Talk:List of climate change controversies/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Merge proposal

These controversy pages just gerrymander information across multiple articles on the exact same topic. This article should be merged with global warming. CensoredScribe (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Recent Edits

Tried to insert the following:

Although arctic sea ice rebounded by almost 57% from 2012 to 2013, climatologists argue that coverage continues to trend down.

Stephan Schulz reverted it by (laughingly) claiming Fox is not a RS, and the trend is, of course, down. So it appears that he both doesn't understand WP:RS#News Organizations (since any non-opinion Fox News pieces is clearly RS just as any non-opinion piece is from a Left-leaning news source) and also didn't actually read the insertion because it clearly states what he is stating in the revert. So its pretty clear that the revert was of the knee-jerk variety.

The insertion is not an opinion, doesn't pull any information out the article other than the coverage coverage, supports continuing global warming, and simply takes new information and puts it on the page. As any statistician would tell you, a one-year spike/rebound in ice coverage says absolutely nothing about the long-term trend and is simply "another data point" to add to the chart. Not sure what the issue is. Ckruschke (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

I'd refactor your edit a bit. The Fox article does not mention the 57% figure and there are much better sources to use for this, for example this one: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2013/09/a-real-hole-near-the-pole/

I'd say something like this:

• Arctic sea ice extent for August 2013 was 2.38 square kilometers above the value for August 2012, the record low recorded since 1979. The overall trend continues to show a decline of 10.6% in ice extent per decade.

Also, check out the section I opened below about an image linked to this I'd like to add to the article. Cheers. Gaba ^(talk) 17:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The so-called "rebound" is a simple case of regression to the mean - the trend, by any reasonable standard is indeed strikingly down. If you only cite Fox News for the percentage, then you engage in WP:SYN, making a point (indeed, two: "Although..." (suggesting a conflict when none is there) and "climatologists argue"!) that your source does not. Oh, and Fox does not have you 57% - they claim a "whopping 60%". A single year figure is not meaningful in climatological terms, and is not (so far) a significant point in the controversy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/09/climate-change-arctic-sea-ice-delusions The more sensible press is commenting already on how 'delusional' and 'wrong' this little symphony of orchestrated reports were. --Nigelj (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot be at the same time be a serious encyclopedia and an encyclopedia which uses FN to source scientific "facts." Nor should left-wing sources be used (e.g. Huffington Post), though by "left-wing" I presume you're referring to publications like NYT which are not left wing unless you happen to be so far to the right that serious journalism appears left. Sorry, but having "news" in the name of a business does not automatically mean that business is a reputable news organization. I promise you this proposal will go exactly nowhere...but possibly backwards. N^oformation ^Talk 18:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz, Nigelj & Noformation I think we've established that Ckruschke's edit is not suitable as it is, but what do you think about my proposal to comment on this issue (possibly coupled with the image I propose to add in the section below)? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 18:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I think your suggestion is much more factual, and the image would serve as a useful illustration. But I fail to see the controversy aspect of it (and this is Global warming controversy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Gaba - I don't have a problem with your suggested change and the different source. Thanks for working this! If I'd know that by simply inserting FoxNews as a source would cause this much consternation I would have taken it upon my source to dig deeper. My fault for not forseeing this...

I won't get pulled into a discussion With Noformation/Stephen Schulz on the continuing silly statements about FoxNews not being a WP:RS and/or your "assumptions" about what you THINK I'm saying. I think that that was the whole point of the original revert and my opening thread comments - people not assuming WP:Good Faith on my part... Ckruschke (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

I do assume good faith. This means that I believe that you believe you would be bettering the encyclopedia by introducing a FN article to source a scientific fact. You are wrong, but that doesn't mean I assume bad faith on your part. And if you disagree that FN is a silly source for a scientific fact then you're free to bring it up at WP:RSN as always; but most people very well understand that FN is not credible for scientific matters (or most matters actually since anything that is accurate can generally be sourced to an organization without a reputation for dishonesty, misrepresentation, etc.). N^oformation ^Talk 23:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm obviously referring to the silliness of the assertion that FN isn't a RS for "anything" which I've heard again and again - that's laughable. Again, if I'd known it was going to cause this much consternation, I would have looked for another source. All about "knowing the audience" and I obviously underestimated the vitrole against FoxNews. Why FoxNews isn't on this list when equally opinionated (from the opposite side) news sources such as CNN, CBS, and the NYT (just to name a few) who have had to recant "facts" that weren't facts equally as often as FoxNews is obviously a discussion well beyond this thread. Thanks for your reply Noformation! Ckruschke (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Can we get back to the article topic ??? Just a reminder the topic is the "public controversy". So I'm thinking dump the whole "scientific position" section for a section on the "public experience". In general I think "public controversy" would be better shown by showing public polls and the public experience of big stories from Mainstream media at the level of BBC (Climategate and movies An Inconvenient Truth. Showing political side as public works deems to fit so should also stay. The mainstream scientific position belongs in Global warming and should be pointed to but not cited or replicated here because it is not about public opinion. The article is about the coverage, not about the scientific value or lack of it in the coverage. Seriously, does anyone think the IEA CO2 chart is a big part of public awareness ? Likewise I can say just point to Global warming denialism as related but not the topic. And I could see to not include The Great Global Warming Swindle or blogs as too small a number exposed to it. So ? Shall I be WP:BOLD and whack out section 2 ? What do folks think ? Markbassett (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't accept your reminder declaration about the topic of this article, so naturally I don't agree with your editorial opinions that follows either.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Yah, well put up what you think topic is. I'm looking at an article starting "The global warming controversy concerns the public debate over whether global warming is occurring" as the declaration of topic, re this Talk question gotten about 8 layers deep and focus is somehow on whether Fox is RS rather than whether Fox has a public presence. If you've come to some other view of what the article topic is, please say what and quote the subsection. Markbassett (talk) 22:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedic article about a controversy. It is not a forum in which we pursue the controversy, much less where we slug it out with each other one to one. Nor is it a place where we argue with fellow encyclopedists about whether Fox News is right about Arctic sea ice or not. What we need here, per WP:TPG, are suggestions for improvement to the article based on reliable sources about the topic. Fox News may be a protagonist in the latest chapter of the controversy, but as we've gone through in the section below, many of us think it's too soon to call that press story a significant part of the 'controversy' yet. Reliable sources about the controversy will help make that clear, as and if they begin cover the effect that that story has had, or hasn't had, on public perception or political action. --Nigelj (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Nigelj - Agree the article is saying it is to be about public controversy, do not seek forum for whether Fox is right or not, and further repeat that whether it is in the controversy is all that matter. So yes, include a Fox or MSNBC or whatever story if it's had significant part in the "public controversy". A url to their website constitutes WP:RS verifying the story exists and it's content. A second source saying this story had impact would be good also. The RS is that the story happened, and that it's part of controversy, that's all. Markbassett (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Besides that "I" created the thread which has nothing to do with what you are arguing about Markbassett. If you are irritated that there is "8 layers" between what you think are the germaine points here, make a new thread... Ckruschke (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Ckrusche -- So ? I replied directly to your post, which is why it's at that level and not 9 indents deep. I'm not irritated the above went 8 layers deep in reply to replies, just thought it needed a reminder to the question of Fox belonging and my thought that for this article on the 'public controversy' it (or CNN or movies etcetera) is appropriate to "public controversy" scope as part of big media. Markbassett (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Mark! Ckruschke (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

This whole debate about whether FN is a RS misses the point. Inclusion of a single data point of a single metric in a summary discussion is not appropriate. If such a discussion belongs anywhere, it belongs in the main article Arctic shrinkage, but even there, I doubt it will satisfy due challenges. This article, and the main article are broader topics. We aren't editing the What's happening in the arctic right this minute.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes - I realize one data point is nothing - I've said that above - however it was a somewhat significant point and I could foresee the rabble coming out of the woodwork with "see I told you so" edits. It doesn't appear to have happened, but nonetheless I was trying to help the page.

On a side, but related point, I brought up FoxNews on the WP:RSN page as suggested and the response was essentially "we don't know why it wouldn't be RS for technical/science issues, who told you that?" I'm not going to run off and add in a bunch of FN ref's, but just thought I'd close the loop considering the adamant opinion I was reading that FN is not a reliable source for scientific matters. Ckruschke (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

It's not, as a rule, reliable for scientific topics, and a single apathetic reply at WP:RS/N does not change that. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree. If you supply me with the "rule as to why it isn't reliable", maybe I can redirect their apathetic reply into something more pointed. Since my question was "I can't find anything on Wiki that says it isn't RS" other than word of mouth, an actual example would probably be helpful. You can feel free to send that to my page if you'd like. Ckruschke (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

While I agree that Fox News is rs, I do not think that the text has been written neutrally. The implicit message of the wording is that climatologists are wrong and are ignoring scientific evidence. "Although [facts are x], climatologists argue [facts are y." A neutral phrasing would be that climate change skeptics point to x as evidence that global warming may be reversing, while climatologists say...." As pointed out, this article is not about the science but about the controversy as reported in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 16:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Does this thread contain a proposal for how we could improve the article, and if so, would someone please re-state that proposal and the RSs it is based upon? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It is at the top of the discussion thread, where a editor introduced text he wanted to include, and provided a source which had been challenged for reliability. TFD (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The OP contains

• (A) Ad hominem's directed at reverting ed Stephan Schulz (talk · contribs),
• (B) A statement by the OP which sounds to me like an admission that this attempted edit was not a significant improvement to the article and that statement reads "As any statistician would tell you, a one-year spike/rebound in ice coverage says absolutely nothing about the long-term trend ";
• (C) A closing with which I agree 100% and it reads "Not sure what the issue is" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

For those three reasons your point to the OP is unsatisfactory and I am repeating my polite request for someone to re-state this thread's proposed article improvement and RS on which it is based? Reminder that eds seeking consensus try to avoid that part of WP:DISRUPT which says "A disruptive editor is an editor who.... Does not engage in consensus building (and) repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits"

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

As the originator, I think the thread should be closed as its original intent (my proposed edit) has been "overcome by events".

The discussion on the RS of FoxNews as a source for technical/science related issues is beyond the scope of the thread's original intent. If someone wants to continue the discussion, and I have no wish to since it appears there is only anecdotal verbiage against FoxNews as RS and thus really not worth the discussion, I suggest it be in a separate thread. Ckruschke (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Image for Artic shrinkage section

Hi all, I'd like to get your opinion about using this image for the Global_warming_controversy#Arctic_shrinkage section. The source is the National Snow and Ice Data Center and its Use and Copyright policy states that images can be published citing the proper source (in this case, the NSIDC itself) I think it's a pretty good image to put in perspective the controversial 2013 resurge in sea ice coverage some like to use as "proof" that the ice is not melting anymore. What do you think? Gaba ^(talk) 17:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea, but suggest a different section. Instead, how about a section that talks about headlines based on short term trends? Then we could also include things like

Going-down-the-up-escalator when discussing global air surface temperatures. I linked the gif and supporting text, but there is a link for a static image showing both perspectives on trends overlaid on actual data. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I just came back here to comment that the whole recent Arctic shrinkage non-event probably isn't worth giving article space to (per WP:DUE) "Some news people unquestioningly believe a press release and print some nonsense, sensible reporters say it's nonsense, the end." This is hardly a 'controversy', or even part of a controversy. Re Gaba's NSIDC image above, I'm not enough of an armchair copyright lawyer even to comment, but I know that "Graphics by Skeptical Science is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License." They already got re-used in the Guardian article I linked above. The only remaining questions are about the words and the space: (1) Do we have enough good sources to be able to create a short section on the role that people doing the 'escalator trick' with the data have had on the actual global warming controversy over the years? Actual stuff with examples, and no need for any WP:OR? (I haven't - only that one Guardian article) and (2) Do we have any evidence that the escalator trick is a notable enough part of the actual global warming controversy over the years to warrant coverage here per WP:DUE? (I don't have any such evidence, other than the fact that Skeptical Science have bothered to create the graphics, but that's a bit post hoc I fear). So I would need there to be more sources than I presently know of, to find this a truly good idea. --Nigelj (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty much with Nigelj on this, which, if I were smart, would mean I would stop with that. However, I ask (rhetorically, I don't want an answer) who says the ice isn't melting anymore? I have seen comments on the rebounds from last year, but I haven't see the claim it has stopped melting. That may simply mean I don't frequent the wacko sites, but it isn't out job to refute wackos (as if fact would help). Second, while a nice looking graph, it is a graph of August, which is close to arbitrary. It isn't the minimum, so why August, other than it might be the handiest monthly series, which is hardly a good reason. The entire section in this article is three sentences , and an image, so the narrow subject of what has happened to ice in August. It already suffers from a text section which doesn't explain the image, not to mention what appears to be a random selection of quotes for the text. Isn't this supposed to be a summary of the main article? It isn't. Speaking of the main article, which is a different story, but I cannot resist,

Projections as to when precisely this will occur vary between the years 2060–2080,[4] 2030,[5][6] and 2016.

Surely this must be in the running for the worst sentence in Wikipedia? )I know, I know, there are many more worthy candidates ,but seriously, it would make the Onion proud.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Very well, if the consensus is not to expand that section but to remove it, I have no issue with that (also, it would appear that using that image is not actually that simple). On a minor and unrelated note: Sphilbrick I don't know what you find wrong with that sentence, it's pretty clear to me. Cheers. Gaba ^(talk) 19:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

(Even more unrelated: I just realized that comment above was my 2000th edit :) Gaba ^(talk) 19:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't read any suggestion to remove the section, much less a consensus. It is surprisingly short. Given that there is a whole article, I understand it is appropriate to have a summary here, not full-blown coverage, but what we have is not a summary of that article, we have a couple random points. However, I just spent a few minutes reading the main article, which needs so much work I don't know where to start, so summarizing it isn't easy. I meant to suggest that the image, might be more appropriate ant he main article, but I would still prefer a relevant time period, like September. If the choice of August was based upon the breathless Fox article mentioning August, all the more reason to avoid it. September is important. August is not. ((ec) Congrats on the milestone)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean that right now the consensus was to remove it, I meant that if it came to that then I would agree (I expressed myself poorly, sorry) I said that because it appeared to me that that was what Nigelj was proposing above, perhaps I understood that wrong so it'd be great if he could clarify that.

The choice of August in my case is not really a choice, that's what the link I proposed to use as a source uses. Why the NSIDC chose to use August is a different question but I guess they must have their reasons. Thanks for the congrats :) Gaba ^(talk) 20:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

They do one every month.

July

June

May

Which means if we find the graph useful, we have to decide which one to use. And September, the month of the usual minimum, seems like a decent choice, but we have to treat carefully, as it is a bit ORish to choose.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

IMO, (A) We should keep a section on arctic ice; (B) I agree that the immediate news about what actually happened in 2013 and how it is reported by some is small potatoes, but would be fine using the image in the arctic ice section for that purpose. (C) That said, I think what I described under "B" has its greatest significance in terms of its being illustrative of the kind of tactic used to foment appearance of scientific controversy. This is the point I was trying to express earlier. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear above. Following NAEG's lettering, what I mean is:

(A) We should have a section on Arctic shrinkage, which ideally as User:Sphilbrick says, should summarise the aspects of the 'main' article, Climate change in the Arctic, that deal with the controversies

(B) I tried to say above that the immediate news about Arctic ice in 2013 is too small for specific coverage at this point: there does not seem to be any actual controversy. I would now add that, if it turns out that there is anything significant about Arctic ice in 2013, it should go in the sub-article first, and then be summarised here, but only if the controversy part of it becomes a major enough feature to be mentioned in this summary.

(C) I tried also to say that if we can find a source or two that make the general point that the 'escalator trick' is a tactic used to foment the appearance of scientific controversy, then it is worth a new section here. By 'escalator trick', I mean using short runs of steady or decreasing data to 'prove' that there is no increase (or vice versa), while ignoring large increases when they appear.

--Nigelj (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I am literally (OK, almost literally) running out the door so a couple quick points. I fully agree re A and B. If 2013 events deserve some coverage (and that isn't clear) it first belongs in the main arctic article, and here, only to the extent that it belongs in a summary (highly unlikely). Re escalator, I've seen it in SS, but one would have to show it is common as a skeptical argument. My limited experience is hardly definitive, but I haven't seen it, so I remain, absent evidence uh, skeptical.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

A very reasonable position on the escalator. Somewhere on their site are the citations for places where denialeptics have made the various cooling claims. In general, I'm easy.... all approaches that have been mentioned have merit and I have no strong preference. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Is it news ? Since this article topic is saying it is for the 'public controversy', I would say to not use it unless it's part of a public experience like Inconvenient truth or Climategate. Markbassett (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Climate change skepticism

I was surprised that there are two redirects for climate change skepticism, one that redirects here and one that redirects to Climate change denial. Should we get rid of one of them (I would like to get rid of the one that redirects here, personally)? I don't really see why we need two of them. Jinkinson (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean two redirects? I only see the redirect to this article here. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 16:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's easy to miss. When you're typing in CCS, a suggestion comes up for Climate Change Skepticism (denialism): see here. This is the other redirect. Jinkinson (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I would simply nominate that redirect for deletion - it serves no useful purpose, no one is going to type in, or need to link, such a mouthful as Climate change skepticism (denialism) by mistake. On the other hand, if we keep it, then I think it does actually redirect to the correct article: the brand of so-called 'skepticism' that warrants 'denialism' in braces after it is mentioned, probably is actually denialism by another name. --Nigelj (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh I see it now, thanks. I guess the reason is because denialism is not the same as skepticism. The sentence at the top of the lede in Climate change denial explains this:

• This article is about campaigns to undermine public confidence in scientific opinion on climate change. For dissent from the scientific consensus, see global warming controversy.

