Talk:Climate change/Archive 21

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

• t = temperature: as in global t's (global temperatures)
• ppm = parts per million: describes gas concentration. 300 ppm = 300 / 1,000,000 = 0.0003 = 0.03 percent
• kyr = kiloyear = 1,000 years
• IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
• GISS = Goddard Institute for Space Studies
• HadCRUT3 = "a gridded dataset of global historical surface temperature anomalies. Data are available for each month since January 1850, on a 5 degree grid." [1]
• FOIA = Freedom of Information Act (United States)
• NSF = National Science Foundation

Turn off that bot! --Uncle Ed 15:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Purpose? Most, if not all, are already explained the article. The rest are used on this talk page, not the mainspace. ~ UBeR 16:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

For quick reference. I'm an old geezer, and I can't remember things like HadCRUT3, GISS, kyr and Dr. C's ideosyncratic use of t's even though they are all fresh in my mind at the moment. --Uncle Ed 18:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This entire article is biased heavily toward the pro global warming viewpoint. All opposing viewpoints have been deliberately forked off to other pages - contrary to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. ~ Rameses 22:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The article has a section on solar variation which discusses the main mechanism that has been offered as an alternative to the influence of greenhouse gases. The discussion of solar variation in the article is, if anything, more prominent than in the scientific literature. Raymond Arritt 22:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Rameses, you obviously aren't familiar with the Wikipedia NPOV policy. See

Undue weight. Other theories held by a small minority of relevant scientists are mentioned, and probably given more space than is warranted, given that their total output is relatively small in comparison to the rest of GW research. Mostlyharmless

22:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"Was there ever a time when the majority was right?" Notebooks of Lazarus Long, Robert A. Heinlein. Arvin Sloane 23:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, well, sure. The majority says the moon is not made of green cheese; the majority says you can't turn lead into gold; the majority says that if you stick your hand into a whirring meat grinder it's liable to hurt; and so on. Raymond Arritt 23:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Raymond - not only can you turn lead into gold, it has already been done see: [2]. ~ Rameses 23:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Regarding my other two examples... Raymond Arritt 23:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

But you can turn lead into gold, but not with chemistry. The pan evaporation paradox be listed on the front page with all the other counter-theories.01:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I would ask Mr. Arritt to point out, which minority of scientists, exactly, purports that the moon is made of green cheese, and that if you stick your hand into a whirring meat grinder it wouldn't hurt. If Mr. Arritt is unable to produce quotes supporting the existence of such scientists, his analogy is null and void. Meanwhile, the Great Feeding Frenzy Around Global Warming has legitimate opposition among scientists whose respect for themselves exceeds their careerist and financial worries. Arvin Sloane 01:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but the statement wasn't "the majority of scientists", it was just "the majority." Careful reading is important, you see. If you remain a skeptic about my original statements we can test them empirically. I'll bring the meat grinder if you bring the hand. Raymond Arritt 01:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but your objection is not with me but with Robert A. Heinlein, who, as far as I know, has already passed the meat grinder test. Arvin Sloane 04:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it Heinlein who says this, or is it Lazarus Long? My copy of the book went the "can I borrow it for a day or so" route... --Stephan Schulz 08:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

What I'd love to know is why this entry, as Rameses said, can be chopped and changed against Wikipedia's own policies and be supported by legions of Wikipedians. I'd also love to know why any attempt at marking this article as not having a NPOV results in many unqualified editors reversing the change regardless of the thousands of PhD decorated scientists that have signed the pproject petition in support of the alternative viewpoint that cannot even be mentioned or hinted at in passing without having the change reversed. Jamieplucinski 04:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The

Oregon petition is a a well-known scam. Read the linked article. It's also ancient history. And many of the "unqualified editors" here do have Ph.D.s or equivalent doctorates, and at least two are actively working and/or teaching in the field of climate science.--Stephan Schulz

07:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Excluding well-known scams is a good thing. Also it is good that a lot of things that don't belong here get removed. I still think it can be more NPOV than it is, but that's just my opinion. I think we spend too much time focusing on the issue as if it's all science, when all we really know is that the Earth is warmer and that there's more Co2 "recently"; at least such as the granularity of long-term measurements allows us to know. This in my opinion is mainly a policy and political issue. While a lot of the science is well known, there are still quite a few gaps all over the place for specific mechanisms -- at least as far as I'm concerned given: A. The time scales. B. The complexity of the variables. C. The emotional component. D. The way research and funding and so on works. E. The media coverage of the issue. But what do I know, I'm an instructor, a network engineer and a computer scientist, not a climatologist. Sln3412 23:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

