Talk:List of climate change controversies/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Vanishing Snowpack

Maybe old news to most of you - Last night on TV - which show I don't remember - it appears that some western state has been claiming that global warming was decreasing the snow pack in their mountains for several years - less ground water, skiing, etc. It appears that the data was cherrypicked - highest year ( 1995) compared with lowest year ( 2005). The assistant state meteorolgist was fired when he publically exposed the sham. Now this state is totally proglobal warming - one way to win an argument.159.105.80.141 11:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent source, "last night on TV" (which time zone? which network?) in a show you do not remember, someone (who?) claimed something about some "western state" (West of where? Peru, Canada, Ireland and Portugal come to mind). Do we have any long-term information about the snow pack? --Stephan Schulz 11:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Check out Oregon or Washington state - western USA - east of the Pacific. If you really care you can find out which state fired their assistant meteorologist - maybe I can help. We - Oregon or Washington state obviously don't have - or use - long term data. The high year and the low year seem to be the relevant years in this case - ie cherrypicking. 159.105.80.141 19:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long - 5 minutes or so. Puget Sound Public Radio - KUOW 94.9 3/7/2007 ( the TV show I saw must have found it only recently ) Philip Mote - the state climatologist fired Mark Albright - the unpaid assisatant climatologist - when the assistant undiplomatically called his boss and the governor a couple of liars ( not in those words but you get the general drift). It appears the governor said t Washington and Oregon state snowpacks were down 50% from 1950s to now. Mr Albright said and showed that that was BS. Depending on what year you use out of the last 50 or so you can get a drought or a avalanche - the governor and Mr Mote liked the drought numbers/years. The real snowpack is slightly down - normal variations it appears but that doesn't help Mr Albright' s job in climatology it seems. By the way there doesn't seem to be any experts/climate or otherwise who dispute Mr Albright - Mr Mote was unavailable at the time of the KUOW broadcast - kind of prickily since too.159.105.80.141 19:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't the article be improved by showing how individuals who are members of the "majority" of "accredited experts" have occasionally falsified data to push a point that has become politics and money?159.105.80.141 11:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I take issue with this sentence

"...Among climate scientists there is little disagreement that global warming is primarily anthropogenic..."

Incorrect, actually -- this is still an issue of contention. Regardless of whether or not it is or it isn't anthropogenic, there is no "consensus." See below: http://www.heartland.org/pdf/20732.pdf

The report is fatally flawed, because it relies on the 2003 survey, which was itself flawed - there were no controls on who responded. Thats why you're not citing its publication in a proper journal, because sadly it wasn't William M. Connolley 22:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the report was published in a peer reviewed journal or not, the fact is that controversy is mainly about the question of whether or not the gentle warming is anthropogenic. RonCram 05:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that does not contradict the sentence. --Nethgirb 06:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The term "little disagreement" indicates a degree of harmony. No such harmony exists. The number of climate scientists who disagree may be small but the disagreement is vociferous. The sentence has to go. RonCram 14:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what you said that the controversy is largely about whether GW is anthropogenic. But that controversy is almost all outside climate science. You seem to be equating vociferous disagreement by a tiny minority with "more than a little disagreement", which gives undue weight to the small minority. The skeptics don't get more weight just because they're loud. --Nethgirb 16:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The Brey and Von Storch study has been "reported" to lack controls, but this report has yet to be verified as far as I know. Has anyone claimed so far that he was a respondent to the survey while not being qualified to answer? And no matter what, the authors of the study should be presumed to have worked properly, not the other way around. If this study would have ended up in supporting mainstream climate science, it would be cited at every corner just like the fluke Oreskes paper is. --Childhood's End 14:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Nethgirb, I am not trying to give undue weight to the minority. The sentence currently states there is "little disagreement." That is not a true statement. The minority is loud because the disagreement is strong, occurs against many points, is scientifically supported and picking up supporters all the time. The term "little disagreement" does not accurately convey the situation and must be modified. RonCram 16:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Taking this response together with your previous one, you're saying the disagreement is strong because the objections are loud ("vociferous"), and the objections are loud because the disagreement is strong. Such rigorous logic is impressive. Raymond Arritt 16:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was obvious that usually, a strong disagreement tends to become loud... --Childhood's End 20:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

With "The Great Global Warning Swindle" it seems that we have attributable (in English language mainstream media, featuring employed academics) disagreement, so it would seem that "little disagreement" seems in appropriate. How about, "some disagreement"? --Timtak 14:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Just for my enlightenment: which employed academics? I watched it but must have missed them? Specifically disagreeing that global warming is primarily anthropogenic that is...--BozMo talk 15:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Respondents to the survey were anonymous. They report this themselves. There is no way to check their qualifications or otherwise. But the main point is that it was never published William M. Connolley 21:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Would this report help?

Future T rise

One of the major sources of argument over GW is future T rise. Currently the article does this very badly. Uber removed the entire section[1] with an odd comment about "Not a real controversy", which is hard to understand. Various septics have said various things about how tiny the rise is, they ought to go in somewhere. Unless we're all that the IPCC *does* span the full range of opinion; in which case that should be reported :-) William M. Connolley 21:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps in the sense that people may argue 2-11 F temperature rise is insignificant, yes. Haven't seen any real papers that deny temperature rise, however. Burden of proof is on the author. For more details on this policy of which I speak, read WP:A. ~ UBeR 22:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Haven't seen any real papers that deny temperature rise - if this page was restricted to papers only, it would be much shorter. Most of the septic nonsense isn't publishable, of course William M. Connolley 14:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have no real evidence for what you're putting in articles, don't even bother. Wales makes this very clear, as does the rest of the Wikipedia community who've voiced their opinion on Wikipedia policies. There are bona fide skeptical responses to claims made by the by the IPCC. If you're interested in nonsense, try some other online encyclopedia. ~ UBeR 18:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you on about? William M. Connolley 18:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Pardon? ~ UBeR 21:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Framing the controversy

A major part of the debate revolves around what actions, if any, society should take in response to the prospect of future warming.

Sentences like this assume the viewpoint of the UN climate panel's "third working group", which is that there will be consequences because there will be warming - and that we must mitigate these consequences. I daresay this makes the panel "prescriptive", although they say they are not. (Please help me find verifiable sources who have commented on this aspect of the UNIPCC.)

Moveover, we should not frame the controversy so that it tends to support either side in the debate. Let's just say what the various disputed points and who takes which side. Where it is clear what percentage of scientists support a particular side, we can say report this, but if even that is disputed then we had better not endorse any particular side's estimate of how much support it has. (I base this on the last few days discussion at Wikipedia talk:Attribution.) --Uncle Ed 15:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

More to the point (sorry, got distracted by Jimbo's policy clarification at Wikipedia talk:Attribution):

• If there is indeed debate about "what actions, if any, society should take" I would like to see them in the body of the article.
• Otherwise, perhaps in another article spun off from this one.

But my impression is that nearly all the debate is about whether the science favors (1) the idea that there is too much warming and (2) the idea that the surplus is caused by people's actions. The idea that we better figure out what to do about "the surplus" seems to be more of an after thought than a major part of the controversy. --Uncle Ed 16:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

AL Gore challenged to a debate on global warming

Moved: was at Talk:global warming
Lord Monckton has issued a formal challenge to Al gore for a "an internationally televised, head-to-head, nation-unto-nation confrontation on the question, 'That our effect on climate is not dangerous'." [2] I think this is what has been needed for quite some time - a large formal televised debate! May the best science win. Delta x 06:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Since Monckton is an unknown whose views on GW are hopelessly wrong, I doubt Gore will bother. This will allow M to run around screaming that Gore is afraid, but no-one will listen so it won't matter :-) William M. Connolley 09:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Monckton is an "unknown" whose non-notable writings have been published in The Daily Telegraph and criticized by this other "non-notable" figure from some fly-by-night operation called the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. DickClarkMises 15:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I hardly even know who this monckton is, and he sounds like a nutcase anyways (much like Al Gore sounds these days). I agree there should be a heavily publicized debate just for the hell of it, but this probably isn't that way it should go down. Specusci 15:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like this discussion to move to Global warming controversy. Any objection if I cut and paste it from here to there? --Uncle Ed 15:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea William M. Connolley 15:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Thanks, Uncle Ed! :-) ...what a relief that we can actually put this all somewhere more specific. Thanks. --Sm8900 16:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of taking hasty action, I'll take this as sufficient endorsement. I'm sure an admin wouldn't steer me wrong. --Uncle Ed 16:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the best question to ask re Monckton's "objections" is, "what are his bona fides?" Has he any special knowledge to question anything in the scientific world? •Jim62sch• 17:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Journalist vs. politician in a debate on science? Am I the only one seeing the disconnect here? ~ UBeR 21:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. If you're interested in a debate among scientists* from both sides, feel free to check this page out. A link to a PDF of the transcript is available at the top of the page. ~ UBeR 21:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael Crichton is a scientist? Raymond Arritt 21:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

*Save Crichton. Pleased? ~ UBeR 22:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore is a theology school dropout. Michael Crichton has an M.D. degree. Would it be WP:OR to conclude that Crichton has more of a "scientist" than Gore?

Ordinarily, I might say no. But since this is such a hotly debated controversy, let's allow the sources to decide that. --Uncle Ed 22:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest you start saying yes, even to your own OR. He graduated cum laude from Harvard College. Needless to say, they're both hardly fit any definition of a scientist. What is this ado over talk page controversies that haven't a place in the respectful article, anyway? ~ UBeR 00:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Crichton well understand the scientific method and how science is done. Anyone who does not understand that an MD is a scientist does not know anything about medical school. In addition, Crichton was an academic at one time - Visting Lecturer in Anthropology at Oxford. RonCram 16:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, his experience as an anthropologist no doubt gave him a solid grounding in the physics of radiative transfer, properties of coupled nonlinear partial differential equations, and other fields relevant to climate. Raymond Arritt 16:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please mark sarcasm carefully. I just now realized that "no doubt" was meant ironically. (Uh, that *is* how you meant it, isn't it?) --Uncle Ed 17:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't let Al debate anyone. It would be so embarrassing - I don't care if Monckton ( who I never heard of ) doesn't know anything, in a couple hours of study he would make Al look really bad. Monck moght start out asking if carbon credits cause or cure global warming - Al would meltdown or freezeup. 159.105.80.141 19:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Temperature of the troposphere

The entry currently (23 March 2007: 1325 UTC) reads

"Claim: If greenhouse gases were causing the climate warming then scientists would expect to the troposphere to be warming, but observations do not bear this out [33]. Response: satellite temperature measurements do indeed show that tropospheric temperatures are increasing[34] ."

This imho is wrong. In the channel 4 documentary to which is linked it is claimed that the troposphere is warming less quickly(!) than the earth, not that the troposphere is not warming. Given that, the second reference does not disprove the true claim. I'm not that sure, but if I understand the abstract correct there too the surface warms faster that the troposphere.

If my observation is correct, the last sentence of the original text should be removed or, if the article confirms the claim, it should reveal that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nvdb (talk • contribs).

The satellite data has been corrected a number of times as more and more issues (orbital drift, time drift, alignment problems, calibration issues) came up. The latest version now is in reasonably good agreement with surface temperatures and model predictions. The skeptics criticism usually lags 1-2 updates behind. --Stephan Schulz 20:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Stephan is (of course) correct. The *old* skeptics claim was no warming, though that hasn't been true for a while. The new claim is not enough warming, but since thats fairly subtle it doesn't make a good soundbite so they don't use it much. Ahem, anyway. The correct rebuttal to the correct claim is that there is no disparity between the sfc and trop trends; satellite temperature record has two good sources for this: the old CCSP report (which has the nice irony of having Christys name on it, a little in joke there for those paying attention) and the new AR4 SPM William M. Connolley 21:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the "old skeptics" said there was no cooling. They were right ( but I remember they were called idiots, etc - non peer reviewed seemed popular ). The new skeptics say we ( us ie Al Gore "Mr Carbon Credit", we,...)are not causing anything. Some years/centuries it gets cooler ( Ice Age ) some years it gets warmer ( not Ice Age/must be a better term). When the sun reduces its energy output I will switch to the cooler but we aint causing it crowd - I am very flexible ( when the fact schange ).159.105.80.141 19:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

nuetrality of this article is ... well non-existent

I have red the entirety of the "Global warming controversy" article; not being anything like an expert on the subject most of the arguments and facts presented went over my head. I did however take note of a very significant problem. This article is presented in a very pro-global-warming-as-fact (my own way of referencing sides) light.

1. If you are attempting to maintain nuetrality while discussing a controversy it is necessary to present both sides of the debate in equal detail, with equal documentation, references, and citations.

Absolutely not. Only if both sides are equally well support by expert opinions. See WP:NPOV#Undue weight.--Stephan Schulz 13:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It's impossible to argue that the global-warming-as-a-myth (again my own way of referencing sides in this "controversy") side of the controversy is presented strongly and competently within this article.

...or anywhere in the scientific literature! --Stephan Schulz 13:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

2. It is my own personal opinion that global warming is very much an unproven theory (this is not an attack on the validity of said theory).

Right, as theories are not ever proven in a strict sense. It is, however, a very well-supported theory.---Stephan Schulz 13:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This can very easily be proven, in the face of all argument to the contrary, by the fact that there is a controversy surrounding global warming. Two schools of thought exist on the matter, and both are able to make clear and logical arguments in support of thier own view on the matter. For instance there is no controversy surrounding gravity, the spherical nature of the earth, or that wikipedia is intended to be an online resource for the presentation of FACTS in a nuetral and informative tone.

There is, however, a (popular) controversy about evolution. And the Flat Earth Society would like to have a word with you. A popular controversy is not a sign that a scientific theory is weak. For that you need a scientific controversy. And the scientific record is squarely, nearly unanimously, in support of the IPCC consensus position. --Stephan Schulz 13:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

To conclude; global warming is a controversy because those who do not support the theory are just as able to present accurate scientific evidence which contradicts the evidence given by the supporters of global warming.

Then why don't they? What I see is a permanent repetition of over and over refuted arguments, with the occasional introduction of a new result hailed as the final coffin nail, but usually refuted not much later. It's no accident that I chose the creationism debate as an example - the two are strongly alike. The American Enterprise Institute, Heartland Institute, OISM correspond nicely with the Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, and The Creation Research Society, with similary varying degrees of whackiness, but a common lack of scientific support. --Stephan Schulz 13:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This fact must be addressed, as well as the fact that most "warming trends" occur locally, and are balanced out by other local trends, and the relatively small amount of data collected in regard to key issues indicating a global warming trend. Also the logical and historical precedents must be adressed, specifically the fact that in 1850 the so called "little ice age" was ending, which would lead to a logical increase in overall temperatures.

Realclimate.com includes links to articles stating that the Little Ice Age was one of the local trends that you talk about and that there is no evidence of it being a world-wide phenomena. Esthameian 01:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Those are my thoughts, I am not an expert, but in order to justify this article as being neutral issues like the ones I presented must be adressed and expounded upon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.60.39.18 (talk • contribs).

Since you are not an expert, I suggest you try to inform yourself about what the state of the scientific debate actually is. Global warming is a good starting point, as are the various IPCC reports. The AR4 SPM is very readable even for non-experts. --Stephan Schulz 13:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Do not, I repeat, DO NOT start with wikipedia'a Global warming article if you already feel this article is biased. You will be more disappointed than you are now. Go to your library and check out printings that show both sides of the debate. Yes it IS a debate though most experts on the "No" side have gone underground for fear of funding cuts. Both sides constantly claim victory by "supposedly" knocking holes in each others' rock solid science but the reason is because it is not rock solid in any direction. There are good points made in many periodicals if you can read between the dribble but Wikipedia, as far as Global warming goes, is a biased mess. Ask any High School teacher or college prof if they would use it and you'll see what I mean... They know it's one-sided and go to other sources for a true picture of the situation. It's sad but the wiki global warming page is almost a running joke on many campuses today. --22.122.88.01 08:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding missigned comment was added by 72.129.87.69 (talk • contribs).

The global warming article is an excellent place for student research to begin as it is well referenced and quite reliable (except when vandalized). I recommend it to my students, of course - with the caveat that any online source needs to be checked closely and time of access must be a part of any reference to it. It is a valuable starting point for student research. Vsmith 14:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There will always be some who recommend one sided articles to their students, usually those who are also one sided in their own viewpoints. I always read the wiki sections before telling a student that it is "at least" fair in representing known controversies. I will compare it to a published encyclopedia and make sure it hasn't gone overboard with it's zealousness. Unhappily wiki's Global Warming is a poor choice for researching students. Its POV would be laughable if it were not sad that some students will use this exclusively and believe the one-sidedness as gospel. It is an article such as Global Warming that has our school considering banning any student research using wiki as a source. We won't care if they read it but we also don't care if they read the Inquirer.66.81.21.61 03:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. So what neutral encyclopedia did you read to compare our global warming article to? --Stephan Schulz 07:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

=======================================

I agree this article riddled with bias. For example, consider this paragraph:

'Outside the scientific community' there are questions regarding the proportion of scientists who agree or disagree on the existence of human-caused warming.

Obviously the "scientific community" is not a monolith. It is constantly questioning many things. But apparently according to William M. Connolley, there is no question here; everyone in the "scientific community" is in unanimous agreement. No support is necessary; bow before the alter of Global Warming hysteria.

I suggested instead that we state something sensible like "Some disagreement exists about the proportion of the scientific community which supports human-caused global warming." But try this and you will be reverted immediately without any explanation.

You also notice that examples of dissent from the GW dogma are routinely removed from this article entitled "Global Warming Controversy". I invite anyone to try it yourself: Insert an example of dissent from any prominent scientist about the extent to which man-made CO2 is about to cause an eminent catastrophy. It will certainly be promptly deleted without explanation, by the high priests of GW who continually police this site to remove any trace of dissent.

The Global Warming debate in the article and elsewhere is highly POV and unreliably biased. I would advise anyone seriously interested in studying the subject to look elsewhere. Freedom Fan 23:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur, if anyone has any serious interest in the various debates surrounding the validity and scientific merit of anthropogenic global warming, your best bet is to look elsewhere. Try some of Richard Lindzen's articles or some of John Christy's work (some of which are available online); both are dissidents of the anthropogenic theory and I believe they have both been involved with the IPCC (if memory serves me correctly, Christy is still listed as one of their reviewers and hence counted as part of the "consensus"...though I may be mistaken about that). Some of the references on wikipedia's global warming controversy page also provide some good information on the debate. I think the main problem is that a great many people are so incredibly indoctrinated on the global warming issue (though with the best of intentions; our planet is being polluted and we should take better care of it in my opinion), and this has lead to what I consider a sort vandalism on wikipedia as tehy rigorously remove and censor any arguments against human-caused global warming theories. While I do think there may be a greater proportion of scientists who agree with global warming as a result of human activity and CO2 emissions, I think that in all fairness, the dissenting opions and theories should be treated with due scientific respect, but perhaps they should have their own wikipedia page (which I though should be the controversy page, but obviously I was horribly wrong, as I once tried to make a change with a credible reference [to a Lindzen article about consensus] that was almost instanaeously removed). Proponents of athropogenic GW should at leats allow us a fair discussion on one of the main pages that explains all researched "scientific" theories.--Thomascartwright 15:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you look at scientific opinion on climate change to see the near-unanimity of the scientific community. From the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Astronomical Society to the Royal Society and the Science Council of Japan, all major scientific organizations support the IPCC position. The one exception is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, and even they are wavering. --Stephan Schulz 23:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt there is "near-unanimity" about much of anything of importance in the scientific community. If there were "near-unanimity" about the cause and effects of something as complex as global climate warming, then we really wouldn't need an article entitled "Global Warming Controversy".

What I believe is happening is an attempt to shout down any dissent so that the GW true believers can convince politicians to start implementing public policy which will threaten economic and personal freedom worldwide.

It is obvious that any attempts to provide examples of scientific dissent from the established dogma will be immediately deleted by the faithful here.

However, I must admit that you now have my attention. I plan to determine a pattern of who on Wikipedia is deleting relevant information about the global warming without any explanation. It will also be interesting to see if there are folks with positions of authority within Wikipedia who are abusing that authority. Freedom Fan 05:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yawn. You night want to join forces with Tony, who maintains an off-wiki attack site. It's now sadly locked down, after it came to the attention of WP:ANI, but maybe Tony will give you an account. And what you "believe" is of course your own problem. If you want to put something into Wikipedia, you need reliable sources. --Stephan Schulz 07:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The cost of acting (0.12% of world GDP) if MMCC does not exist is trivial compared to the cost of failing to act if MMCC does exist. cf Pascal's wager.