The redirect is explained by the use of the word denialism in parenthesis in Climate change skepticism (denialism). In any case I agree that it can be confusing so perhaps Climate change skepticism (denialism) should be deleted since Climate change denialism is already a redirect over to Climate change denial? Cheers.

I was about to comment the above when Nigelj beat me to it. So basically I agree with him, the redirect Climate change skepticism (denialism) should be deleted. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 16:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Interested editors may wish to review my edit here; note reasons stated in edit summary. Not saying you agree or disagree Gaba, but you did inspire me to look at it, thx. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Mmm I kind of liked that sentence, I feel it summarizes the purpose of that article quite well. I've opened a new section about that removal over at that article to avoid fragmentation. Everybody's welcomed to comment. Cheers. Gaba ^(talk) 19:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion seems to have moved over to Talk:Climate_change_denial#Hatnote so I've gone ahead and nominated the redirect that initiated this thread for deletion here. Please comment/vote. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 16:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Non-neutral article title and how to make sense of mismash of overlapping articles

There are two long standing problems I have long wished to fix. Maybe now is the time, but it will take a group effort over a period of time.

First, this article's title is unacceptably non-specific and fosters a take home message that the __________?___________ aspect of global warming (reader fills in the blank) is a legitimate controversy. As a result, our poor definition of "global warming controversy" could unintentionally provide plenty of confirmation bias. Joe Romm has an excellent blog post that describes this type of semantics problem in more detail.

Second, we have a handful of articles with an ugly mishmash of overlap.

A rough idea of how to solve both problems goes like this:

1. Move identified areas for future scientific research into a section in Scientific opinion on climate change, where they belong. After all, one aspect of scientific consensus can be stated "What are the most important known questions we still have to answer?" Climate sensitivity is one example where there is scientific consensus it is a very important question.

2. Move the political section of this article to Politics of global warming

3. Rename Public opinion on climate change to Surveys of public opinion on global warming and possibly move text or tweak text in that article accordingly

4. This articles' references to climategate, etc, are adequately covered by the main articles on those subjects.

5. The rest of this article, being mainly a discussion of frequent public arguments inconsistent with scientific consensus, would go in an article of their own called Popular beliefs about global warming. This article would also include a new section (yet to be written) about the popular beliefs on the part of those who still hold to the progressive philosophy (not to be confused with political liberalism) that robust economic progress and international security depends on political implementation of policies based on the best scientific advice (produced by well funded and unmolested scientists).

6. Finally, Global warming controversy would be converted into a re-direct pointing at Global_warming#Discourse_about_global_warming

Have at it ya'll. Whaddyathink?

PS I'll eventually get around to posting merge templates pointing at this specific thread on all the effected articles, but I'd be grateful if someone else beats me to the punch.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Love the idea and count me in to help out on whatever is needed. The only thing I'm not too sure about is the title Popular beliefs about global warming. How about instead of renaming Public opinion on climate change to Surveys of public opinion on global warming we rename it to Public opinion on global warming (which is currently a redirect to Public opinion on climate change), move the rest of this article over there and have what's currently in Public opinion on climate change be a section in it perhaps named Public opinion on global warming#Surveys of public opinion? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 15:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't get hung up on the difference between climate change and global warming in Wikipedia article titles. I think I'm right in saying that which we use is fairly random. I've never seen a reliable scientific source that says they are different. AFAIK, "the present day climate change is that global warming is happening." --Nigelj (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I would since they are very different beasts indeed. Global warming is a subset of Climate Change. There is a lot of non-anthropomorphic Climate Change going on with the earth. There appears to be little non-anthropomorphic Global Warming. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, but of course those tweaks are not the important tweaks in this proposal. Look again and you will see an effort at clarifying the scope of these articles through the other tweaked words.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

This article probably has a lot of junk in it; in the old days, it was where you dumped stuff too controversial / stupid for the GW page, but which the septics wouldn't give up. Those days are perhaps past. OTOH, I'm not at all convinced that the article itself shouldn't exist (I don't like the ref to Romm's blog) William M. Connolley (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

WMC, I'm open to hearing the basis for your OTOH arguments, but like/dislike doesn't count.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if we could bite the bullet and actually have an article called Climate change skepticism to go with Climate change denial? With scholarly history of science and suchlike sources it would chart the origins of the use of the term (as opposed to actual scientific scepticism (yes, I'm using the 'c' and the 'k' spelling my way here)), the main skeptic arguments that have been used (e.g. http://www.skepticalscience.com/ - is there a wp:rs book about those arguments yet?[1]) and so on. We would have to banish the wp:or approach, where people reproduce and reference lists of present day 'skeptic' websites to say things like 'Several people believe that...' --Nigelj (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Seems problematic to me. All real scientists are "skeptics" so how do you propose to distinguish your proposed Climate change skepticism article from Scientific opinion on climate change, especially if we add to the latter a section discussing the big questions most of the eggheads agree are important things yet to be answered? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I meant an article about that thing that people do when they say, for example, "Global warming will be great for grape growers", or "I see your 'theory' has fallen apart - there's been no warming since 1998", or "Water vapour is a bigger greenhouse gas than CO₂ ever was". These are arguments that do not trouble the present day scientific community, but they are still big in the public's mind. We don't include these people and their arguments under Climate change denial, because they are just ordinary folk, and their not being paid by anyone to say it. Equally, we don't include this phenomenon under Scientific opinion on climate change, as they're not scientists either. If we rename Public opinion on climate change to Surveys of public opinion on global warming, there won't be any room for them there, as there are very few surveys that ask, "What is the dumbest thing you said in the comments section under a news article recently?" These people self-identify as 'Climate change skeptics', and they represent a real phenomenon, which I'm sure has had and is having a serious effect on the politics of climate change worldwide, yet we do not have serious article coverage of the phenomenon, that I know of. The title I suggested redirects here, but this article is about the real, scientific controversy. You're planning on scrapping this article and redirecting it to Global_warming#Discourse_about_global_warming, but again, that, hopefully, will discuss real scientific issues. I'm suggesting giving specific coverage to the phenomenon of the bloggers, the commenters and the people who turn up whenever GW is mentioned just to repeat their favourite conservapedia 'take out'? --Nigelj (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, my bad. What I'm suggesting is covered by Point 5 in the original post. The only problem is the proposed title Popular beliefs about global warming. That assumes that 'reality' is not, and won't in the foreseeable future be, 'popular'. --Nigelj (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, but look at original post item #5 again, with special focus on the yet-to-be-written portion. A large segment of the population really do think scientists should be given freedom to do research and politicians really should act on the scientists' recommendations. This is - right now - one of the "popular" beliefs. We should report it as such in NPOV fashion, right alongside the specious claim that there has been a global warming pause (if you ignore ocean heating).NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. According to skepticalscience.com, there are 174 such 'skeptic' memes, as well as a top ten. Hopefully we'll find a better source too. --Nigelj (talk) 21:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy - I'll differ based on what this article is supposed to be about ... Mostly that it is about the public discussion, not the scientific one, and that to validly say areas of cntroversy one cannot limit them to ones 'legitimate' without being WP:OR, one should just cite where there are fact of reported controversies. So:

• 1 - No, areas for future scientific research would be valuable in the Global warming article, but are inappropriate here as they are not part of 'global warming controversy', or in 'the public discussion'
• 2 - No, Political questions mentioned here are the public debate hot spots so belong in the article about the public discussion if in fact they are topics of controversy.
• 3 - Yes, rename public opinion to Surveys to clarify that it is about surveys and since public discussion is what the overall article is about so not right to label the one section so much like the whole topic.
• 4 - Partly, by limiting content for Climategate, etcetera. Having main article elsewhere does not exclude it from having a role here. Just means it gets mention here if part of the 'Global warming controversy', and then point to that main article with either wikilink if it's a short mention or a redirect line if it's a whole subsection.
• 5 - No no no -- the public arguments are the intended focus for this article, so just whether they are the 'public discussion' and particularly contested points is what matters and consistency to scientific consensus does not something that would be the contention. I just see talking about a 'consensus' as if it were the 'Global Warming Controversy' to be a contradiction in terms.
• 6 - Maybe -- I supose you could merge this article in with Global warming though (a) hard for me to see surveys as belonging alongside hard measurement temperature charts, (b) the concern over confirmation bias seems even more likely if the content from here was put in with what's there, and (c) hard for me to think editors both there and here would be generally happpy to have all in one. Markbassett (talk) 07:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Re Markbasset #1; Surprise! Open scientific questions are already part of this article.

Re Markbasset #5; Please revise your statement, since I did not understand it. I think there are grammar issues in that section.

Re Markbasset #6; I oppose your lukewarm proposal of merging this and [[Global warming]

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

On #3 (rename "Public opinion on climate change" to "Surveys of public opinion on climate change", everyone above with an opinion said "yes", or stopped doubting. I have officially proposed that move at the article talk page. Please consider sharing your views at Talk:Public opinion on climate change#Requested move NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Paleoclimate records

A user's recent edits (reverted by another user) assert some sort of controversy exists regarding certain paleo records, but the editor never explains, in NPOV fashion, the nature of the alleged controversy. Also lacking were any citations. At best the reverted text seemed to be cultivating an impression of controversy based on implication and innuendo. Since the user has tried to say something about these records before, I thought we should start a talk thread.

Gfcan777 (talk · contribs), if you want to say something about the MWP, you need to cite sources. If you are looking for sources, please see the items cited in the Skeptical Blog post "How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?" (the blog itself can not be cited in the article unless there is a consensus that one of the blog-exceptions applies, but it can still be used by editors for background and as a source-of-citable sources, according to wiki's standards). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

What has the Geologic temperature record got to do with the MWP? Since the topic is geologic evidence on multi-million to billion year time scales, the last 1,200 years or so is offtopic. Perhaps this is supposed to be a reference to the hockey stick controversy, part of which is discussed under the dubious heading of Data archiving and sharing. That section is about political demands for data which had already been made public, combined with political demands for private compute codes, correspondence and details of funding. Some trimming and clarification needed. . dave souza, talk 18:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you on the technical nuances, but that's sort of a moot point if the user isn't even looking at any sources. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Other opponents dismiss the consensus argument altogether, stating that science is based on facts rather than consensus.

This is broken; there is no consensus arguement made, other than by the septics. But I'm not sure how to fix it William M. Connolley (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

"Other opponents dismiss consensus altogether, on the grounds that science is based on facts rather than consensus." Or "dismiss considerations of consensus altogether". N p holmes (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, Dr. C.

It is the primary argument of AGW theory supporters that there does exist a scientific consensus in favor of the AGW theory. There is, however, a division amoung AGW theory supporters:

• scientists in various climate-related fierds
• science journalists, assorted bloggers, and (above all) politicians.

When we laymen read the popular press (since we aren't sufficiently well-versed to read the peer-reviewed literature ourselves), we find almost nothing but references to the UNIPCC's conclusions. That intergovernmental panel makes statements of degrees of certainty (90%, 95%) based on the consensus of the scientists whose work they cite.

We google for more information and find websites designed to refute skeptics, with huge headings (amounting to slogans) like, "The debate is over."

Please consider that the GW controversy is not confined to the pages of scientific journals. There is also a media battle.

There are really two questions:

1. Is there scientific evidence for or against AGW theory?
2. What percentage of scientists in the relevant field (or fields) accept, question, or reject the theory?

I should like Wikipedia to address both questions separately - even if there is a relationship between them. I'd like to see the full scientific case for AGW theory, including how the "models" work. But I'd also like to see a comparison of the theory (and the hypotheses which rely on it) in comparison with observations, both contemporary (e.g., 1979 to date), historical (say, 1850-2013), and proxies (e.g., ice core data). Along with this, we ought to explore (or at least summarize) the sunspot & cosmic ray theory (i.e., that natural cycles of sunspots influence cloud formation, which in turn affects the terrestial reflection or absorption of infrared. That would be the purely scientific aspect.

But the second aspect (which may be larger for the public and for governments) is a determination of scientific consensus. There is a dispute between AGW supporters and "skeptics" as to whether such a consensus exists. Rather than reporting the position of the UN's climate panel as representing a clear consensus on an issue which is no longer subject to scientific debate, I should hope we would indicate to our readers what each reliable source says about scientific opinion on AGW theory. I refer to "the collection of the opinions of many different scientific organizations and entities and individual scientists in the relevant field." Are you willing that the article should remain neutral on this latter aspect? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ed Poor. What is your proposed edit and what are your sources supporting it? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 16:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Consensus is not a matter of the percentage of scientists that support a view, but is determined by looking at the literature. Once consensus is reached, scientific journals stop publishing the other side. Not that they are censoring them, but because it is no longer possible to reasonably defend the other view based on available data.

Consensus is not just reflected in literature about by scholars in the field but will be accepted in the literature in other fields as well. Hence historians writing about medieval plagues will accept modern science about bacteria.

OTOH, some scientists will reject consensus, and there may be astronomers who consult there daily horoscopes. But that has no bearing on consensus.

Often, members of the public and affected industries will resist scientific consensus, and claim that the discussion is still open. But that does not mean that consensus has not been reached.

TFD (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense, TFD, but it looks like the article is making a circular argument. It would be more clear if we said that journals decided to stop publishing articles after consensus had been reached. As of now, the article seems rather to argue that because so few anti-AGW-theory articles were published, that is proof that the scientific community are in consensus.

So which is it?

1. Hardly anyone submits articles opposing the AGW theory, and this indicates a consensus; or,
2. Journal editors realized there is a consensus, and therefore they've chosen not to publish articles opposing the AGW theory

It's hard to tell from the article. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It is neither. It is just not possible to write an article arguing against AGW that conforms to the standards required for publication, since any reasonable conclusions drawn from the facts would hold that most global warming is man made. It is of course possible to argue against AGW using selective facts and/or faulty arguments, but that would not satisfy academic publication standards.

Compare with astronomy. It is possible to argue that the alignment of planets affects terrestrial events. But it is unlikely that such a theory could be reasonably defended in an academic paper. TFD (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It is the primary argument of AGW theory supporters that there does exist a scientific consensus in favor of the AGW theory - you've made that up. Care to prove me wrong? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't make it up. I simple read the Global warming controversy article in Wikipedia. No idea appears more often (or with as many references) as the argument that AGW theory is supported by scientific consensus. Please point out any other pro-AGW-arguments that I've overlooked and indicate their relative weight. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

What are these "pro-AGW-arguments"? Only deniers seem to think AGW is a Good Thing. . . dave souza, talk 18:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The GWC page wasn't written by AGW theory supporters so your argument makes no sense. To support what you say, you have to find examples of consensus being used as the primary argument. Really Ed, this is basic logic, I'm shocked William M. Connolley (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Bill Connolley; the notion that this article wasn't written by supporters of the AGW theory beggars belief. It is so clearly an attempt to dismiss any questions about the theory itself and was written primarily by . . . wait for it; YOU. Starting in 2005. The notion, stated in the article itself, that scientific opinion is settled is so antithetical to science as to be completely laughable. You can use the dying patient analogy if you choose, but you've abandoned the scientific aura by so doing. In short; the notion that the controversy only exists among partisan lay people ignores a considerable and growing number of real scientists, doing real scientific research, the actual data itself and the very notions of what science is. But do go on; it will be fun to watch you scamper away as your argument dies a slow and painful death, shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.18.28.141 (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

David Deutsch's views

I tried to include the following quote

... while the supercomputer

simulations make (conditional) predictions, the economic forecasts make almost pure prophecies. For we can expect the future of human responses to climate to depend heavily on how successful people are at creating new knowledge to address the problems that arise. So comparing predictions with prophecies is going to lead to that same

old mistake.(David Deutsch)

This was rejected by a few users because 1. Deutsch is claimed to be a "marginal contributor" 2. It is book promotion spam. 3. The point that 'prediction is difficult' is too obvious. Firstly point 2. It is not spam, I can assure you I have no financial interest in promoting Deutsch's book, but I do have an intellectual one. Surely every quote from a book can be construed by spam if this one is. To be fair, perhaps I could rephrase it slightly to make it seem less like a promotion? That's just a failure of my language. On to Point 1. As I said in the edit history, Deutsch is very well known, he is basically the father of quantum computation. He also comments on climate change quite a bit. He has a TedX talk where he addresses it. David Deutsch is one of the days eminent thinkers and far from marginal, and if you haven't heard of him, that's your loss, do some research. In any case the view expressed in the quote is held by other more prominent skeptics such as Nigel Lawson and Matt Ridley, so perhaps I should refer to them as well? Finally, point 3. While it may sound obvious that prediction is difficult, especially of the future. This is a notion which is largely ignored by those who call for strict action to reduce carbon emissions. It is one of the central arguments skeptics use and must be included in this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Austrartsua (talk • contribs)

Thanks for at least attempting to start a thread. However, in this thread you are only arguing about a quote without any other text. First, that smacks of WP:PLAGIARISM but even if that were not the case, wikipedia is not a directory of quotations (see item 1 at WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Second, you haven't made the case (to me anyway) that you are talking about a controversy, and even if you are, that is a significant one or one that belongs in this article instead of another. After all, anyone can publish a book. Simply stating an opinion does not a "controversy" make. What's the Queen's views on pomegranate sauce? Well, why should anyone care? Is pomegranate sauce even controversial? Should the Queen mention this in her memoirs, like I said... anyone can publish a book. Third, your own edit summary says

"many people don't know (Deutsch's) views on global warming. Wikipedia is the ideal place to share them."

