are very unlikely to find a reference that says, "A Wikipedia article on this topic should address the following aspects." It is up to us, the editors, to decide the title and scope of any article, and that decision does not in itself have to be referenced. --Nigelj (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
If I am catching the point of Nigelj, I am broadly in agreement. That is, we do not have to find specific RSs supporting sentences in the LEDE, we need RSs supporting the statements in the body, and we need to be honest editors and make sure the LEDE is a summarization of the body, which means the RS should not contradict the LEDE, but they may be only indirect support of the wording choices. That said, as I reread the opening sentence and Nigelj's summary two concerns arise. The first of these is probably minor, that the construction may lead readers to think that the level of controversy, or the uncertainly surrounding each of these issues is roughly parallel, when it is not. Very crudely, it appears those six statement are roughly in order of most certain to least. However, my concern is minor because we do not say that the uncertainty of each is similar, so it is an incorrect inference if someone jumps to that conclusion.
My second concern is slightly more critical. Presumably the "it" in #5 (to be curbed) refers to the "what" (the cause) in #3. However, while this is a valid inclusion, it is incomplete. In addition to debate about how to curb or neutralize causes, there is debate about mitigation of effects, which is not the same thing. It isn't obvious to me that this public debate is included in this list.--SPhilbrick(Talk)00:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Nearly every section has a main article either templated at the top or embedded in the text. In my opinion, the subject "global warming controversy" is simply too massive to try to write about intelligently in 50-100k bytes. I would like to see the subsections merged with their various main articles, and for this to become almost an outline with links to all those "main articles". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Lead suggestion
Latest comment: 11 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion
The opening paragraph of the lead is decent, but the final sentence is a bit too strong:
Disputes over the key scientific facts of global warming are now more prevalent in the popular media than in the scientific literature, where such issues are treated as resolved, and more in the United States than globally.
I agree with the first part, asserting that disputes about the key facts are more prevalent in the popular media than in the scientific, but the claim that key scientific facts are treated as resolved in the scientific literature is too strong. While this is true for many key facts (Level of CO2, direct effect of CO2 on temperature, and many others), I think climate sensitivity is key. As the section in the article makes clear, that issue is not viewed as resolved by scientists. I'd like to explore how to address this, but before coming up with proposed wording, I'd like to see if someone disagrees that climate sensitivity is a key fact, as that may affect how best to consider wording.--SPhilbrick(Talk)13:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
If the three RSs following this sentence back up the part you disagree with, then the RSs trump editor opinion, in which case we should extract the list of "key facts" from those RSs and add them because the naked phrase "key facts" sitting out there all alone and undefined is ambiguous. As for the question whether "climate sensitivity" should be on the list of "key facts" ed opinion really plays no role in this issue. What matters is what the RSs say. So return to beginning of this comment.... what do our existing RSs say about "key facts"? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, the first reference doesn't use the term "key facts" as far as I can tell. Nor does it use the phrase "key scientific facts". I've read some of Naomi Oreskes work, but the second reference is to a book. Is it online, or is the key page available online? The third reference is the same as the first, so at the moment, I haven't found any backup for the claim. Do you have the book, or can you point to something in the other reference which supports the claim?--SPhilbrick(Talk)15:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I have not read any of the three, which is why I phrased my reply in questions. I note that the first reference, on which I did a text search for "key" does talk about "key elements", but I ceased reading at that point. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'll reread and see if the key elements is supportive. I scanned the article, which I had read before, but confess I was looking for specific support of the phrasing. However, I trust you are familiar with the MOS, and know that key points in the lead are expected to be summaries of what follows in the main text. Thus, it is important that this sentence summarize what is in the main article which should be supported by citations, so those citations are relevant to the question.--SPhilbrick(Talk)17:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Now I'm puzzled. The phrase "key elements" does appear, and you stated you ceased reading upon reaching it. The full sentence, with the two words emphasized:
Our central measures emerged from a two-phase pilot testing procedure across all years in the population, as well as pre-existing familiarity with key elements of global warming coverage and debates.