As to shouting down dissent I suggest you visit www.prwatch.org and read about some of the massive and underhand effort that has been put into suppressing material supporting the concept of MMCC. Esthameian 06:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It won't be a trivial cost for our more than two billion poverty-stricken brothers and sisters in non-Western land, though, will it? And Pascal had a warm bed.

Vague phrase in the intro

typical within normal climatic variations

Thanks to User:Stephan Schulz for catching and fixing this {{vague phrase}} so quickly. --Uncle Ed 12:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's another one, in the next section:

• Earlier the global warming debate focused on whether mean global air temperature had been rising since 1979, when satellites began measuring it. Now that the existence of global warming is accepted by virtually all scientists ...

What does the bold phrase mean?

"Global warming" refers to:

1. rising temperature since 1979
2. rising temperature since end of Little Ice Age
3. the tendency of global cooling periods to be followed naturally by global warming periods (probably not in this passage!)
4. anthropegenic global warming theory in general
5. the specific claim that most of the warming since (blank) is anthropogenic (but please fill in the blank)

Help us out again, Stephan? --Uncle Ed 17:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ed, re item 3 -- at question is the extent. Let's take a human example: blood pressure in a human body changes frequently, from lower than normal to higher than normal; at issue would be whether one ingested a stimulant to drive it higher the expected daily range or a depressant to drive it lower than same -- in other words, are the changes within a normal range? Hence, the GW question would be best phrased, "is the present level of global warming in keeping with historical data? The answer to that question would be no -- anthropogenic pollution has served as a stimulant (and, please, don't bring up the farting cows). •Jim62sch• 19:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow what a surprise - mean temperature has been rising since satelites started to measure it - since 1979. You mean that we have data from 1979, aii that many years ago!! - 28 years. Isn't 28 years of data darn close to the minimum needed to do mathmatical model work. I have assumed there was centuries of data. Any other little bits of info that are going to slip out. If this is true - data since 1979 - then it appears to me the consensus of scientists are less honest than even I thought. 28 years - you must be joking ( their data doesn't even go back to the last cooling spell - 1974 I believe ).159.105.80.141 11:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

We have satellite data for 28 years. We have a reasonable complete instrumental temperature record for about 150 years. We have detailed proxy reonstructions for about 2000 years, and increasingly less accurate estimates for increasingly larger periods of time. See temperature record for an overview. --Stephan Schulz 11:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Scope of controversy

Someone inserted text which implies that there isn't any controversy amoung scientists. I'm guessing it was our resident scientist, Dr. Connolley who did this. But I didn't check the history. Just come out and tell us - that'll save time all round.

Have we decided amongst ourselves that Wikipedia should endorse the view that certain aspects of global warming are or are not in dispute amoung scientists?

If so, which aspects are these? I'd like to see a list.

I'll start the list here:

1. That near-surface temperatures, as recorded by thermometers, have increased since around 1850
   • This is generally accepted, but there are some notable holdouts and/or quibbles

Please list said holdouts, and show that they are anything but a tiny minority. Skyemoor 11:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

1. That these NST's went up till around 1940, dipped a bit, and kept right on going up
   • This is also generally accepted (some qualifiers)

I hope you are not referring to the chart in TGGWS. Skyemoor 11:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

1. That the bulk of global warming since (blank) is anthropegenic
   • Depends on how you fill in the blank, but all AGW theories are in dispute

Again, demonstrate that there is anything but a tiny minority against the consensus. Skyemoor 11:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of this page is not to settle the controversy. Nor is it to endorse one side. Especially not a side which says "The other side is just biased due to politics, ideology or money."

We are trying to list all the dispute points; why they are in dispute; and where possible what sorts of people and groups take which sides of each point. --Uncle Ed 17:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Amount of agreement among climate scientists

Several sections above discuss the question of how much or little agreement there is among climate scientists, on various aspects of the global warming controversy. Perhaps we can summarize it all here. Anyway, the NPOV dispute tag needs a section to link to, so I made this. Look above for multiple sections disputing neutrality of this article. --Uncle Ed 18:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

See any of these sections:

• Wrong Place for the "Pro Global Warming" arguement
• Stephan Schulz's revert
• NPOV
• NPOV - It is past time for a genuine NPOV
• I take issue with this sentence
• nuetrality of this article is ... well non-existent

Lot's of NPOV-dispute stuff here. There can be no question about whether the Global warming controversy is the subject of an NPOV dispute. --Uncle Ed 18:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you refering to the article or the concept? •Jim62sch• 19:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Is "Uncle Ed" just warming up?

Ed, you really need to keep the POV edits under control. If you disagree with something, add a fact tag, but don't just arbitrarily remove items you find disagreeable. (We've gone through this before, have we not, in other places and other times?) Remember too, that the purpose of this page is not to debate the existance of global warming, or really, its causes. We are here to write a good, accurate, honest article. Should both sides of the "controversy" be covered? Of course. But keep the anti-GW stuff in its own section.
BTW: there is nothing "vague" about the term "global-warming" -- the meaning is quite clear even to its most ardent and vociferous detractors. •Jim62sch• 18:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I was too hasty there. I stand corrected. I will add {fact} tags, as suggested. The trip down memory lane sounds familiar too. Didn't I just say much of that? :-)

As for sections, I suggest that we either:

1. Lay out the entire pro-GW case in one huge section, followed by the anti-GW rebuttal
2. Go through GW point by point, and create one section for each disputed point. In each section, lay out the pro-GW case and the anti-GW case.

How's that? --Uncle Ed 18:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the second option (it makes for a he said-she said type of article), I could live with the first, but I'd like to see a consensus on that. •Jim62sch• 19:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

What I would like to see is the opposite layout: First the anti-gw case, than the scientific opinion. That would make for interesting reading...do the Gedankenexperiment yourself! --Stephan Schulz 07:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think the second option (which I think is currently roughly how the page is laid out, though maybe it could use some work) makes more sense than the first. The first option would result in effectively two separate articles on one page. Unfortunately since this is a controversy, it is largely a he said-she said type of affair... --Nethgirb 07:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, that option would be fine as well (I wasn't wedded to a particular order, I just wanted to see the sections be different). But, yes, even the briefest gedankenexperiment shows the superiority of your suggested layout. •Jim62sch• 19:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Stephan's idea is biased: it assumes that the two sides are "anti-GW" and "science". So what we need instead is this:

• Political: pro-GW and anti-GW
  • Each political side says what it wants and why; along with any scientific claims (cherry-picked?) they care to make.
  • And I don't mean Wikipedians when I say "side": you got to quote Al Gore or Senator Inoue as your source of "hot air" ;-)
• Scientific: pro-GW and anti-GW (or the other way round, it doesn't matter)
  • Anyone who's a scientist or any organization which issues 'quotable' scientific pronouncments gets to weigh in on the SCIENCE of global warming.
  • Scientists or org's which say it's (1) mostly anthropogenic, since (blank); (2) too close to call; or (3) mostly natural - these should be cited.
  • Any polls which suggest what percent of SCIENTISTS support any particular pronouncement or "factual claim" should be mentioned; Or statements of support made by organizations 'on behalf of' their members - but only if individuals who say "they didn't really poll us" are allowed to complain

How's that for a structure?

We need to identify any disputes over "facts" - not just competing theories.

1. For example, there have been (and still are) various disputes over the temperatures of the last few millions - or even last few thousand years. Like the hockey stick dispute: Mann, backed by the UN, asserts the non-existence of MWP and LIA. Others (we should name them) said Huh? Since when did these stop existing?
2. Any quibbles over surface thermometers vs. satellites/balloons, UHI effect, etc. (not a biggee, but grist for the mill).
3. Solar: various ideas about solar cycle length - that doesn't even have a redirect, let alone an article! - and how (some scientists) say it explains more than half of temperature fluctuations.

None of this is intended to prove anything. I just am curious about what science says - not just what the UN panel and the Democratic Party (US) and Greens 'say it says'. I'd like to have a neutral article to point to - not a biased one. --Uncle Ed 20:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Afterthought: by anthropogegenic, since (blank) I meant you have to say what year you mean. Was 1850-2007 mostly anthopogenic, or 1950 to preset, or what? The time period in question keeps shifting. --Uncle Ed 20:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Too much talk, too few facts. Firstly, you need to distinguish scientists in general and climate scientists - medical articles (correctly) would give no weight to climate scientists opinions on heart disease. Secondly, why not go out and find some climate scientists who say "Since when did these stop existing?" about the MWP. Like you say: you should name them. Can you? William M. Connolley 20:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please help me create a list of internationally-known climate scientists.

Try [3]

If you have any verifiable information on what proportion of these believe (or doubt) any reported fact or documented theory of any facet or aspect of global warming (anthropogenic or otherwise), please provide it. I stand ready to help assemble this info.

How about starting with your organization? Some sort of penguin-love group, right? ;-) British Artistic Sorbet or some such rot . . . ;-) --Uncle Ed 22:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is evading the point a good idea? You clearly believe - from some source unclear - that there are some/many/a few/lots of people who, errm, say "Since when did these stop existing?" about the MWP. Or something. So the question is... does this source exist (if so, please read it and tell us the names on it) or is it just some vague recollection of septicism from the past (in which case please don't base your editing on it; or make suggestions for page reform based on it). Come on Ed: lets have some actual names, of real scientists, actually involved in the research William M. Connolley 22:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

William, there is a problem with your position. You are assuming that climate scientists are the only ones qualified to speak on climate or the only ones who can evaluate climate research. Of course, that is not true. Climatologists have proven to be very poor statisticians and statisticians are the most qualified to evaluate statistical methods. Scientists from other fields (esp. computer science) are often skeptical of computer climate models because they know the limitations of the computer models from their own fields. For example, I can create a computer model to hindcast the stock market beautifully, but it has absolutely no predictive value. RonCram 23:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ron, you're wrong about most/all of that. The articles on climate will inevitably give most weight to the scientific views of climate scientists. William M. Connolley 20:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ron, computer science is a field I do indeed know something about. I'd be very interested in some examples of computer scientists who have publically criticized climate models. In particular if they did so in peer-reviewed scientific publications. --Stephan Schulz 21:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, I believe you are already familiar with Orrin Pilkey (Pilkey and Pilkey-Jarvis, Useless Arithmetic: Why Environmental Scientists Can’t Predict the Future [4] [5], pps. 82-83)

In addition, I would direct you to:

• Browning, G. and H.-O. Kreiss: Numerical problems connected with weather prediction. Progress and Supercomputing in Computational Fluid Dynamics, Birkhauser.

• Lu, C., W. Hall, and S. Koch: High-resolution numerical simulation of gravity wave-induced turbulence in association with an upper-level jet system. American Meteorological Society 2006 Annual Meeting, 12th Conference on Aviation Range and Aerospace Meteorology.

Gerald Browning is working on another article now. You can see some of his thoughts here. [6] RonCram 18:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Pilkey is a geologist, not a computer scientists. Browning seems to be a mathematician, not a computer scientist, although I cannot find reliable information (he's in the Math Genealogy data base, and his Ph.D. is from math department). Both Browning and Kreiss and Lu et al are talking about weather models, not climate models (and B&K is over 20 years old, about an eternity in computer science) . And on the very CA page you cite, Browning acknowledges "The large, nonphysical dissipation (compared to the real atmosphere) used in the atmospheric portion of the coupled climate models together with the mesh not yet resolving the smaller scales of motion under 10 km prevents the unbounded exponential growth from being seen at this stage." (emphasis by me), i.e. the problem he is concerned about does not occur in current climate models.--Stephan Schulz 19:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Dr. C, I don't want to debate the issue with you. If I wanted to do that, I would post on your blog. Please help me describe what the controversy is about. --Uncle Ed 23:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ed, I don't think you should write stuff like Others (we should name them) said Huh? Since when did these stop existing? unless you can find some when challenged. Otherwise you're just adding to the noise William M. Connolley 20:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ed, basically you need to stop with the bluster and come up with objections that pass muster. Most/all of your objections are dead chickens flapping in an ever-warming breeze. •Jim62sch• 22:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is the majority scientific opinion needeed on this page at all? The page is titled Global warming controversy, so from what I understand, it should contain the Controversy. Then much like the Global Warming page does, just provide a link to the extra info that is no the primary topic (like a link going to the Global Warming article) for the majority Scientific Opinion.--Zeeboid 20:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This appears to expose a problem in many scientific areas ( why progress is so slow, even in an emergency ) an expert in one field probably is not an expert in all the fields necessary to solve ( or even give a good try ) the problem. Last night - on Discovery channel I believe - they had a global warming show. It appears the jocks - climate and model - have run into problems. Dimming versus pollution - which one is stronger ( one causes cooling and one warming - or so they guess. Without data they don't know what weights to apply. It appears the expert showcased on the show has hit a snag - at least temporaryily. The problem has more variables than even a bunch of PHDs can handle - at least they are admitting it. Their graphs ( one at least ) were interesting - much of what we hear looked to be the extreme prediction - pretty much ignored the middle of the road. The graph had an upper ( extreme line ) and a middle estimate ( not bad - a touch warmer but ookay ) the bottom line was not given - a quick look seemed like maybe cooler or no change. I thought it was interesting - particularly the admitted loss of confidence.159.105.80.141 17:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a talk page devoted to improving the article (though that can be sometimes difficult to tell). If you want to contribute, then it would be helpful if you knew the 1)name of the program, 2) name and specific credentials of the scientist, 3) citations of the climate work they are presenting, and 4) direct quotes by the individual, preferrably on transcript. --Skyemoor 21:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the "controversy"?

Seems the nature of the "controversy" is ill-defined. The present intro mainly reflects Uncle Ed's views, so I ask if he can supply references that define the controversy thus. Raymond Arritt 00:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather we all did this together. Can you tell me your views on how the controversy should be defined? Perhaps we can come to an agreement.

Or by "views" did you mean my POV on GW itself? I wouldn't want that.

My 'view' is that the article should outline the 10 or 20 most important aspects of global warming, along with a brief statement of what each 'side' thinks of those aspects.

For example, on the Hockey Stick, we have the IPCC's view (backing their lead author M. Mann), and other supporters on the AGW side. We have Singer, et al. on the anti-AGW side.

On just about every aspect of global warming, you'll find scientists on either side.

The article will be very interesting, because we'll finally get to see what proportion of scientists are 'for' and 'against' each proposition in the AGW argument.

Here's one that has a very uneven split:

• That human beings have had "a discernable effect" on "the environment". I don't think you'll find a single scientist anywwhere denying this: he'd have to say that human being DO NOT affect the environment, which is silly. Just look at Atlanta, which is 5 or 10 degrees hotter than the surrounding rural parts of Georgia.

Here's probably the sharpest point of division:

• That "most" of the temperature increase since 1975 is due to human beings.
  1. For: United Nations climate panel (UNIPCC) and {various individual scientists?}
  2. Against: various individual scientists

My "view" if you like that term is that we contributors should keep our personal viewpoints about AGW to ourselves and collaborate on making a NEUTRAL article which lists every controversial point about global warming. This would seem to fit the title of the article! --Uncle Ed 23:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Are the scientists climatologists? That a biologist disagrees is of little value. Also, from what I've seen, most of the anti-GW scientists are paid by fundie or neocon groups. Another caveat: most things released by the Bushies are just swamp gas. In fact, they went so far as to dictate what climatologists could say at a recent conference.

As for your view as described above, there's only one problem that I can see: you yourself can't abide by it! •Jim62sch• 23:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I know this too is from the evil pinko NYT, but you just might want to read it anyway: Material Shows Weakening Of Climate Change Reports •Jim62sch• 23:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh oh... Don't bring up the Scientist's profession or who pays them unless you are going to look at that for every scientist. It is very easy to disqualify anyone for any reason. For example: Shall we remove all the scientists who have some funding from "Green" organizations? I would argue yes then because if you bring up "Paid by neocon groups" or "Paid by Exxon" as a reason the scientist could have an "Altered perspective" then the same can be true if they are funded by a "Green Organization" correct? If you are willing to scrutinize the minority opinion by high standards, you must be willing to scrutinize the majority opinion by the same standard, many of the editors here couldn't handle that, thus our problem--Zeeboid 20:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No biologists do climate research? That's another argument. If they're published and it's on climate, there you go. Who cares who funds them? Exxon, Schlumberger, University of Colorado, Greenpeace.... They all do climate research for various reasons. And what does Bush or anyone else have to do with it? The USDA and EPA do climate research, who else would release it? Sln3412 18:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, you ask a good question. The article needs to be better focused. And we need to decide the order it is dealt with. I suggest we focus on four or five main claims, positions or proposals as I out line below. It is possible the fifth may be considered too political.

What is the controversy about?

The controversy is about five claims, positions or proposals:

• 1. The claim that an increase in atmospheric CO2 from man's burning of fossil fuels is mainly responsible for increasing global surface temperatures. (Asks the questions: Is warming global? Is it possible it is mainly regional? If so, what does that mean? What does the satellite data say regional warming? What does physics say about atmospheric CO2? What other climate forces could be at work? How much is attributable to man?)
  2. The position of the keepers of the temperature record that they do not need to archive and make available their data and methods (making it impossible for other scientists to verify the extent of the reported warming or how the Urban Heat Island (UHI) is handled). When Phil Jones of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was asked for archived data and methods, he replied: "We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?" [7] [8] (Asks the questions: Is the warming real or an artifact of instrument error or UHI bias? Is the warming real or an artifact of errors in the handling and adjustments of the dataset? Why haven't the data and methods been released?).UHI Esthameian 01:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  3. The position of the IPCC that (contrary to McIntyre, the Wegman Report and the NAS) current temps are the warmest in 1300 years. (Asks the questions: Why did the IPCC reaffirm this position without a thorough examination of the Hockey stick controversy? Is there evidence the IPCC is driven by politics instead of science?)
  4. The claim that warming will continue at least until 2100 resulting in catastrophic consequences, including extinctions and increasing weather catastrophes. (Asks the questions: Is it reasonable to conclude the current warming climate regime will continue without interruption for nearly 100 years? Have any observations been made or peer-reviewed articles published that indicate a coming change in the climate regime? What does the science say about global warming causing increasing number of hurricanes?)
  5. The steps society should take to prevent, mitigate or adapt to global warming. (Asks the questions: Is the Kyoto Protocol economically viable? Is the Kyoto Protocol politically viable? What other steps have been proposed for either mitigation or adaptation?)RonCram 18:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

What types of particular viewpoints might be controversial?

• The temperature has been rising abnormally since the late 1800's. We have also been producing more and more carbon dioxide since the late 1800's, from the number of people breathing it out, from machines (like cars) and from processes (like agriculture and industrial production). Since there's only two major places this extra CO2 can go besides the atmosphere (the oceans and plant respiration), and since the amount in the atmosphere went up from ~300 to ~400 during that time, and since carbon dioxide absorbs heat at various atmospheric wavelengths, the warming must be from the carbon dioxide, and if we don't reduce it, we'll burn up. Especially since the oceans are warming too, due to them absorbing (sinking) CO2. Although some of our pollutants and other materials in the atmosphere cool some, the heating is not as bad as it could be, lucky for us. However, unless we do something now on a large scale to reduce and remove CO2, the temperature change will be disasterous in the future.