That sure sounds like an admission that he's a marginal commentator on this subject and that your main goal is WP:PROMOTE Deutsch, rather than improve the encyclopedia. See WP:NOTHERE. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Add more recent info please

I don't have the info I'm asking for, BTW. In all the graphs, citations and quotes I'm noticing in this article, none seem to mention a date past 2010. I see graphs that end in 1990, 2000, 2005 and 2010 and I see images comparing polar ice coverage no later than 2007. I'm just asking whether someone who has access to more recent data can fill in the data gap up to the present day, or at least to the end of 2012 or 2013. Thank you. 173.89.8.225 (talk) 06:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

If you click on the images, you get to the image description page, which often has a (soft or hard) link to the data sources. I've updated the instrumental record to the latest graph already on Wikipedia, which is 2012. I don't think the complete 2013 data is out yet. The temperature anomaly image was already at 2012, only the caption was older. That said, some of the images are from external sources, and many of them are not time-sensitive and/or updated regularly. Also see Talk:Global_warming/FAQ Q7. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

For current information, check [2] by a pioneer and patriot in climate science: Roy_Spencer_(scientist). His information is the best. Today his mainpage highlights "Global Precipitation Mission ready for launch today" (February 27th, 2014) Check it out! — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Needs RS-supported opposing views

Collapsing, no edit proposed. See WP:NOTFORUM.

I love Wikipedia and what it has done to spread knowledge and understanding to the masses, but have to honestly say that I am saddened to see it being used by some as a mouthpiece for one way of political thought. It is quite obvious to the layman nonpartisan reader of this page that it only tries to show one side and stomp out any contrarian views of the so called “global warming” debate. Since when is any science “settled”? There are many mainstream scientists that are opposed to this view but their findings are arbitrarily banned because it goes against the “gate keepers” of what they perceive is the “settled science”? I please ask Wikipedia administrators to be fair minded and not allow two or three global warming zealot editors to not allow some opposing view shown on the page. To not do so would go against the Wikipedia principles for trying to reach a consensus and just stifle information that we don’t find politically correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B575 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 24 January 2014 The problem is that there are no scientists opposing climate change theory in reliable sources. Hence, we cannot give those views much weight, if any. TFD (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC) Global warming denial/non-anthropogenic global warming isn't even an SPOV outside of the U.S., let alone among reliable scientists. And if you think there is no opposing view mentioned, then you clearly haven't read the article. Please do so before commenting in future. Rwenonah (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC) Oh, he's read it, alright. It's (somewhat) better than it was, but still makes no sense. "there are no scientists opposing climate change theory in reliable sources" -- good God. Besides alarmingly fractured syntax -- You lead a sheltered life, Sir. 19:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tillman (talk • contribs) Please explain how the article makes no sense. Do you deny that there is virtually unanimous agreement among (non-fringe) scientists that climate change is happening? If so, please provide sources. If not, I'm not sure why you bothered to comment. Rwenonah (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC) Here's a funny thought: During this cycle of Climate Cooling, I decided to visit the 'Climate Cooling' article in Wikipedia; I wondered if there are Cooling advocates and 'Cooling Deniers' (?) There could be another Wikipedia article on the controversy as the 20-yr sun cycle continues cooling. Funny? — Truly, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who wishes to uncollapse this thread, please list the reliable sources you think should be used as a basis for your proposed article improvements, and remember this article falls under discretionary sanctions pursuant to WP:ARBCC. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Ineffectiveness of countermeasures

A point which I have often raised on this subject is that even if we assume global warming to be a major threat to civilisation, there is still no point in pursuing countermeasures which do not appear to be having any beneficial effect.

The stock response to climate change is to pour money into wind and solar projects, usually in the form of subsidies or feed-in tariffs which serve to make these very expensive forms of energy more competitive with fossil fuels. Globally we have been doing this for over a decade, yet there is, as far as I know, no verifiable evidence of this having reduced carbon dioxide emissions to any useful extent. Yet, the response of governments to this lack of results has so far been to propose even greater renewables expenditure, as if this will somehow turn a null result into a significant one.

Some sources (e.g. the Guardian) quote the current global expenditure on renewables at around a billion US Dollars a day. It is significant that this outstrips expenditure on research into other possible routes to carbon-neutral energy by a least two orders of magnitude. For example, the ITER fusion project, one of the largest and most costly advanced nuclear projects, could be funded to completion in 13 days (instead of over a decade) if renewables expenditure ceased. There are many other promising lines of research which could be funded to completion with less than a day's global renewables spending.

This raises the question, are we obsessively throwing money into a nonstarter called renewables, when the solution might be at-hand in another form? Perhaps we just need to remove the horse-blinkers and look in other directions. --Anteaus (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I've seen this described as one of the stages of denial: 'it's happening, but we can't do anything about it." However, for this to appear in the article we need reliable sources: what sources do you propose? . . dave souza, talk 05:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

In heaven the other day, St Peter said to the newly dead guy, "How'd you die?" Said the newly dead guy, "Well, I was obsessively throwing money into a diet of 100 cal/day but since there was no obvious benefit, I simply stopped eating altogether". Seen this? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Effectiveness is rhetoric (and only political) unless there is scientific data. Where's the data? — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Lukewarmism as defined by whom?

I just reverted the addition of a link to the very new article Lukewarmer, added by Jinkinson (talk · contribs). It appears that that article was started, and entirely written, by Jinkinson in the early hours of today. The reason for my revert was that the article as it currently stands defines the term lukewarmer very narrowly to include only people "who question the scientific opinion on climate change, but not the part of it that says that human CO₂ is the main cause of it--the only part they question is either how much should happen or how bad the consequences will be." This is a particular political stance, that the article goes on to say is exemplified by Matt Ridley, Greg Gutfeld, Anthony Watts, Peter Lilley. Bjorn Lomborg, Patrick Michaels, Judith Curry, Roy W. Spencer, and Mitt Romney.

Now, I don't know enough about American politics to know the opinions of many of those people, but I find it very unlikely that when Jim Prall said "It would be helpful to have lukewarm [as] a third category," referring to Anderegg's PNAS paper Expert credibility in climate change in 2010, he had this group of people in mind, let alone the idea that it's scientifically literate to question is either how much global warming should happen or how bad the consequences of it will be. Therefore we should not imply by the use of such a link that someone said something, or referred to some people's views, that they clearly did not. --Nigelj (talk) 09:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I concur, even though I've tried to clean up the new article a bit. For that matter, I am dubious the new article has adequate sources to withstand an AFD. See WP:NeologismNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Update, I nominated Lukewarmer at AFD. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Opinion piece in San Francisco Chronicle unreliable?

Stephan Schulz recently reverted my edit because he said, correctly, that what I added was sourced to an opinion piece. He also said that such pieces are "not RS, in particular not for BLP material." However, I think that it is reliable, as is unsurprising given that I added it in the first place, and think that some discussion of its reliability needs to take place here. According to WP:NEWSORG, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." In this case the material cited to the article is neither--it's just Debra Saunders saying that David Legates said something. I imagine the policy I quoted above was created to prevent people from injecting the opinions of journalists into articles and presenting them as facts, but I am not trying to do that. Given that the same policy says, "If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact", I propose we do just that and add the quote back in, but preface it with "According to Debra Saunders". Also, if she plucked this quote out of thin air, she's certainly got some chutzpah given that she attributes it to Legates in multiple opinion pieces. [3] [4] Jinkinson talk to me 18:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Whether it is reliable or not, the original edit that was reverted struck me as saying that someone had done a bit of petulant whining but wasn't really informative of anything substantive beyond the fact that petulant whining had occurred. At 186,000 bytes the article is already too long so I was going to revert the edit myself for those reasons also. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Saying that someone said something is a statement of fact. Since a statement may be accurately or inaccurately reported, it must be reliably sourced. TFD (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Global warming pause or hiatus, aka the "missing heat"

We don't seem to have anything obvious here on this, so here's a new Nature news article:

• Climate change: The case of the missing heat:Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation. Nature news report, January 2014

I'm not a regular here, so will let someone else find a place for it. But I guess the "Pause" is now respectable? Judith Curry has amusing commentary at The case of the missing heat. There's also a long list of papers on this topic/topics at Scientists explore causes of the pause in warming, though I doubt the commentary is RS. But interesting. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• This was written by a science writer but it does look sound, but it is complicated. The point is not that global warming has paused, but by atmospheric temperature measurements, it has increased less than expected by the accumulation of greenhouse gases. The main point of the article concerns the various theoretical mechanisms that could account for the slow down in temperature rise. For example, is the excess heat shunted into the deep ocean? A small paragraph with a summary along the lines of my summary above would be ok, , to use the article as the basis for saying global warming has "paused" would not be based on what the article actually says. I am One of Many (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

A new article has since been started, read it at Global warming hiatus NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

US regional temps in winter 2013-2014

Headine-1: It was March misery in frigid northern, eastern USA

• http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/03/29/march-cold-weather-records/7007455/

QUOTE: “Many parts of the northern and eastern USA took a serious chill pill in March, and several places probably will record one of their 10 coldest Marches.” [Nothing is as constant as change; is this due to man? Or is it due to the sun.] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Regional temps don't mean a whole lot when we're talking about the entire climate system and how we're taking in more radiation from the sun than we re-emit back to space. Unless you're doing rhetoric, of course. (see above) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Unless we are a star we take in more radiation than we reflect; however, it has always been so and sun cycles are also persistent. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:FORUM NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:Notnews seems more relevant. Regional temperatures in a given month are routine news, ergo not appropriate for wiki in any article. Sailsbystars (talk) 07:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't quite say they can never be relevant. Patterns of extremes/records are one indications of changing climate, and there is legitimate scientific debate as to the role of climate change in the stuck & kinky jetstream that has been producing these regional chilly temps in central/eastern US this winter. For example, "Is the Arctic Really Drunk, or Does It Just Act Like This Sometimes?". But this thread isn't really trying to develop any article improvement ideas, so it should still be collapsed per WP:TALK NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

There's a difference, though. Your article links global warming to changes in global circulation and then to changes in regional temperature. The USA Today article is basically almanac data for the month of March. Hence the difference between routine news and stuff potentially relevant to Wikipedia. A wiki-irrelevant aside, I know that for the Moscow heatwave a few years back there was some calculation done where it was something like 80% likely to have been caused by global warming. I wonder how much less likely the recent cold spells in N. America are under global warming... would be an interesting calculation to do. Sailsbystars (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we agree that depending on context regional temps might or might not merit mentioning, and the solution lies in following good sources that provide context, not just almanac type stats. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. This link might help put the problem of local temperature variations into perspective. I am One of Many (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Edits about US Greenhouse gas trends based on DRAFT report

Today an IP has been trying to add info on US GHG emissions in a series of edits more or less tied to an EPA report. The IP started by citing a BLOG, and after we complained, the IP posted a link to a chapter of an EPA report. My guess is that the IP might have just accepted the BLOG's "spin" without doing any due diligence or critical thinking of their own, because the top webpage at EPA introducing this report makes it quite clear that this is only a draft report, which might be tweaked now that the public comment period has closed. We could revisit this proposed edit later, after the official report is released. But right now, a draft report undergoing revision following public comment period is not what wikipedia calls a reliable source. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, here's a reliable source that basically says the same. I'm still undecided as to whether it's worth mentioning in the article. Sailsbystars (talk) 02:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted the last addition. This source states "The 2012 downturn means that emissions are at their lowest level since 1994" which is not the same as "greenhouse gas emissions were below 1994 levels". The second source states: "Total U.S. emissions have increased by 4.4 percent from 1990 to 2012, and emissions decreased from 2011 to 2012 by 3.3 percent" which implies an increase of 1.1% since 1990. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 03:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The draft EPA report also attributes the lower emissions in part due to less demand of heating on account of mild winters ~2011-2012ish. I haven't looked at the report to see if it includes anything on fugitive methane, either. Certainly the claim that switching to gas is an emissions-saver is out there, and might be worth some coverage in one of our articles. But the coverage would have to include some discussion of RSs concerned with fugitive methane, as well as RSs asserting its a false sale pitch when we beat the lower annual emissions of GHG for new infrastructure to replace old, worn-out infrastructure, because (according to available RSs) we should be comparing instead to replacing worn out GHG-emitting infrastructure to other options, e.g., building efficiency and noncarbon power generation. Fifty more years of emssions at a 10% reduction over a coal plant on its last legs isn't really a bargain, is it? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This most recent series of edits at least passes the RS test, however, it strikes me as weightless context-free spin because it doesn't mention that EIA (allegedly) tracks only (A) CO2 and not the US' complete GHG portfolio and (B) only emissions from within US borders but not emissions elsewhere that were produced so that the US could import various goods. Thus, fugitive methane isn't included, nor are agribusiness methane emissions, nor emissions related to all the industries that the US has exported to cheaper foreign labor markets. At the moment I don't have good RSs to offer but the non-RS opinion piece titled "US Falling Emissions a Mirage: Offshoring and Fracking" is worth reading for background, and to help track its references for other things that pass the RS test. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Undid revision 609100499 undue weight to fringe source

@dave souza

Would you be so kind to explain for what reason you classify the source of my edit as "fringe source".

Citing wikipedia The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policies, Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. Jointly these say that articles should not contain any novel analysis or synthesis, that material likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, and that all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately. Should any inconsistency arise between this guideline and the content policies, the policies take precedence.

1. The source in my edit is a reputated scientific journal.

2. Both sides on this issue, Legates et al. vs. Bedford and Cook used the same journal for publication.

3. The consensus article from Cook et al.(Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) is still a source for the topic in wikipedia, though, scientific investigation shows it´s methodology of research does neither reach the standards for verifiability nor a neutral point of view (according to wikipedia guidelines a fringe source).

4. Taking into account that there is a consensus resp. significant majority in the wikipedia editors community to improve articles in accordance to wikipedia policies, then it is necessary to scrutinize sources - whether to support it or not.

5. This is the wikpedia article global warming controversy, obviously (as its name suggests) made to represent the controversy - not to hide it.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.229.27.134 (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Here is the fundamental problem. Legates et al. conducted no new research. They reinterpreted Cook's data. You can download Cook's data and compare it to Cook's analysis and it matches up. Also keep in mind that every study that has been conducted has found basically the same result: a consensus of 97%. So, if we were to change the wording in the article to reflect the re-interpretation of data in one paper (my own view is that the re-interpretation is incompetently done--but that is not playing a role here), this would be placing WP:UNDUE weight on a WP:FRINGE interpretation. We should only modify the consensus percentage or add discussion about possible bias in its interpretation when actual studies (not re-interpretations to support one's own view) show that there is a problem or change in consensus. I am One of Many (talk) 00:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
• I agree some (all?) of the authors have records replete with boneheaded debunked claims and are questionable as RS. But, as this is the "controversy" section, I'd be OK reporting on 1. Cook's methods vs 2. Legates methodology used in critiquing Cook, vs 3. Cook's rather obliterating rebuttal of the Legates methodology. But I don't have time to work on it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk)

Is Science and Education a reliable source? I know nothing of the journal and note that we currently don't cite Bedford and Cook 2013 in our article either. I also note the very curious case that Legates et al is absent from the cited by tab on the original ERL Cook et al paper, even though the Benford and Cook reply is listed. Such "cited by" pages are usually automatic.... Sailsbystars (talk) 03:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I wondered the same thing, but had nothing substantivec to add either way about the journal itself. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to the responses from three editors here who have taken the opportunity to answer in advance upon a question I´ve asked dave souza. You three may not be surprised that I am not satisfied with your replies. The main reason for that are your efforts "en ensemble" to bypass my question.

1. For what reason should one think, that the journal Science & Education (publisher Springer) is NOT a reliable source. It is listed in the Science Citation Index database, wikipedia contains two citations with this source (very normal for papers with interdisciplinary education topics). Knowing nothing about the existence of a scientific journal is for sure no criterion for its reliability. Hard enough to know the most important journals of one´s own research field.

2. Cook´s data: The point is HOW he used the data in terms of statistical verifiability. It´s not simply a matter of re-interpretation but a matter of re-analysis, revealing unequivocal facts.. Dear editors you are welcome to say that this cited source is not useful or WP: "something..." therefore I suggest not to insist on peer rewieved articles when the case should more properly be entitled "homework in statistics for a math student newbie: look for mistakes!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.229.16.166 (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Energy_&_Environment is a journal from a reputable publisher, but it's not a reliable source. So just because something is published does not mean we can use it as a source. I find no evidence "Science and Education" is a reliable source (or used elsewhere on wikipedia for sourcing facts). It's only mentioned in a few articles, for instance for publishing by a paranormal investigator. Thus the burden is on you to demonstrate that it's a reliable source, not for my to demonstrate that it isn't. It's an obscure journal, and such journals are frequently where fringy studies go when they get kicked out of the mainstream publications. Sailsbystars (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Original opinions expressed in reliable sources or unreliable ones are primary sources and WP:WEIGHT requires that we determine the degree of their acceptance when including them. My guess is that no attention has been paid to this paper in reliable sources. One of the authors, Chrisopher Monckton, is a leading climate change sceptic, and has no credentials in science - he studied classics.