Can you explain how this supports the sentence in question? It is a discussion of methodology, not any sort of conclusion. If you only read as far as the description of methodology, how do you know what the article concluded? (This, of course, is a minor point, as it is not critical to understand what you found, but what the article says. However, we are back to that question. In what way is the claim supported by the sources?).--SPhilbrick(Talk)17:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
As I said before, I have not attempted to check the sources for this sentence beyond the work I already described. I reached no conclusion. If the RSs support the text, then the "key facts" should be listed. If the RSs do not support the text it should be changed. I don't know which way it should go because.... as I already said..... I observe that you want to add climate sensitivity as a "key fact". In my mind, that sort of puts the onus on you to know what the RSs say and how climate sensitivity can be worked into a discussion about the global warming controversy. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not yet quite sure what I want to do in the article. My main goal was to ask some questions, and that is proceeding well. The background is that I started writing an essay, the point of which was to summarize the key points in the debate, and the gist of which there is strong agreement (outside of same extremists) on many of the key points, with the debate about sensitively being the largest open issue on the scientific front. (Mitigation and public policy being a different kettle of fish.) After working up an outline, I decided to check this article, and see that it largely supports my position, with the exception of the sensitivity item. So now I have to think further about what to recommend.--SPhilbrick(Talk)19:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the section on the topic, a recentish addition has rather dodgy sourcing: The Economist and ScienceDaily relaying the claims of one paper with 90% probability that global warming from a doubling of CO2 concentration would lie between 1.2°C and 2.9°C, most likely around 1.9°C. Mainstream response to this needed. . . dave souza, talk12:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
I am separating the following comment from the discussion above, as it is very focused, and can be resolved independently of the discussion about the length of the article, and whether the lead is fine.
The opening sentence of the second paragraph is troubling. While the very first sentence uses the phrase "global warming" which is inclusive of air and ocean temps, the second paragraph specifically refers to air temperature. I think this is easily resolved, as the link is to the article Instrumental temperature record, which covers land surface and ocean. (As an aside, that article could use some work. While it mentions oceans, it barely mentions them, it refers to surface temperatures more than once and doesn't even mention ARGO. Surely most are aware that recent studies are suggesting that some of the warming is in the ocean below the surface). However, I don't think the edit is as simple as changing "global average air temperature" to "global average temperature". Even "temperature" is problematic, as heat content in water manifests as temperature differently than the same heat in air. Looking for suggestions.--SPhilbrick(Talk)00:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
All excellent observations, I don't have suggestions right now except to say that in all our global warming articles we should always be thinking/writing about the overall 5-part "climate system", and not just continuing the (un)conscious focus on "surface temps" in our wording. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm mulling whether the linked words should just say "global temperatures". My main goal is to remove "air" as that is inaccurate. I don't think "average" adds much, in fact, it might be too limiting. Arguably, the discussion of average temps is different than issues about extremes, but the term "global temperatures" covers both, while inclusion of the word "average" may be too limiting. Arguably, the predictions about averages are more important than the predictions about the changing variability and changing extremes, but the latter is an important element of the discussion. While I expressed concern about "temperature" as opposed to "heat content" this isn't intended to be a scientific articles, and while we don't want to be flat wrong, I think a summarization that talks about temperature is fine. We ought to get into the distinction somewhere, but it doesn't need to be in the intro paragraphs. So, my current straw proposal:
Replace
Primary issues concerning the existence and cause of climate change include the reasons for the increase in global average air temperature, whether the warming trend exceeds normal climatic variations, whether humankind has contributed significantly to it, and whether the increase is wholly or partially an artifact of poor measurements.
with
Primary issues concerning the existence and cause of climate change include the reasons for the increase in global temperature, whether the warming trend exceeds normal climatic variations, whether humankind has contributed significantly to it, and whether the increase is wholly or partially an artifact of poor measurements.