Sln3412 18:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to apply a modified form of Pascal's wager? Esthameian 01:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Categories

I have removed this article from

• Category:Global warming skeptics

and

• Category:Former global warming skeptics

since it is not an individual or organisation which can be considered to have any view in particular. Those categories are not for articles containing information on global warming skeptics, they are for the skeptics themselves to be listed in. QmunkE 13:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense. I thought they looked out of place on that category page. Note also that category pages can be edited to have some kind of intro explaining the category, I believe. That might be a suitable place to link to articles such as this that both mention many of the people & orgs in the category, and talk about their views or positions.Birdbrainscan 18:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

John Linder

• There have also been allegations that proponents of the theory may have been influenced by access to funding. Congressman John Linder analyzes the broad support that Eugenics enjoyed among scientists in the early 20th Century, and concludes that "researchers adjusted their outcomes to support the theory of those paying for the research." He then compares this phenomenon to the latter day scientists who support the theory of Global Warming. [9], "Global Warming theory and the eugenics precedent", 'Washington Times', February 19, 2007

Is an opinion piece by a U.S. Congressman sufficiently notable to merit this much space? His analysis appears extremely cursory. -Will Beback · † · 23:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be any analysis, only a hasty generalization crossed with an association fallacy. --Skyemoor 22:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Lots of claims like this are covered in Global warming conspiracy theory.JQ 02:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Equally, a number of GW sceptics have links with the oil industry —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Esthameian (talk • contribs) 01:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

LEDC section

This brief new section is unattributed and uses weasely language "it is alleged" without saying by whom. I think there may well be some people saying this, but let's get some sources. The single sentence as it stands gives no context. Also I wonder how many people know what LEDC stands for?Birdbrainscan 13:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The existence of a scientific consensus

I take issue with how this section is introduced, at the very least ("Outside the scientific community there are questions..."). We know that Richard Lindzen and most of the Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming disagree about this. There's also a significant IPCC contributor, John Christy, who, refering to an example from his personal experience with the IPCC, tells us this[10]:

• Consensus at its heart is a political notion. It is a process of selecting words that don’t offend the combined sensibilities of a particular set of the authors and reviewers, and is often done grudgingly. It is almost certain that a different set of authors and reviewers would select a different set of words and interpretation even if given the same scientific material.
• The many tables and figures display the real currency of science: numbers. The interpretation of those numbers, especially in the high profile Executive Summary, represents the political art of consensus, with the underlying knowledge that from this the headlines burst forth
• Specific statements may arise from the dogged advocacy of a small group and the fatigue of the remaining writers, but in the end is blanketed by the notion of “consensus.” This leaves a murky path of accountability where “all” authors are accountable but at the same time “none” are.
• (on a more philosophical tone) : In the science of climate change we will never have the “Final Answer”. I wish every one of these reports began with the line my high school physics teacher drilled into us, “At our present level of ignorance we think we know …”

I think that when a notable IPCC author questions the "consensus process", we should not take a stance such as to say that only outside the scientific community is the idea of a consensus questioned. Of course, Christy doesnt disagree with the body of the IPCC reports, but he obviously disagrees that we should point out to a consensus about the findings, especially those shown on the executive summary. --Childhood's End 19:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know; do you call it tryanny of the majority, or is it just strong willed people with an agenda and pre-conceived notions determining the direction of the group-think?Sln3412 23:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You cannot use Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming for anything, because many of those listed there are no longer publishing scientists, many have no climate expertise at all, and many of the views there are demonstrably nonsense. Attempts to get that page cleaned up so it might be vaguely useful have been resisted by the usual suspects. Your interpretation of Christy is wrong too: his public statements are deliberately vague wrt the science, and at variance with what he has signed up to William M. Connolley 09:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The introduction of the section should be improved—the implication (that among scientists there is a consensus on consensus) is pretty much true as far as I know, but it doesn't back it up with references and it doesn't note the few exceptions like Lindzen. Some of the evidence (e.g. Oreskes) comes later but it is poorly organized. Probably some of this material should be included in summary form. --Nethgirb 10:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

An op/ed as evidence? I assume you're making a joke, calling Oreskes' op/ed variously paraphrasing the WGII TAR summary (which she calls Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability), and claiming 928 abstracts on science with "global climate change" in them proves there is a lack of legitimate dissenting opinions, as being "evidence". She even ends the thing by saying "anthropogenic climate change" instead. So why didn't she search for those words? Why did she get the search terms wrong originally 3 times? (She never claims in the essay itself she herself did the analysis, btw) She doesn't even know what she's trying to prove, but whatever it was, she didn't prove any of it. That propaganda piece is a contradictory rambling worthless joke. Sln3412 17:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

We're here to report on reliable sources, not criticise them, so I don't see the relevance of most of what you write. Anyway, Oreskes is not the only source saying there's a consensus; see the material I referenced above. --Nethgirb 19:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Reliable or not, in my opinion it's not a very good example. But if that's the best we've got, I guess we have to run with it. Sln3412 19:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors should well know from their experience here that consensus can produce a genuinely crappy result. In response to William Connolley, hasn't it been alleged that many of the signers of the IPCC statements are just staffers and others without the appropriate scientific credentials? --Don't lose that number 11:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Errm, what do you mean by "signers"? And yes - I'm aware of various unsourced comments like yours - are you aware of any properly sourced? William M. Connolley 11:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"consensus can produce a genuinely crappy result—yes, sometimes; but the issue here is the existence of a consensus, not its quality, which is dealt with in other sections of the article. "hasn't it been alleged that many of the signers of the IPCC statements are just staffers"—Regardless of the truth of that assertion, it does not explicitly mention "consensus". I understand that you are trying to reason about whether there exists a consensus. However, I've learned from experience that this is a pretty difficult thing to do, and will result in protracted debates on the definition of a consensus, whether various definitions are satisfied, etc. The length of such discussions demonstrates that if we try to reason about whether there exists a consensus, we're engaging in original research. So, we need to stick to what reliable sources explicitly say about the existence of a consensus. As far as I know, the best sources we have are these, and dissenting statements by a few individual scientists such as Lindzen. I'd be interested to see if you know of any other such statements. --Nethgirb 11:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I like William's skating... Anyway, perhaps a few more comments from Christy regarding the consensus thing and the people involved in the drafting of IPCC documents[11] :

• At this time, all we have are the “bullet points” of the IPCC Summary for Policymakers. As one of the contributing authors of the scientific text, I must wait until the full publication is released to understand more of the reasoning behind some of the points made in the IPCC. Contributing authors essentially are asked to contribute a little text at the beginning and to review the first two drafts. We have no control over editing decisions. Even less influence is granted the 2,000 or so reviewers. Thus, to say that 800 contributing authors or 2,000 reviewers reached consensus on anything describes a situation that is not reality. --Childhood's End 13:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is scientific consensus about the generalities of global warming. That does not mean there aren't any people in science as a whole, or even in the actual field, that don't disagree with the consensus. But they don't create the controversy. The origins and motivations of the controversy are extra-scientific and this article should mention that. And then in view of the extra-scientific controversy the article can also mention those in the scientific field that disagree with the consensus, be them practitioners of pseudo-science or not.--80.56.36.253 18:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

-6 to 34

[12] Living in a city at -6C in the winter and +36C in the summer looking at the global average on that scale. Sln3412 23:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Not accurate, altered

I'm sure this will be reverted by the usual suspects quite quickly, but I changed a line here[13] as the scientists listed have not said "it has not yet been ascertained whether humans are the primary cause of global warming" however they do say things like " doesn't believe "catastrophic manmade global warming" is occurring."[14][15]--Zeeboid 14:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Erhm - thats wrong. Lindzen is indeed saying that Man is one of the causes in the current warming - quite specifically even:

We’re not even arguing about whether greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level to warming. And they most certainly should or I would suggest it would be very little. [16]

For Roy Spencer please read this (cut up quote - read the article):

But mankind's emissions of greeenhouse gases is believed to have disrupted that balance. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, it is estimated that the normal infrared cooling rate of 235 W/m2 has been reduced by about 1.6 W/m2. Taking into account the warming that has already occurred (supposedly) in response......You might also be surprised to find out that the direct effect of this imbalance (often called a 'radiative forcing') from the extra CO2, by itself, would have very little effect on the Earth's temperature. If everything else in the climate system remained the same, a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration (probably late in this century) would cause little more than 1 deg. F of surface warming....

All in all Spencer doesn't think manmade CO2 won't have an effect - he just doesn't believe that its causing most.

For Robert Balling Jr. - this quote should suffice:

There is no doubt that the prediction for higher global temperatures and precipitation levels, given higher concentrations of greenhouse gases, is solidly grounded in the underlying physics that govern the climate system. These are fairly basic principles in the atmospheric sciences that have been known for over a century. Moreover, the prediction for warming comes from numerical climate models developed in major research laboratories in many nations, employing hundreds of the world’s leading atmospheric scientists.

But the prediction is not without significant uncertainties..... [17]

All in all your "correction" is wrong - all of these three are certain that humans (and emissions) do have an effect - but they all argue that we cannot be certain. --Kim D. Petersen 17:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC) (....about how large or if its the main cause). --Kim D. Petersen 17:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can argue humans, CO2 (or the sun, clouds, water, wind, animals, heat islands, volcanos....) have an effect. But you're correct, that's for sure. Nice points and quotes. Sln3412 17:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is that cursory readings of articles by Lindzen,Spencer and Balling may lead one to make the mistake that Zeeboid did. I can actually only fix my mind on one sceptic who is completely (at times - he isn't constant) rejecting that human emissions have an impact on warming and thats Ball. --Kim D. Petersen 17:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait though, the line was changed to: "Some say humans are not the primary cause of global warming"

You say they all have said at one point that man could have something to do with global warming:

We’re not even arguing about whether greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level to warming. And they most certainly should or I would suggest it would be very little. [18]

I agree with that statement, however the line was changed from:

"it has not yet been ascertained whether humans are the primary cause of global warming"

But thats not what they are saying. They are saying "greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level to warming", and that they are not the primary cause (or "And they most certainly should or I would suggest it would be very little."), Correct? The correction i made does not state there is no link, it states that these scientists "say humans are not the primary cause of global warming." I agree they are not saying "not man made" but they are deffently not saying "we're not sure yet if man is the primary cause"--Zeeboid 18:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Zeeboid - read the various articles - none of them are saying that its not possible that Man could be the primary contributer - they are just saying that it is not safe to say so - not proven - other factors are influencing things - and they may be the primary cause. Note that both Lindzen and Spencer in the above quotes/articles/transcripts are saying that natural feedbacks will reduce man's emissions (the Lindzen Iris effect). And Balling is simply saying that things are too uncertain to be sure.

I'm not even sure why you are arguing this - based on what evidence do you think that they are saying that Man's emissions couldn't be the primary cause?

Btw. the evidence is in your court - you have to find us some quotes to say that "Man is not the primary cause" (with certainty). Not "may not be" or "other factors have influence" - i'll revert once more - you haven't argued your case so far. --Kim D. Petersen 19:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. A couple:

Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar writing[19]

"Dr. Weaver says confidently, "... humanity is the primary cause of late 20th-century climate change." This is unfounded. More and more atmospheric scientists are now questioning the real cause of recent warming."

Dr. Lindzen directly in a Q&A[20]:

Are carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels the primary cause of climate change? Can the Earth's temperature be expected to rise between 2.5 and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit in this century as has been reported?

"There are many indications that carbon dioxide does not play a significant role in global warming. Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and one of the 11 scientists who prepared a 2001 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report on climate change, estimates that a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would produce a temperature increase of only one degree Celsius.3 In fact, clouds and water vapor appear to be far more important factors related to global temperature. According to Dr. Lindzen and NASA scientists, clouds and water vapor may play a significant role in regulating the Earth's temperature to keep it more constant."

Robert Balling[21]

"Who doubts that during the last century that there have been significant changes in earth's climate? Such a statement is true no matter which century you cite in our planet's recorded history. This is the central problem for researchers who claim to have "fingerprinted" human impact on climate in this one."--Zeeboid 19:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all what does Khandakar and Weaver have to do with anything? - second Lindzen is absolutely correct (according to the IPCC) (Spencer said the same things btw) - but its taken out of context - the next statement would have been about feedbacks - positive and negative. Read the whole Spencer article i linked to in the above. And Balling isn't saying what you want him to.... He is saying that humans might be... but we cannot see the fingerprint yet. Btw. i have serious problems with your sources here - i can't in good faith say that they are reliable - quote Lindzen, Spencer and Balling directly please - instead of going over a proxy. On science in science-topics a first hand source is best. --Kim D. Petersen 20:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

So, the opinion of those who bring up the global warming controversy is not important? you have several people there (including Dr. Michel: "Things are changing, but man may not be the cause.") that maintain the skeptic view that man is not the primary cause. if this article is about the global warming controversy, I'm sure you would agree that we shouldn't limit that to just the three people listed in the line in question. What exactly are your problems with the sources here? Most sources used in Wikipedia are people quoting people. I included Balling because thats what i found on him that related to this discussion, not wether or not he is saying what I "want" him to say. What exactly are you looking for to keep this modification I made?

Lindzen:

"Judging from the media in recent months, the debate over global warming is now over. There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true. What of it? Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science."

"The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle-Al Gore's supposed mentor-is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate."[22]--Zeeboid 20:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

1. The current discussion is about Lindzen,Balling and Spencer and their stance. I have no idea why you are bringing in Michel/Khandekar/Weaver/Revelle/Gore etc.
2. My problem with your sources are that they are not WP:RS on the opinion of Drs. Lindzen,Balling and Spencer.
3. The thing that i want you to do is: to stop trying to cherry-pick quotes and instead try to understand the (quite) nuanced opinions of the three. And the second thing i want you to do is: To prove to us that they are ruling out that humans could be causing most of the warming.

Thank you. --Kim D. Petersen 21:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

People's own statements are not reliable sources? ~ UBeR 02:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes UBeR - peoples own statements are reliable sources - but only when taken in context. And the statements have to say exactly what it is that you reference them for - Zeeboid wants to change Lindzen/Balling/Spencers opinion from the statement "Some say that it has not yet been ascertained whether humans are the primary cause of global warming" to the statement "Some say humans are not the primary cause of global warming" - now please tell me how the above references that? Now i've given my references in the above - quite lengthy statements from L/B/S about their opinion (and the nuances). --Kim D. Petersen 07:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I was the one that wrote that passage, and I classified people based on their quotes at Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. There was an explicit reference saying to look there for the proof, but it seems this was changed by UBeR into a form that in my opinion made it unclear where the references were, though this may only be a matter of taste. [23] Since this discussion suggests it was unclear which quotes the assertions were based on, I've now replaced something like the original reference. Anway, point is, if you think there's an error, why don't we discuss it at that page instead? Thanks --Nethgirb 19:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not read this before I removed it again. It's rather redundant to have the same wikilink appears twice or more in the same paragraph. Use caution with that though, because Wikipedia articles aren't sources. Additionally, "See also" templates go at the top of sections. ~ UBeR 19:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for removing redundancy as long as it will still be clear to the reader. With the link embedded like that, I think it's unclear where the info comes from. Between the two, I would prefer the explicit "see quotes" rather than the embedded link. It's not quite a "see also", though, it's the citation for the particular claims being made. As for the need for caution: the quotes linked from that article are the sources, not the article itself. I see no need to repeat each of the external references and bloat this already-large page.

Anyway, I guess this shouldn't be a big deal, so I'll leave it like it is for now. --Nethgirb 19:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Man made or natural?

Is this article (and mostly to do about global warming in general) about man made global warming (MMGW) or natural global warming? If it is about natural, is the debate (if any) on MMGW big enough for a Wikipedia article? Some people may believe in global warming, but are skeptical about its being man made. 68.115.90.55 19:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome, please take a look at Scientific opinion on climate change and Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. --Skyemoor 21:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I need to learn not to skim as much. I swear I've looked over those articles numerous times. 68.115.90.55 17:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Link between smoking and global warming?

I'm interested in hearing the link between the smoking and the global warming controversy. Last I read, the introducing sentence read, "Many of the critics of the global warming theory have been involved in debate about other environmental risks where similar issues arise." So yes, I am curious how this relates and is important to the subject matter of this article. ~ UBeR 03:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Many of the same issues, such as the role of scientific consensus, not to mention willingness to deny the plain truth in return for money, arise in each case. Your recent edit summary may have been intended ironically, but it's spot-on in relation to people like Milloy. JQ 12:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The mentions of passive smoking and evolution have absolutely nothing to do with global warming so should be removed from this article. Iceage77 10:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed but this was reverted by Mr Connolley. Perhaps he can justify their inclusion. The mention of evolution in particular seems to be an attempt to discredit the sceptical viewpoint. Iceage77 12:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that people who dispute one have a tendancy to dispute the others, it seems really bizaare to mention it in this way. Jefffire 12:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm with JQ, for his reasons (who is Mr Connolley?) William M. Connolley 12:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Surely that should be in an article about Milloy then, rather than a general article about the global warming controversy? Jefffire 12:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete for reason's sake. --Childhood's End 13:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You misspelled "delete because it's embarrassing for us skeptics." Keep per JQ and WMC. Provides useful context. Raymond Arritt 13:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see you just misspelled "keep because I like any story that could be construed as embarassing for them skeptics". Again, delete; unrelated, POVed (as shown by RA) and controversial. --Childhood's End 13:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we certainly wouldn't want anything controversial in an article about the global warming controversy. Raymond Arritt 13:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You certainly mean the smoking ban controversy? Or are both controversies really intertwined? --Childhood's End 14:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Good example of Poisoning the well there, Raymond. Jefffire 13:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the current version is particularly good, but the link is important. Can we find some sources we can attribute this to? "Poisoning the well" only applies if you use unrelated information. A general denial of the mainstream is certainly relevant. --Stephan Schulz 13:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

(Must we always be so combative in these discussions?) I can see arguments for and against this section. "The mentions of passive smoking and evolution have absolutely nothing to do with global warming"—well, it's certainly not so clear-cut as that. Michael Crichton, for example, drew a connection between what he would view as alarmism on GW and passive smoking.[24] And for some reason it seems an unexpectedly large number of people that are skeptical of GW are also skeptical of evolution or passive smoking. If this were just one or two people it would not be notable, but it seems that it's a somewhat widespread phenomenon. Thus, there is a connection between GW and passive smoking/evolution skepticism. Moreover, because it's about a pattern, this article (rather than individual skeptics' articles) is the place to discuss it—if it's worthwhile to discuss anywhere.

Now, I could sympathize with a couple criticisms, but I think they're fixable: (1) There's a connection, but it's not a strong one and is not of top-level importance for the GW controversy. Solution: keep it concise. (2) Establishing this connection may constitute inappropriate original research/synthesis. Solution: cite external sources which note the connection. If no notable external sources make this connection, then we should consider removing the material.

Why don't we give JQ or other editors a chance to address this. And Jefffire, I didn't understand your comment about it being bizarre to introduce the connection in the way that this section did. Could you explain why you think it's bizarre? Thanks --Nethgirb 13:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Link between smoking and global warming? This article is not about global warming at all, it is about the controversy about global warming. The fact that some of the most prominent global warming skeptics are/were also skeptics on scientific consensus about other (past) high profile issues is relevant information. Count Iblis 13:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted it again. This has no relation to the global warming controversy. Thousands of scientists, including climate scientists, have signed documents relating to their skepticism on global warming. Very few of these same people were skeptical on these other issues. This is a red herring that has no place in an encyclopedia. The best climate scientists do not buy global warming. The science is actually on the side of the skeptics. Temps have not gone up since 1998. Phil Jones wont even take my bet that temps will not rise in the next five years. I'm certain William Connelly has forwarded my bet proposal to him and still no word from Phil. RonCram 13:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to distance myself from denialist quackery before I proceed. Any way, If a link can be found that authoritatively links these phenomenon then that is an appropriate inclusion. But simply listing specific idiots is OR. If we proceed by this logic then we could list people who support a valid science like global warming, who also support some stupid concept. Jefffire 13:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Roncram, the fact that the few high profile critics we always hear about happened to be critics on these other isues as well is very significant information. Jefffire, if in some valid scientific field the most prominent ones "support some stupid concept", then that is significant information. This can only happen in practice in case of fringe topics were there are only a few scientists active (e.g. Global warming skepticism). Count Iblis 14:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

All I ask for is an authoritative source which links the two, rather than a list of proponents. Jefffire 14:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we add information about the Oil for food programme along with the IPCC position? --Childhood's End 14:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What, did Hansen or Lindzen participate? --Stephan Schulz 14:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Why? Would you want to include this in the article as well? But I did heard that the UN sponsored both. --Childhood's End 14:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, you heard wrong. The IPCC participants do not receive money from the IPCC or the UN (except sometimes for actual expenses). And the connection is much more tenuous than that of OISM to various contrarian positions.--Stephan Schulz 14:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you implying that the IPCC is independant from the UN? Now that would be a statement. Perhaps you should read what the IPCC says about itself [25] : (...), the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. It is open to all members of the UN and WMO. Besides, the WMO is a "United Nations Specialized Agency"[26]. --Childhood's End 15:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm implying that the term "both are sponsored by the UN" is misleading. But I think there may be a misunderstanding - I read "both" as referring to Lindzen and Hansen, while I now suspect you want it to refer to Oil for Food and IPCC. But then the global warming consensus is a lot wider than the IPCC - neither the Royal Society nor the US National Academies of Science are sponsored by the UN, while apparently most of the major sceptics and skeptic think tanks have held very unorthodox positions on major debates.--Stephan Schulz 16:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

So it seems to me that both the article and RonCram are engaging in OR by asserting that there is or (respectively) isn't a significant connection between the controversies. Instead of revert-warring, can we pause until such time as the interested editors can look for external sources? --Nethgirb 14:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I would agree but wait a second (cant believe we have to spend time on this, but if we must). So it is RonCram who is engaging in OR? Can we agree that these controversies (global warming and smoking ban) and related ONLY by the fact that the skeptic side in both these issues has allegedly been supported by a few same people? At the very best, I could see this stuff on these persons' pages. But the smoking ban has nothing else to do with "global warming controversy". Further, if this stuff was to be added, we would have to show why it was wrong to oppose the smoking ban (since that's what would be inferred), and thus repudiate the fringe science that says that second hand smoke is not as harmful as we are asked to believe (I oppose smoking and mostly support the bans, besides). --Childhood's End 14:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If it were just the smoking ban, then I would tend to agree. However, the text says: "The risks of passive smoking were disputed by some global warming skeptics and related institutions, including Richard Lindzen[135][136], Steven Milloy[137], Fred Singer[138], Fred Seitz[10], Michael Crichton[15], and the Institute of Public Affairs[citation needed]."