For the politics, at least, you could try

global warming controversy, which has reserved a single sentence in this article. ~ UBeR

00:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there may be a POV problem with countering views given unequal weight and forked off to other pages. --Blue Tie 19:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to Tjsynkral's edit. I didn't realize this discussion was still going on. ~ UBeR 19:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to the section below, Talk:Global_warming#Neutral_POV_Disputed for a discussion on whether this dispute merits a POV template on the article. --Tjsynkral 21:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I have placed a POV-check on this page following the rapid rv censorship (by User:Guettarda) of my changes (see "Objection to the word consensus") where I had replaced two disputed uses of the word "consensus" with "IPCC view". It seems to me that the refusal to accomodate the idea that others can not reasonably dissent from the idea that such a consensus may not exist or that the existence of such a consensus is unproven is a good example of a POV. I ask that others, if they agree, reinstate those changes and delete the disputed "consensus" words from the article until the matter has been resolved. I certainly shall not do so.CecilWard 21:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have taken this tag off for now. AFAICT this is more about the people involved than any real dispute on the content. --BozMo talk 22:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

AFAIC, we must not synthesize what we think is being implied. Per

WP:SYN, if the source isn't saying it, we cannot either. It's clear the IPCC's view is such and such. We must state it as such, and no different. ~ UBeR

22:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• The
  neutral point of view policy
  . [snip]
• The
  POV check template
  is not for disputes. It is intended for:
  • Articles which you have edited to be neutral, but may have overlooked something
  • Articles which you suspect are not neutral, but are unsure how to proceed
• For situations where you or other editors disagree on NPOV status, or need to reach
  consensus on neutrality, instead use the neutrality dispute template, {{POV
  }}, and explain the reasons on the talk page.
• In order to ensure the
  NPOV dispute resolution process
  .

I gather we contributors here disagree on NPOV status. There seems to be a sharp division, in fact, with 'regulars' pretty much saying that AGW is objective fact and that it's therefore "neutral" for the article to say so. Occasional 'guests' come by and argue that AGW is "disputed by some scientists" and that therefore the article should not endorse AGW. --Uncle Ed 15:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ed, I disagree with your assessment. The NPOV may not simply be a matter of whether there IS global warming (in my view there is and always has been both global warming and cooling. It is a matter of physics and tautologically true). But there may be NPOV issues relating to the reasons FOR the global warming. --Blue Tie 16:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ed, reviewing tis I don't see any justification for the tag. We started with All opposing viewpoints have been deliberately forked off which is simply false. Next we had it must be POV because it disagrees with

Oregon petition which hardly makes any sense. next we have 2 uses of the word consensus. And we have no idea what you think is wrong with it. This isn't a fair use of the tag William M. Connolley

15:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The article demonstrates bias right at the start. Here is how: It cites "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)" conclusions but then, without any references or cites or sources (it is basically Original Research) it says :"this conclusion has been endorsed by numerous scientific societies and academies of science, a few scientists disagree about the primary causes of the observed warming." This tenor and bias failure exists throughout the article.--Blue Tie 15:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Errm, you're being deceptive. The text you cite is a link to

Scientific opinion on climate change which provides the relevant sources. Have you got anything else to complain about? William M. Connolley

15:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not being deceptive. Please adhere to wikipedia policies of

WP:NPOV -- thus biased. --Blue Tie

16:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You asserted without any references or cites or sources - thats wrong. The references to the academies statements, etc, are all on the linked page. Is this really the only item you have to support an NPOV tag, because it seems awfully thin William M. Connolley 16:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Perhaps I should Parse my sentence for clarity and then provide a commentary so you will understand:

It (the article) cites "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)" conclusions

The above quote states that there is a scientific panel study on climate change that gave conclusions.

but then, 

The above two words are intended to SEPARATE the above clause (which is not denied) with a following clause where there is an exception

without any references or cites or sources (it is basically Original Research) 

Here is the causes for NPOV are describe, but not yet attributed to any particular comment in the article.

it says :"this conclusion has been endorsed by numerous scientific societies and academies of science, a few scientists disagree about the primary causes of the observed warming."  