Also, before presenting a source, one should read it first, not just the summary. I imagine the IP read about this report somewhere and it would be helpful to provide that source. We can then see whether this report forms part of the controversy, i.e., is it frequently cited in climate sceptic circles, and do we have any reliable sources that mention that.

TFD (talk) 03:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Climate sensitivity section outdated

Section needs updating:

• IPCC AR5 no longer gives a "preferred" value, just a range. Judith Curry and others have pertinent commentary. Skeptical commentary runs that IPCC didn't want to "dilute the message" by publishing a lower estimate?

• There's a rambling discussion on Nic Lewis's review of climate sensitivity, which never actually cites the paper. Cite, shorten, update, give reactions.

• There are other recent empirical CS estimates. I see that the parent climate sensitivity article itself needs updating.

• This section should probably be a part of, or subsection of, "Greenhouse gases". Discuss moving it.

I'll put this on my to-do list, but it's likely to be awhile.... --Pete Tillman (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Global_warming_controversy#Public_opinion and some other quality issues.

That section is quite useless. Our reader have no advantage from old poll data. Instead of merge, erase it. Furthermore the Debate over most effective response to warming has nothin to do with the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. The section is completely useless as well. The controversy is a) about the conclusions out of the science base and the regional profit and loss pattern and burden sharing, to which the IPCC doesnt have an answer. b) about the failures of the IPCC to achieve political regulation. It is somewhat preposterous to list the Mainstream scientific position and challenges to it but not at all to refer about the actual controversies, e.g. the failure of Kyoto, various states leaving the agreements, the lack of committment of third world and BRIC states, and the controversies around carbon taxing, cap and trade or the European and other trading schemes. Serten (talk) 23:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page not moved: no consensus Ground Zero | t 02:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

---

Global warming controversy → Climate change debate – I assume that Debate hits more the bullpoint than controversy. I first dont agree with the useless nature/social distinction made between "science" (we know its settled exempt a small Gaulian village) and public opinion or policy (which dares to deny or not to care). As Reiner Grundmann has pointed out, "climate change as a long term issue requiring more public involvement and debate, not less". Climate change is a Science, technology and society (STS) phenomenem and all aspects combined are being scholarly covered. That said, were better off if we accept that climate change happens and the most important partis belongs to the Debate over most effective response to climate change (not warming as now in the rather outdated article). This has, on first hand nothing to do with scientists opposing the mainstream, as still being connoted in Global_warming_controversy#Debate_over_most_effective_response_to_warming. The debate, and its a hot one, is about what conclusions are being drawn, globally or regionally, from climate change and whos to take burdens, profits and loss. Serten (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is climate change a better description or name? Global warming describes what it is about, it is not about cooling.

Why do you think the word debate is better? Looking at a dictionary we have

debate:-

1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: debate in the Senate on farm price supports.
2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.
3. deliberation; consideration.

controversy:-

1. a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion.
2. contention, strife, or argument.g

It seems obvious to me which describes the situation better. Does debate have some special social sciences meaning? Or is there some other good reason for wanting this change? Dmcq (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Youre heartily invited to refer to the linguistic experts at NASA primary school Whats in a Name? Global Warming vs. Climate Change. Quote Like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we've chosen to emphasize global climate change on this website, and not global warming.... Climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas amounts will affect. Michael Lockwood states it may result in colder winters for the UK and more with for greenland in the next decades. That said, how to react on that properly is being debated. I dont care muczh about the activists, like Singer or Dessler, either wrote books with my title suggestion included but more about Why We Disagree About Climate Change. Disagreement or Debate, but controversy is something else. Serten (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It is true 'climate change' is used more often in science, and articles in journals do debate points. I am a bit concerned that this name change seems like the weasel wording beloved of 'climate change skeptics'. A survey Frank Luntz commissioned showed that referring to climate change instead of global warming would help make the subject less of a concern to the public. The word debate also seems to imply that there are two sides of comparable scientific weight as when television presenters balance a debate. If this article is about the science then your title would be fine. So the question really is as I see it, is this article mainly about a scholarly debate or about a public controversy? You have been arguing elsewhere that the public aspects are far more importance and scientists are tekkis going so far as wanting to remove the list of national institutions giving their opinion at scientific opinion on climate change and putting in a social scientist saying consensus forming can be counter productive instead. Therefore I would have thought the public aspect would be more what you were interested in this article addressing. Dmcq (talk) 09:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Please notice that I am completely agnostic towards the "standard sceptic" claims. I myself share the doubt about climate scientists however, when they believe to have a prerogative to make political suggestions in the field "which society at large should take up because scientists always know best" combined with a basic lack of actual feasible solution proposals. (see Grundmann). I agree with him that "climate change as a long term issue requiring more public involvement and debate (from all sides, no distinction between scholar and lay people), not less" and I would like to see that debate being covered here. Serten 12:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you believe the policy recommendations of the IPCC are mainly made by or based on reports by climate scientists? Dmcq (talk) 15:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Does anybody have to care? Pauchauri is a railway engineer. Does it make the reports worse? Its like in Wikipedia, to write articles about a topic, you dont need to be a scientist but better be a writer. The Assessment reports are using research from a vaste array of fields, they are not science themselves. Meither the policy recommondations. Serten (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what that was about. But I will point out [5] where one can check out the lead authors of IPCC working group 3 which is the group mainly in charge of formulating the recommendations. The lead authors specialisms are as an economist, a hydrologist and statistician, economics and social scientist, and a researcher on solar energy. Dmcq (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Not an improvement. From the discussion above, the idea of a 'prolonged' public dispute or debate that is inherent in controversy is more fitting than debate on its own, which implies it will be over once discussed. Equally, there is no harm in calling a spade a spade, and this article does not discuss global cooling. All the effects of climate change that are happening, and are predicted, are as a result of the increase in thermal energy ('warming') in the global climate system. This is an encyclopedia not a tool for settling debates or a campaigning platform so the most direct and accurate language we can use the better, regardless of the psychological effects that some sociologists think it may have on public opinion. --Nigelj (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose : The controversy is over global warming not climate change. And the issue is or has been about the science. The broader climate change discussion for social scientists belongs elsewhere. Vsmith (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I doubt that the broader climate change discussion is for social scientists only - and they belobng as well to "The science" dont they? If not, the article has to be moved as to "Controversy about IPCC climate assessments". One could consider a second article dealing with the broader aspects while this is reduced to a list of controversies about the IPCC climate assessments. Serten (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Global warming is not climate change. SkywalkerPL (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
• I disagree with most contributors here who seem to say that "climate change" is is a weaker terminology than "global warming". Global warming only mentions one aspect of climate, warmth, and on the face of it this may not sound so bad. It may even be taken as suggestive of an increase in the nice dry conditions that most typically characterise "warm days". Climate change may better present the big picture that the weather is being fucked. Gregkaye (talk) 07:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

We're supposed to just summarize the facts rather than campaign. And I think the WP:NPOV policy should be defended strongly if Wikipedia is to have any integrity. But actually a survey showed global warming was more worrying to the public. Anyway climate change as a broader term covers the study over millions of years as well as the current worry, whereas global warming more particularly refers to what is thought to the current concern. One can say global warming causes the Arctic ice to melt, but that just sounds silly when climate change is put in. Of course a scientist will very often say climate change instead as they will be studying whether global warming is currently happening. Dmcq (talk) 07:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dmcq: The context included: "The controversy is over global warming not climate change." I agree about WP:NPOV in article content but, in the accepted context of a talk page, it was a case of POV opposing POV. I personally don't mind which title is used here as long as people are motivated to develop good content. Even though I did not "vote" I still think it is clear that climate change is the terminology with more currency. I stand by what I said. A fact is that a warmer atmosphere can contain more water vapour with the effect of an increase in the potential of severe weather conditions. Gregkaye (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I was responding to the 'and on the face of it this may not sound so bad' as it sounded to me like you thought we should decide the name based on how bad it sounded rather than what you thought was correct terminology. Sorry for any misunderstanding. Dmcq (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Climate Change ≠ Global Warming. There is Climate Change going on that is both anthropogenic (Global Warming) and non-anthropogenic. There is far far more controversy on the Global Warming aspect of Climate Change than with the natural warming of the planet. Why would we want to pour more stew in the pot? As for Controversy vs Debate, I see more magazine articles and the press use the term controversy over debate. It seems to fit the situation much better so why change that either? keep as is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the consensus is quite against a move. I wont challenge that. I believe that "Climate change debate" would be a different article and worth while trying. Right? Serten (talk) 10:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. There already is a History of climate change science which covers the scientific debate. Dmcq (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

History of climate change science is as said, about science. Who actually cares about the science that predicted global warming but got the Winter of 2010–11 in Great Britain and Ireland? The public debate about climate change, wether e.g. the british municipalities should buy inflatable boats, sun screens or Grit bins is a completely different issue. Serten (talk) 12:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

"Who actually cares about the science"? Perhaps the educated public who realise that one winter is weather, climate is classically over 30 year periods. Of course the misled and the ignorant don't care, but we're trying to educate, not repeat misinformation. . . dave souza, talk 19:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Put yourself in the shoes of a mayor, take Derbyshire. The chattering classes and the Met office tell them in 30 years warming is ahead. Michael Lockwood, no sceptic at all, assumes that there is another Maunder minimum coming up and climate change means colder winters in the UK and warmer ones in greenland. So actually based on relevant climate change science the UK municipalities better take care about gritting bins now and sun screens later. Thats my point about climate change being of importance for actual politics. Serten (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Climate change sometimes means what this article is about, but global warming always does. Ergo, no move. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

You may feel as you like. However there is actual research about the different terms importance, take End of_the World or_Happy Ending Powerpoint RGMS Disputed_climate_science in_the media_Do countries matter or Discourse of Climate Change: A Corpus-based Approach. How about scientific opinion as base for the move or split? Serten (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as almost by definition the controversy is about global warming and associated global weirding. As Frank Luntz would have told you himself. . dave souza, talk 19:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

What is "global weirding? I assume we might close the debate, as the science is settled by Frank Lutz and the IPCC combined. Great combination. An article about Climate change debate imho has its own right, since the Great controversy about global warming is a different issue. Serten (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I misspelled Luntz as Lutz in one of my contributions above, fixed now. It is Frank Luntz. Dmcq (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

HadCRUT close-in graph

The average near-surface air and sea-surface temperature hardly rose since 1997 (data: HadCRUT4)

This image has, in the last few days, been added to the article four times by Jan Arkesteijn (talk · contribs), and deleted by Timelezz, ThePowerofX, Stephan Schulz, and now me. This little meme, that the global temperature hasn't risen for x years, is a standard piece of climate change denial bunkum. It is a typically useful meme, because it takes only a few seconds to say, and several paragraphs to adequately debunk. We even have a whole article looking at the topic from every side with due WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV and so on at Global warming hiatus.

Global mean land-ocean temperature index from January 1970 through January 2014. The colored line is the monthly mean and the black line is the five-year running mean. The global warming hiatus referenced in literature commonly starts circa 2000 and estimates vary.

This article is not about that meme, nor about the science of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation, it is mainly about the published positions of the major scientific bodies of national or international standing worldwide, and whether they agree or disagree with consensus scientific view. No national or international body here mentions the tiny subset of HadCRUT data shown in this graph, and none of them mention the ins and outs of this meme. Even the close-in graph of the recent surface temperature variation - with a five-year running mean - that we use on the article about the phenomenon shows a very different picture. Adding this misleading graph, and using this uncited personal commentary as a caption, is inappropriate in this article. --Nigelj (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not a case of cherry picking, this graph exactly displays the HadCRUT4 dataset from 1997 onwards. I admit it is to small to perform good statistics, but it displays the controversy that on the one hand science says the temperature of the atmosphere is rising and on the other hand it actually has not done so in the last 17 years. I moved the graph from the Instrumental record of tropospheric temperature paragraph to the Instrumental record of surface temperature because HadCRUT4 actually measures the surface temperature.
It is cherry picking on your side, though, removing the picture when leaving this one in the text, because it focusses like the other picture on a part of the dataset. So if you accuse me of cherry picking, be consistent. And when you are at it, remove this one as well, because it has nothing to do with science, it's propaganda.
Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

If you ask yourself why the figure starts in 1997 and not some other year, you will find why it is cherry picking. Proving things by choosing the "right" interval is one method of cherry picking commonly used by deniers. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

If you divide the world in deniers and believers, it tells more about you. I don't deny the global temperature has risen. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

If you invent a position and ascribe it to me in spite of me not holding it, it tells me something about you.

There are evolution deniers, climate change deniers, holocaust deniers and other types of reality deniers. (Their opponents are not "believers", just normal, reasonable people who can tell good and bad reasoning apart.) I did not say you are one. But you fell for one of their distortions. All I did was point out to you the reason why this is cherry picking. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't tell what these two "talking point" links are for, or who put them here. Can that person comment -- or just remove them, if they are strays. TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Click the up arrow caret at the left and you see where they come from. Yes I find hem annoying too. I've put a <references /> after the appropriate comments so the are just after where they were put in. Dmcq (talk) 08:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The ref format would come & go before. This is better! Pete Tillman (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree the graph should not be in this article. The illustration of the recent hiatus in the context of a longer timeline as in the article about it is far more reasonable and informative.

However I couldn't find anything about the hiatus in the article, surely that should have something said about it in this article and a link put in to the global warming hiatus article? Dmcq (talk) 08:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree 2nd chart is better, and that we should mention hiatus here. Reminds me to try again to update Global warming hiatus. Pete Tillman (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Debate regarding the IPCC consensus is no longer largely confined to US popular media.

I added an edit [which was reverted] and would be interested to know why these references do not support the edit when they specifically call into question the IPCC's 5th assessment.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/energy-and-climate-change-committee/news/ipcc---tor/

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2014/06/19616379/agreeing-robust-decisions-new-processes-decision-making-under-deep-uncertainty

http://www.knmi.nl/research/ipcc/FUTURE/Submission_by_The_Netherlands_on_the_future_of_the_IPCC_laatste.pdf

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunvox (talk • contribs) 15:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The World Bank report says "deep uncertainties linked to climate change and other future conditions further challenges decision making by questioning the robustness of all purportedly optimal solutions." The deep uncertainty is not whether the IPCC consensus is accurate, but what effect climate change will have on investments. To provide one example. Insurance companies were able to project the likelihood of flooding and use the information to set premiums and forecast profits. But with global warming, those predictions are less likely to be accurate. That does not mean they do not have confidence in the IPCC consensus. In fact if they did not accept it, their uncertainty would be reduced. TFD (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Note also that the other refs cited by S aren't the ones used in the edit William M. Connolley (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The operative bit of text you tried to add was "have begun to question the validity of the robustness of the strong scientific consensus as represented by the IPCC", which as phrased reads like "now cast doubt upon". The UK bit states no conclusions; it is merely a single committee (the politics of which I am ignorant) inviting input on the weight others give the IPCC document. Fact a committee publishes questions is not the same as a conclusion of scientific doubt. Similarly, the thing from the Netherlands is a commentary on the organizational structure and procedures; there's nothing in that document about the "robustness of the strong scientific consensus".

I would also have reverted

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

This also is taken from the World Bank report and the inference is clear.

"Continued efforts by climate scientists and others to increase knowledge about the climate and future climate scenarios are valuable. However, uncertainties about climate change and its impacts may increase as scientific inquiry diversifies and deepens. Therefore, decision makers should accept the irreducible uncertainty about the future climate and formulate adaptation and mitigation policies to manage it."

The complexities of climate are so great as to make "certainty" impossible. This is a direct diplomatic form of denying the IPCC claims of "consensus" and the same applies to the line of questioning implied by the UK Commission. It is your "opinion" that these do not directly question the consensus and as this article surrounds the question of debate I feel that opposing voices deserve equal weight. Furthermore I improved my original references to include original source so now there should be discussion of the merits of those references. Lastly I would note that the specific issue I was approaching was not the consensus issue as much as the preceding comment that implied the debate was centered in US popular media and did not include any major global entities. That "fact" is clearly refuted by these references.

following up with the Dutch analysis here is a quote from the government of the Netherlands

"Although the IPCC reports contain internal references, the derivation of conclusions is very difficult. This lack in transparency is not only fuels climate skepticism concerning the reliability of the conclusions of the reports, but also reduces the usefulness of IPCC reports to access the underlying literature"

To a skeptic the phrase "the derivation of conclusions is very difficult" could not be more clear and again is worthy of inclusion in an article on "debate" and at the very least proves that debate is not confined to US popular media as stated in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunvox (talk • contribs) 19:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Eh? You've quoted a source, then said withut any foundation that it doesn't mean what it says. To a sceptic, your arguments lack credibility and do not justify inclusion of your claims in this article. . dave souza, talk 20:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

(A) From my wife's perspective, I find it "very difficult" to properly apologize. She hasn't divorced me yet and that's at least in part because I do manage to pull it off.