So, we see that the leading global warming skeptics were questioning the medical science itself (which had a very broad consensus among expers) to motivate their politial position in this issue. Count Iblis 14:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I was not making a difference between smoking bans and the medical science in my comment above. Neither is related to "global warming controversy" except for the fact that Lindzen and such apparently supported the skeptic side in both issues. And we cannot infer that they were wrong in doing so without giving the proprer material, and this is obviously not the place for doing so. --Childhood's End 14:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with everything you wrote but not the implications. You imply that Lindzen et al supporting the skeptic side in both issues is insignificant—if it can be backed up with external sources, then it's notable. You also imply that we need to judge whether they were right or wrong—no, we just need to note they were on the skeptical side. (Sorry for duplicating material below, but this provided a good place for summarizing these points.) --Nethgirb 15:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"Can we agree that these controversies (global warming and smoking ban) and related ONLY by the fact that the skeptic side in both these issues has allegedly been supported by a few same people? ... [T]he smoking ban has nothing else to do with "global warming controversy"." Maybe—but particularly regarding your use of "few" and "nothing else to do" let's withhold judgement until we see what external sources say. "At the very best, I could see this stuff on these persons' pages." As I argued above, this wouldn't make sense because what's at issue is a pattern of opinion across multiple people. "Further, if this stuff was to be added, we would have to show why it was wrong to oppose the smoking ban (since that's what would be inferred)"—Fortunately I think our job is a lot easier than that. We just have to note that it was a controversy on which the GW skeptics were on the skeptical side relative to the scientific consensus. This will be easy because there are already other articles dealing with these controversies, e.g., Creation-evolution controversy, so we don't have to go into any depth here. And we certainly never should get into what's "right" or "wrong". Now that would be a can of worms...--Nethgirb 14:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There are probably a bunch of HIV denialists and pro-lifers who contest global warming. Let's add them in too, because it makes about as much sense. Jefffire 15:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

e.g., Kary Mullis (GW, HIV, and Ozone hole denial). You're off base with abortion, though; it's a moral, not scientific, question. --Nethgirb 15:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but there's still a correllation, isn't there? The sad fact is that global warming denial has become a part of "conservative" dogma, along with a bunch of other issues. It's also become associated with a whole host of other view points. My point is that we should use a authorative source which links them, rather than continuing with these silly lists. Jefffire 15:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably the best source is The Republican War on Science. I linked to it earlier in the article.JQ 00:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, we shouldnt mention a Mr. or Mrs. Nobody. If you have a leading proponent in some movement then for an article about that movement where the name of that proponent would appear anyway, it is of course relevant to note that the same person was also a proponent of some other high profile movement. Count Iblis 15:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Have been demonstrating the link between these issues with lots of sources about the front group Consumer Alert here [27] but Childhoodsend has continued to delete it on irrelevant grounds. 4.246.205.104 16:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Its worth going to read Talk:Passive smoking. Broadly speaking, the discussion is almost identical to that we have here, with one group defending the scientific consensus, and another making claims about POV, ownership, and so on, and trying to put a lot of stress on the handful of scientists (mostly paid lobbyists) who say that links between passive smoking and cancer etc are unproven.JQ 00:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm a global warming skeptic who is convinced passive smoking is very harmful. It is ridiculous in the extreme to pull out the names of a few global warming skeptics who are skeptical on another issue and try to tie them together. This is simply an effort to try to embarrass global warming skeptics but in the end it only embarrasses Wikipedia. There is no connection here. Any attempt to prove a connection is purely the work of some PR group trying to score points in a political debate. This is beneath an encyclopedia. RonCram 03:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The connection is clear. Most of the major anti-AGW thinktanks (Cato, CEI, Consumer Alert, AdTi, IPA and others) dispute(d) the science on passive smoking. If there is even one anti-AGW thinktank that has consistently supported the science on passive smoking, I'm not aware of it. And Lindzen, Milloy, Singer and Seitz are scarcely marginal figures in the anti-AGW camp. Take them and their associated organisational efforts (for example, the Leipzig and Oregon petitions and JunkScience/Fox News ) out of the picture, and the whole effort would pretty much collapse.JQ 05:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and let's just let this devolve ad absurdum. This is nothing but a poorly disguised ad hominem attack meant to discredit any and all criticism of global warming by associating said criticism with unpopular viewpoints. Let me illustrate this with the following ridiculous argument.

1. Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) opposes efforts to place restrictions on abortion.

2. Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) claimed that British slave owner Willie Lynch destroyed the African-American family in sharing his methods with American slaveowners.

3. Willie Lynch does not exist and, in fact, never existed.

4. Therefore, it is inappropriate to oppose efforts to place restrictions on abortion.

I would also wager that Mr. Rangel is part of the "AGW camp." I suppose this means that both positions are false. One would imagine a paradox like this would destroy the universe or something. -- MLS

This is merely, indeed, a blog-like ad hominem attack, totally unencyclopedic, and it does lower Wikipedia. Yet again. But perhaps we should leave it to the activits - sooner than they think, they'll be alone reading WP. --Childhood's End 13:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, the RfC has done nothing. No one has yet to bring any sources that link any of these controversies to global warming (as requested). Thus, in effect, and in addition to be wholly fallacious, it is improper synthesis. If no one removes it, I guess the next step is mediation. ~ UBeR 19:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Spending 5 minutes with Google on "global warming" tobacco (which yields more than a million hits) gives us:

• The denial industry (from the Guardian) describes how Exxon reuses much of the machinery originally used by the tobacco lobby.
• A Union of concerned Scientists press release on the same topic. It links to a full report.
• Business Week has a very different angle, comparing lawsuits for tobacco and warming damages.
• Paul Loebb from The Huffington Post takes the UCS and Monbiot more or less at face value.
• Warming makes oil the 'new tobacco' (from the Guardian) is similar to the Business Week article above (!)
• Walter Williams in the Washington Times draws the analogy, although in a very unfavourable light.

This is not a topic I find particularly interesting, but there clearly is a connection.--Stephan Schulz 19:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Just curious... I didnt read these highly scientific papers, but do they identify what they think is the common cause between Exxon and the tobacco industry, or if you prefer, why does it happen that the oil industry denies AGW while the tobacco industry denied the harmful effects of passive smoking? Is it... profit ? --Childhood's End 19:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

My rate for boring tasks is EUR 300/h, 1/2 hour minimum. I'm prepared to to do two hours per day at the moment. Send a cheque. If you want it cheaper, read it yourself. From my skimming, the UCS report looks fairly solid.--Stephan Schulz 20:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would have guessed that it belonged to you to read these boring papers since you brought them to support your position... Answering to my question should be easy if you did read them. Do they identify a common cause between tobacco and oil industries? Surely there must be a reason why all these evil companies happen to deny some scientific mainstream assessments if so many magazines journals talk about this correlation? I guess it cannot be because they respectively have legitimate grounds to disagree? --Childhood's End 20:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the most interesting characteristics of the skeptics who edit here is their persistent refusal to read references that are cited for them. I don't know what the motivation for such behavior could be; perhaps you can tell us? Raymond Arritt 20:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that if I was to cite you a series of paper articles about some conspiracy theory, you would read them. I'm not that dedicated, I admit. Now, can we come back to my questions please? Is this implied correlation between tobacco and oil industries motivated by profit, or is it something else? If it is allegedly profit, is it specifically mentioned by reliable sources?

In case this is not clear enough, it seems to me necessary to explain why the tobacco stuff is relevant in the global warming stuff. Otherwise it's a red herring and should be deleted. It can happen that a few persons shared the same positions on two issues. But farther than a coincidence, is there a reason for this? Coincidences do not warrant a mention in high-profile articles usually. --Childhood's End 20:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any source in the article that definitely says passive smoking and global warming are related (or evolution, much less; have fun with that one). At any rate, the attacks on individuals should be removed. ~ UBeR 21:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong interpretation. It is not "Smoking (the act)" and "global warming (the physical phenomenon)" that are related (except in the most cursory way), but the controversy about the dangers of smoking and the controversy about global warming are - by common actors (Seitz, OISIM, ...) and common methods (sponsored "research papers" by think tanks, press releases, hot air production, and general blabla). --Stephan Schulz 21:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what is allegedly related in the article is the fact that a few same persons opposed the mainstream science in two different controversies. Unless this mention implicates something which is yet to be identified and sourced, this is a red herring, and perhaps an attack on the persons mentioned. --Childhood's End 21:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As you say Childhood's End, perhaps we need to spell it out in more detail. As the articles on them show, Singer, Seitz and Milloy took large sums of money to defend the tobacco industry, then took more money to defend the oil industry. Without them and others in who've acted similarly, the skeptical position would collapse. The facts can be documented from reliable sources, and are already reported in Wikipedia. If you want to reproduce the material here, just say so. JQ 23:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks JQ, but that still leaves the main question unanswered : what are we implying by pointing out that they've supported the positions of these two industries? Is it merely a coincidence (what then warrants deletion), or is it something else (what warrants identification with proper sources)? --Childhood's End 01:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

External sources alleging link

I am here responding to an RFC posted at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Maths,_science,_and_technology. I cannot understand why links to evolution or smoking controversies are in this article. Has some secondary source made this link, or just a contributor? If a secondary source has made these links, you might have a case. If this is the imagination of a contributor, I think these sections should be removed as original research. ImprobabilityDrive 03:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

As noted in the intro to the section, the link has been made most clearly by Chris Mooney in The Republican War on Science. As regards smoking/GW there are many other examples listed earlier in this section.04:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I am in agreement with ImprobabilityDrive that the current external references do not sufficiently establish a general connection between GW controversy and other controversies (as opposed to connections between individuals). The "War on Science" might be one, but I'm not sure how strong it is. A much better reference that I think should be incorporated is this George Monbiot article [28] which makes the (rather unexpected) link between the GW and smoking controversies in terms of corporate strategy, funding, a number of the organizations in question, and individuals including Fred Singer, Frederick Seitz, and Steven Milloy:

By May 1993, as another memo from APCO to Philip Morris shows, the fake citizens' group had a name: the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition. It was important, further letters stated, "to ensure that TASSC has a diverse group of contributors"; to "link the tobacco issue with other more 'politically correct' products"; and to associate scientific studies that cast smoking in a bad light with "broader questions about government research and regulations" - such as "global warming", "nuclear waste disposal" and "biotechnology". ... The man who runs [TASSC] is called Steve Milloy. ... TASSC's headed notepaper names an advisory board of eight people. Three of them are listed by Exxonsecrets.org as working for organisations taking money from Exxon. One of them is Frederick Seitz, the man who wrote the Oregon Petition, and who chairs the Science and Environmental Policy Project. In 1979, Seitz became a permanent consultant to the tobacco company RJ Reynolds. He worked for the firm until at least 1987, for an annual fee of $65,000. He was in charge of deciding which medical research projects the company should fund, and handed out millions of dollars a year to American universities. The purpose of this funding, a memo from the chairman of RJ Reynolds shows, was to "refute the criticisms against cigarettes". ... The president of Seitz's Science and Environmental Policy Project is a maverick environmental scientist called S Fred Singer.

--Nethgirb 07:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this link is better for the specific case of smoking and AGW, where the connection is most clear-cut (and, as you say, rather surprising when you first encounter it) in terms of direct evidence on cash flows, organizational structures and so on. OTOH, Mooney covers the entire field better. I'd suggest a cite to Monbiot in the subsection on smoking. JQ 07:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I also think the intro to the section should be reworded, from "Many of the critics of the consensus view on global warming have disagreed..." to "It has been alleged that there are links between many global warming skeptics and skepticism on other scientific issues..." or something like that. I'm not sure on the exact phrasing but the point is to say that external sources have pointed out a pattern, rather than just listing some people who hold both views (which amounts to synthesizing a pattern and thus WP:OR). And then of course those allegations of a pattern should be backed up with external links. The Monbiot piece does that for smoking, and the Mooney ref might do that for the rest though I haven't looked at The Republican War on Science. --Nethgirb 08:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Chris Mooney's or George Monbiot's articles cannot meet this criteria, be it only because they are strongly biaised. --Childhood's End 13:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

So, since Mooney and Monbiot are "biased", shall we remove all the blatherings by the professional naysayers because they, too are "biased"? Raymond Arritt 15:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Citing someone to report his opinions and citing someone to support a claim is quite different. I thought this could be obvious to a scientist. --Childhood's End 15:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"Those who believe..."

Those who believe such a consensus exists express a wide range of opinions: some merely recognize the validity of the observed increases in temperature, while others support measures such as the Kyoto Protocol that are intended to reduce the magnitude of future global warming. Still others believe that environmental damage will be so severe that immediate steps must be taken to reduce CO2 and methane emissions, even if the precise results are unknown, and even if there are substantial economic costs to doing so.

Interestingly enough, an author sought to put "some" people (scientists? policy makers? media? general public?) recognizing AGW into 3 categories; are these verified somewhere? "precise" and "substantial" are WW. Unless there is sufficient justification and attribution, these sentences will be clarified and reduced. --Skyemoor 10:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

One key component missing

How about inaccuracies of computer modeling. The inability of science or anyone to predict the future? You might notice that all respectable arguement's for global warming use the word possibly. While Al Gore uses the word definitely. Gavinthesavage 21:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not clear what you are talking about. It is definitly warming. It is very probable that humans are primarily responsible. And indeed we can predict the future. Tomorrow the sun will rise. In 10 months, where I am will be colder than it is now. And so on. I don't know whal Gore says, but scientific language is usually guarded, as scientists are well aware of the impossibility of absolute proof about anything in the physical world.--Stephan Schulz 22:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Attention is also drawn to a major complaint here: one cannot definitively say that his or her location will be colder in ten months than it is now (even excluding "clever" tricks like referring to the southern hemisphere). One can surmise that it is likely to be colder based on statistical data, but I would be quite surprised if there was never a day in late February warmer than a day in late April, especially with all this global warming going around. If even this seemingly small feat is questionable, is it so inconceivable that some doubt the ability of climatologists and others to describe temperatures over thousands of years? -- MLS

I totally agree with the statement the Scientist are aware of the impossibility of absolute proof. We are talking about predicting the weather conditions in 100 years. All the data i've read is contridicted by other data. For example, Antartica is growing. Antartica is shrinking. Antartica is growing BUT its all because global warming. They are trying to predict whether or not humans will survive there is no remotely accurate way to test that. This has nothing to do with the scientific method. You cannot test these hypothesis's.

Fact: Surface temperature is rising Fact: CO2 is also rising Fact: Atmospheric temperature is not rising (which is where the majority of global warming would be happening) hypothesis; Humans are most likely the cause of the CO2 Hypothesis: increase of CO2 CAUSES increase in temperature. Ive seen much data showing the temperature goes up before CO2 goes up.

but seeEsthameian

Politicized science can be very dangerous. Look at Eugenics Gavinthesavage 19:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Fact: Nobody clamis we can predict the weather 100 years ahead. We are predicting some aspects of the climate, a much easier task. Also a fact: Surface temperature is part of the atmospheric temperature. Also, atmospheric temperature (actually, you are probably talking about mid-tropospheric temperature) is rising in good agreement with the models. You may have run about some old statements from before the latest corrections of the satellite temperature record. Currently, even the most conservative interpretation (Christy's and Spencer's) is in broad agreement with most models, and others have even higher mid-tropospheric warming. See [29], of which Christy was a co-author. It's suprising that these refuted old arguments seem to live on the web forever.

The fact that CO2 drives temperature is derived directly from its absorption and emission properties, and not by a correlation in the temperature record. It also is strongly correlated with temperatures, and temperature and CO2 are known to be coupled by mutual feedback over a large temperature range, of course. The exact mechanisms and the magnitude of the effect are subject to current research. --Stephan Schulz 20:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Christy et al. still seem to find (lower) trop. warming is way slower than land temps. ~ UBeR 21:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's is fantasic summary of the global warming controversy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.118.254 (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Consumer Alert stuff

An anonymous (IP) editor has been insisting on adding the following stuff in the intro to the "Related controversies" subsection :

Consumer Alert for example, an industry funded think tank, has disputed many of these issues [30][31][32][33].

"Another group that represents itself as crusading for scientific truth is the Washington-based Consumer Alert, founded in 1977. Although it describes its work as nonpartisan, Consumer Alert takes a pro-business, anti-environmental position on almost every issue. It denounces global warming as a myth, attacks the Clean Air and Endangered Species Acts, and denies the dangers of second-hand smoke. Most of its policy papers and editorials were written by Michael Fumento, a columnist who now serves as a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute. Consumer Alert endorses the Cato Institute's "Principles for Environmental Policy." This proclamation, signed by a who's who of "wise use" proponents, think-tank conservatives and "new consumerists" (including Whelan) calls for regulations to be wholly subordinate to private sector priorities. No environmental law could survive its seven principles." [34]

I'm tired of fighting this, and I suspect that this person will have the support of WMC, RA and some others anyway. As for myself, I dont see the point of adding a full paragraph about a flaming quote making unsourced statements, itself sourced with a non-available article from some emagazine.com. Further, Consumer Alert is of little if no relevance to the discussion. I'll leave it here to be discussed. --Childhood's End 16:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

First, the "flaming quote" just happens to fact about this organization as the links I provided demonstrate. Second the statements are sourced. Third the article is available if you follow through. Forth, Consumer Alert is quite relevant here as the big industry names that have funded them know. 4.246.200.11 16:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have a taste for bickering. But through your ranting, you fail to address issues. First, some statements are not sourced, they are original research by emagazine.com, and unless you can provide reliable sources to support :

• Consumer Alert takes a pro-business, anti-environmental position on almost every issue
• No environmental law could survive its seven principles

your stuff remains OR. Second, the link you provide at the end of your quote leads to an article summary about chemicals, ending with a "Want the full story?" hyperlink (registration needed). Third, emagazine.com fails Wikipedia:Reliable sources/examples#Use of electronic or online sources. Finally, the fact that you think that Consumer Alert is relevant here to the point that it requires a full blasting in this article shows more about your POV than about anything else. --Childhood's End 18:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Childhoodsend, what exactly do you think that Emagazine breaks against in reliable sources that quite a few of the other references doesn't? (such as links to AEI, Greenpeace, CATO, Hoover Institute, NCPA, EVO Auto Blog, John-Daly (!) etc)? --Kim D. Petersen 13:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok let's take a look at your objections. You don't like the statement that "Consumer Alert takes a pro-business, anti-environmental position on almost every issue". Who are CA's funders? "Funding from Philip Morris, American Cyanamid, Exxon, Eli Lilly, Elanco, Pfizer, Anheuser, Busch, Coors, and Chevron. Corporations provide more than 60% of the group's funding. [Health News & Review, 6/22/93]" [35] What's CA's agenda? Here's a list of some Fumento's anti-environmental articles The Cancer Institute's Ridiculous Radon Redux [36], Consumer's Reports' False "Truth about Second-hand Smoke" [37], Endangered Species Act Deserves Extinction [38], EPA Hides behind Myths of Love Canal [39], EPA's Own Panel Says It Masquerades Dioxin Policy as Science [40], Ignored Study Finds Pollution Program Costly and Fuelish, [41], Global Warming Hotheads Use Anything to Justify their Theory [42]. Not enough? More here. Note these are all from the CA website.

Then you say, Second, the link you provide at the end of your quote leads to an article summary about chemicals, ending with a "Want the full story?" hyperlink. To which I answer, so what? That doesn't mean the I made up the information. Certainly I have a POV as do you. The difference is, I'm not trying to censor factual and pertinent information. 4.246.205.167 21:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, did I mention that Michael Fumento got into some hot water for secretly taking lots of money (at least $60,000) from Monsanto [43] to write a pro-biotech book 4.246.205.167 22:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)?