Here the exact place where the lack of cites and sources is describe.

I hope that helps you follow my train of thought. There is no disputing that the wikipedia cites an article that may, indeed be well referenced. Where wikipedia fails to provide a citation is on the OPINION of the VALUE of that Scientific article and on the OPINION of others who disagree. In that failure,

WP:NPOV

violations arise.

I also hope that you will realize I am not arguing against the scientific article. Is that clear?

It may not be the only item to support an NPOV tag, but it is one. And it has not been handled appropriately. As I bring it up, it only meets resistance, not solutions per wikipedia guidelines. That suggests that there is more emotion than fact in the writing of this article. Furthermore, it is the opening discussion and guiding principle behind the article as far as I can see. Thus, the article fails NPOV tests. --Blue Tie 16:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

We could replace "numerous scientific societies" with "every scientific society that has issued a statement on the matter, except for the American Association of Petroleum Geologists." But that's wordy, and the details are given in the scientific opinion article anyway. We could also replace "a few scientists disagree" with "three climate scientists disagree" -- the only ones I know of are Lindzen, Michaels and Gray; the rest of the skeptics are astronomers, engineers and the like. The present wording, with the link to the scientific opinion article (which I agree should be retitled), is probably the best we can do without excessive duplication from the sci opinion article. Raymond Arritt 16:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It is wordy, but more importantly, can you provide an objective, reliable, undisputed source for the statement: "every scientific society that has issued a statement on the matter, except for the American Association of Petroleum Geologists"? In particular, the one word in that statement I would see as suspect is "every" because I have seen statements by scientific societies that have made other predictions. Of course these were from a few years ago, but that still precludes the word "every". (It is, again, a sort of weasle word). As far as the scientists that you know who disagree, it is appropriate to name them, but to declare that they are the ONLY three (or that there are ONLY three) would be Original Research, unless cited by a reliable, verifiable, objective source.

If the present wording is the best that we can come up with it is a poor statement on our skills. The rules of wikipedia requiring citation are not totally unreasonable and they are repeatedly emphasized as the key to avoid NPOV. You do want to avoid these repeated charges of bias, right?

Now note, the article has been repeatedly described as having NPOV issues. I have cited wikipedia policy on solving NPOV issues. The main method is to use objective, fair, reliable, well sourced and verifiable references, quoting them without adding editorial commentary. The response (so far as I can see) -- from people who would probably claim to be on the side of "objective science" -- is that such objectivity is not appropriate, necessary, required, or possible in this article. That is not acceptable per wikipedia policies. --Blue Tie 16:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you propose an alternative that is both

WP:NPOV (by your standard) and accurate? Then we'll have something concrete to work with. Raymond Arritt

16:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

because I have seen statements by scientific societies that have made other predictions - this would be more convincing if you could provide examples. Until you do its meaningless, and should not be used as a basis for your objections. Once again to ask you the question you've failed to answer: is this really your only objection? William M. Connolley 16:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not necessary for me to convince you that I have seen such things for the article to be out of compliance. That problem is the issue. Not me or what I know, particularly since I am not using myself or my knowledge as a basis for objection but rather wikipedia policy. Why is this so personal for you? --Blue Tie 17:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It was you who raised the point about scientific societies that made other predictions. Are you now abandoning that point? Raymond Arritt 18:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope. But it is irrelevant to the point. You are confusing the content of the article with wikipedia policy about how to avoid NPOV and article citing. --Blue Tie 18:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not an expert on global warming, by any stretch of the imagination. But I am not so under-educated that I can not easily find numerous, reputable, long established, world-class institutions around the globe that support both sides of this debate. It does not take anyone long to quickly discover that the articles presented on Wikipedia regarding global warming do not represent, with true equality, what all of the world’s scientific community is stating about the issue. It also does not take long to discover that this obvious stifling of a true balance is perpetrated by a relatively small amount of zealous persons. Dedication to ones belief is an admirable trait. However, the amount of fervent veracity that this inequity is pursued leads me to believe that there is a deeper, ulterior motive behind the disparity. From more than two decades of study and work in the field, I can say with complete confidence and authority that this type of systematic ‘leveling’ is the trademark of a political interest that is, at the least, superficially organized. I hope that the bond that these few have does not lead to an exclusive ‘cornering’ of a niche on Wikipedia. If they succeed, their tactic will become a model for other special interest groups to use.--Uwops 20:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If you can find any reputable sci inst that support its-not-anthro, do please list them and do us all a favour, as no one else has been able to find them William M. Connolley 20:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Without having to read the all of the talk below you can see at the very top of this page that this section presents a completely warped and biased point of view. The graph to the upper right of the page is labeled Global mean surface temperatures from 1850 to 2006 and shows a huge increase over the last 20 years. However the index is labeled temperature Anomaly with a spread of -.6 to +.6 C. Which is it? To a high school student it looks like global temperatures are increasing wildly which is I'm sure the point of view that the hysterics would like to convey. Either show a graph with actual temperatures for that time period or label it correctly to negate the clear slant in POV. (This unsigned comment was added by User:Showman60)