(B) None of these discussions about "uncertainty" question whether (1) it's warming, (2) it's mostly us, or (3) it'll somehow be bad.

(C) When they talk about "uncertainty", they're not attacking the IPCC but rather they are responding to IPCC's own discussion of how uncertainty affects the report. Anyone familiar with IPCC writings knows that IPCC has attempted to quantify their certainty about all sorts of things (avg temp increase, sea level rise, and on and on and on)

(D) You're assuming that any uncertainty must in all cases mean "If it gets that bad at all". However, in some instances, the uncertainty means "we don't know how much worse it might get". For example, IPCC summarized projections for sea level rise, and said they were 66-100% confident in the specific projections stated in the report. IPCC then went on to discuss a rather large uncertainty - will the Antarctic ice sheet keep doing pretty much what it's been doing, or would it melt and calve bergs faster and faster? IPCC said

"It is assessed that there is currently insufficient evidence to evaluate the probability of specific levels above the likely range. Based on current understanding, only the collapse of marine-based sectors of the Antarctic ice sheet, if initiated, could cause GMSL to rise substantially above the likely range during the 21st century. There is a lack of consensus on the probability for such a collapse, and the potential additional contribution to GMSL rise cannot be precisely quantified, but there is medium confidence that it would not exceed several tenths of a metre of sea level rise during the 21st century. It is virtually certain that GMSL rise will continue beyond 2100."

The literature publication cut-off date was March 15, 2013, and ordinarily the data in these papers considerably predates the ultimate publication date. After that date, several papers have reported that the ice sheets are less stable than we thought

• West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapse is under way
• Antarctic Ice Sheet unstable at end of last ice age
• East Antarctic Ice Sheet could be more vulnerable to climate change than previously thought
• Antarctica's ice losses on the rise
• Northeast Greenland ice loss accelerating, researchers say

(E) IN SUM, since you apppear to self describe as a "skeptic" which is a dubious term since true skepticism is what drives science and is willing to be persuaded by evidence, it looks to me like you might have run across the word "uncertainty" and automatically drew inferences that these sources must - necessarily - be casting doubt on the points in paragraph (B) above. Please see Confirmation bias.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Not only is there debate on the "IPCC consensus" outside of US media, there is a growing body of work showing how the "consensus" on the IPCC ECS which had a 90% C.I. may be wrong. Furthermore the latest research calls into question the role of "internal variability" as opposed to anthropogenic causes which lies at the heart of the "consensus". The relative forcing of CO2 and the human causation for "Global Warming" is becoming less "settled".
The 90%C.I. for TCR is 0.8 to 2.2 �C, slightly shifted towards lower values than the likely range of 1 to 2.5 �C from IPCC AR5 (IPCC, 2013). The analysis also suggests that there is a significant contribution of internal variability on a multi-decadal timescale to the global mean temperature change, and that both anthropogenic forcing and internal variability contributed to the temperature increase at the end of the 20th century.
'A lower and more constrained estimate of climate sensitivity using updated observations and detailed radiative forcing time series R. B. Skeie1, T. Berntsen1,2, M. Aldrin3,4, M. Holden3, and G. Myhre1 Sunvox (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC) Its about wether the "IPCC consensus" and the underlying linear model of expert-policy interaction has any epistemic value. It does not have. Consensus-Making in Science and Society works different. The controversies are not at all confined to media or classical heretics, but include important players, internal and external the IPCC and are based on sound theoretical deliberations.Experts and Consensus in Social Science Ethical Economy Volume 50, 2014, pp 71-92 Michael Oppenheimer himself has written about The limits of consensus, in Science Magazine's State of the Planet 2008-2009, Judith Curry goes as far as writing a paper titled No Consensus on Consensus. Quote: The manufactured consensus of the IPCC has had the unintended consequences of distorting the science, elevating the voices of scientists that dispute the consensus, and motivating actions by the consensus scientists and their supporters that have diminished the public’s trust in the IPCC. In the technical field, its about climate sensitivity and current assessments show that the climate model sensitivities are way to too high. The WP climate articles miss to depict reality, they often a decade behind current discussions. Serten (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Polar ice cap

The years indicated in our image are old. I've seen some pictures (from a dubious source [6], it is true, but photos none-the-less and said to be from NASA) that show an increase in the ice coverage between 22013 & 2013. Can't we get an update? 06:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Arctic September sea ice decline.png

Indeed, sea ice extend did increase from 2012 to 2013. Just as it did from 2007 to 2009, only to crash down again to a record low in 2012, from which it has recovered somewhat in 2013. Single years are irrelevant in looking at the long-term trend, and people who claim that a single year trend in one climate indicator somehow prove or disprove a trend don't know what they are doing, or, more likely, they lie. But feel free to update the article - our own arctic sea ice decline is reasonably up-to-date. In particular, it has a current graph from NSIDC. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I put in the new graph, and rephrased the section to make the chronology clearer now. But there is not much mentioning of a controversy here. I know that there is a lot of straw-man arguments in the area, but do we have reliable secondary sources on this controversy somewhere? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

P.S.: What's dubious about the source? They give you a $180 VALUE FOR ONLY $5 TODAY and a subscription for $79,95 p.a.! And they will NOT KEEP A SINGLE RED CENT! No mentioning of dollars, or cents of different colours ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm yes, "I can guarantee you one thing: After reading the next few pages, you will never look at government officials the same way . . . you will never trust what you hear in the media again" . . if I bothered to read them and then continued to look at government officials the same way, how does he redeem his guarantee? I already didn't trust what I read in Newsmax so no change there. . . dave souza, talk 15:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Timescales of controversy..

Published assessment of the difference in timing between public and fringe interest in thi paper; Lewandowsky, S. (2014). "Conspiratory fascination versus public interest: The case of 'climategate'". Environmental Research Letters. 9 (11): 111004. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/9/11/111004. . . . dave souza, talk 22:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

This study has been discussed a bit on the talk page for the Wikipedia article most relevant for 'climategate', starting here: [7] Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Skeptic vs Denier

Oreskes and Conway use the word "skeptic" very sparingly in their book, and usually only with a caveat (as in "so-called skeptic"). Throughout the book, they refer to the rejection of climate change science as "doubt" and "denial". In Chapter 6 "The Denial of Global Warming" there is a subsection called "Doubling Down on Denial." In the final summary paragraphs, the authors refer to the subjects of the book as "deniers" three times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IHaveAMastersDegree (talk • contribs) 18:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

You added "professional deniers", which is a very strong claim not supported the discussion above. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• "sceptic" is the neutral term used in this article and "denier" is used in the book. The wording I used included both points of view and so was neutral. --I am One of Many (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the change. Oreskes and Conway are dealing with denialism rather than skepticism. This article is more about the science and skepticism though it does also talk about the denial in that section. It is the article a person who is sceptical about the science should be directed to. Many deniers refer to themselves as sceptics, that doesn't mean they are skeptics. A lot of the public is skeptical about the science, and quite rightly so because the active denial obfusticates the science. See climate change denial for an article about the denial. I don't like the change to put skeptic in quotes and say they are deniers, too many people will just ignore the quote marks. Dmcq (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The word "skeptic" is not a neutral term for someone who is not actually a skeptic in the scientific sense of the word. It is misleading and was not the subject of Merchants of Doubt. The blurb on the cover jacket uses the word "deny" and "denial" repeatedly. Deniers are explicitly the subject of the book, not skeptics. Even the blurb makes it clear that the authors are talking about professional deniers. ' "Doubt is our product." wrote one tobacco executive.' Quoting from near the end of the global warming chapter (page 214): "Journalists were constantly pressured to grant the professional deniers equal status--and equal time and newsprint space--and they did." Note that the authors refer to their subjects as "professional deniers" and provide arguments throughout the book in support of that. To claim that the book is about skeptics is a misrepresentation. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I haven't read the book, but I'm somewhat familiar with Oreskes' work. Isn't part of the argument they (climate change deniers) use the same strategy as tobacco companies used back in the day to deny that cigarettes cause cancer? --I am One of Many (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes and 'think tanks' like the Heartland Institute are paid to do that sort of thing. Dmcq (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Not only have they used the same strategies, but many of them are the same people (e.g. Seitz and Singer). I think that's why Oreskes and Conway refer to them as "professional deniers." IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe someone should add a sentence or two to that paragraph to make that clear? --I am One of Many (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

A citation would be necessary for such an accusation (BLP policy applies for Singer). The term "professional deniers" appears in Merchants of Doubt Chapter 6 page 214 http://ncse.com/files/pub/evolution/Excerpt--merchants.pdf, but isn't specifically about Seitz and Singer. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh I thought it was obvious we were talking about Merchants of Doubt but thanks for adding the citation. I guess the Wikipedia rule is that you actually have to have a formal citation any time you refer to a living person? Sorry I overlooked that. The entire book is primarily focused on Seitz, Singer, Jastrow, and Nierenberg, documenting their roles as "merchants of doubt" (a close synonym for "professional deniers" which is the term the authors use in the climate chapter). Singer is the only one still living.IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You said that Oreskes and Conway called Seitz and Singer "professional deniers". I showed that accusation is not in their book's climate chapter. I no longer hope that a citation will be provided, but as long as nobody puts it in the article I guess it's not worth an argument. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

As I said, the subject of the book "Merchants of Doubt" is Singer, Seitz and a handful of others. As you showed after I pointed it out, the authors collectively referred to the subjects of the book as "professional deniers" on 214. On page 213, the authors more specifically refer to Singer and Nierenberg as "doubt mongers". There is no point in arguing. We can agree to agree and if you are welcome to believe the authors suddenly started talking about some other unspecified persons on the next page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IHaveAMastersDegree (talk • contribs) 17:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Merchants of doubt has been harshely critized as being more of a blatant attack attempt than actual science, take Sociologist Reiner Grundmann's review in BioSocieties journal. The problem is that Oreskes and Conway doubt any reasonable base for not accepting their view and explain resistance as being irrational and being based on special interests. Thats a simpleton's World view, in line with the general "are you with us or against us" partisanship in US policies, but not explaining anything about the failure of CO2 regulation in general. Even if anybody accepted the consensus, nobody knows what actually has to be done by local governments. That said, Oreskes and Conway are not useable to tag sceptics deniers here. Serten II (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The have been criticized by deniers but not be real scientists. It is an excellent and well-received critique of the denier movement. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Plonk. Quick, call the University of Nottingham and the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies Grundmann doesnt deserve tenure! Serten II (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

He publishes enough to deserve tenure, but keep in mind that his critique is almost entirely based on Merchants of Doubt not fitting into his conceptual framework, which is exceedingly vague. We know that in principle everything can affect any given thing and a fundamental problem for science is to find the strong interactions among all possible interactions. Grundmann's view appears to be that all factors matter nearly equally, so Oreskes and Conway, on his view, have oversimplified the problem of the role of the merchants of doubt in political decision making. Of course, he does agree that there are merchants of doubt ("This does not mean that I doubt in any way their characterization of the contrarians as free market fundamentalists who tried to oppose environmental regulations through interventions into the advisory process and public debate, thus effectively operating as a vocal lobby group, claiming to speak with scientific authority. The book documents this rather well." [8] p. 371). He appears to think the world is so complex and nuanced that no conclusion can be drawn about their in decision making about the global warming controversy. It is important to keep in mind that this is only one view and he does not contradict what has been included in the article. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Grundmann or e.g. Harry Evans are not at al vague. Science studies deal with the interaction of expert and lay knowledge and political decision making. As a basic rule political decisions have to and do to take place long before science is settled, science doesnt lead politics. It applies as well to the IPCC history, the FAR with 200 contributors was not about consensus, to the contrary. The FAR had the task to identify incertainties and to plan a research program to settle them. That said, the FAR lead to actual and major policy action, the UNFCC, Kyoto and major research programs in the billions. Far from "no conclusion" or "all factors matter nearly equally". The dirty dozen of consensus free Scientists pushing the Ozone case against the bloody merchants was much more powerful that the IPCC in all its glory- those Noble prize winning chemists dealt much better with the major factors, namely "incertainty" and "ignorance" of lay people. Thats contradicting the simpletons view of" the more we know, the better the outcome" parroted in the article. Serten II (talk) 10:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Skeptical Science Link?

So this article actually links to John Cook's Warmist propaganda site "Skeptical Science"? Incredible. Sure, there is no bias in this Wikipedia article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.238.95 (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Your bias is showing, it's a useful science based resource on the topic. Comparable to TalkOrigins Archive, it could be worth making the argument that it's similarly valid as a source but it's not actually used as a source in this article save for one graph which is fully referenced on the image file page: perhaps you could persuade the IPCC to release their graphs under a free license to make them available for use? . . dave souza, talk 17:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Merchants of Doubt

Much of the paragraph about Merchants of Doubt needs to be revamped due to synthesis and lack of neutral POV. The switch from the authors' clearly preferred use of the straightforward word "denier" to the ambiguous word "skeptic" was only part of the problem (they are not synonyms). I will make some changes and am happy to talk about them here IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with the word denier, but I think Peter Gulutzan has a point above. I can't say Fred Singer isn't actually a professional denier, but it conveys the wrong impression I think. It brings to mind rent a mob, whereas I think it is very possible he does it for ideological reasons. The phrase wasn't applied specifically to him though the implication is very strong. Then again he isn't just any denier, he has practically made a second career out of it. The section would apply to him even if it doesn't specifically mention him so it would be better I think if something besides 'professional' could be used. How about something like "The authors of the 2010 book Merchants of Doubt say that a group of scientists for commercial or political reasons have tried to convince the public there is controversy over the science so no action will be taken on reducing carbon emissions, and have done so on a number of other issues besides global warming. The fact that only half of the American population believe that global warming is caused by human activity could be seen as a victory for these deniers." Dmcq (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's more like the other half of the American population believe there are many factors causing Climate Change, with anthropogenic Global Warming only being a part. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You don't need to convince people of science details they don't need for their daily life, you need to convince them to do something, and the something for Cliamte Change has not even been proposed yet. The biggest part of the world has other problems, like inhouse smog or lack of clean water or energy. And the average American is able to cope with much more than two degree temperature difference on a daily basis by putting on a sweater or bikini. Singer doen't need money to be convinced. Point is its much less interesting where he achieved a delay of regulation, but where he failed. The whole story about the mighty rented mob or the ignorance of the average American fails to explain why e.g. acid rain and Ozone depletion have been dealt with rather quick, rather successfull and without any substantial science consensus. Serten II (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

That's true. The other thing is no one has proposed a remedy that isn't life-altering draconian. When people are told by scientists what would need to be done to really stop all Global Warming, and the answer is cut CO2 emissions to zero and in 200 years it will stop... it won't reverse, that's a non-starter for their ears. That's prehistoric and has zero chance of happening. When told if we can get it to 70% of todays' emmissions (which is almost a zero chance) Global Warming will continue on it's merry way, only a little slower... again no one cares because they look at it as inevitable. No one is giving up their cars, their internet, their restaurants, their tvs, their sports, or most likely their jobs, to give a hoot. Now if science says they have invented a device to neutralize all the anthropogenic CO2... but it will cost lots and lots of money, people might listen because it's a cure within reason. Otherwise they'll just deal with it as it happens and move their locations as need be as has been happening for eons. That's what us humans do. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• "Ozone depletion have been dealt with rather quick" in what possible world has this happened? --I am One of Many (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess quick is a relative term, but 30 years seems rather quick, at least to me. "scientists have found that ozone concentrations in the atmosphere have gone up by a significant amount, according to NPR. NASA researchers made the discovery and say the giant hole in Earth’s ozone layer may be shrinking as a result....steps taken in the 1980s, notably the Montreal Protocol which phased out CFC use, are finally yielding benefits today." Then again, we were told that things could rebound in 50 years in regards to CFC damage, so it's what was expected. CO2 damage we are being told will take thousands of years even if we cut back 90%. So it's not something that is a tangible to most people unless you're Methuselah. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the case of the ozone layer supports the opposite point you want to make. Years of determination to eliminate man-made CFC gases, appear to be working. It appears that the ozone hole that occurs annually over Antarctica has stopped expanding, but estimates are that it may only start shrinking in 10 years—scientists don't know for sure. Science can only give us our best options for dealing with a problem at a given time. Scientific solutions may not work, but there is no alternative to science for making such decisions. That is why professional science deniers are perhaps the most serious problem we face for out long-term welfare and survival. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

LOL... yeah right. Goodness you must be one of those Ozone Hole repair deniers.. er a skeptics... to read it that way. "Ozone hole shrinks up by 30 miles (4%) since 2010 over mid-northern latitudes - UN Report." As Serten said, the ozone depletion has been dealt with rather quickly. It's not finished and it'll still take decades to completely fix itself. But there will always be those who are skeptical on all the causes of Climate Change and more importantly what we can "reasonably" do about it (and per today's scientists, if their numbers are right, we can really do nothing to stop it). We have to learn to live with it or go back to stone tools, or perhaps invent something to suck it all out of the atmosphere. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Slowing it down and doing something to mitigate the effects would help greatly, it would give more time for adjustment and to develop better solutions. It is interesting how the American army with its ability to deal with risk is doing something about catering for it, they don't need total and absolute proof before taking action These ones who hide their heads in the sand though try stopping places even trying to plan things like flood defences. Denial can be quite amazing. As you say the cases are different, all people had to worry about with CFCs was that fridges had to be redesigned and sprays became a little less efficient and it was a problem solved sort of thing.