which means removing the words in red(obviously, not red in the original, just colored here for emphasis of the distinction).--SPhilbrick(Talk)02:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago20 comments10 people in discussion
Isn't the requirement of "reliable" sources (ie. peer reviewed or otherwise from "reputable", scientific media) not completely self-defeating for an article that is supposed to talk about the controversy? It now reads mostly as if there is no or very little controversy whatsoever. But it says that in a lot of words. While there is very much controversy about it, outside the required, reliable sources. SymbolicFrank (talk) 01:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Btw, the Cook paper might be counted as a reliable source for peer-reviewed literature, but the content isn't very reliable, mostly "broad". It simply counts anything not stating that it disagrees as an endorsement. SymbolicFrank (talk) 09:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
SymbolicFrank, I'm not sure if I fully understand what you want here. Are you implying we should be using non reliable sources? BlackHades (talk) 05:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, controversial sources are by their own definition not reliable sources, but they should be the topic on this page. Probably the most contested issue in the science is the influence of clouds: do they add a positive or negative feedback? This is also where the computer models differ the most. If they add a negative feedback, global warming (man-made, through CO2) can be self-limiting, and thus a non-issue. And while this is hard to quantify, satellite measures do point to a negative feedback effect. But instead, the IPCC and Wikipedia only count it as a positive feedback effect. Just read all the relevant sections here to see. SymbolicFrank (talk) 09:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Reliable sources for your argument? Which is rather offtopic, as the question here is reliable sources on the subject of the controversy: there is no controversy in science about the main points, but there is a manufactured political controversy which has been discussed in several reliable sources. These can include publications promoting the fringe views of deniers, but these have to be treated with care as primary sources and shown in the context majority expert views, per WP:WEIGHT, not given "equal validity". . . dave souza, talk10:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
First, controversy is by definition the view that goes against the status quo. When peer-review from mainstream scientists is a requirement for reliable sources, you're not going to find any. Second, the term of "deniers" you used, disregards everyone who has formed their own, independent view. It is a blanket statement covering everyone who is against it, and suggest they simply disregard it and have no valid arguments for that. This is in contrast to the "believers", who also don't have their own, independent view, but simply refer to authority. And third, to put all the controversy down to a "manufactured political" one, is strengthening the implication that you see the controversy not about the view someone has or on scientific merits, but is only based on the "camp" they are in: that of the "believers" or the "deniers". SymbolicFrank (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I think you're mixing up two meaning of controversy. The first is the actual controversy: that's what this article is about. The second is "controversial sources" which would be a meta-article, and isn't what this article is about. Sources can be both controversial and reliable. Since the article already contains sources for there being a controversy, it isn't really clear to me what you objection is.
It would be helpful, I think, if you could indicate some sources that you'd like to see included. We could then patiently explain to you why they are unreliable :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 11:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
SymbolicFrank, I suggest you are conflating two related, but ultimately different, concepts. One concept is that a subject is controversial. Another subject is that sources making statements are controversial. Wikipedia has settled on the approach that reliable sources are required. By definition, this means that controversies who sole support is contained in non-reputable sources will not be represented, However, that does not mean controversies cannot be covered. It is not the case, as you suggest that reliable sources are only "from mainstream scientists". Scientists who are not considered part of the mainstream, if they can do science properly, can get their findings in peer-reviewed journals. For example, the value of climate sensitivity is a controversial subject, and arguably the most important question in climate science. While mainstream aggregations such as the IPCC have some conclusions, that doesn't mean there aren't peer-reviewed articles with differing conclusions. Those conclusions can be discussed as part of a discussion of controversies. Allowing non-reliable sources would literally be opening the door to any statement, no matter how kooky.--SPhilbrick(Talk)11:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree Sphilbrick, although I think adding a couple words would make your comment even better, i.e., "this means that trumped-up allegations of controversies whose sole support is contained in non-reputable sources will not be represented" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
What I mean is, for example, that while just about every paper or model that discusses the impact of cloud formation on global warming shows that they have multiple effects (upward reflection, downward reflection and absorption of heat), that the distribution of those differ between the cloud types, and that nobody knows what actually happens, it is either mentioned as a probably net positive feedback loop, or as an unknown in the respectable media. Which is cherry picking, as the only (satellite) data we have about their behavior suggests a probable negative feedback loop. But with a net negative feedback, the climate models start showing very fast that the amount of CO2 and the warming is auto-limiting, and thereby the whole human-caused global warming becomes a non-issue. So it is a given that it is published as having a positive feedback effect. THAT's what I mean with controversial scientific results and possibilities not showing in the "reliable" (ie. peer-reviewed) sources, which skews the discussion, removes the scientific aspect and makes it into "yes/no", "believe/disbelieve" etc. discussion. Being a skeptic is a good thing when you're a scientist. SymbolicFrank (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Btw, I'm not a "disbeliever", I'm pretty sure it will become warmer, globally, and that humans did and do make a (small) contribution to that. SymbolicFrank (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Sources? We can't use your original research, and also note if it's generally considered to be an unknown then it's not a controversy. It's an area of scientific research. Which apparently is progressing. And what makes you think that the human contribution to global warming is small? Last I saw, it was likely to be over 100%. Sources needed. . . dave souza, talk17:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