Consumer Alert belongs in the list, as it set up the Cooler Heads Coalition which was a central force on the skeptics side for a while. But we can't fit a full-length quote on everyone who has rejected the scientific position on multiple issues including GW, passive smoking and so on - there are just too many of them. So I've included CA in the list, with a link to the CHC article and cites to the relevant info.JQ 23:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well the reason I included the quote and at the top and is because CA is/was an umbrella group which disputes many of the issues that the scientific consensus accepts, some of which this section goes on to describe, and that reinforces the first paragraph in this (the Related Controversies) section. 4.246.205.195 01:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

A reasonable point. CA/CHC was important, but these days, it's really just another front for CEI. As you'd expect, they are passive smoking denialists - I'll add them [44].JQ 05:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This article's quality is getting to an unimaginable low... None of my points has been adressed by this anonymous user. This is not a blog, but an encyclopedia. Should we cite material supportive of Consumer Alert's views now that they got a full blasting by some emagazine.com in the article about Global warming controversy? --Childhood's End 13:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'dlove to help. But you've been so disobliging at the start that I don't feel inclined to. Perhaps you'd like to revise your words? William M. Connolley 13:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

William, I am not begging for help. Yet you should not take personally my comment about the article since this is not anyone's fault specifically, whilst I see that I have exaggerated. This stuff and the smoking ban stuff were just too much for me.

If you also feel that this stuff lowers the article and/or breaches almost every WP policy, please act accordingly as you obviously have more influence than I do on these pages. It will help the article, not me. I must give up, especially since this guy received support from JQ while I was left alone in my camp. --Childhood's End 14:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Assertions section

I think the assertion section needs to be reworked on. By saying "supports of AGW" think this and "disbelievers of AGW" think this is creating a false dilemma. For example, there are plenty of AGW supports who believe hurricanes intensity and frequency isn't the result of CO2 emissions. Or that deniers believe CO2 rise came after temperature rise in the ice cores. While this is true, many supporters of AGW also believe this. Or, for example, that temperature has risen over the past 100 years. Many deniers of AGW believe this too. I could go on, but I think it's clear the section is very misleading, or at least missing a lot of details. ~ UBeR 21:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Here's an idea—why don't we cut the section entirely (both the assertions by supporters and opponents). As UBeR says, it's somewhat misleading; some of it is unimportant or duplicative; the article is way too long; and in general, I don't see what good a big list of assertions does. I suggest cutting the entire section to the talk page. The important bits can then be extracted and discussed in more detail, as some issues like Urban Heat Islands or Solar Activity already are. --Nethgirb 05:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with both. If an item is important enough to be listed, it should be explained in reasonable detail. Conversely, if it's not important enough to explain, it shouldn't be included. Note "listiness" is considered a negative attribute in evaluating Wikipedia articles. Raymond Arritt 05:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Here it is for discussion. Hal peridol 12:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Assertions by supporters and opponents

Listed here are some of the assertions made by supporters and opponents of the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming not discussed above. Assertions are included solely because they have been made by one side or the other, without comment on their scientific validity or lack thereof.

Assertions by supporters

Supporters of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis assert that:

• The fact that carbon dioxide absorbs and emits IR radiation has been known for over a century.
• Gas bubbles trapped in ice cores give us a detailed record of atmospheric chemistry and temperature back more than eight hundred thousand years, with the temperature record confirmed by other geologic evidence. This record shows a correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature.
• The recent rise in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is greater than any in hundreds of thousands of years and this is human-caused, as shown by the isotopic signature of CO₂ from fossil fuels.
• The historical temperature record shows a rise of 0.4–0.8 °C over the last 100 years.
• The current warmth is unusual in the past 1000 years (see Temperature record of the past 1000 years).
• Climate change attribution studies, using both models and observations, find that the warming of the last 50 years is likely caused by human activity; natural variability (including solar variation) alone cannot explain the recent change.
• Climate models can reproduce the observed trend only when greenhouse gas forcing is included.
• The IPCC reports correctly summarize the state of climate science.
• Humankind is performing a great geophysical experiment, and if it turns out badly—however that is defined—we cannot undo it. We cannot even abruptly turn it off. Too many of the things we are doing now have long-term ramifications for centuries to come.
• Climate models predict more warming, sea level rise, more frequent and severe storms, drought and heat waves, spread of tropical diseases, and other climactic effects in the future.
• The current warming trend will accelerate when melting ice exposes more dark sea and land that will reflect less sunlight; and when the tundra thaws and releases large quantities of trapped greenhouse gases.
• Atlantic hurricane trends have been recently linked to climate change.
• The Precautionary principle requires that action should be taken now to prevent or mitigate warming.

Proponents of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis tend to support the IPCC position, and thus represent the scientific consensus (though with considerable differences over details, and especially over what action should be taken).

Assertions by opponents

Some of the assertions made in opposition to the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming include:

• The relationship between historic temperatures and CO₂ levels, based on ice-core samples, shows that carbon dioxide levels rise after global temperatures rise. [45]
• IPCC draws firm conclusions unjustified by the science, especially given the acknowledged weakness of cloud physics in the climate models.
• The influential "Hockey Stick" study by Mann is controversial.
• Using "consensus" as evidence is an appeal to the majority argument rather than scientific discussion. Some have proposed that, because the issue has become so politicized, climatologists who disagree with the consensus may be afraid to speak out for fear of losing their positions or funding.
• Climate models will not be able to predict the future climate until they can predict solar and volcanic activity, changes in sea temperature, and changes to cosmic ray levels that make the low level clouds that cool the earth.
• Water vapor, not CO₂, is the primary greenhouse gas. Depending on the referenced source, water vapor and water droplets account for 36-70% of the greenhouse effect, while CO₂ accounts for 9-26%.Cockburn
• Global warming is largely a result of reduced low-altitude cloud cover from reduced Galactic cosmic rays (GCRs). It is similar in concept to the Wilson cloud chamber but on a global scale, where earth's atmosphere acts as the cloud chamber.
• The concern about global warming is analogous to the concern about global cooling in the 1970s. The concern about global cooling was unnecessarily alarmist. Therefore, the concern about global warming may be equally alarmist.
• The Medieval warm period, which lasted from the 10th to the 14th century, had above-average temperatures for at least Western Europe, and possibly the whole Earth. This period was followed by the Little Ice Age, which lasted until the 19th century, when the Earth began to heat up again.
• Satellite temperature records show less atmospheric warming than surface land and sea records.
• Climatic changes equal to or even more severe than those on Earth are also happening on other bodies within this solar system, including Mars, Jupiter, Pluto and Triton. (However NASA scientists have attributed Martian warming not to the sun but to changes in albedo)

Opponents tend to define themselves in terms of opposition to the IPCC position, and thus oppose the scientific consensus. They generally believe that climate science is not yet able to provide us with solid answers to all of the major questions about global climate. Opponents often characterize supporters' arguments as alarmist and premature, emphasizing what they perceive as the lack of scientific evidence supporting global-warming scenarios.

Many opponents also say that, if global warming is real and man-made, no action need be taken now, because:

• Future scientific advances or engineering projects will remedy the problem before it becomes serious, and do it for less money.
• There is a distinct correlation between GDP growth and greenhouse-gas emissions. If this correlation is assumed to be a causation, a cutback in emissions might lead to a decrease in the rate of GDP growth .

Related controversies

This is a good section. I think this whole area can and should be given its own wiki page too, the link between funding by dirty industry, advocacy/propaganda and anti-environmentalism, anti-consumerism. Lots of info out there. Bring it all together, all of these groups and individuals. Unfortunately I don't have the time to do it myself. 4.246.201.170 15:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

And these links and schemes between all these evil entities have probably been demonstrated in a Michael Moore movie...? I presume this could support the article. --Childhood's End 16:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

On the same level, I note that TGGWS is quoted in this article. --Skyemoor 20:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The importance of Data sharing

Raymond Arritt deleted an edit I made regarding Steve McIntyre's attempt to obtain data while performing as an IPCC reviewer. This is an important aspect of the controversy and Raymond's attempt to keep this information from readers appears to be based on a misunderstanding or possibly a goal to suppress data that would make the IPCC look bad. There is no rational reason to prevent readers from knowing all of the facts. RonCram 17:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I should point out that while Raymond did not discuss his deletion on the Talk page, he claimed WP:OR and WP:SOAP in the Edit Summary as his reasons for deleting. My edit was was well-sourced and certainly not OR. Neither can it be considered SOAP as the article is discussing a controversy. RonCram 17:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Ron - the section as reinserted is problematic. Stephen McIntyre states that part of the report is based on unpublished data - fine, although it neglects to mention that the papers in question are in review. Data sharing is required in science - a blanket statement of this sort should be supported by the actual policy in question, which in this case is completely independant of the IPCC, as the paper in question was under review for the JGR. The statement "When McIntyre attempted to obtain this data, the IPCC threatened to remove his accreditation as an IPCC expert reviewer" is provocative; McIntyre states that he is threatened, but his breach of the conditions of access go unmentioned, as does his interference with the JGR review process. Hal peridol 23:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hal, thank you for discussing this. Regarding the blanket statement "Data sharing is required in science," I refer you to Wikipedia's Scientific method: "Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so it is available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established." Data sharing is required of peer-reviewed articles, so it seems strange to exclude articles under the review process (the exact time when articles should be reviewed). And why is the IPCC using articles that have not completed the review process? Oh yes, that is exactly the critcism McIntyre is bringing up. But all of this is beside the point. None of the facts in the entry are in dispute. If you think the wording is somehow unfair to the IPCC, perhaps you can change the wording. RonCram 00:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

My concerns really are twofold. The first is the matter of facts, versus opinions, being in dispute. Your preferred version has the sentence, "When McIntyre attempted to obtain this data, the IPCC threatened to remove his accreditation as an IPCC expert reviewer." This is based of course on McIntyre's own interpretation of the statements of Susan Solomon. The other version is based on the viewpoints expressed by IPCC policy, and reiterated by Solomon upon McIntyre's inquiry. McIntyre did not believe that he breached his reviewer obligations, but Solomon did. Therefore, I don't believe that the facts in your entry can be considered undisputed. The second concerns your statement that it is strange to exclude articles under the review process from data sharing requirements; even the references used in that article indicate that full data access need not be granted until the final acceptance for publication [46], and McIntyre was not a reviewer of these papers for JGR. Hal peridol 03:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hal, I am pleased to see that you are seeking to understand the issues involved in the controversy. That’s terrific. However, you have a misunderstanding or two which I am happy to clear up. Regarding your first concern, I am happy to change the wording so that it quotes Solomon directly rather than indirectly if that is truly the issue. But you must understand that Solomon’s refusal is contrary to stated IPCC policy on published literature. The policy states: “The Working Group/Task Force Bureau Co-Chairs should make available to reviewers on request during the review process specific material referenced in the document being reviewed, which is not available in the international published literature.” Solomon states: “The term ‘materials referenced’ used in our rules is unambiguously defined by the list of such ‘references’ given at the end of each chapter. The term does not extend beyond those cited references to such material as datasets, computer codes, or other sources of information that those papers may themselves cite or use. As has already been detailed for you by Dr. Manning, the IPCC does not and cannot provide datasets associated with each of the papers cited in the review, whether published or unpublished.” Solomon’s statement here is unambiguously untrue. The policy above clearly states that reviewers would have access to “specific material referenced in the document being reviewed, which is not available in the international published literature.” Solomon summarizes by saying: “If there is further evidence that you can not accept them, or if your intent is to use your access to the review process to challenge them, then we will not be able to continue to treat you as an expert reviewer for the IPCC.” McIntyre’s responded by pointing out that Dr. Manning had invited McIntyre to contact the authors directly and request the data. Solomon claiming McIntyre’s actions were inappropriate was beyond the pale. BTW, it is important to note that the information McIntyre requested is still not archived or shared even after the publication of the articles cited by the IPCC. Regarding your second concern, the example you gave on research funded by NIH is not applicable to this situation. In that situation, you are dealing with a competitive researcher seeking funding for work in the same field. Providing unpublished data might allow the second researcher to “steal the thunder” of the first researcher. In the McIntyre situation, he was not seeking funding but seeking to determine if the research supported the conclusions drawn or may have had errors. This is exactly the job of an IPCC reviewer, only McIntyre has a reputation for being particularly good at it. The IPCC obviously did not want to see any errors found. The job of science is to get to the truth. Blocking access to data confounds that fundamental goal. It is especially important to confirm data when that data is used in public policy development such as the IPCC is doing. [47] My concern is the length of this portion of the article. If we spend too much space giving all of the details, this portion is given undue weight. I thought the previous version provided enough details but not too many. If you insist, we can quote the policy and Dr. Solomon directly contradicting the policy. If you insist on quoting Solomon saying that McIntyre’s actions were inappropriate in requesting info from the authors or journals, we can also quote Dr. Manning telling McIntyre to do that. What do you think is the right course? RonCram 12:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

See WP:SOAP. Oh, and after all this time it's surprising that you think it's "Manning" rather than "Mann". Raymond Arritt 13:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, according to your citation there are three possible areas when something can be described as SOAP: 1. Propaganda or Advocacy 2. Self-promotion or 3. Advertising. Since 2 and 3 obviously do not apply, I can only presume you are thinking of 1. Propaganda or Advocacy. This does not apply either since we are discussing elements of a controversy. To attempt to silence one side of the controversy is only advocacy of the opposite opinion. There is no question the information is relevant to the article. To my mind, the only question is how much detail is required and appropriate for the article? You are invited to state your opinion or to change wording you think is unfair or POV, but a flat deletion of the controversy is not acceptable. BTW, I was not referring to Michael Mann but to Dr. Martin Manning of the IPCC who first refused to provide data and methods info regarding D’Arrico’s paper and Hegerl’s paper. If you had bothered to read the reference I provided, you would have known that. [48] RonCram 15:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ouch! Overall though, I believe we shouldn't be interpreting Solomon at all. That's not our job. So I believe we ought to just state the quote and let the reader decide. That is the nature of Wikipedia. ~ UBeR 18:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

(undented by RonCram)Oops, sorry -- it was McIntyre's blog and I don't usually find his (or His, as you'd probably prefer) stuff worthwhile. But you're right, McIntyre does get people's names correctly. Raymond Arritt 22:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, all I ask is that you at least read the reference or citation prior to deleting my entries. RonCram 04:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, for the purposes of this article I would prefer to simply have:"Stephen McIntyre, a reviewer of the AR4, found that portions of the report were based on unpublished data." - this is definitely undisputed, and is probably sufficient detail in this article. A full explanation of Manning, McIntyre, and Solomon's stands/opinions (as well as those of the authors) seems to be more than is warranted for this instance. What is your opinion on that? Hal peridol 20:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it's a notable controversy and criticism (hence the article) that the IPCC is willing to invalidate someone as a reviewer for pointing out flaws. ~ UBeR 20:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, of course, perhaps it's a non-notable controversy that the IPCC does not wish to be used as a catspaw for providing improper access to another's research. Hal peridol 01:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

At any rate, I don't particularly want to argue the point, I just wish to point out that even McIntyre's ClimateAudit post tells both sides of the story. Thanks, Hal peridol 02:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Trying to keep this as short as possible while making the controversy clear to readers, here is my entry:

The scientific method requires that data be verified before it is considered reliable. Funding agencies and journal policies require authors to share supplemental data to support such verification efforts. The IPCC policy regarding supplemental data states: “The Working Group/Task Force Bureau Co-Chairs should make available to reviewers on request during the review process specific material referenced in the document being reviewed, which is not available in the international published literature.” Stephen McIntyre, an IPCC reviewer on the AR4, found that portions of the report were based on unpublished data. When McIntyre attempted to obtain this data, he was rebuffed. When he complained that the IPCC was not upholding its stated policy, the IPCC wrote: ““If there is further evidence that … your intent is to use your access to the review process to challenge (authors), then we will not be able to continue to treat you as an expert reviewer for the IPCC.” McIntyre recommends, the "IPCC should require authors who submitted papers for citation to consent to provide data." The IPCC has declined to do so saying that this would interfere with the journals.RonCram 05:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The key to this is Rons This is an important aspect of the controversy - there is no evidence for this at all William M. Connolley 09:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

William, the evidence that data withholding is an important aspect of the global warming controversy can be seen by the fact that the Wall Street Journal article [49] about Michael Mann’s withholding data from Steve McIntyre was a key reason Congress chose to investigate Mann. In the letter to Mann, Congress wrote:

‘’As you know, sharing data and research results is a basic tenet of open scientific inquiry, providing a means to judge the reliability of scientific claims. The ability to replicate a study, as the National Research Council has noted, is typically the gold standard by which the reliability of claims is judged. Given the questions reported about data access surrounding these studies, we also seek to learn whether obligations concerning the sharing of information developed or disseminated with federal support have been appropriately met.’’ [50] (Page 2)

Because data sharing is a basic tenet of open scientific inquiry and because data withholding has become so infamous in climate studies, incidents of data withholding are worthy of inclusion in discussions about the controversy. If you want, we can add information here on the “Hockey stick controversy” to give readers more background but, as I mentioned above, I am trying to keep this short so as not to give undue weight to this one aspect of the controversy. RonCram 10:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"Congress" didn't write this. Joe Barton did, helping to earn the more than $2 million he was paid for his part in the fight against science. Feel free to raise Barton's claims as part of this article - details of his actions will certainly make a number of points clearer.JQ 11:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Barton was chairman of the committee, so when he investigates it is Congress investigating. Congress was well within its rights since Mann had taken government funds to conduct his research. Funding by the NSF means certain strings are put on the research. One of the requirements is that researchers archive their data and also make any unarchived data available to other researchers so they can verify it. If you are unaware of these things, I suggest you read Scientific method, Scientific data archiving, Data sharing and Pseudoscience. I think these articles will give you a better idea of why data withholding is a crime against science.RonCram 12:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that you're not deliberately pushing your POV, but that you genuinely cannot see the difference between the facts as such and your interpretation of them. The end result is the same, but difference in motivation is interesting. Raymond Arritt 14:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, I understand there is a theoretical difference between the facts and my interpretation of them but the difference is unimportant unless you can point to an actual distinction. In other words, all of us hold views that are somewhat different from reality/facts. Why do we do that? Because we don't know where we are wrong. I make a strong effort to keep my mind open when investigating the facts so I can change my POV if the facts warrant it. But what I see in the climate research community is a profound "groupthink" that is unhealthy because it prevents people from examining the facts.RonCram 18:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ron has a history of this - remember the "act of congress" stuff? Ron, try to avoid puffing up one profoundly septic senators acts into those of the whole congress William M. Connolley 20:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, here in the United States, formal hearings held by Congress, regardless of the chairman, are on behalf of Congress. ~ UBeR 21:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

William, when a congressional committee investigates it is commonly referred to as a congressional investigation. I know you are from the UK and may not be familiar with our terms, but I assure you it is reported in the newspapers as a congressional investigation. My use of the term is not at all unusual. Congress authorizes the funding doled out by the NSF and also establishes some of the NSF policies. Because of this, Congress had (and has) every right to investigate if evidence arises that government funding was taken by scientists who did not comply with the regulations and policies. BTW, Barton is a member of Congress, not a senator. RonCram 21:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, a Senator is a member of Congress, as is a House member. ~ UBeR 21:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

There are two houses of Congress, but the titles are "member of Congress" or "representative" for one and "senator" for the other. If you ever go to Washington, you quickly learn that you never call a senator a member of Congress. Actually, Barton's more powerful title was "chairman" because he held much more power as chairman of a subcommittee or committee than a regular member of Congress. RonCram 21:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

UBeR, I must apologize. I just read Member of Congress and it appears some people are pushing to changing the use of member of Congress to also refer to senators. Language does change over time. It has been years since I've been to Washington but I would still never address a senator as "Member" myself. RonCram 21:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Digress: I recognize calling a Senator a congressperson is almost an insult. Usually Representatives in the House are called congressman or woman. Congress, of course, is comprised of the House of Reps. and the Senate, so I think it would be fair to call a Senator a member of Congress. Oh well.. back to the topic at hand. :-) ~ UBeR 22:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"Congress, of course, is compromised..." Certainly we can all agree to that! Raymond Arritt 22:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably true. Just look at the majority. ;-) ~ UBeR 22:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This is getting sillier by the minute. Even SEPP [51] refers to letters from Barton, not "from Congress". Can you find even one standard source (eg NY Times, WashPost or similar) using the term "Congress" to refer to Barton or his committee? JQ 22:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What committee is he the chairman of anyway? ~ UBeR 22:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

UBeR, Joe Barton was Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. One of the subcommittees to his committee was the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations which was chaired by Ed Whitfield. Both Whitfield and Barton signed the letter to Mann. [52] RonCram 23:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

JQ, congressional investigations are always performed by committees, either by a standing committee (if the chairman sees fit) or by a select committee (if necessary). Investigations are never performed in the full chamber. Members of the committee are allowed to subpoena witnesses and relevant material. Sometimes investigations are televised and sometimes not. Sometimes the investigations lead to new legislation and sometimes not. Without this subpoena power, the government might never have gotten access to the data, methods and source code they paid for when they funded Mann’s research. It seems Wikipedia needs an article on Congressional investigations.RonCram 23:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

So now that this pointless circular bickering on minutia is over, would somebody please care to let everyone else know why all this POV pushing on who's on what side of whom and where adds anything to the converstation ever for any reason? Sln3412 23:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The Chris Landsea quote under "The IPCC" section

Currently the quote from Landsea appears to condemn every area of IPCC investigation. I do not believe Landsea did that, he only condemned the area around hurricanes that he knew about. I thought I had seen an edit by William Connelley that corrected this to show it was only about hurricanes but it seems to be gone now. I think the quote deserves a little more context as well. Can someone fix that? RonCram 13:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ron, I disagree. Landsea's resignation letter explains very well what he experienced and why he resigned. As he says in his intro, he withdrawed because "I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized", but in addition, because "when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns".