Anyway I think this is going off topic a bit, whether the bit about 'professional deniers' was okay or not. As I said above I don't think it is actually false but I think it could be better phrased. Dmcq (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I do think that is where the science disagrees with you. If the science is correct, cutting back to something like 70% of 1990 levels would be draconian and will not help "greatly." It will help minisculey. It will slow things down but it will be like cooking a turkey at 345 instead of 350. Per the science the only answer is to figure out a way to remove the CO2. Anything else is really a myth. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a false statement about the science. The AR5 SPM says "Substantial cuts in greenhouse gas emissions over the next few decades can substantially reduce risks of climate change by limiting warming in the second half of the 21st century and beyond", and from the WG3 summary the costs "an annualized reduction of consumption growth by 0.04 to 0.14 (median: 0.06) percentage points over the century relative to annualized consumption growth in the baseline that is between 1.6% and 3% per year." Saying it's impossible is a standard stage of denial. . . dave souza, talk 13:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting paper, Ricke, K. L.; Caldeira, K. (2014). "Maximum warming occurs about one decade after a carbon dioxide emission". Environmental Research Letters. 9 (12): 124002. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/9/12/124002. – "benefit from avoided climate damage from avoided CO₂ emissions will be manifested within the lifetimes of people who acted to avoid that emission". . . . dave souza, talk 17:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The IPCC also says that to do any real good annual greenhouse gas emissions would need to start dropping each year till they were 41 percent to 72 percent below 2010 levels by mid-century. Then emissions need to keep falling (to basically zero) by the end of the century to stop the tipping point from happening. That "substantial" amount would be draconian and will not happen. Simply cutting levels 10% from today and maybe 20% by the end of the century would be extremely difficult with massive lifestyle changes... and that really wouldn't do any good. We need to find another way or we'll just have to adapt if possible. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Dubya and Donald sent the action against the non existing WMD's in Iraq, with much less certainty as the IPCC has provided. Sociologists used a famous quote of DR to state that the cognitive frame for political practice is limeted by the relationship between what we know, what we do not know, what we cannot know, but Rumsfeld left out what we do not like to know. As long the IPCC and the likes of Oreskes and Cook try to deal just with "what we know and bloody lay people have to know", they are bound to fail. And as long this article ignores basic findings from science studies, it has to rely on conspiracy theories explaining nothing. Rumsfeld was more wise, he listened to Nassim Nicholas Taleb. Black swans (Fukushima, financial crisis and so on) are the actual danger policy wants and needs to adress. The IPCC approach doesnt help there. Serten II (talk) 10:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

All this isn't relevant to the discussion. The discussion was about the phrasing of the section about Merchants of Doubt. See WP:TALK#USE, we should stay on topic and not turn it into some general discussion forum. Dmcq (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The article puts undue weight on the merchants of doubt, a rather doubtable social construct. Actual science is being neglected. Serten II (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Two citations and one short paragraph about a notable contribution to the analysis and debate, and you think that's undue? Don't agree, you remain free to propose coverage of other social constructs, best in a new talk section.

Back on topic, why not name the book's authors in the paragraph? In other words, start the para "Historians of science Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway..." . . dave souza, talk 17:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

In regard "provide documentation"; that requires a source other than the book. "Accuse" (or perhaps a more neutral word) does not. "Assert" is probably better than "Accuse" ... "assert that professional deniers are/were trying" seems adequate. After all, the book is not the primary subject of this article. We shouldn't need to go into detail. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

There's a long list of reviews under the Amazon entry for this book. Most of them take note that the authors provided documentation/research or synonyms. If we really must have a citation for that bit of text, there's plenty to pick from. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Goodness, ignoring an actual peer reviewed paper but asking to use amazon. Serten II (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a false restatement of what I said. In the collection of RSs on the Amazon page there are multiple contenders. For just one example, the Amazon page leads to a pithy paragraph from Publisher's Weekly. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Which is peer reviewed and of any scientific value? Plonk. Try JSTOR, one entry. I would never accept such kindergarten level for Donna Lafromboise btw. Serten II (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Not what WP:RS means. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin, I think "argue" would be the better than "accuse" or "assert" since they provide reasons and evidence for their view. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Peer review indirectly cause denial

Usage of lack of peer review publications denying global warming as an argument against global warming denial makes it look as if the arguments for global warming had to resort to arguments from authority, as if there were no actual evidence for human-caused global warming. This causes denial. Effective spreading of global warming knowledge must instead rely on information on the empirical evidence for it.2.68.244.172 (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It isn't Wikipedia's job to support anything except neutral reporting of reliable sources according to weight. Peer reviewed sources have the greatest weight. Dmcq (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

According to who?2.68.244.172 (talk) 11:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:RS Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable.. Vsmith (talk) 13:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

So I see. It's polarization moronism all the way down.2.68.244.172 (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

No. It's due weight to competence and careful checking all the way down. If you believe for some reason that peer review does not matter, that is your problem and not the problem of WP. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The article Attribution of recent climate change deals with the efforts to identify cause. Right now to "Evidence of global warming" is a redir to Instrumental temperature record. Seems like we should make it a stand alone article, to elaborate on the "unequivocal" IPCC quote that cites "Multiple lines of evidence", not just the instrumental temps. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Willie Soon

See: Willie Soon#2015: Allegations of disclosure violations
This better? Vsmith (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Kahan study

I have just cut new text added by Vgy7ujm that said

On the other hand, a 2015 study by Dan Kahan showed that global warming skeptics are as familiar with the relevant science as their opponents. They simply arrive at different conclusions.

The study is paywalled, and I have not read this primary source yet. However, I have read secondary sources, and I don't think the study quite supports the contention in this text. The problem is that the new text seems to posit an exact parallel between degree of acceptance vs skepticism with the Scientific consensus on climate change no matter how much one knows about the science. That doesn't quite hit the nail, from what I gather. See this for example. It seems the study rather said that despite lots of knowledge about the science, polarity still exists; and yet with less knowledge of the science there is less polarity. At what point on the science-knowledge spectrum do we place "skeptics"? At what point on the strengh-of-opinion spectrum do we place "skeptics"? I've got no problem adding something about this study, but is the text I cut truly a fair presentation of the results? Maybe it is, and if so, someone should restore it. But let's talk.

@Vgy7ujm: can you please indicate the specific paragraphs in this paper that you think say what you said?

• I quickly skimmed through the study. First, the study involves a random sample of 2,000 ordinary US citizens, so it is a study about various questions concerning knowledge of climate change science and the relationships between this knowledge and political ideology. Second, the findings are interesting, but not overly surprising. In general, people on the political right are more likely not to know or believe relevant issues in climate science. So, the study doesn't support the quote above and the study as a whole has nothing to do with climate scientists' views. --I am One of Many (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I can confirm that there is nothing in this article that supports the quote. It is either deliberately misleading, or the wiki editor didn't understand the paper. It is a random minor paper in Political Psychology, of no value to this page.Feyre (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

refs for this thread

References

The "97%"

Usually, the fallacious figure was arrived at thus: Australian researcher John Cook and colleagues perused over 11,000 peer-reviewed papers and articles published between 1991 and 2011 which included the terms ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. They then sorted them into four subgroups, headed:

1] No Position on anthropogenic global warming

2] Endorsement,

3] Rejection, and

4] Uncertainty.

"No Position" -- at 66.4% -- was the largest group. *Only among the (33.6%) minority which did proffer an opinion, 97.1 per cent endorsed the anthropogenic-global-warming position.

Repetition is not necessarily Reality -- and, as committed as we should be to the environment, to say that ninety-seven -- or ninety-eight -- percent of scientists hold an anthropogenic global-warming/climate-change view is grossly misleading, and might well be filed under Mark Twain's "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics." It should be removed from any article claiming scientific accuracy.

75.18.222.154 (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC) MC

Your analysis is "original research" which can't be used in Wikipedia, and is based on a couple of fallacies: you've misrepresented the Cook et al. paper, and have omitted Anderegg et al. and the Doran, Zimmerman paper, both of which are cited in the article. . . dave souza, talk 08:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Dave, in what way do you think he misrepresented the paper, and what do the other two papers have to do with his discussion of this paper – are you referring to some edit he made in the article itself that you've reverted?

Speaking just of this paper, I've read it. Cook et al. found that 66.7% of the 11,944 abstracts they checked either took no position on AGW or expressed uncertainty about it. Of the remaining one third of the abstracts, 97% endorsed AGW, and this 97% includes abstracts that, in the words of the authors, give "Implicit endorsement", i.e., "Implies humans are causing global warming, e.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause." In other words, if an abstract does not explicitly say that human activity causes global warming, let alone that it's the cause of most of it, and does not even conclude from its research that carbon emissions cause global warming but only uses that as an ASSUMPTION on its way to considering some other question that it's researching, that paper is still used as part of the 97% of the abstracts that state a conclusion that adopt AGW as fact. Furthermore, the paper considers only abstracts, and explicitly states that its 97% includes those that do not quantify how much of the global warming is caused by human activity. Accordingly, this paper does not say, and cannot be used to support the conclusion, stated in the article, that "Just over 97% of climate researchers say humans are causing most global warming." (Emphasis added.) It does not poll the researchers, only abstracts, finds that only 97% of 33.3% of the abstracts (i.e., 32.3%) support AGW, and the paper does not come to a conclusion about the "most" part. In fact, while the authors do say that they counted how many of the abstracts explicitly state that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming, they do not give the number of how many say that. I find it strange that the "gatekeeper" editors of this article, who are very quick and thorough in eliminating any change to this article that might indicate that it is not certain that global warming is mostly or entirely caused by human activity, have no problem leaving in mischaracterizations of the papers like citing Cook et al. as one of the papers that support the statement "Just over 97% of climate researchers say humans are causing most global warming," when it says no such thing, it the abstract or elsewhere in the paper.

I've also noticed that while the editors will use conclusionary statements in the abstract of a source, when someone adds to the article by reporting facts that are actually in the full paper of the source, those additions are removed as "independent research" whenever they conflict with the "97% of climate researchers say humans cause most global warming" conclusion favored by the editors. This seems a pretty clear indication of editorial bias in this article. Such a position (allowing quotations from the abstract but disallowing as "original research" accurate representations of statements made in the paper itself) is not followed anywhere else in Wikipedia outside the climate research field, which is apparently heavily policed by the editors for orthodoxy. - (Above three paragraphs by Embram (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC))

I've been notified that even questioning the editing of others, let alone suggesting possible bias, is forbidden here. Accordingly, I apologize for doing so in the above paragraph, and will not henceforth. - Embram (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

This is the comment to which Embram refers. If we stick to discussing article improvement based on reliable sources, and using WP:DR when needed, all is well. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

As I also studied the entire paper I partially agree with Embram. For one of Cooks categories concurrence with the mainstream view was implied, and it was not OR for Embram or anyone else to say so. Quite the opposite... the implied nature of the concurrence is explicitly laid out in the paper's methodology section. So what to do? The best is to rely on quality secondary sources to report the results of this papre. Barring that, we should maybe insert "explicit" and "implicit" so the presentation of the stats is accurate, and we should maybe include the error-checking second step they followed, which they say supported their their conclusions. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Prior discussions of pretty much same thing

• Talk:Global_warming_controversy/Archive_10#Cook_et_al:_Scientific_consensus
• Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change/Archive_21#The_John_Cook_Study_Has_Major_Problems
• Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming/Archive_36#Peer_review_section_seems_to_be_WP:SYNTH
• Talk:Global_warming/Archive_70#Consensus_View_of_Article_Abstracts_Discussing_Global_Climate_Change

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The only change I'd suggest now is to remove the citation to/of the Cook study from (or change the caption in) the chart that's captioned "Just over 97% of climate researchers say humans are causing most global warming" because the Cook study does not support that statement. The Cook study counted abtracts, not researchers (as one of the other cited references points out, some researchers published many more papers on the topic than others), and did not make any statement about the percentage that agreed with the "most" part. The authors apparently counted the number of abstracts that "[e]xplicitly [state] that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming" (type 1 endorsement in Table 2) but didn't say how many they were, instead lumping them in with the implicit endorsements and the explicit endorsements without quantification to get the 97.1% figure. - Embram (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I haven't spent a whole lot of time debating here but I've come back every few months and read through talk pages on this subject for laughs. There is simply no arguing with the handful of people who have adopted wikipedia as their personal e-library, of sorts. They are experts in wiki law (which is not an infallible metric for determining whether or not something belongs here and it is laughable that this even needs to be said) and they seem to virtually never concede a point. A user named TFD actually said (archive 11) that "It is just not possible to write an article arguing against AGW that conforms to the standards required for publication, since any reasonable conclusions drawn from the facts would hold that most global warming is man made." I know that this is sort of like telling fundamentalist Christians that one of their own believes something totally backward. Their reaction is likely to be "...so?". But this statement, to anyone who has not only actually looked at the facts but, more importantly, understands how science works, is indicative of a major problem in this community.

This place is full of non-scientists who, because of their lack of expertise, place an undue degree of importance on consensus and who steadfastly and absolutely refuse to acknowledge anything that runs counter to their fully cemented notions. I hope TFD and others like him decide to go back and read about the history of science. They may find it surprising that the consensus was against many of their heroes.

In the meantime, this place should not be regarded as an unbiased source of information. It is anything but.

Above 3 paragraphs by NerdNinja9. Cue cookie cutter response, from some self-styled wiki god, dismissing everything I've just said.NerdNinja9 (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Last 30 years of solar variability picture

Last 30 years before 2010. Obsolete.Xx236 (talk) 06:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC on redirects

I posted an RfC on the target for various redirects, some of which currently (or previously) pointed to this page. Feel free to provide your input. You can find the discussion at Talk:Climate change denial#Redirects to this page. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Primarily

Edit summary claims:

(best estimate is that the trend is entirely (not "primarily") anthropogenic)

IPCC source says:

Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system. The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750 (see Figure SPM.5). {3.2, Box 3.1, 8.3, 8.5}

This means co2 is only one of many sources, not the only source.

Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9}

It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. {10.3}

Extremely likely is not certainty. More than half is not 100%. So entirely in entirely inaccurate and primarily is accurate. Primarily should be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B066:FAA4:15B8:C210:2893:8B18 (talk) 06:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

And dominant does not mean entirely either. This should be clear to anyone whose first language is English. So why are we arguing about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B066:FAA4:15B8:C210:2893:8B18 (talk) 06:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

"Primarily" appears in one of the pullquotes in one of the cites. See also, paragraph 2 of lead to Global warming which uses word from IPCC AR5 SPM "mostly", with abundant debate in the archives. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Primarily or mostly are fine. Entirely (as denoted by unqualified text) is not consistent with the source. So a qualifer should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B066:FAA4:15B8:C210:2893:8B18 (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Primarily or mostly would be wrong as it implies only part of the increase is human caused. Yes the IPCC report says that it is mostly human caused - but we don't know if the non-human contribution to the trend has been overall positive or negative. They also say "The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period". It may be the human component is 70% and other is 30%, on the other hand it may be the human part is 140% and other is -40%. So I'm not sure how exactly it should be phrased to get it completely correct. Dmcq (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

From the very quote given (last sentence): The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. The IPCC is extremely certain that more than half of the warming is anthropogenic. It's best estimate is that approximately all of the warming is anthropogenic. There is no conflict between the two statements. If you throw a coin that comes up Heads, Heads, Heads, Heads, Heads, Heads, Heads, I'm extremely sure that your coin is biased. My best estimate (in classical frequentists probability theory) is that the coin has Heads on both sides.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

So does your argument not then boil down an equivalency between "is similar to" and "is an exact match for"? I am extremely certain that those two are not equivalent. So again the IPCC statement is at best a qualified statement. So unless there is a truly unqualified claim that 100% of the observed warming is due only to anthropogenic causes the article should match the source's use of a qualifier such as primarily or mostly. I assume that the text is not supposed to make claims that go beyond those made in the source? In this case it clearly does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B048:447B:855:A885:F596:80B7 (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Have you got some wording that does not imply we know whether the other contribution is positive or negative? I don't believe there is such a thing as exact in this context - it depends on the definition of what a human contribution is and time relation s between cause and effect - it is just too messy to talk about exact match. To a large extent we're not talking about inequality but indeterminacy. Dmcq (talk) 11:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Again: Our best estimate is that the trend (not the wiggles) is anthropogenic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

NASA-TV/ustream (11/12/2015@12noon/et/usa) - "Global warming-related" News Briefing.

IF Interested => NASA-TV/ustream and/or NASA-Audio (Thursday, November 12, 2015@12noon/et/usa) - NASA will detail the Role of Carbon on the Future Climate of the Earth - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• BRIEF Followup - REPLAY LINK (Audio; 66:01) => http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/77531778 - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• SUMMARY (and possible addition to article) (see below) - Comments Welcome - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

NASA scientists report that human-made carbon dioxide (CO₂) continues to increase above levels not seen in hundreds of thousands of years: currently, about half of the carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels remains in the atmosphere and is not absorbed by vegetation and the oceans.