I noticed that too. I think Image:Climatechange.png would be a more proper depiction of the temperature change. --Tjsynkral 20:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Per the suggestion above I am listing statemenths from the paragraph here with possible changes.

• Global average air temperature near Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °Celsius (1.3 ± 0.32 °Fahrenheit) in the last century.

Normally I would consider this a summary of other things, but since it describes such specific numbers, numbers that are scientifically derived averages, this should be cited.

• The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes, "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations,which leads to warming of the surface and lower atmosphere by increasing the greenhouse effect."

This statement requires no change on its face, particularly with a link to the IPCC article on wikipedia. However, it is somewhat incomplete in context. It should add the predicted temperature change: IPCC predicts that global temperatures will rise by 1.8 -4.0°C between 1990 and 2100.^[1]

• Other phenomena such as solar variation and volcanoes have had smaller probably cooling effects on global mean temperature since 1950.[2]

This statement should be deleted because it misinterprets the figure in the source. In fact, the figure simply reaffirms the statement made above that recent global warming, as modeled by the IPCC, is seen as very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic effects.

• While this conclusion has been endorsed by numerous scientific societies and academies of science

This is a vague statement, but its intent is valid. I think that the way to handle it is to be specific like this:

The IPCC statement has, in turn been endorsed by National Acadamies of Science for the G8 nations and The US National Research Council. (add citations) Other scientific organizations such as the American Meterological Society, The American Geophysical Union, and the Geological Society of London.

• a few scientists disagree about the primary causes of the observed warming.

Specifics are better like this: Other members of the scientific community such as

If this article is to stick strictly to facts (which I would hope its authors aspire to), then emotive words such as 'consensus' have no place here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rymix (talk • contribs).

Consensus is well justified and sourced. It is, e.g. used in the

Oreskes' paper. And the IPCC does not publish "papers", it summarizes and integrates the literature into substantive reports (btw, using a consensus process). --Stephan Schulz

12:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Those groups you mention are made up of selected members which do not span the entire scientific community (which, in this example, is the context in which the word 'consensus' is used). Therefore any consensus is inherently skewed by the membership of the group. If the word consensus is to be used, it should be accompanied by the name of the group to which the 'consensus' can be attributed.

Rymix 13:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that the academies do not say "there is consensus among us". They report the general consensus they perveive (and say that they agree as well). You cannot ask for a better source on such a topic as a unanimous declaration of the most respected scientific organizations on the planet (well, maybe you can, but not reasonably). --Stephan Schulz 13:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not an actual consensus has been achieved and by whom is not the point of my argument. I am saying that there is a difference between journalistic writing and the style of reporting one would expect in an encyclopedia. This article must remain credible and impartial in its use of language, otherwise it's just a collection of opinions, much like your observation that the academies to which you refer are 'the most respected scientific organisations on the planet' - the obvious difference being that you have tagged this opinion with your name, so the reader knows it's just an opinion.

Rymix 13:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless you want to go back to

Académie des sciences, the Italian Accademia dei Lincei and so on are the most respected scientific organizations in their respective countries, and overall, in the world. Most of them have been around for centuries, several for longer than the countries that now host them. This is no more a mere opinion than the "opinion" that you have to pay taxes, or that parts of the Northern hemisphere will switch to DST around this time of the year.--Stephan Schulz

13:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

All of your previous post is entirely irrelevant. All I'm saying is that 'scientific consensus' is nearly bound to be a false consensus, especially on contentious subjects such as global warming. Therefore this should be acknowledged in the copy itself through the explicit inclusion of the source.