Landsea explains the problems he had with the IPCC-chosen Dr. Trenberth : "...as a Lead Author for the IPCC [Dr. Trenberth] has used that position to promulgate to the media and general public his own opinion that the busy 2004 hurricane season was caused by global warming, which is in direct opposition to research written in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR".

The most important part is this: My concerns go beyond the actions of Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues to how he and other IPCC officials responded to my concerns. I did caution Dr. Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC.

Also, after the quote provided in the article, Landsea's letter concluded with : As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.'

I think it is clear that Landsea saw problems with more than the hurricanes research group. He also pointed out that the IPCC needs to protect itself when its scientists speak with the media (explaining that the IPCC as a whole is thus politicized, why it had to support Trenberth). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Childhoodsend (talk • contribs) 14:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Okay, I was unaware of his comments about the leadership. But I still think Landsea's resignation deserves more context in the article. RonCram (on a borrowed computer I don't want to sign in on).

I dont know why, but the article has nonetheless been modified to make it look as if Landsea's criticism was limited to where his area of expertise is relevant. I thought his letter was clear enough. --Childhood's End 14:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I modified it, since thats clearly his major criticism, and its a very thin one William M. Connolley 15:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Balance

Note that this article is "GWC" - *not* "criticisms of GW". At the moment, its hopelessly unbalanced - all the IPCC section is anti, for example. Per undue-weight, that section (for example) should primarily consist of praise and endorsements of the ipcc, since that is the scientific balance. politically it might be otherwise William M. Connolley 14:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No, this is about the controversy, not the praise. If you're looking for IPCC praise, go to its respective article. There's not much controversy surrounding their praise. (Well, may there is, but I don't know about it.) Additionally, if you want to talk about improper criticism, look at the "Related issues" section. ~ UBeR 16:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with UBeR. This is about the controversy and so it has to be about the controversy the IPCC has raised by not following their own policies and for pushing a political agenda that is contrary to the science. RonCram (again on a borrowed computer) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.173.189.138 (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Your interpretation is unacceptable, unless we rename all this "criticism of...". Clearly, if there is controversy, there are two sides to report. This page will remain unbalanced if it is all crit William M. Connolley 17:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So start with removing the ad hominem criticisms. ~ UBeR 17:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

UBeR - why should he? The ad hominem criticisms are part of the controversy and debate - so it should be mentioned and covered. Or are you of the opinion that it shouldn't - and on what grounds do you base this? If it had been radical or extremist sources that this was based upon - i'd agree that it should be removed for reasons of undue weight - but the critique is fairly common in mainstream media. So it belongs there (imho). --Kim D. Petersen 17:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't a clue wot Uber is on about. Why doesn't Uber remove these things himself, whatever they might be? William M. Connolley 17:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

William, a controversy does not balance criticism of the IPCC with praise for the IPCC. This is not an article about advocacy. If the IPCC has responded to the criticism, we should definitely include their response. Not to do so would be unbalanced. The stuff on McIntyre does include the IPCC response, such as it is. I do not know if the IPCC gave an official response to Landsea's resignation. If so, it should be included. RonCram 18:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ron, unless this article is Criticism of the IPCC, then by all means support for the IPCC belongs here as well, at least to show both sides of the controversy. --Skyemoor 18:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a reply from IPCC to L. Various societies have weighed in favour of the IPCC... we list them on the sci opp page; they should be included here William M. Connolley 19:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Eugenics

The material on comparisons with eugenics has been deleted several times. It is well-documented, and notable, particularly because it comes from multiple sources. I think that the deletion seems like POV censorship. --Don't lose that number 07:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The situation as I see it is we have 3 individuals who used a similar analogy. That does not justify the implicit assertion that Eugenics is a "related controversy". The other controversies listed have much stronger links, e.g., in the case of second hand smoke, funding connections and some of the same individuals involved in publicly advocating one side. --Nethgirb 07:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The section seems slanted in such a way as to put skeptics of anthropogenic climate change in a bad light, particularly by including "evolution" as a related controversy. I think that eugenics should be included for balance, particularly because it is being alleged that some of the proposed solutions for GW will have devastating consequences for the poor nations, and the poor within the rich nations, which parallels some of the consequences of the eugenics craze. --Don't lose that number 15:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that this should be mentioned, but perhaps not in the "related controversies section", as none of the people involved in the global warming controversy have anything to do with Eugenics (unlike in case of Evolution/Creationism and Smoking etc.). The skeptics, by making this ridiculous comparison, only make a fool of themselves :) Count Iblis 15:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It's trolling, plain and simple, and as such should be deleted without comment. Responding in any way only encourages such people. Raymond Arritt 15:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur with those leaving it out. It is unrelated to global warming or even the crontroversy, except in the fact several commentators have used the same rhetoric. The rhetorical similarity itself is unremarkable per Godwin's Law. --TeaDrinker 16:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --Skyemoor 16:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't push POV in this article. As is noted in the article Eugenics, leading pro-eugenics activists such as Julian Huxley simply changed their spots after WWII to become "population control" activists. The policies advocated by those that claim climate change is anthropogenic are the same policies. --Don't lose that number 13:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I created a new section as suggested by Count Iblis. The three individuals quoted are all notable: a well-known scientist, a US Congressman, and a best-selling novelist. I am open to suggestion about how this should be included, but I don't accept the idea that it should be suppressed -- that violates NPOV. --Don't lose that number 21:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we need some consistency here. If we can discuss smoking and evolution in an article about global warming then eugenics is also a legitimate topic of discussion. Particularly as it is well referenced from notable sources. Iceage77 21:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. None of these subjects (smoking, evolution, eugenics) belong in this article. But what you must understand is that anyone, who doubts the impending man-made GW catastrophe, must have his reputation tarnished, his credibility destroyed, and his arguments trivialized. You see there are billions of dollars in carbon taxes at stake for government and those willing to assist them. Can you imagine a trial lawyer who has difficulty procuring an impressive scientist as expert witness, regardless of which side is being presented? Follow the money.

Freedom Fan 02:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yet another comparison to eugenics. Agreed though, all the ad hominem irrelevancies should be removed. ~ UBeR 04:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw that one too, but I don't think that the opinion of a journalist is sufficiently notable, when we have far more notable persons to cite. --Don't lose that number 14:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

there seems to be a consensus here that the material is inappropriate. I've going to remove it. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 20:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I felt that the consensus was that eugenics should be removed along with the stuff about smoking bans, evolution and now AIDS. If it is ruled that this stuff can hold, then this discussion in no way agrees that eugenics should be removed. --Childhood's End 20:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

At present, eugenics has been removed, but the smoking bans etc. remain. If someone doesn't change this within the next days, I will do it. --Don't lose that number 14:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Attribution_of_recent_climate_change#Warming ometimes_leads_CO2_increases

I have recently run into the assertion/observation/science/.. that instead of CO2 preceding global warming, it instead follows global warming. I guess the theory is that warmer weather causes CO2 to be released from the ocean. Any info on this - both articles I read seemed to be by people who usually know their subject matter before publishing.159.105.80.141 17:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes that's true. However, the previous records in which CO2 follows temperature rise is theorized to be caused by orbital forcings. See more here. ~ UBeR 17:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

and even in this very article. --Stephan Schulz 18:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You want the little-known Attribution_of_recent_climate_change#Warming sometimes_leads_CO2_increases William M. Connolley 18:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

For a theory that is self-evident to all liberals and college professors it sure takes a lot of contorted explanation to get the answer you want. This obviously isn't an Occums razor thing. What is the weakest link? I like the dust clouds on Mars one - what do we know about Mars dust clouds - that sounds like a weak link to me.159.105.80.141 19:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You sure went fast from "Any info?" to "it's a liberal college professor invention". The man is spelled William of Ockham (or Occam), but never with a u. The posessive is formed with an apostrophe. And we know much less about Martian climate than about Earth's climate - in particular we don't even know if Mars is currently warming at all. --Stephan Schulz 19:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Te he, While Mr, IP Address did make himself look like someone who doesn't have his facts together, you are a wee bit incorrect about that "we don't even know if mars is currently warming at all." thing[53][54][55][56][57][58]. The RealClimate.org blog[59] may not know if mars is currently warming, but NASA seams to think otherwise. Then again, this is Why Wikipedia doesn't trust Blogs. Lets see here... NASA or RealClimate.org blog... NASA or RealClimate.org Blog... I'm going to have to go with NASA.--Zeeboid 20:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Funny, none of your links went to NASA, or to a peer-reviewed article, at that. But it's nice to know that warming inferred from two data points (1970s Viking and today) is enough to convince you of "global warming". At least with two data points you can always fit a straight line without all the annoying wiggles... --Stephan Schulz 20:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

here. ~ UBeR 20:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Other than Mars how are the other planets doing global-warmingwise? Do they all have their own unique excuse for warming ( ie dust, tilt, reflection, etc ). if they are? When I search the web I can seem to find several big shots who seem convinced that the sun seems to be the major player. I read that the sun 's output is relatively constant - but relatively seems to be +-.1%, if I remember correctly. But all ice ages and past warmings seem to have been caused by this measily +-.1%. Any reason why +-.1% is no longer adequate - unless of course in the distant past the sun varied by more than +-.1%. How much +- more would the sun have to put out now to do the job ( I hope the models' error range misses that number ). 159.105.80.141 18:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

See orbital forcings and ice age to read discussions on previous variations of temperature on Earth. ~ UBeR 18:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

For Pluto, I've just added it to the FAQ. Triton is supposed to be very similar, but I've not looked into it. --Stephan Schulz 20:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Triton warming is not so much related to its orbit than depositional geological processes. Other possibilities as well, as described by Elliot et al. It is expected to continue to warm. ~ UBeR 22:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

World Climate Report recently commented on a new study in Geophysical Research Letters that found evidence that Neptune has been warming since 1980. Geoffrey Allan Plauche 19:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent link ( World Climate Report - Neptune). Neptune's warming seems caused by the sun it appears ( .89 ) ( of course the earth's correlation is .90) but I guess we should give the other variables their chance. (( Really, how much longer can this hoax last?))159.105.80.141 19:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, from the New Scientist article above which was referenced showing 'global warming from solar variation on Mars';

"David Smith of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center thinks the shrinkage may be part of a multi-year climate cycle, like the terrestrial El Nino/Southern Oscillation. Recent dust storms might also have aided the melting of the cap.

Planetary scientists have long recognized a seasonal cycle of growth and shrinkage of the frozen cap on Mars.::

Separate new observations with the Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter show up to two meters of fresh CO2 ice freezes out of the atmosphere each winter onto the polar caps, then evaporates in the spring and summer."

So let's provide something a bit more substantive next time. --Skyemoor 20:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

For example, the Neptune paper? ~ UBeR 20:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that one's "almost completely" irrelevant, as opposed to "utterly" irrelevant. Raymond Arritt 21:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, Hammel and Lockwood beg to differ. ~ UBeR 22:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure they would. If you read their GRL paper -- as opposed to Michaels's spin on it -- they're quite tentative and cautious about its implications. In other words they are being good scientists and pointing out something that is interesting without trying to oversell or sensationalize it. Contrast this with WCR's approach. Raymond Arritt 22:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I based my reasoning off Hammel and Lockwood's wording, not WCR's. I could be wrong, but I think I'm right. Who knows though. ~ UBeR 00:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I guessed rigth I guess. All the planets have a reason for getting warmer that doesn't involve the sun. I think the PhDs involved in this should not overuse the dust thing though - someone might think the dust storms were caused by the sun - all the planets tilting to the left ( appears not to the right ) might be a graceful way out ( there no sun and not manmade - it fits the theory now ). PS Der Spiegel recently said that new supercomputer models have reduced the sea level rise from 3 feet +- to about 16 inches - true?159.105.80.141 11:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

All the planets have a reason for getting warmer that doesn't involve the sun. The anon has made an unsubstantiated claim; which other planets AND their satellites are showing unusual temperature increases? --Skyemoor 12:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

May be a good place to mention that Uber is trying to rescue Solar system warming from its redirect. As to SLR: no, its false William M. Connolley 12:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You should tighten up these articles, or read some of them.The Solar System Warming article contradicts itself - starts out saying only the earth is getting warmer and later has every planet warming up ( vague on reason - (I guessed right ) except for two sections that are blank ( I guess that the blanks are getting hotter too ). Uber had better rescue SSW, anon has made the same claim as SSW. 159.105.80.141 17:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Peiser retracts statement

Controversy concerning the science

[[60]]

Thalionrin 09:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, a complete 180 degree shift. Time to update the appropriate articles. --Skyemoor 12:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Pointless?

. An additional issue is whether the current warming trend is unprecedented or within normal climatic variations. What exactly is this supposed to mean? Obviously, throughout Earth's history, it has been warmer and colder. Is there a sensible timeframe to be considered, such as since the dawn of civilization or do we start 4.5 billion years ago? Just because this is an article on a controversy does not mean we toss out WP policy and guidelines. --Skyemoor 01:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact that's quite a common skeptic argument: "It was this warm N years ago, so obviously it's all natural and you can forget this greenhouse stuff made up by a bunch of greedy scientists flown in on the UN's black helicopters." The fact that it's a specious point doesn't stop it being used as an argument. In an article about the controversy (not about the science) we have to deal with the fact that people say such things, though I'm slightly uncomfortable with the wording as it stands. Raymond Arritt 03:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Understood, I also have an issue with it is currently in the lede, as it ignores carbon sequestration from earlier high CO2 eras, and what significant climate changes will have on relatively recently established patterns of agricultural activity. Indeed, the argument is specious if stretches much beyond the timeframe noted by the NRC, which assumes the point is primarily about the 'MWP'. --Skyemoor 11:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact, this "additional issue" is simply a rephrasing of the previous statement, certainly not how a lede should be constructed per WP:GTL. --Skyemoor 15:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it's an additional issue. In fact in two parts. (a) Are current temperatures unprecented? Mann et al claimed that the 1990s were the hottest decade of the last 1000 years. The NAS report says "Even less confidence can be placed inthe original conclusions of Mann et al". (b) Is the current rate of increase unprecedented. These questions are part of the controversy, and quite separate from the question of causes. Paul Matthews 17:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

And the NAS panel have also stated that "less confidence" (for the last 1000 years) is around 66% confidence. (Pf. Bloomberg at the pressconference at around 00:44:00 [61]) --Kim D. Petersen 20:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Heidelberg appeal and specific issues

The text of the Heidelberg appeal is here: [62]

I don't see any mention of any specific environmental issue here, which is consistent with what I wrote. It only talks in generalities about environmentalism impeding economic progress. I'm reverting the revert of my edit unless someone can point to a specific environmental issue in the appeal that I'm missing. Oren0 21:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. First, it's hard to see how the contention that no other issues were mentioned is somehow relevant to the indisputable fact that climate change is not mentioned at all, which is the subject of the present article. Second, to argue that statements such as "We fully subscribe to the objectives of a scientific ecology..." "resources must be taken stock of, monitored and preserved..." "major problems like overpopulation, starvation and worldwide diseases..." are not environmental issues seems rather an unconventional interpretation. Raymond Arritt 21:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I personally fail to see what Jerry Taylor's "opinion" on the HA is of interest here? Would it be of interest if he had thought the Moon was a Green Cheese? The text is rather clearly not what he thinks... So why is his "opinion" included? --Kim D. Petersen 22:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: I'm not saying that Taylors opinion isn't part of the controversy - or shouldn't be mentioned... But why here? Either its to try to fool people into thinking that the HA is something its not - or its to make Taylor look foolish. Both POV's aren't (imho) in agreement with NPOV. --Kim D. Petersen 22:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I cut ; however, Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute claims that the appeal "warns the industrialized world that no compelling evidence exists to justify controls of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions." - we're not obliged to repeat every blatant falsehood Cato people put out. I added instead some text from the petition - "scientific criteria and not on irrational preconceptions" - which I think is its core. Naturally, since IPCC is Science and the Skeptics are Irrational, I'm very comfortable with this William M. Connolley 22:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Senate subcomittee web page list

While browsing I found the US senate website of the subcommittee - chaired by Boxer and Inhofe. They have a list of climatologists,professors, etc - experts, MIT, institues, so on - who have recently changed their view on global warming. Interesting to see that the major reasons appear to be sun related - natural cycle - and away from human causes. Some see good reasons to reduce pollution, smaller cars, etc but see those goals as unrelated to climate change. Their concern is that so much money has been spent pushing a bogus theory ( I had the feeling that several of these scientists suspected bogus science for some time before they spoke up ) that the public is being stampeded in a nonproductive direction. 159.105.80.141 11:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of the reversals on that list are neither new nor even compelling. Some of the sources used are atrocious. See our own Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming for a much better list, and see the discussion there. Also see Scientific opinion on climate change to get some perspective.--Stephan Schulz 11:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, right. For reliable accurate information on any topic, the first place to look is wikipedia?? Paul Matthews 12:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No, but better than the US senate by a mile. When did the last flat-earther retire as a senator? --BozMo talk 12:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Not all are retired, yet. --Skyemoor 18:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Euhm, the Wikipedia list does not show scientists who do not have an article about them on Wikipedia... I guess that's enough to not really consider it. --Childhood's End 17:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Evolution & smoking sections

Article - Evolution and Passive Smoking sections - vandalism? serious?? If MIT professors are skeptical then the concensus is shot - I try to get the best surgeon/lawyer/... not the consensus. With so much at stake for your career - and nothing at stake if you join the crowd/consensus - I suspect a couple of MIT doubters are worth a consensus any day. PS The whole idea of "consensus" in science just rubs me the wrong way - if science is relying on "consensus" then it seems to mean that "science" is doing some high-faluting guesswork. Whether you are professionals or not, a consensus means a shot in the dark.159.105.80.141 17:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Since this is an encyclopedia, not a blog; please review the Five Pillars of Wikipedia to help you understand how these talk pages are used. --Skyemoor 18:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? What's that have to do with this discussion? What's most striking to me is that some people on this page have actually chose to manifest decade-old opinions of climatologists and climate scientists on their views on health and biological process in a shoddy attempt to disprove their views on climate related issues. Quite simply stunning. ~ UBeR 19:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Everyone is writing too telegraphically. I was about to say how UBeR kicked off with "Huh?" then left me feeling equally "hUH ??"

However on two more re-readings, I now think maybe I may get what he wanted to say. I think he's saying that pro-AGW editors have "chose[n] to manifest" (i.e. quote?) old statements about other topics--health and bio--of some climatologists, I presume ones that UBeR favors, thus I presume you mean someone who is anti-AGW or at least anti-"alarmist".