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere if half of global-warming emissions are not absorbed.
(NASA simulation; November 9, 2015)

References

Nov 2015

Regarding this edit. 1. I can't imagine Canvassing Works is a reliable source. Although if I am incorrect feel free to show me so. 2. "undermine or discredit" seems POV when "question" is a simpler way to state it and it makes the fossil fuel industry seem openly malicious. DaltonCastle (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Also consider that The Guardian is considered a left-wing newspaper. I am not denying its overall reliability as a source. But special care sure be taken to sift out its bias when using it as a source, since we are not attributing the bias to the paper in the text. DaltonCastle (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

suggested update material

Controversy over earlier findings of a global mean temperature warming "hiatus" since 1996 was addressed in a June 2015 NOAA report published in the journal Science. See https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/recent-global-surface-warming-hiatus , which includes links to the Science publication and to an ftp download of report data. For those maintaining/watching this article, that may be germane to the temperature analysis or projection sections. Also noted a reference resource a propos controversy issues at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/ , which I believe is updated monthly. Cliffewiki (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Changed the opening definition to "A variety of disputes", including one over the nature of the term itself

From the source, a book titled

Global Warming: The Causes and Consequences

By Ishita Haldar

Fxmastermind (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted the change for now. First, the new version is not grammatical (a single controversy is not "a variety of disputes"). I also find no additional value in the statement. We elaborate the concept just below the first sentence. The book source you provided here also seems to be quite obscure - the author seems to be a high-school teacher, I've had no luck finding information on the publisher, and Google Scholar finds no other relevant publication by the author, or reference to the book. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The article Global warming controversy is actually about a wide variety of disputes.

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

and on and on and on

The irony of this isn't subtle.Fxmastermind (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I see no point in saying in the lead that the controversy is a variety of disputes. It is just fluff and padding taking away from the article rather than adding. In fact it detracts by implying that the disputes are distinct things like the parts of the hundred years war rather than being strongly connected parts of an overall controversy. Dmcq (talk) 10:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The irony of this is even deeper than I thought. After some looking, I found the source of the book (and many articles online) that says "A variety of disputes" actually came from this article. In 2011 to 2012 that was the opening line here, with several variations, until somebody changed it late in 2012. So the 'source' was actually the article itself. Fxmastermind (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Call me dense, but I see one question missing in that definition. "whether any action should be taken to curb it". If the change is already ongoing, are we certain that is not too late to curb it? Dimadick (talk) 08:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

That's just one more of the variety of disputes over the multitude of issues. 18:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

That question came up at scientific consensus on climate change - and there the answer is that it should not be included because that is a policy question for politicians and the public and not a scientific question. However here yes I think climate change denial does very much include that question. Dmcq (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

CN tags reverted

I've just reverted a whole lot of tags, because in nearly all cases I found a good source directly associated with the text, usually in the form "The BBC writes [reference]: Blablabla" or similar, with the tag attached to the Blablabla. These things are well-sourced and verifiable. I looked if some of the other changes should be reinstated, but mostly found no improvement, just more wordiness. Prince Charles already redirects to the one and only, in 2002 there was only one Bush administration, the existence of environmental campaigns is common knowledge, and so on. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Reverted. In several cased these "Blablabla" is not attached to anything in particular, the sources do not point to an external link or make peculiar allegations. In 2002, there was not only "one Bush administration" as the term can easily mean the George H. W. Bush administration (1989-1993) and the segment leaves unclear which one is it. And do not assume "common knowledge" in controversial subjects. Dimadick (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain how "The Bush administration also voiced support for an adaptation-only policy in the US in 2002." could refer to the George H. W. Bush? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

When talking about 2002 it is clear which Bush is it. It is much less clear in sections without dates. Dimadick (talk) 10:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Well I spotted only one other instance where it might not be absolutely clear without referring to the book and stuck in a reference to the appropriate one. That would have been much quicker than all this. Dmcq (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Global warming controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0916-09.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Global warming controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080807224318/http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/SFgate/SFgate?&listenv=table&multiple=1&range=1&directget=1&application=fm07&database=%2Fdata%2Fepubs%2Fwais%2Findexes%2Ffm07%2Ffm07&maxhits=200&=%22A21H-04%22 to http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/SFgate/SFgate?&listenv=table&multiple=1&range=1&directget=1&application=fm07&database=%2Fdata%2Fepubs%2Fwais%2Findexes%2Ffm07%2Ffm07&maxhits=200&=%22A21H-04%22

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Global warming controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://climatesci.org/2008/04/23/comment-on-real-climates-post-on-the-relevance-of-the-sensitivity-of-initial-conditions-in-the-ipcc-models/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.house.gov/waxman/safeclimate/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100909234738/http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_15978060 to http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_15978060
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mnp.nl/en/dossiers/Climatechange/moreinfo/Chinanowno1inCO2emissionsUSAinsecondposition.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11074
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.whistleblower.org/doc/A/Atmosphere-of-Pressure.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/judge-dismisses-ken-cuccinelli-mann-0437.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Global warming controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110228070607/http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2005/0714letter.pdf to http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2005/0714letter.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Article does not reflect global view

I'm going to put the globalize template on this the introduction is very U.S. centric. 109.158.179.154 (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Not sure this is warranted. The US is emphasized in the introduction, but maybe rightfully so.

Quoting from the article, emphasis mine:

"Disputes over the key scientific facts of global warming are more prevalent in the media than in the scientific literature, where such ::issues are treated as resolved, and such disputes are more prevalent in the United States than globally.[10][11]"

Quoting from lower in the article:

"Just 19% of Americans and 20% of the Chinese who have heard of the issue say they worry a lot about global warming—the lowest ::percentages in the 15 countries surveyed. Moreover, nearly half of Americans (47%) and somewhat fewer Chinese (37%) express little or no ::concern about the problem."[40]"

If the dispute/controversy is centered/loudest in the US, then it makes sense that the US would be emphasized in the intro and elsewhere. TelosCricket (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Milankovitch Cycles

I've reviewed some of the sections concerning global warming and have found little to no reference to the work of Milankovitch. Has no one brought this research and theory to the arguments about global warming? It would seem to be of vital importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhyPluto (talk • contribs) 23:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know, yes, his work has been explored in the context of global warming. Largely, the data suggest that based on earth's stage in the Milankovitch cycle we are in, the earth should be cooling. TelosCricket (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Forgot links-- http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/milankovitch-cycles

http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm

TelosCricket (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Global warming controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070915053005/http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2934318.ece to http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2934318.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013144956/http://worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/btenvironmentra/187.php?nid=&id=&pnt=187 to http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/btenvironmentra/187.php?nid=&id=&pnt=187
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727205617/http://www.realclimate.org/Mann_response_to_Barton.pdf to http://www.realclimate.org/Mann_response_to_Barton.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727205805/http://www.realclimate.org/Scientists_to_Barton.pdf to http://www.realclimate.org/Scientists_to_Barton.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071222185156/http://www.researchchannel.org/prog/displayevent.aspx?rID=21211&fID=345 to http://www.researchchannel.org/prog/displayevent.aspx?rID=21211&fID=345

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Political Controversies and Corruption

I am posting this here because a search for "Criticism of Climate Change" redirects to this article.

The issue I want to raise relates to political controversies and corruption. For example, in Canada, climate change is associated with fraud and corruption. Green tech companies are top political donors, government officials in Ontario are currently on trial for deleting emails related to cancellation of power plants and the auditor general reported tens of billions in public waste resulting from Green Energy Act.

There is clearly an issue here that "Climate Change" is an excuse to justify corruption and put billions of public dollars into private pockets.

As I understand, climate change fraud is also a heated issue in Australia and parts of Europe.

I propose 1) add a section called climate change fraud and corruption to this article, or 2) create a separate article for politics of climate change, which separately deals with the political and public policy aspect.

24.212.169.208 (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd venture to say that for any widespread idea you can find at least some instances of corruption associated with it. But do you have any reliable sources that make this case for "Climate change" (whatever that means - strictly speaking, its a predicted and observed phenomenon) in particular? BTW, we do have Individual and political action on climate change, which Politics of climate change redirects to. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd also add that there's quite a lot about climate change fraud and corruption in the climate change denial article, but perhaps that's not the fraud and corruption you were thinking of? . . . dave souza, talk 09:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

None of that is very relevant to the topic of this article which is about climate change itself and how to deal with it etc as stated in the first sentence. We have an article Climate change in Canada for related political action in Canada. Dmcq (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Global warming controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110119003144/http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/2229-richard-lindzen-a-case-against-precipitous-climate-action.html to http://thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/2229-richard-lindzen-a-case-against-precipitous-climate-action.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304204052/http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=%2Fclimate%2Fipcc_tar%2Fvol4%2Fenglish%2Findex.htm to http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=%2Fclimate%2Fipcc_tar%2Fvol4%2Fenglish%2Findex.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070521082042/http://web.dmi.dk/solar-terrestrial/space_weather/ to http://web.dmi.dk/solar-terrestrial/space_weather/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006231234/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/048.htm to http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/048.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.montana.edu/lkbonney/DOCS/Publications/DoranEtAl2002ClimteCooling.pdf
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130723201219/http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=9bc9a7c6-2729-4d07-9629-807f1dee479f&k=0 to http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=9bc9a7c6-2729-4d07-9629-807f1dee479f&k=0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929083942/http://www.hoover.org/publications/epp/2834741.html?show=summary to http://www.hoover.org/publications/epp/2834741.html?show=summary
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528030007/http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/05/do-you-heart-the-hartwell-paper.html to http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/05/do-you-heart-the-hartwell-paper.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070410184455/http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/exxonmobil-smoke-mirrors-hot.html to http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/exxonmobil-smoke-mirrors-hot.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070819134355/http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/exxonsecrets-2007 to http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/exxonsecrets-2007
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070701124215/http://www.cckn.net/compendium/int_vulnerability.asp to http://www.cckn.net/compendium/int_vulnerability.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927120738/http://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/information/testimony/t_020718_letter.php to http://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/information/testimony/t_020718_letter.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

THE RESEARCH OF STUDENTS

i am a student myself, and i have many topics about global warming in my book. The content in the site is relevant, but it should be easier to understand so that kids can understand it too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AwesomeAngelina..... (talk • contribs) 10:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

So what are you suggesting - the page needs additional content? Where/What? Also you need to be careful when you are citing your own work - conflicts of interest obviously go against Wikipedia guidelines. Ckruschke (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Ckruschke

Internal radiative forcing

I removed "Internal radiative forcing" [9]. I don't see why it is any way notable. Spencer is notable, but not every idea of every notable person is notable, so that's no argument. Notice that the only ref to it is a webarchive; if there's no current live link or any secondary discussion, it's NN William M. Connolley (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree, "Internal radiative forcing" is not reliably sourced and pseudoscience. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion of other editors

I am One of Many, you have me laughing. That word pseudoscience is invective, it seems to say "I must be right because the people who disagree with me are pseudoscientists". But Spencer is a serious scientist, more so than you, one supposes, and you really can't hurl words like that about. In any event, this article does not seem to be about science, it begins by saying that it "concerns the public debate over whether global warming is occurring...", and the focus of the page is on public opinion. That would be an absurd approach to a scientific article! Moonraker (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC) Discussion of other editors and a general "I don't like this" is not a persuasive argument. I concur with the revert, which at least hold open the possibility of more discussion if there were current RSs. Instead you talk about other editors, and express general dislike for the article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC) Moonraker you shouldn't make assumptions about editors, especially since you have no idea who anyone is here. That said, Spencer's "modeling" work on "Internal radiative forcing" and global warming is pseudoscience and there is not going to be a reliable source to be found.--I am One of Many (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC) NewsAndEventsGuy and I am One of Many, you have me laughing again. I see the word "pseudoscience" is being repeated, from which it's fair to draw the inference that I am One of Many's opinion of Spencer is that his work has no value and that he or she claims to know more about climate science than Spencer does. May one ask what those greater scientific qualifications are? (I don't think I have "expressed a general dislike of the article", I have simply pointed out that its focus is on public opinion. Does either of you disagree with that?) Moonraker (talk) 00:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC) See WP:NOTFORUM; You have not made the case, based on reliable sources, that the text you wish add would be an article improvement. This talk page is for that purpose and that purpose alone, see WP:TPG NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC) The following message has just been posted on my talk page. It seems that I am being threatened? Moonraker (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC) This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date. Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here. Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. [I redacted my signature and time stamp which Moonraker copied along with the DS notice to keep this thread comprehensible. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC) In reply to this absurd post, I can point out that I am not pursuing an edit war or even arguing for someone else's addition to the page to be reinstated, I am asking questions to which replies would be appreciated, instead of threats. Moonraker (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC) NewsAndEventsGuy, I must draw your attention to Wikipedia conduct policies, and in particular to Wikipedia:Harassment. Making unjustified threats is not a reasonable way to conduct a discussion on a talk page. If you were an Admin, it would be grounds for you to be recalled. Moonraker (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC) Being an article talk page, please see Focus on content(bullet 2), supported by WP:Reliable sources of appropriate WP:WEIGHT. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Talking about pseudoscience as if it was some reason to exclude something in this article is just wrong. After all the whole point is to go into the controversy and much of it is just pseudoscience and it would be wrong to exclude it. However I agree that this particular theory just didn't make any sort of mark anywhere and so shouldn't be in. Dmcq (talk) 10:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I am One of Many and Dmcq, I don't agree that the above discussion was off topic, and I am not much concerned with the particular information about Internal radiative forcing, which doesn't seem to add much to the page: it isn't one focussed on science, more on what public opinion says, as if that mattered, and what the controversies are, which is more interesting. But I am concerned about the use of that word "pseudoscience" as an argument to delete research by Roy Spencer. The need for a neutral point of view calls for a balance of views, and you can't get to that if supporters of certain viewpoints are acceptable but those whose research disagrees with them can be dismissed as "pseudoscientists". That's the exact opposite of the scientific method. Can I am One of Many please tell us how that assessment of "pseudoscience" was arrived at? And also whether every scientist who disagrees with the alarmist point of view (such as Judith Curry, for instance), would also be removed from the page as a "pseudoscientist"? Moonraker (talk) 11:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

You gave the game away by referring to the scientific consensus as "alarmist," which clearly indicates that constructive discussion will not be possible. Everyone should just move along now. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why they pinged me. I was agreeing about pseudoscience not being a reason for excluding things here. However I also said that I agreed that the section just hadn't the sources or importance to justify its inclusion. Arguing about pseudoscience won't change that. The only thing that would change that is some good secondary source. Dmcq (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Moonraker, I will explain briefly what you ask—even though this is off topic for discussion on a talk page—in the hope that it will bring this discussion to an end and you can move on to other topics. Spenser's "theory" was based on a computer model that was based on scientifically implausible and false assumptions. Claims made that purport to be scientific but are based on scientifically implausible and false assumptions are pseudoscientific as I see then. So, now you have my view and we can move on.--I am One of Many (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2019

I am not asking for personal permisison to edit, but I think there should be more visual representation of studies that find GW is not as bad as is claimed, if at all. 144.92.115.109 (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

(Closing edit request as it's a general comment) – Þjarkur (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Please see WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:DUE. Prinsgezinde (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2019

For Example, the top two contributors for Climate Change public interests’ groups between 2017-2018 came in around $25 Billion in donations to Democrats (OpenSecrets.org, 2018). For the top two Private Lobbying groups for Oil & Gas between 2012-2018 was about $16 Billion.

It is hard to know what to make of this inchoate request. But even were it better explicated, I fail to see how this topic would fit with the topic of this Wikipedia page. M.boli (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Misleading statement

The following statement is misleading: The authors found that 3974 of the abstracts expressed a position on anthropogenic global warming, and that 97.1% of those endorsed the consensus that humans are causing global warming. The authors found that of the 11,944 abstracts, 3896 endorsed that consensus, 7930 took no position on it, 78 rejected the consensus, and 40 expressed uncertainty about it. That was 97% of the 3974 NOT 97% of all 11,944. The actual percentages are:

• Agree 32%
• Disagree 0.6%
• No Opinion 66%

Looks very different now, doesn't it? When writing, keep in mind that there are lies, damned lies and statistics... Please either remove the misleading statement or provide the correct numbers. IMO the article in general is not balanced. TheDoDahMan (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

You need to provide a reliable source that backs up your analysis. And note that reliable source means a news article, not an opinion piece in mainstream media, or a peer-reviewed article in an academic journal or a university textbook. Blogs and editorials don't count. TFD (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

References! You just have to calculate percentages. It is not an "analysis". It is careful reading of the results in the reference that is given.TheDoDahMan (talk) 05:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The article is not misleading. It wasn't a poll of people. Had this been, for example, a poll question then yes a large percentage of "no opinion" would be important. But it was a sample of abstracts, most of which did not try to answer a particular question. The article is correct, of the abstracts that happened to express a view, 97% expressed that view.---- M.boli (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

It is misleading. It implies that 97% of those polled agree, which they do not. If you check the references provided, at least one of them criticise this particular study.TheDoDahMan (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

You’ve just been told it wasn’t a poll. Was it a poll, or not? Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

So its not a poll. Its still deeply flawed and misleading. Let's call in a stats expert.TheDoDahMan (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

It has been explained to you perfectly well in this thread. Which part don’t you understand? Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Um... we say right in the quote you provided, "97.1% of those"... "of those" is those that took a position. That's not misleading; it is accurate and consistent with the language in the source. VQuakr (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

"global warming" or "climate change" or both?