Rymix 14:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Rymix - you are quite right, but don't expect anyone to ever admit it! Don't bother trying to argue your case - it just wastes time - make the changes and then argue the toss later! 88.111.137.110 23:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As Schulz stated, "For all practical purposes, the Royal Society, the United States National Academy of Sciences, the French Académie des sciences, the Italian Accademia dei Lincei and so on are the most respected scientific organizations in their respective countries, and overall, in the world. Most of them have been around for centuries, several for longer than the countries that now host them. This is no more a mere opinion than the "opinion" that you have to pay taxes, or that parts of the Northern hemisphere will switch to DST around this time of the year" Indeed, this represents an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community. Wikipediatoperfection 02:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with consensus is that finding scientific truth is not a democratic process. Sometimes all the experts are wrong. Often, it's the wild-eyed radical who is right. The theory of continental drift, now called plate tectonics, leaps to mind. History is the final arbiter. And, I may be dating myself here, but I can remember when the consensus was that the world was getting colder and the worry was that we were drifting into a new ice age. Phew! Thank goodness that problem went away, by consensus. RockyMtnGuy 04:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it was the wide-eyed radicals that turned out to be right. I remember seeing them sitting behind a table at Uni 25 years ago warning about global warming and thinking, geeze, I hope those guys are wrong. Only took a quarter of a century for George Bush and Exxon to come around. -- Michael Johnson 04:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that George Bush has finally come around to the consensus shows something. Look, it could just be normal fluctuations, not caused by humans. However, the best info says that there is a less than 5% chance of this being the case. The best info says with over 90% certainty that this is indeed a problem and that we have unleashed it upon ourselves. That is about as good as it gets short of doing nothing to reduce our emissions such that we can really know if today's predictions are accurate. I hope that that we end up on the low side of the predictions. I hope that we take steps to significantly reduced emissions. However, as you pointed out, there is a difference between science and politics. Much of the "controversy" over global warming over the past 6 years has been politically generated through intellectual dishonesty. The best example being Bush Administration report "editing." Beyond that most news stories which question global warming do so in a intellectually dishonest fashion as well. The few legitimate scientists who do not think this is a problem all acknowledge that their opinions are contradictory to that of the vast majority of the scientific community. They also address it as a scientific rather than political argument. Virtually no news stories which question global warming acknowledge that the vast majority of the scientific community has come to as much of a consensus on global warming and climate change as the scientific community comes to on any subject. The real scientific controversy is not if it is happening, but at what rate? What will its effects be? Will it melt the ice caps? Will it not melt the ice caps, but still rise enough to disrupt agriculture???? Wikipediatoperfection 07:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Still my original point stands: Wikipedia should publish facts. The fact is that is that consensus has been reached by a group of select science representatives. The article should report as such.

Rymix 09:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

by a group of select science representatives? How about every scientist practicing in relevent fields, less a couple of dozen standouts. -- Michael Johnson 09:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The purpose of the article should be be to present facts. The names of the group(s) that have presented these consensual reports are important facts that the reader should fully be made aware of. The exclusion of this information brings with it its own inferences, which is a dangerous position for an wikipedia entry to find itself in.

Rymix 15:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you could list all the institutions and scientists that agree with the consensus, but that would be a list far too long for an article, and impossible to complete. -- Michael Johnson 23:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you define as a scientific consensus Rymix? Because every scientist practicing in the relevent fields, except a couple dozen standouts, is about as close to a scientific consensus as it comes. You may agree or disagree with their conclusions, but they do represent a scientific consensus. Wikipediatoperfection 23:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The issues identified above are good cause to add a fact tag to the sentence claiming consensus. Please add a citation that meets

WP:A or alter the sentence to make it acceptable. --Tjsynkral

23:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree fully with User:Tjsynkral in that I believe that suggesting that "a (scientific) consensus exists" is POV, and is in dispute. Is it sugested that "that IPCC has released a report, therefore it inescapably follows that a 'scientific consensus' (however defined) currently exists"? To make such an assertion (IPCC therefore consensus), requires justification. Turning aside, elsewhere we find similar examples of POV-indicator words such as "consensus" and "mainstream" to be present in related wikipedia articles, even in articles which discuss whether or not a consensus exists! (Worst of all, one article carries the word "mainstream" in its title.) —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by CecilWard (talk • contribs