Is this what you wanted to say? Are you saying this about the smoking and evolution section in particular? Which climatologists do you feel were unfairly treated by picking up their "decades old" views on health? That part was not clear from what you wrote above. Birdbrainscan 02:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, none of this is "decades old" (except in the sense that Singer and Seitz started acting as shills decades ago, and have been doing so ever since). TASSC was set up in the 90s, and Milloy wasn't fully exposed until 2005. The statements about evolution are all similarly recent.JQ 02:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Last I checked, 1994 was over a decade ago, but you're free to disagree if you choose to, doctor. Birdbrainscan, I do not think you characterized my comments correctly. You got the message down, but not my point. My point was that certain people on this page who needn't be mentioned have taken it upon themselves to use outdated information about the views of climate scientists on health or biology related issues to detract from their statements on climate. If this doesn't sound ridculous to you, then there's not much left I can help you with. ~ UBeR 04:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Umm, let's try again. TASSC started in 1994 (actually, I think it was 1993) and Milloy shilled for PM for years after that before moving on to Exxon. He was still being paid big bucks in 2001, not "decades ago" (To help with your calculations, 6 < 10). More generally, if you have any sources to support your claim that the information is out of date, just add it in - quotes from the individuals concerned endorsing the scientific evidence ought not to be hard to find if they exist. AFAIK, the only issue where there has been any shift is ozone, where Baliunas went quiet after the 1995 Nobel Prizes, though I think Seitz is still a denialist on that too. JQ 08:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No matter if the info is outdated or not. This section is textbook ad hominem and insults Wikipedia by the fallacious argument it makes. --Childhood's End 13:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

First off does ad hominem really belong in an encyclopedia? Aside from being just that (the reason they were put in), these sections are irrelevant to the topic. Speedy delete. Make note in a sentence or two if you like, but three paragraphs in an already huge article? The machine512 02:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You're confused here, Dr. Quiggin. The sources for which we're using to represent the opinions are, in some cases, nearly 15 years old. But I guess for a few of you, this is fine. ~ UBeR 17:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

As I belatedly discovered (thanks Stephan), part of the reason I was a little confused is that you retrospectively edited "decades old" (grammatical, but clearly false) to "decade old" (nonstandard English, and still false, but harder to nail down). But I guess for a few of you, this is fine.JQ 12:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

AD HOMINEM - not belonging in wikipedia? The humor never ends - but this is the best yet. The whole article is about how crooked and/or stupid you are if you refuse to agree with Al Gore. The core of this - and most anything interesting in wiki - is centered on ad hominem, leave it alone or you'll kill wiki. I rarely see much evidence on wiki but when I do the crooks and/or fools seem to be holding their own against the good and/or smart. From curiousity I checked out the wiki article on the first skeptic on the list - Timothy Ball. Good wiki article ( what happened? ) - he is upset by being called a denier ( he thinks it is a trick to connect global warming skeptics with holocaust denial )). What a neat trick - can we rename the articla to Denial? Add a Denial Section - the headline would be sufficient, no content needed. Enlist the holocaust denial denial guys, they are masters.159.105.80.141 11:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that - I thought that someone was trying to say that smoking and/or evolution was causing global warming. I didn't know this was just an attempted hatchet job. I hope the passive smoker opponents ( those who thought passive smoking was a hoax ) think global warming is another hoax - hate to think they had lost their minds. Evolution - you totally lose me on that one. I believe however that the sections should remain just to document the level of consensus used to promote global warming. A couple of additional sections might be added on Abortion, Mercury in vaccines, Fluoride, Seat belts, .... be imaginative. 159.105.80.141 11:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

On reflection - strange how consensus crosses borders. What would you do with a person who believed in global warming but who didn't think that passive smoking caused cancer. Personally I would think he just got lucky on one issue - probably not anyone I would want to quote on either.159.105.80.141 13:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Debate

This debate hardly seem worth including in a dictionary, especially from a political blog. Unless there is a clear consensus to keep it with WP justification, it will be removed. --Skyemoor 01:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh... this isn't a dictionary... ~ UBeR 01:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Skyemoor, doesn't the lead of this page state "The global warming controversy is a debate..."? Referencing ongoing debates is certainly applicable in a page as such, and is certainly more relevant than the "betting" and "related controversies" subsections. And as for the source, I don't think anyone could make the claim that the US Senate's Environmental Public Works Committee is unreliable as a source of information. The machine512 02:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The little section about the NYC debate is very stubby so far. The debate was discussed quite a lot on the web, such as on [RealClimate.org] The take-away I got from that discussion was that climate science is complex and hardly a suitable subject for a one-hour point-counterpoint debate for a lay audience. Debates may be a good way to grapple with differences over policy; they are hardly a useful venue for setting out what climate sensitivity is and how well constrained the estimates are for it. Anyway, unless there is a WP page on the event itself (or even if there is), this section should either do more to describe the event (name the panelists, the venue, the sponsor, the date) and give a few more links, or else should be cut in the interest of keeping this article focused. Does someone have time? I'm a bit swamped.Birdbrainscan 02:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to object about the reference for that particular item and have changed it. Sen. Inhofe's blog is not a valid reference for this. And its not a "pressrelease" as TheMachine512 claims (and even so is still not a valid reference for this). The section was written pretty biased - for instance why are they "anthropogenic global warming sceptics"? All of the participants in the debate where arguing that AGW is real. (see: transcript).

Personally i don't think that this is a significantly notable part of the debate, and as such shouldn't be on the page. But if it is deemed so, it has to be properly referenced and written in a neutral fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk • contribs) 07:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Scientific American found this debate interesting or notable enough to cover it [63] and presented the results. David Biello also held a blog on it thereafter. Let's hope there are more such debates. They certainly belong in the global warming controversy more than smoking bans and gambling over predictions. I think that's the kind of information the common reader will want to find here. --Childhood's End 13:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if the Scientific American debate was interesting or even a debate. One point made was that climate and weather prediction are not the same. It appears far more accurate to predicate thext next centuries climate than next weeks weather. The certainty attached to this idea is impressive - when did this ability start, Ie I don't remember reading any old text from the 1800s or before that told me what today's climate ( weather ) was going to be. If this ability only started since the last Ice Age ( 1970s ) then its predictive power has yet to be seen. ( I suppose the use of approximated and estimated historic data can recreate the approximated and estimated historical trends quite well but that would be cheating.) ( I tried to find the temperature of my houde - the temperature varies in each room, near year door and window, upstairs or down, sunny side and shade... I settled for the thermostat, what did scientists settle for?)159.105.80.141 11:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

"Related controversies" section

We need to talk about this section, because I believe that at least part of it is in clear violation of WP:SYN. The fact that certain global warming skeptics also have some other scientific position does not mean that these controversies are related. For example: George W. Bush is pro-life. He also supports the war in Iraq. Does that mean that abortion and the war in Iraq are related controversies? Not unless a reliable source says so.

Moreover, it takes space. The article is just too big to afford sections that have little importance and arguable connections to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.1.170 (talk • contribs)

As WP:SYN says: Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C.

In this case, position A is that someone is a GW skeptic. Position B is that the same person is also a skeptic of something else (say, the HIV-AIDS connection). It is synthesis to say that the two controversies are related, and therefore to put that information on this page, unless a reliable source says that they're related. The CFC-Ozone thing makes sense to me because it's logically related, though I think it should be better sourced. I don't see any sourced connection between smoking and GW other than people and organizations who share both views. That's not enough to conclude that the controversies are related. The same is true for Evolution and AIDS.

I could find all kinds of people who believe in global warming and have some crackpot view on something else. That wouldn't give me license to say that believing in global warming has anything to do with that crackpot view. Thoughts? Oren0 16:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Fully concur. All of these controversies, with the exception of the ozone layer which is clearly related, should be removed. Iceage77 16:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not WP:SYN because the connection has been made by the Union of Concerned Scientists,

among others. If this stuff goes then the eugenics crap (which is far more poorly supported) also has to go. Raymond Arritt 16:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a source that the Union of Concerned Scientists has said that each of these controversies (Ozone, smoking, evolution, and AIDS) is explicitly related to GW? If so, please cite it in the article. As for the Eugenics thing, we have two published sources (entitled Science and Politics: Global Warming and Eugenics and Global-warming theory and the eugenics precedent) that claim there's a relation. I don't see how you think two sources is "poor support" compared to none. That being said, I wouldn't oppose removing the eugenics thing if the other issues were also removed. This is supposed to be a page about global warming, I don't see why we need to get into all of these other issues. Oren0 16:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, what if some skeptics hold the view that OJ Simpson was guilty when in fact he was proven innocent? Certainly under that logic it would mean there is a direct correlation between the Global_warming_controversy and the O. J. Simpson murder case and thus the article would be entitled to a subsection. The machine512 18:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This section is textbook ad hominem and should go out (concur with OrenO). If it stays, then the OJ Simpson case should not go in before the Oil-for-food program. Indeed, under the smoking ban logic, if the UN, through the IPCC/WMO/stuff, supports AGW, and if the UN was also involved in the oil-for-food, then we should also see a direct correlation between the global warming controversy and the OFF program. --Childhood's End 19:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point about the OFF program. Perhaps we should also mention sexual abuse by UN peacekeepers. Iceage77 19:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

As a general point, anti-AGW editors need to read Appeal to authority. The people listed have been claimed as authorities (we have a whole category for them!), so the fact that they hold crackpot views on similar topics, or have fraudulently shilled for tobacco corporations in the past, is relevant to their credibility. as Raymond Arritt points out, the point has been raised quite a few times in the GW controversy and others, so you can't suppress it. By contrast (as Childhood's End correctly says), discussion of their private lives would be an irrelevant attack. You might also want to look at the AIDS reappraisal article where the AIDS/HIV deniers are criticised (without much citation, BTW) for holding pseudoscience views on global warming. Perhaps you could make the case of ad hominem there. JQ 20:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you fucking kidding me? Tom Bethell is a leading authority on climate science? Who the hell is Michael Fumento anyway? The first place I'm going to look for leading authoritative statements on climate science is Steven Milloy's JunkScience. But of course James P. Hogan knows best, because everyone knows he's a leading figure. Give me a break from you nonsense please. ~ UBeR 20:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

JQ, I'll make it funny by saying that a correlation between this AIDS stuff and global warming looks as solid as the South Park gnomes' business plan, which is:

• 1- Collect Underpants
• 2- ???
• 3- Profit

There's a phase 2 missing here unfortunately, which is how is it a global warming related issue that two guys who happen to be skeptic about global warming are also skeptic about some aspect of AIDS science? Perhaps you should look to add this stuff to these persons' pages in a "trivia" section if, as you say, it is relevant to their own credibility (which is a challegeable statement, but not necessarily unsupportable). --Childhood's End 21:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

All it says on AIDS reappraisal is "Some prominent AIDS dissidents, such as Tom Bethell and Phillip E. Johnson, have expressed support for a wide range of pseudoscientific beliefs, including intelligent design, and/or controversial beliefs such as global warming skepticism." It says that GW skepticism is "controversial," which is evidenced by this page. It doesn't say that GW skepticism is pseudoscience, which it's not (as evidenced by Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, the petitions, etc.). Oren0 21:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I enjoy how the page on Richard Lindzen holds a section on his "Views on health risks of passive smoking", it's laughable how this holds any relevance to him or his expertise. But you know, when a man holds a view as his, the ad hominem reaches no end. The machine512 21:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The controversies are related in exactly the way this article says: Some of the leading skeptics were also skeptics in these other controversies. Nothing more, nothing less, and this article doesn't claim anything different. If we can't mention this, then why should we mention that some of the skeptics are scientists if they are not climate scientists (Mr. X says Y and is a professor in Z) ? Count Iblis 21:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The heading "related controversies" implies that the controversies are related. I've removed the evolution and AIDS references because those skeptics were FAR from leading skeptics and there was no source linking that skepticism to GW. If you have a source that says these other issues are related to GW in some way cite them. It's synthesis to say that these controversies are related if no source says so. It's not synthesis to say that a person is a scientist because that's a well sourced fact. Oren0 21:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

AIDS, smoking, bad economics (Q), etc. bear no relevance on their expertise on climate science. ~ UBeR 22:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

(Potentially defamatory) violation of WP:No personal attacks noted, UBeR. As regards smoking the link is clear, and has been noted in numerous news reports. Milloy, Singer and Seitz are paid advocates with a history of taking money to advocate false claims in the support of corporate interests. As regards evolution the fact that attacks on climate science and on other kinds of science are part of a combined campaign has been widely noted, for example, in the Mooney book cited in the intro. On AIDS denialism, Mullis (who was improperly deleted) has been touted on numerous occasions. Moreover, the discussion in Journal of Scientific Exploration provides a good illustration of a major component of the controversy, namely the view that global warming is (often/usually/always) wrong because science as a whole is (often/usually/always) wrong, a point made repeatedly in this and other discussions.JQ 22:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You wouldn't suspect an anthropologist's view that global warming is not anthropogenic to seriously harm their notion that race is a social construct, now would you? You wouldn't expect a dentist's view on evolution to seriously impact their knowledge on dental hygiene, now would you? ~ UBeR 23:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with a creationist dentist, but I wouldn't accept a creationist as a reliable scientific authority on any topic. Anyone who holds that view is clearly not willing to put scientific evidence ahead of religious commitment. And of course, most of the people prominently cited as skeptics aren't climate scientists, so we're being asked to rely on their general expertise or on their standing in other areas of science. JQ 23:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly incorrect. I don't think anyone is taking the Crichtons or the Milloys or the Fumentos seriously. Why are you? ~ UBeR 00:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we're talking at cross-purposes, as you know I certainly would not consider them authorities on climate. But I must correct you, other people definitely are taking Crichton and Milloy seriously as authorities on climate -- more's the pity. (I have no idea who Fumentos is.) Raymond Arritt 20:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

An intersting project would be to check out the major supporters of the global warming theory - see if they have ever supported anything that was wrong, goofy, etc. Maybe we could discredit global warming by ad homiem its supporters? Neat trick - seems to be a common technique. 159.105.80.141 10:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Just look at Al Gore and you have you answer. ~ UBeR 16:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ouch... --Childhood's End 16:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is claiming Gore is a scientist, unlike say Lindzen or Singer. Odd that you think the same level of objectivity should apply to scientists and politicians... "ouch" indeed. Raymond Arritt 16:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's an abstract from RealClimate about Al Gore's pop-corn flick : "How well does the film handle the science? Admirably, I thought." [64]

Want some more? Ouch, yes. --Childhood's End 17:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

And the point of your comment in terms of the present article is what, exactly? (Hint: when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.) Raymond Arritt 17:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If you dont see the point in terms of the present article, why did you fuel this discussion in the first place? Stop digging, indeed. --Childhood's End 18:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Arritt, read my comments above in which I reply to Dr. Quiggins ridiculous assertions that the people listed in the evolution, smoking, AIDS, whatever sections are leaders or authorities in climate science, or even scientists for that matter. What you have in the article are journalists, activists, authors, and what not. Al Gore isn't a scientists, but neither are the majority of the people you would have presumed as "authorities on climate."

Hmm, such as...? Are you arguing that Jerry Meehl, Bob Dickinson, Filippo Giorgi, and Isaac Held (to name a just few that I would call "authorities on climate") are not scientists? Raymond Arritt 20:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Such as Steven Milloy, Michael Crichton, Michael Fumento, Tom Bethell, and James Hogan. Like I asked earlier, no one is taking these people seriously. Why are you? ~ UBeR 20:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Further, while Al Gore is clearly representing the IPCC view wherever he goes, self-appointed or not, scientists supportive of AGW dont distance themselves from him and rather support him. I dont find UbeR's analogy too hard to grasp. --Childhood's End 23:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of "real" scientists. Critiquing things that a politician does that are inconsistent or downright odd is mean and/or boring and/or just too many. Is there any chance that exposing odd chapters in some of the proponents lives would make it onto wiki? If so I am sure that each oddity in a "denier" ( love the word ) could be more than matched by an oddity from a "consensus" scientist. We may be able to find a couple of UFO buffs in any group.159.105.80.141 17:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Added to See Also section

Exposed: The Climate of Fear Special by Glenn Beck.--Zeeboid 18:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There have been dozens if not hundreds of reports in newspapers and television about global warming science and controversies. One hour of one CNN channel is not notable. Hal peridol 18:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, "Glenn Beck Climate of Fear" already has 166 000 hits on Google. It seems to be notable, and about global warming controversy. --Childhood's End 18:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Of which the vast majority is blogosphere reactions. --Kim D. Petersen 19:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "Glenn Beck Climate of Fear" returns 297 hits. "Glenn Beck" + "Climate of Fear" returns 22,800. Eliminating the word "blog" reduces this to 540 hits. For comparison, "The Great Global Warming Swindle" returns 356,000, and "An Inconvenient Truth" returns about 1.3 million hits. Hal peridol 19:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

And all of which are notable. perhaps you should search for the show title: Exposed:The Climate of Fear which returns ofer 1 million hits[65]--Zeeboid 19:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, and you don't know how to use Google.--Stephan Schulz 19:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you don't know how to read. I didn't search with the quotes. Would you like to tell us, Stephan, how many hits there were with the qotes?--Zeeboid 20:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you know what the quotes do? Raymond Arritt 20:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

From what I've read, it certainly looks like the link is allowed under WP:EL. ~ UBeR 02:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

From what i've read, and seen on the show - WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #1 and #2 applies. Its not a unique resource - and it is giving misleading information as well as factually incorrect ones. (example of factually incorrect one: Denmark is set to meet Kyoto, and has never said it won't meet the target, contrary to what the movie say). --Kim D. Petersen 06:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Note btw. that i think that the notability issue is quite alot more important that the above. --Kim D. Petersen 06:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Risks of passive smoking

Why is this back in? I thought we agreed that relating global warming and passive smoking was WP:SYN. The machine512 10:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what I claimed, but it never really reached consensus. At the time, we only agreed to remove the sections on evolution and AIDS reprisal. It seems pretty clear to me, however, that this is WP:SYN as well because I don't see any sources in this section that claim that global warming skepticism and passive smoking skepticism are related. Again, the fact that people share these beliefs is not itself enough to say that passive smoking is a "related controversy" and therefore to include it on this page. Oren0 21:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Heres the relevant links (from the above - copied here) - so that we can eliminate WP:SYN as an argument. A whole other issue is whether or not its notable:

Spending 5 minutes with Google on "global warming" tobacco (which yields more than a million hits) gives us:

• The denial industry (from the Guardian) describes how Exxon reuses much of the machinery originally used by the tobacco lobby.
• A Union of concerned Scientists press release on the same topic. It links to a full report.
• Business Week has a very different angle, comparing lawsuits for tobacco and warming damages.
• Paul Loebb from The Huffington Post takes the UCS and Monbiot more or less at face value.
• Warming makes oil the 'new tobacco' (from the Guardian) is similar to the Business Week article above (!)
• Walter Williams in the Washington Times draws the analogy, although in a very unfavourable light.

This is not a topic I find particularly interesting, but there clearly is a connection.--Stephan Schulz 19:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

--Kim D. Petersen 21:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems reliable and notable enough to keep based on these sources, why aren't they in the article? The section should relate what's said in these sources, rather than list people who hold both views. Oren0 21:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Oren0, i have no idea. Just as Stephan Schultz i have no particular interest in that subject. --Kim D. Petersen 22:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

And doing a search for whaling "global warming" returns about 1.1 million hits. Also whaling "nuclear power" returns a 0.4 million. Hmm maybe all of these controversies are related somehow? I wonder why. Do we need a section on the whaling controversy in this article? According to google it seems as relevant as smoking. The machine512 10:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the connection to "passive smoking", "evolution", etc was an attempt at ad hominem argument. Wiki is getting too subtle for its own good. Please leave this stuff in though, it helps to frame the article - dopes will think it is proof and you and I will think it is a joke.159.105.80.141 12:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Touché, my friend. ~ UBeR 18:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Not only is it ad hominem, it is also hasty generalization, as it subtly associates all skeptics to those who hold this view. This info at best belongs on the respective persons' articles, not here. I also note that some editor (Will Beback) removed the Eugenics, claiming that consensus was reached in this regard, while this was a gross misinterpretation of the discussion. Agreement was rather going in the direction to remove all the (un)related controversies, or none. --Childhood's End 15:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right. Only a few people who most of us have never one heard about who are definitely not the most prominent skeptics, namely: "Richard Lindzen, Steven Milloy, Fred Singer, Fred Seitz, Michael Crichton,...." have held that view on passive smoking.  :) Count Iblis 17:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

How are Lindzen and Chrichton related exactly? And what if I find John Christy more prominent as a skeptic than Crichton? Finally, what if the likes of Christy, Allegre, Leroux, etc. dont want to be associated with them about global smoking? --Childhood's End 17:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If the other skeptics are not involved in that controversy then they are not personally associated with it. Note that this article is about the controversy about global warming, not global warming itself. Suppose you are the boss of a company and your employees are having a dispute about some problem. Then you could take a look at the problem itself. But you can also analyze the dispute. The two things are not the same. In the later case it is very relevant if a few employees are constantly involved in disputes even if these other disputes are unrelated to the one you are looking at.