These discussions where an editor tries to make a point with no reliable source to back it are a terrible waste of time. BTW SymbolicFrank saying something like this "humans did and do make a (small) contribution to that" was acceptable as scientific skepticism perhaps 30 years ago. Now it just makes you a denier. Regards. Gaba(talk)21:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I think there is another kind of confusion going on. There are peer-reviewed papers on the climate, written by climate scientists, published by natural sciences journals, and summarised by the IPCC. Then there are peer-reviewed papers about the controversy. These are typically written by social scientists, and published in social science journals. The two sets of scientists are very nearly disjoint - they only have a quite small overlap. This is not one homogenous set of "scientists" in white lab coats. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Which is something I was trying to address with this edit, where unpublished preliminary results were portrayed as dramatic, evidently with a blog storm spinning them as controversial. Having had a closer look at The Economist's article, where's the controversy? Various scientists are refining and improving methods, a new consensus should emerge. My bets are on Jules, for no scientific reason. What we need is a source describing the fake controversy rather than implying it: the two I added make some reference to it. . . dave souza, talk22:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
The Economist not peer reviewed
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
We seem to be making extensive use of an Economist article publicising findings which were still in the process of peer review. Says something about the controversy, but I've only addressed the sensitive bit: the "flat for a decade" bit also needs to be reviewed. . . dave souza, talk13:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Need improvement?
Latest comment: 11 years ago15 comments9 people in discussion
This article is written on the presumption that anthropomorphic global warming is settled, that ongoing global warming is certain, and that the sides of the debate that argues that 1: anthropomorphic warming is negligible and 2: models do not correctly predict the current 16 year lull in progression of global warming are just wrong and have no credibility. I think that an article on a controversy that does not present both sides of the controversy is a poor article. Is this article just poor, or is it biased? Kd4ttc (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Have you given any thought to the fact that perhaps it is you who is severely biased? In science sometimes (actually lots of times) things are wrong and are in time discredited completely as having no scientific leg to stand on. There's only so much that can be done before breaching WP:GEVAL in an article like this. Regards. Gaba(talk)02:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I think this response proves my concern. I note that an article about a controversy does not address the points of the different participants, and the concern is met with an accusation of bias. Regarding the issue of WP:GEVAL, that applies on an article about a subject. So articles about global warming don't need to include a minority view. However, this is an article about the controversy. That's different. Kd4ttc (talk) 03:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
See WP:GEVAL. This is an article about the controversy, not a re-hashing of it, and certainly not one that gives "equal time" to the considered opinion of the scientific community on the one hand, and an artificially constructed pseudo-scepticism without even a reasonable counter-model. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
What shows a bias here is the stifling of debate. The problem with the article is that the authors are coming to conclusions about which arguments are correct. The article would be better, as an article about the controversy, if the controversy issues were stated. The reader can then go to the referred sites themselves otherwise this becomes an article about why the scientific consensus is correct, rather than what the article title is, which is Global warming controversy. As what to change, conclusions about which argument wins don't belong. What I've read that I find compelling is that weather stations are often heat biased, that the CO2 release follows temp changes, that the hockey stick data fell apart, that CO2 concentrations are below forcing thresholds, and separately that there is a whole separate issue that even if the warming is true that the issue arises of whether it is anthropomorphic driven. Changes I suggest are removing the conclusionary phrasing, adding in temp graphs of longer timeframe, adding a section on motivations behind the controversy to start. I think it can improve significantly over time. I started the process here in the talk page, not wanting to see an edit war. But to be shut down on the talk page is rather extreme. Kd4ttc (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
@ Kd4ttc, you appear to be misinformed, and we are required to show the mainstream expert view of such claims to meet WP:WEIGHT policy. The problem I can see with the article is that rather much of it seems to put forward claims rather than showing how reliable sources describe controversies which involve these claims. Needs cleaning up. . . dave souza, talk06:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. It is an article to describe the controversy, and it should (by now) be based mostly on reliable sources that describe the controversy from an academic standpoint. It is definitely not an article to Teach the Controversy. --Nigelj (talk) 12:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Nigel. The tone of the article is to describe an argument by global warming critics, and then go through why the criticism is wrong, quoting proponents of global warming. So it is more an article of how experts in the field have refuted arguments by global warming skeptics. There is a post above about the academic papers that describe the global warming controversy are in the social science field, while the papers about it (that largely support global warming) are in the scientific literature. A lot of the criticism of global warming is in WWW, which perhaps needs a section by itself. dave souza opined that I didn't understand the need to "show the mainstream expert view of such claims to meet WP:WEIGHT policy". I disagree with Dave on this. As Nigel notes, the title suggests the article should describe the controversy, ideally quoting academic papers that have studied that contrversy. The article now is largely editors trying to weigh the merits of the arguments about global warming,with some sections more than others addressing the controversy rather than conclusions. The article is veering towards original research (but I don't think the wp:nor line has been crossed) in that there are so many times that the editors/authors have presented both sides then asserted that one side was correct without references to a neutral third party.