The opening lede paragraphs include seven references to "global warming" and four references to "climate change". While in casual parlance, this terms are often used as synonyms, they aren't exactly the same, and we ought to be a bit more circumspect. I fully understand the terminology has changed over the past few decades, with references to "global warming" prevalent earlier in the periods and the gradual shift to the use of "climate change" later in the period, but we ought to talk through exactly how this article should be written.

The title suggests that the subject is "global warming". It may well be that we don't literally mean "global warming" in the sense that the only item of interest is the changing global temperatures, and instead is a placeholder for the broader concept of "climate change", but if that's what we mean, we ought to say so explicitly.

Furthermore, in some cases we use the term "global warming" to specifically mean the temperature record as opposed to all climactic activity. Confusingly, in some cases we are using the term "climate change" when we are talking about the narrower subject of temperature rather than the broader subject of climactic activity. For example the opening sentence of the third paragraph uses the "climate change" phrase but is clearly talking about temperature:

Political and popular debate concerning the existence and cause of climate change includes the reasons for the increase seen in the instrumental temperature record, whether the warming trend exceeds normal climatic variations, and whether human activities have contributed significantly to it.

The fourth paragraph starts with "global warming" but seems like a discussion of the broader issue of "climate change".

Treating these terms as interchangeable leads to the silly statement that: "there is a scientific consensus that climate change is happening and is caused by human activity.".

Nobody with a brain disputes that climate change is happening so that opening graph is meaningless. In contrast, many thoughtful people question how significant global warming has been in recent decades and how much of the measured change is caused by human activity.

I know it's easier to point out problems than to identify solutions. However, one of the purposes of the lead paragraphs is to clarify the scope of the subject, and we ought to find a way to clarify whether this article is about global warming or about climate change, and that discussion may well include a discussion of the overlap as well as the differences between the two concepts.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The good news is that "there is a scientific consensus that climate change is happening and is caused by human activity" is not silly. It is correct, and would be equally true with "global warming" in place of "climate change." There is not ambiguity between the two concepts, because in the present day the climate change comes from a radiative imbalance which is warming.

The lede sentences of this article spell out clearly: this article is about the public debate, not about "how significant global warming has been in recent decades and how much of the measured change is caused by human activity." — M.boli (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

M.boli, The reason it is silly is that the climate is changing all the time, and has been changing for literally billions of years. Most of those changes, for obvious reasons, have nothing to do with human activity. The climate is changing now, and there is evidence that some of the changes are due to human activity. The phrase "is caused by human activity" means that human activity, and nothing else is responsible for changes to climate, which is literally laughable. It may well be correct to say that the ever-changing climate is experiencing additional changes in recent decades which scientists trace to human activity, but the sentence as stated is silly.

Additionally, the term "climate change" refers to a host of phenomena other than temperature changes. For example, changes in AMO and PDO, sea level increases, alleged changes in cyclone frequency and severity, changes in aggregate rainfall, changes in local rainfall patterns, snow fall changes, glaciation changes and more. Again, in casual parlance, the terms are often used interchangeably, but that doesn't mean we need to be so sloppy.

You might be correct if you assert that many in the public mistakenly confuse the two terms, but we aren't required to mirror that confusion—our goal should be to summarize the issues, which may include pointing out the flawed conflation, but doesn't mean we have to make the same error. S Philbrick(Talk) 02:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

"Joe missing work today because of his cancer treatment." Maybe Joe is actually being treated for the effects of the steroids today. Also, earlier in life Joe had a melanoma which was cured, how do we know you aren't referring to that bout with cancer? And technically speaking, most people have some cancer cells all the time. Please be more specific!

Wikipedia isn't litigating global warming vs. climate change within this article. Nobody is confused by "there is a scientific consensus that climate change is happening and is caused by human activity" is just as clear as "Joe is missing work today and it is caused by his cancer." If you want to litigate Joe's cancer, there are other places. — M.boli (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

And if you wanted to swap the language in that sentence which offends you, I don't think it would hurt anything either. M.boli (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Nobody is confused by "there is a scientific consensus that climate change is happening and is caused by human activity" that's also my impression. If the article was more general about climatology, it probably would have a different name and scope such as "climate variation", "ice age", etc... I do find "climate change" suboptimal but it has come to mostly mean the same as "global warming" and I think that the use of "global warning" in the current title is enough to eliminate possible confusion. —PaleoNeonate – 02:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

M.boli, I had been mulling over an analogy but I like your cancer analogy. I'm in complete agreement that in casual conversation, someone might refer to "cancer treatment", and the other parties to the conversation are likely to understand that this is a placeholder for a number of issues some of which might not technically be "cancer treatment". I'm fine with that in casual conversation — I'll even go further and say that if someone hearing that conversation challenged them on the terminology and suggested that they really meant something else, that person is being unreasonable. However, Wikipedia is not a casual conversation. We understand (and probably hope) that statements in Wikipedia will be copied and used elsewhere, hopefully with the understanding that while it's the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, there are editors working hard to make sure information is supported by reliable sources, so the statement is an attempt to be correct not just approximate.

One could have an article about climate change controversy, because there are controversies about many aspects of climate change issues. Off the top of my head, some issues which are clearly part of climate change but do not squarely fit in with the narrower topic of global warming include:

• thermohaline circulation
• glacial advance, retreat and aggregate mass balance
• pollen distribution
• cloud cover
• rainfall, in the aggregate, and by location
• cyclone frequency and severity
• tornado frequency, severity, timing and location
• crop growth
• sea ice extent and mass
• sea level

If this article had gone into some depth on all aspects of climate change controversies I would be arguing that it ought to say climate change throughout. However, With the exception of a very short paragraph on Arctic ice, the bulk of this article talks about the narrower subject of warming. I'm perfectly fine with that, except that if the article is going to be about global warming, it ought to use that term. If it's going to be about climate change in general, it needs substantial expansion. Obviously, the easier approach is to keep the article largely as is and change the lead slightly.

I don't suggest mindlessly doing a search and replace, as even an article about global warming might properly refer to climate change if only to express the observation that global warming is an important part of, although properly a subset of climate change.

I will work up a list of all references to both terms in the lead paragraphs along with my recommendation. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

It seems like a harmless change, and I do understand your point. I just replaced three instances of climate change in the lede section. Two became global warming, one became climate will change because that is what the sentence was talking about. I may have missed some, most of the occurrences were in references and wiki-links. (Misfortunately I neglected to put an edit summary on the first edit. I hope whoever has this page on the watch list also notices the talk page discussion!) — M.boli (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

M.boli, I posted below before fully looking at your edits. I'll look now. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The following is a summary of my proposed edits, along with a rationale:

Count	Existing wording	Proposed wording	comments
1	This article is about the public debate over scientific conclusions on climate change.	This article is about the public debate over scientific conclusions on global warming	reflect the article subject
2	For denial, dismissal or unwarranted doubt of the scientific consensus, see climate change denial.	For denial, dismissal or unwarranted doubt of the scientific consensus, see global warming denial.	I initially considered leaving this as a term of art but I see that the article on the subject treats the terms as almost interchangeable, so I think it will be less confusing if we use the global warming option
3	The global warming controversy...	<same>
4	...whether global warming is occurring...	<same>
5	...scientific consensus that climate change is happening and is caused by human activity.	scientific consensus that global warming is happening and is caused by human activity.	reflect the article subject
6	Disputes over the key scientific facts of global warming are more prevalent...	<same>
7	Political and popular debate concerning the existence and cause of climate change includes the reasons for the increase seen in the instrumental temperature record, whether the warming trend exceeds normal climatic variations	Political and popular debate concerning the existence and cause of global warming includes the reasons for the increase seen in the instrumental temperature record, whether the warming trend exceeds normal climatic variations	Note that the sentence goes on to talk about temperature and warming and nothing else. (The use of "climatic" is fine)
8	Public disputes that also reflect scientific debate include estimates of how responsive the climate system might be to any given level of greenhouse gases (climate sensitivity), how the climate will change at local and regional scales, ...	Public disputes that also reflect scientific debate include estimates of how responsive warming might be to any given level of greenhouse gases (climate sensitivity), how the temperature will change at local and regional scales,	"climate sensitivity" not changed because it is a technical term and correct in this context. (As a curious aside, it's a measure of temperature not climate but that's for the scientist to deal with.)
9	...and what the consequences of global warming will be.	<same>
10	Global warming remains an issue of widespread political debate...	<same>
11	...such as human responsibility for global warming,...	<same>
12	...—an ideological phenomenon categorised by academics and scientists as climate change denial.	—an ideological phenomenon categorised by academics and scientists as global warming denial.	I initially considered leaving this as a term of art but I see that the article on the subject treats the terms as almost interchangeable, so I think it will be less confusing if we use the global warming option
13	The sources of funding for those involved with climate science...	<same>	no change needed
14	Climate scientists, especially in the United States,...	<same>	no change needed
15	Legal cases regarding global warming, its effects,...	<same>	no change needed
16	...the scientific consensus on global warming.	<same>	no change needed

My reading is that climate change denial is a term of art for good reason. Climate change denial encompasses a lot of material about the reality and effects of the currently changing climate and the appropriate responses to it, not just the narrow question about radiative imbalance.

My quick thoughts on your list:

• 1 (hatnote) it would be OK to change it, not needed but not harmful.
• 2 (hatnote) as noted, I think climate change denial is the appropriate term, and (as you note) a term of art.
• 5 I think this is one that I changed
• 7 I think this is one that I changed
• 8 (climate sensitivity) how the climate system will change. I think saying how responsive warming might be is misleading, but I see what you are trying to fix. Can I propose something like how the Earth's average temperature will respond?
• 8 (climate sensitivity) how the climate will change at local and regional scales is exactly correct. How the temperature will change at local and regional scales is wrong.
• 12 I still think climate change denial is correct.

What do you think? M.boli (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Merge with Public opinion on global warming

We have two articles on the same thing. At Public opinion on global warming it says

Public opinion on global warming is the aggregate of attitudes or beliefs held by the adult population concerning the science, economics, and politics of global warming. It is affected by media coverage of climate change.

and here the scope is described as

The global warming controversy concerns the public debate over 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.

Is there an reason to not merge these? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Public opinion on global warming should probably not have even been created since it is 8 years younger, but I agree the content is "similar" with this page being about twice as big. IMO Public opinion on global warming should be skimmed with the best bits incorporated into this page before deleting it. Ckruschke (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Ckruschke

Looking at the two articles I don't see much overlap. Roughly speaking, Public opinion on global warming seems to be a social science / public opinion research thing. While this article Global warming controversy seems to cover the substance of the public debate.

The main topic overlap may be the first section of the Controversy article: public opinion. It contains a {{main}} macro pointing over the Opinion article. This section also seems to be out of date. So I'd vote for shortening and updating the public opinion section.

Might it also make sense to update the lede sentences to make the distinction more clear? — M.boli (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality serves the cause better

The very first paragraph leaves much to be desired in terms of neutrality: so the people who agree belong to an overwhelming, prestigious consensus, the people (presumably scientists, from the way it's written) who disagree "attempt to convince the public that it isn't happening", "attempt to sow doubt in the consensus." It would seem they’re wholly unconcerned about the facts, their actions led by those mischievous “attempts” to sow confusion. Whatever you think about the facts, this portrait is a partisan one.

217.217.1.136 (talk) 08:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

No. You could say exactly the same about other articles about conflicts between science and crackpots. The difference is only that you have been indocrinated to think that this one is not a conflict between science and crackpots. We use reliable sources in the article, and they say it is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Edits

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Greenhouse_gases

"Attribution of recent climate change discusses the evidence for recent global warming. Correlation of CO2 and temperature is not part of this evidence."

Since there is no citation, it should be removed from the article Science vol (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Article title

Is there a better title for the article than "global warming controversy"? I would suggest that there may perhaps be no worse title: the "controversy" was, as far as the documentary evidence shows, artificially created and sustained by the fossil fuel industry, after their own science showed that their products were harming the planet. I would suggest that something like Political debate over climate change would be a better title, as it doesn't give false legitimacy to a controversy that is long since over in the scientific community. When not one national or international scientific body dissents from the consensus view that the climate is changing due to warming effects caused, primarily, by human activity, we're into the realms of "Earth roundness controversy" or "phlogiston controversy". Guy (help!) 21:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 2 May 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus on what would be a better article title. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Global warming controversy → Political debate over climate change – To more accurately reflect (a) the scope and (b) the nature of the debate. Guy (help!) 10:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Sceptre (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support, as proposer. The subject as described is clearly distinct from but parallel to scientific opinion on climate change. The "controversy" (a word to avoid) was, according to documentary evidence from sources such as Exxon and Shell, deliberately manufactured by the fossil fuel lobby using the tobacco industry playbook (see ExxonMobil climate change controversy, for example, also cf. Merchants of Doubt) and at times veers right into conspiracy theory. On a purely technical note the terminology has changed from global warming to climate change, but on a more relevant note for Wikipedia, the "controversy" was always political and separate from - and, indeed, an industry reaction to - the actual science. It's worthy of note that climate change denial only became a qualifying criterion for Republican candidates comparatively recently. W was OK with taking action on climate change. Guy (help!) 10:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• oppose - new name is both more elaborate and misleading: large portions of the current page have only a tenuous connection to politics, and much of the politics cannot be described as anything as genteel as "debate". Also, although Evil Fossil Fuel companies undoubtedly did their best, the idea that the whole or even most of the controversy was manufacturer is nonsense William M. Connolley (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support move, but not necessarily to that place - Maybe split it? The article basically consists of Public opinion, Scientific consensus and Political questions. Scientific opinion on climate change already covers the second part, so whichever part is not covered there could move there. The third part could become Political debate over climate change, and the first part could either become an article of its own or be appended to the politics article. Essentially, this article is about the fight between science and denialism, so another option would be to cut it up into small pieces und move those to the Scientific opinion article and the Climate change denial article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  I just looked at the early history of the article, eighteen years ago. Back then, it was basically "some say this, others say that". The name still reflects that attitude, and it is simply WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support move, but not necessarily to that place - I think there would be too much name confusion between the proposed name and Politics of global warming, which is about public policy debate. Maybe Public global warming controversies would work?

The Scientific Consensus and Political Questions sections of this article largely catalog political/social controversies in the public sphere which are linked to discussions that happened in science or policy spheres. Items like CO2-lags-temperature-in-ice-cores and urban-heat-island and so on were grabbed by the doubt merchants and injected into public controversy, appearing in WSJ op-eds and Senate speeches and shared over FB. Similarly with questioning the effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocols or the authority of the IPCC. Many of these sections have {{Main}} wiki-links.

Some parts of this article describe not specific controversies, but topics spawned by the public controversies. I'm not sure how to categorize them. This includes the sections on litigation to force the government to address climate change and the political pressures on climate scientists.

This Public Opinion section was written a long time ago, and I think it duplicates (but is more aged than) the Public opinion on global warming article. They should be merged.

I share the feeling that the topic tying this article together lacks coherence, and parts of it are duplicated elsewhere. -- M.boli (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

M.boli, we should avoid the word controversy. Guy (help!) 22:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I support a move, but to re-fashion along the lines of "Fringe arguments against global warming". —RCraig09 (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  There is already climate change denial however, —PaleoNeonate – 17:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as our primary article is at Global warming. We should remain internally consistent with sub-articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree re the concept of consistency, but there has been much discussion and a clear consensus to rename the GW article because, among other things, Climate change is being used predominantly. See, e.g., File:20200107 "Global warming" vs "Climate change" Google search term ratio.png. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

If the primary topic is ever moved from Global warming to Climate change, then I would support this move, as I think "Political debate over climate change" would be a good article title. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Should not be confined to "political". — the Man in Question (in question) 22:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Disambiguate into Public opinion on global warming, scientific opinion on climate change, and Politics of global warming, with content merged as appropriate. buidhe 01:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• Relister comments: There's no consensus on an article title for a moment, although there does seem to be a general consensus that an article about the controversy should be about the political controversy (of which, sadly, there is a lot of) and not the scientific controversy (of which there is none). Sceptre (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: For the simple reason that the proposer is using the same "red herring" tactics that he states were used to create the "controversy" and clearly has an axe to grind. Apparently anyone who disagrees with man-made Global Warming is in the pocket of Big Oil and Big Tobacco? Come on... Ckruschke (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke
• Oppose - per many above comments but also because "political debate" is far too constraining. Not all of the debate is "political". -- Netoholic @ 03:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Cited a controversial, biased source"

[10] We do not quote Idso because we think he is reliable. We quote him to show that there are denialists who hold this position. So, this deletion may have missed the point. But maybe there are secondary, reliable sources which say that there are denialists who hold this position? Replacing Idso with those would be an improvement. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

New topic discussion wasn't suitable for a talk page: not made any specific proposals to improve the page, appear to be using it to promote fringe views, and off topic for this page anyway