Also, while not every skeptic is involved in "global smoking", all are involved in "passive warming"  :) Count Iblis 18:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You've gotten one thing right in this discussion: This isn't about global warming, but rather the controversy. What you fail to realize is that the junk wish to insist is not even related to the controversy either. It belongs in their individual articles. What don't you get about that? Is it hard to understand? This type of logic is what I thought anyone with a brain could comprehend. I don't know. Would yo doubt your physician on his medical knowledge if he doubted CFCs played a role in ozone depletion? Would you doubt your auto mechanic's ability to fix your car if he was a global warming skeptic? Would it maybe, instead, make you feel differently about them as a person? Think hard and long. ~ UBeR 19:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What matters is that the link has been made by others who have written about the controversy. And the existence of a link does not mean that they must be wrong or right. What it suggests i.m.o. (but we can't write that in this article unless it can be sourced) is that there are people who have a habit of jumping into these controversies. The side they choose in that controversy is then determined by their political preferences. If this is the case, then that is a relevant factor when looking at a conroversy where these people are involved in.

I would not doubt the expertise of my physician or auto mechanic in the hypothetical cases you write about, but I would doubt my physician if he were to dispute some theory that has wide support especially if he has held other minority opinions on controversial issues in the past. I would doubt his expertise about these controversial issues, not any other issues. Count Iblis 23:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's suppose that you have scientists contributing to reports which are coordinated by an organization, and that this organization, on its other various undertakings, operated an escrow program which was used to divert public funds to some of its officials (let's call this program "oil-for-food programme" for this purpose only). The head of the program woud later order the shredding of years' worth of documents about it. Then you could look at the oil-for-food programme itself. But you can also analyze the situation. The two things are not the same. In the later case it is very relevant if the organization is constantly involved in disputes even if these other disputes are unrelated to the one you are looking at. Also, while not every program of this organization is involved in the oil-for-food programme, all are related to the said organization... --Childhood's End 19:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that oil for food can be mentioned if the link between oil for food and climate science has been made. Suppose that someone has published an article in some newspaper arguing that the IPCC reports are biased toward alarmist conclusions, partially because of political pressure that arises from a certain corner and that the oil for food scandals were also driven by political pressure from that same corner, then that is relevant information about the global warming controversy.

The point is: what is the driving force behind the controversy? The different parties have different opinions about that. Opinions from both sides can be found in newspapers which, for this wiki article, are good enough reliable sources. One of the driving forces are disputes about the science behind climate change. Other factors are political preferences. The relevance of this factor is controversial in itself, but both sides have written about it in newspapers. Now, as argued above, a hypothetically a climate skeptic could make the argument that there is a link between oil for food and (in his opinion) flawed IPCC reports. The relevance of that link is an argument for the political preference as a separate driving force apart from the science. Count Iblis 23:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Who is Tim Lambert?

2 references on a blog authored by Tim Lambert (who, according to this AfD is non-notable) are currently on this page re:Benny Peiser. Per WP:SPS, he would need to be a "well-known, professional researcher" for these to be reliable sources. Why are these refs included? Oren0 23:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

These are a compromise - since Peiser himself is unpublished and an SPS. People want Peiser mentioned - so the compromise was to include the Lambert things as well. --Kim D. Petersen 00:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Why you say Peiser not published?65.12.145.148 01:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Because his critique of Oreskes hasn't been published - except on his own website. He originally sent it to Science but they rejected it. --Kim D. Petersen 03:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Peiser barely registers on Google Scholar search author:"benny peiser" with a book on natural disasters in the Bronze age, an article or two in the non-peer-reviewed POV organ "Energy and Environment", and one in "Journal of Sports Sciences". There is also an "unpublished letter to 'Science'" (but picked up by "Energy and Environment"). He's also written a bit on how we think about asteroid impact. The material in question here is not in the scholastic record; it's all from Peiser's web pages.Birdbrainscan 03:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

DDT

Why is there no DDT section under other controversies?67.141.235.203 19:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Er, huh? DDT is a pesticide that had to be banned in the 1970s when it proved to harm wild birds' eggs by weakening the shell. It is not a greenhouse gas. It had its own controversy, but I know of nothing connecting it to global warming.

Were you perhaps thinking of CFCs? Chloro-fluorocarbons are greenhouse gases in their own right, very powerful ones in fact. They were banned under the Montreal Protocol in the 1990s for a different reason, that they were destroying the ozone layer. That too was its own controversy, one which has indirect connections to the global warming debate. For instance, some global warming skeptics were also CFC skeptics, e.g. Timothy Ball; many people not familiar with these issues have gotten ozone layer ideas mixed in with their thinking about global warming; and CFCs are one more contribution to AGW, though they are a small share of the overall effect behind CO2 and CH4.Birdbrainscan 03:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well of course DDT isn't a greenhouse gas, neither is tobacco smoke. However, he has raised a good point, that some AGW skeptics, a couple I can name off-hand, Michael Crichton, Roy Spencer, have also been skeptical about the risks of DDT and claim that it was banned without sound science and more of a public panic. Under the same logic of tobacco smoke being related, DDT would be as well. The machine512 09:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason for the tobacco issue, is that there are several notable sources that connect and focus on this, making it a part of the controversy (see earlier discussions.) Can you say the same for DDT? --Kim D. Petersen 09:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

In this article, I see no sources that make the broad connection between AGW skeptics and risks of SHS, or that compare SHS with GW, as is done in this article. What I do see an a collection of individual quotes of some skeptics, which is IMO pushing the limits of synthesis and encyclopedic OR. But if this is acceptable, there are quotes (in the same fashion of the smoking sources) from some GW skeptics that criticize the ban on DDT and the alleged risks.

MC, "I can tell you that DDT is not a carcinogen and did not cause birds to die and should never have been banned. I can tell you that the people who banned it knew that it wasn't carcinogenic and banned it anyway." [66]

RS, "In stark contrast, what we do have as a direct result of the environmentalist-led restrictions on the use of DDT is tens of millions of deaths, and hundreds of millions of cases of severe illness, from malaria in Africa. The silence from scientists and many in the media on this is remarkable. Thankfully, the trend against DDT bans is finally changing, with countries like South Africa virtually eliminating malaria with DDT. Is mankind really ready for another major policy catastrophe based upon environmentalist (and media) rhetoric?" [67]

The machine512 10:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Using those two quotes and writing about it would be WP:SYN. On tobacco-AGW connection see the discussion above - there are quite a few notable articles/reports that make the connection. Please continue the discussion there. --Kim D. Petersen 11:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh? How in your opinion is one WP:SYN and the other not? That doesn't make sense. The referencing system and reasoning is exactly the same. Both are views that skeptics hold and thus have a relationship to the GW controversy. As for what you searched for, "tobacco and global warming" nothing returned specific connections between SHS and GW, but rather tobacco and GW, or tobacco and oil. And in addition none of these articles are referenced here because they serve no purpose of advancing a connection between GW & SHS. The machine512 11:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Its rather simple - DDT and AGW sceptics - you personally are making the connection (SYN). SHS and AGW sceptics - the Union of concerned scientists (amongst others) make the connection[68] (not SYN). --Kim D. Petersen 11:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm aren't we talking about the "Risks of Second Hand Smoke and AGW Skeptics"? What do allegations of ExxonMobile funding skeptics being similar to big tobacco spurring disinformation have to do with this? Two entirely different topics. Second hand smoke isn't even mentioned in the article. The machine512 11:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Its a summary of a report. Read it - it connects the two campaigns rather tightly. Read some of the other links for even more direct connections (via individuals). --Kim D. Petersen 12:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What a joke. So RealClimate's association with Fenton Communications links all of Fenton's campaigns with RealClimate's campaign?? (The DDT connection is to show how hysterical activists push policies based on emotions and hysteria rather than science).65.12.145.148 03:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This morning on Drudge - probably not a super reliable source - Lawrence Solomonwriting on the NationalPost/FinancialPost website said that a Gallup poll of scientists siad 53% said no to global warming, 30% not sure and 17% yes to global warming. Greenpeace's poll give 47% no, 36% possible and 13% probable. The article states that the UN IPCC, governments and environmental groups are pushing global warming, not scientists. This is the first time I have heard of these polls - any verification? If these polls are correct - supposedly the polls were of qualified scientists - the "consensus" is a wee bit less than we have been lead to believe.159.105.80.141 11:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Link. Iceage77 13:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you actually read the article? It says the poll was taken around 1992! The science has moved since then. (At that time, I would have been in the "not sure" category.) Raymond Arritt 14:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I read it. They quote the poll only to disprove Gore's claim of a consensus back then. This is more relevant for today:

"A great many scientists, without doubt, are four-square in their support of the IPCC. A great many others are not. A petition organized by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine between 1999 and 2001 claimed some 17,800 scientists in opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. A more recent indicator comes from the U.S.-based National Registry of Environmental Professionals, an accrediting organization whose 12,000 environmental practitioners have standing with U.S. government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy. In a November, 2006, survey of its members, it found that only 59% think human activities are largely responsible for the warming that has occurred, and only 39% make their priority the curbing of carbon emissions. And 71% believe the increase in hurricanes is likely natural, not easily attributed to human activities." Iceage77 15:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you actually read the article?67.141.235.203 18:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Section marked as stub

The secion "Predictions of temperature rises" contains only three sentences. The following section, "Predictions of greenhouse gas rises" runs several paragraphs, but ends with a tag saying "This section is a stub." Surely that tag should be attached to "Predictions of temperature rises" (3 sentences) sooner than to "Predictions of greenhouse gas rises." While we're on the subject, logically the order of these two sections would seem better to have the GHG prediction section first, followed by the temperature prediction. Birdbrainscan 16:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well done!

A while ago I had an abortive attempt at editing this argument - sorry I mean article. So, I came back assumming I'd find the same very biased resume by one side. In contrast what I found appears to be a fairly rounded resume of the main issues it what seems to me a fairly neutral tone.

From my own experience here such neutrality cannot have been achieved without a horrendous amount of work by a moderator of great experience and patience. As, I've not been around to know who it is, I thought I would simply say that however it has been achieved well done to all involved!Bugsy 20:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

John Daly

Why does the section on urban heat islands reference John Daly?

"Skeptics, including both nonscientists (such as John Daly) ..."

He is not mentioned in the main article on urban heat islands. It seems the opinions of celebrities should be removed. Royalbooksnap 23:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried to remove him but one of the skeptical editors insisted he should stay. I didn't press the issue because there are bigger fish to fry. As a non-scientist with no demonstrated technical competence (quite the opposite, if anything) he doesn't belong here. Raymond Arritt 01:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you confused this with an article about science? (SEWilco 02:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC))

The article is partially about the science, and most of Daly's stuff was centered on the science (or his misunderstanding of it). Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Daly's material, or you have not read the present article. Raymond Arritt 02:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why Daly belongs. As a septic he isn't notable. JOB obviously isn't notable because no-one can be bothered to write his article, if he has anything to say about UHI it should be noted somewhere William M. Connolley 08:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Scientific Analogies

I changed "Scientific Analogies" to "Analogies by Skeptics." This is because: 1) Not all the analogies mentioned were done by scientists. 2) I agree that the analogies were done towards scientific theories that have now been discredited, thus in this respect one may think that placing the scientific label is fine; but it is not since there is an inherent bias since we cannot know whether global warming will be discredited or supported by time. Thus, if we only compare it to failed theories we misguide the reader. Furthermore, "Analogies by Skeptics" is not misguiding since only skeptics would use such analogies. Brusegadi 19:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal

What was it exactly that was wrong with this statement: "Chris Mooney has noted the similarities in strategies and the close political connections of critics of mainstream science on the issues of evolution and global warming." Brusegadi 22:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Evolution

I think we should discuss the removal of the section. What exactly is it that you want sourced? Brusegadi 00:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

We have a statement that sceptics don't accept evolution, citing just two. We then have a quote from Milloy, a well-known sceptic, which clearly contradicts this assertion. Iceage77 00:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, Milloy doesn't accept that science has demonstrated human evolution. He states that we will never know the truth, which is just the same line as the sceptics take about passive smoking, CFCs and GW.JQ 04:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a fairly common view amongst creationists (or creation scientists, or intelligent designers, or whatever they're calling themselves at the moment). They often try to finesse their disagreement with plainly observable mechanisms of evolution by stating that they accept "microevolution" but not "macroevolution." Raymond Arritt 04:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There are gaps in our knowledge of both evolution and global warming. To note this is not to posit a supernatural explanation. We still have no source linking global warming and evolution. Iceage77 12:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Chris Mooney is such a source on one side, and Tom Bethell on the other. Both agree that the approach associated with the Republican Party (politically incorrect science in Bethell's terminology) involves rejecting mainstream/consensus/politically correct science, as represented by major scientific bodies, journals and so on in favour of conclusions supported by the Republican party base. And Bethell's stance is reflected not only in the position of the National Review, which employs him, but in that of most of the major thinktanks that oppose AGW and either support ID outright or favour some version of "teaching the controversy". From your comment, it seems that you share this general position, so I don't see your problem. There's no mention of supernatural causes in the article, and of course IDers deny that they rely on such an explanation.JQ 12:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I could find a list of atheists who are sceptical of AGW. Does this mean that the two positions are linked? Of course not. The Archbishop of Canterbury clearly believes in AGW. Should we mention this in the article too? He is clearly more notable than Tom Bethell. Iceage77 13:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The leader of the Human Genome Project, Francis Collins, supports theistic evolution so what exactly is this section supposed to tell the reader seems pretty much obscure and definitively restrained to the realm of negative propaganda/rhetoric. In any event, this section also incorrectly invites the reader to believe that evolution is a settled matter, something about which Collins, and others, would disagree. --Childhood's End 13:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The language used about evolution is the same as that used about AGW, namely that there is a consensus in the scientific community, but others disagree or claim the issue is not yet settled (Iceage77 and Childhood's End support the latter view). The article demonstrates clear organizational and ideological links between AGW and evolution skeptics. As has been noted, there are no such links in relation to theism/atheism. This suggests to me that the section in which skeptics link AGW and religion should be deleted or qualified, but it has no bearing on the section we're talking about, which doesn't mention religion.

JQ, you appear to believe in at least two discredited philosophies (socialism and Keynesianism). Does this have any bearing on the global warming debate? Iceage77 22:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a lot to be discussed about even your basic premisses. But to concentrate on the core: There is a difference between a "philosophy" and a scientific theory. --Stephan Schulz 23:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you imply that Keynesians and socialists have not tried, over the last century, to turn their economic beliefs/philosophy into economic science? --Childhood's End 13:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Does the term cargo cult mean anything to you? --Stephan Schulz 14:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Slightly, yes, but I am far from being sure of how you intended to use it in this context... --Childhood's End 15:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Science is science. Socialism isn't science, it's something between a philosophy and an economic system. That does not change if someone goes through the motions of science, just like building a bamboo radio antenna will not summon a supply drop.--Stephan Schulz 15:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do agree with your description of socialism, but I dont think that most socialist economists would agree. And anyway, about Keynesianism, you should know that it is essentially meant and used nowadays as the scientific underpinnings of social-democracy, and is studied as science in many academic circles. --Childhood's End 15:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It is so wrong to pretend that "The article demonstrates clear organizational and ideological links between AGW and evolution skeptics". Chris Mooney may sell vanity books, but that does not mean that he has demonstrated anything. All this section shows so far is that some skeptics of AGW also dispute that evolution has been, or can be, fully explained by science. This can merely indicate that these persons are less gullible than others and require higher levels of evidence before joining popular science bandwagons. Anyway, this section misleadingly implies that evolution is the subject of a scientific consensus, whereas the world's top scientist in this business believes in God based on scientific knowledge and whereas the other evolution scientists cannot agree neither about the origin of life or of intelligence. Why we would say here that evolution is the subject of a scientific consensus is beyond me. Deletion of this section is urgently required, as it lacks sources (and evidence), and if sources woud be provided, counter-evidence would be allowed, which would open the Pandora's Box. --Childhood's End 14:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't troll. Evolution is one of the best-supported scientific theories. Support for it is all but unanimous among biologists and scientists in general. And, just as for global warming, any number of scientific organizations have spoken out on the issue: [69], [70], [71], [72]. If you want to fight this war, go to talk.origins. --Stephan Schulz 14:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, to be clearer, I concur that there is a scientific consensus about the fact that species, including humankind, have followed an evolution process through time. But what is meant by "evolution" oftenly goes further than this and then is not the subject of a scientific consensus. Instead of irresponsibly throwing accusations of trolling, you should take care of the article's content and make sure it does not mislead or make false statements. --Childhood's End 15:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, evolution in this context has a clear meaning, namely the scientific theory that all species on Earth have evolved from one or a small number of common ancestors, primarily via a process of mutation and natural selection. --Stephan Schulz 15:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I would then agree with the consensus statement, but I am not sure that the meaning is as clear as you say it is. --Childhood's End 15:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously evolution has a lot more scientific support than global warming. But to the link the two we would need, for example, evidence that the majority of these scientists are also sceptical of evolution. Unless that evidence is forthcoming, this section needs to be removed. Iceage77 16:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is the next issue. No matter if evolution is the object of a scientific consensus, that does not mean that we should imply that global warming enjoys the same kind of scientific unanimity and that other AGW skeptics than those mentioned also doubt evolution. And to conclude on my argument with Stephan Shultz, if what is meant by "evolution" was so clearly some "evolution via mutation and natural selection", then Steve Milloy also agrees and there's no point in mentioning him there. --Childhood's End 17:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Evolution, while indeed a scientific theory, is a completely unrelated topic with its own set of political, scientific, religious, school curriculum, and other "controversies" that all get plenty of attention elsewhere. I'm eliminating this section. Jcc1 11:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is now 123K. I think 80% of this stuff can be eliminated and/or moved to the main articles -- i.e. scientific opinion on climate change, etc. We dont need multiple examples and details of every individual person and group -- we just need a brief explanation of the major points with references. Nobody wants to read this much blatant bashing -- on both sides -- and this article, by being this long, blows these "controversies" out of proportion. I'm once again eliminating the evolution section, as it has NOTHING to do with this topic. Jcc1 12:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

For the time being I am with Jcc1 on this. The link with evolution, as it is presented, is not strong enough: in particular it's not clear that this is anything more than correlations in attitudes consistent with being politically conservative. The organizations that are skeptical in both topics such as AEI are, I think, supporters of politically conservative causes in general, so I wouldn't say there's a strong organizational link. (In contrast, the passive smoking and ozone links are strong.) However, it's still useful information; I would suggest as a compromise, moving the material into Politicization of science where these sorts of correlations in attitudes are relevant, and putting a See Also link to that article here. --Nethgirb 12:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but clearly the entire section on analogies drawn by skeptics is far more tangential, not to mention poorly sourced. Any objections to deleting it?JQ 04:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It could be reduced down to about one sentence, something like as an explanation for why GW has so much scientific support, some skeptics have compared it to a religion [citations] or to historical discredited scientific theories such as eugenics [cites], plogiston [citations], and miasma [citations]. Maybe also add a single quote (or not). It would be good to merge it into another section... my sense is that these analogies, as well as funding bias allegations and GW conspiracy theories fall under the heading of "what skeptics say in response to claims of a scientific consensus". In this context the analogies are notable enough for a brief mention, but no more. --Nethgirb 05:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

DoneJQ 09:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, User:Iceage77 has forked the material into Global warming analogies which I've put up for deletion. --Nethgirb 11:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible guideline for reducing article size

As Jcc1 has recently pointed out, this article just keeps on growing and growing. I'd like to suggest a guideline:

• Only include opinions/arguments that have been expressed by two or more independent notable individuals or organizations.

So, for example:

• Keep: The allegations that skeptic scientists don't get funded just because they're skeptics, because it has been espoused by Tim Ball, Reid Bryson, and possibly others as referenced in the article.
• Delete: The analogy between GW and Miasma, because the article supplies only Tom Davis as a source.

Note that this would be a minimum requirement for an opinion about the controversy to be included. Not everything that passes this test should be included, but I'd argue that if something doesn't pass this test, it is not sufficiently notable. --Nethgirb 13:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a good start. I'd love to see something more like this...

Intro...

The global warming controversy is the debate concerning causes of increased global average air temperature since the mid-1800s, whether this warming trend is unprecedented or within normal climatic variations, predictions of additional warming, what the consequences are, and what actions should be taken.

Issues...

The controversy focuses on the warming after World War II, and the main points are:

• To what extent is human/industrial activity, such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation responsible
• Predictions of future climate change scenarios, including their likelihood, magnitude, global and regional effects
• Political policies and international agreements, such as the Kyoto Protocol enacted to reduce carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions.

The debate is vigorous in the popular media and on a policy level. While climate is a scientific issue, individuals, corporations, and political organizations are heavily involved, and as a result accusations are frequently made regarding the objectivity of surveys, studies, letters, and publications.

Controversy concerning the science...

... Jcc1 14:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be an improvement. There's some text in the Issues section right now that is useful, but should be merged into later sections (which will enable more streamlining). --Nethgirb 15:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Since there appears to be no opposition I will go ahead and apply this principle... --Nethgirb 09:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)