This may well be a hard thing to write. The trick will be to write about the controversy, who is criticizing, what their mutual criticisms are, where they are, where in the atmosphere they are talking about ;-), the chronology, and why the sides are driven to participate. This article may well take years to really figure all this out, as we are in the midst of it. I wouldn't worry that the article teaches the controversy. We should trust the readers to understand that the article is not intended to take a stand on global warming, but to describe who is arguing and what they are arguing about. There are other articles on Wikipedia that can completely follow the IPCC recommended thinking about the subject.
I like that wikipedia has an article about the controversy. I hope it doesn't come to renaming this article to "Climate scientists' successful responses to their critics." That wikipedia can host both articles about a controversy and have attributable articles that express best consensus viewpoint it a sign of intelligent discourse. Kd4ttc (talk) 20:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh, Teach the Controversy is a controversial topic, itself. How ironic. OK, I see where a lot of the article is coming from. It really is trying to teach the controversy, but in the positive original meaning, which is to put forth the evidence, mention the criticisms, then refute them, so as to educate people on how we have come to conclude some scientific truths. This article at this time really comes from that mindset. However, that is not the same as an article about the controversy. Perhaps there is room in the article for both explaining why the criticisms are wrong (getting close to original research), hopefully quoting the articles that support that conclusion (and there are a number of such articles in here, as well as content that is more about what the controversies are. Any thoughts? Kd4ttc (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia reports what the most reliable sources say. The most reliable scientific sources present the factual basis for global warming. Denialists positions are not evidence based, or based in reason, nor are they in the scientific sources. Since they are not given equal weight in the sources, we do not give them equal weight here. To treat them as equally valid would not, in fact, be neutral, but rather presenting a false balance. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
In your original post, Kd4ttc (talk·contribs), I think you demonstrate a lack of familiarity with the RSs in this area. Specifically, you've equated average temperature of earth's atmosphere at earth's surface with global warming, which is indeed what a lot of non-RS fringe and a lot of popular RS media sources do; but the RSs with the greatest weight go out of their way to explain that global warming is about warming of the climate system, which includes ALL of the atmosphere, not just the little bit at earth's surface, PLUS the lithosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, and biosphere. Show me a PNAS or Royal Academy paper or media coverage of such a paper that says global warming in the oceans has been in a "lull" these past few years. What you will find instead is articles like this one last month from NBC, about how the overall climate system is still amassing excess BTUs, but that the bulk of the energy is simply going into the deep ocean (and a bit is melting ice far faster than we expected a few years ago).
The increase in ocean heat content is much larger than any other store of energy in the Earth’s heat balance over the two periods 1961 to 2003 and 1993 to 2003, and accounts for more than 90% of the possible increase in heat content of the Earth system during these periods. (see citation at Global warming)
Since your opening post is so erroneous on the question of the supposed lull, I don't find your vague criticisms here to be very compelling. To persuade me we need a change, I'd like to see some draft text, with RS cites in wikiformat, for us to consider. But in one of your other remarks you mentioned directing people to "referred sites". We don't do that... see WP:NOTLINKFARM. Instead, we write (or try to write) well-referenced text, but of course you know that from your long history here. So as you draft proposed text for us to consider, be sure to evaluate real RSs with weight, and make sure to evaluate them in the context of WP:FRINGE.
If instead you choose to just continue with vague complaints, I'd ask you to review the arbitration case on climate change, and please do not disrupt wikipedia to make a point - one of which, in my mind, is casting vague criticisms as a means of sowing unspecified doubts on the subject. Also, persistently refusing to answer questions is a no-no at WP:DISRUPT. So I endorse the multiple questions others have asked regarding the specific text improvements, with sources, you wish to propose for consideration. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
.gif)