) 18:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

I am reverting

WP:OR. --Tjsynkral

03:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If there are 100,000 Meteorologists in the world, it would require 50,001 signatures for there to be a consensus. Show me the signatures. Where are the signatures? Let the "Scientists" put their name on the dotted line.70.176.5.79 16:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Meteorology and climatology have many common fundamental scientific underpinnings, but are vastly different in their methods, approaches, and end products. So a signature list of meteorologists in this context would be meaningless. --Skyemoor 16:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is clear looking at this Talk page that on many fronts, the neutrality of this article is disputed. I feel that this template:

{{POV}}

ought to be included atop the article so the casual reader has an opportunity to read the comments on this talk page and decide for himself whether or not the article is neutral.

What needs to be established here is not, necessarily, whether the article is neutral - only whether the article's neutrality is, in fact, disputed (and I believe the consensus will show that there is an ongoing dispute to that end).

Discuss. Tjsynkral 21:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Generally each time a POV flag is discussed here there is a consensus for removing it. This article with this approximate stance has gone through a lot of editors review in becoming a featured article. I don't think that would be possible if there was a serious POV dispute about it. There are minority views on this as well as on the article but the consensus ain't bad in my view. --BozMo talk 21:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. If you look above at the NPOV Dispute itself you will see that the issue has far from reached consensus. It is an ongoing dispute and if anything can be called at this point, I see more reason to keep than to drop the POV template. Tjsynkral 21:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with BozMo, consensus is good, which is suggested by the fact that only minor, and well-referenced, changes are being made to the article. Every attempt to label the discussion as POV above has been rejected because, in general, referenced litterature is of poorer quality than that of the article. Narssarssuaq 21:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Every attempt to label the discussion as POV is reverted out by a very vocal group of edit warrers who prefer that a user not make the decision for himself. The pervasiveness of certain users who revert out the POV tag is not evidence of a consensus. Consensus can only be judged by comments made on the Talk page, and a review of the Talk page shows that the majority of comments claiming neutrality are made by a few people, and the majority of comments disputing neutrality are made by many people.Tjsynkral 21:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You could be right, but trying to be more constructive: Precisely which portions of the article are of poor quality, and how is neutrality compromised? The problem with most of the edits on the talk page that you mention is that they don't cite scientific literature to back their claims. If they had, I can assure you they would be taken most seriously. Narssarssuaq 21:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Much scientific literature is cited on

I just checked. What little scientific literature is cited is overwhelmingly on the mainstream/IPCC side. Most of the rest is fluff, opinion pieces, unreviewed reports, popular press articles, and so on. It's attributable, but it's not scientific literature.--Stephan Schulz 00:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if in your personal opinion the articles are scientific literature. They are attributable and therefore valid, so they are entitled to fair representation in the main article on GW. --Tjsynkral 03:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of opinion, but, it this case, simply a matter of fact. But you are a bit unclear. Do you still claim any significan amount of sceptic scientific literature is cited in

Global warming controversy, or do you acknowledge that nearly all of the sceptic "publicatons" are popular press or unreviewed reports, but still think they should be represented? If the second, do you think they should be given equal weight with real scienific publications?--Stephan Schulz

00:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

According to your user page, you are a "computer science researcher" (probably student) - not an environmental biologist. Which means that you are entitled to your opinion, but you have absolutely no way of judging one scientist from another without knowing them and their work intimately. The scientific method dictates that contradicting research not be ignored or swept under the rug. --Tjsynkral 00:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm certain that if you can find my user page, you can click one or two links further to find out about the probability of my student status. You are right in the claim that outside my own field I'm not particularly qualified to evaluate the work of others directly (although "absolutely no way" is wrong - it just takes more work and is less reliable). However, having been involved with scientific publishing for a bit[3][4][5][6], I do know the difference between scientific literature and fluff pieces in the popular press, and how much weight to give either.--Stephan Schulz 07:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Stephan is right about this. Scientific sources and 'popular' sources are like apples and oranges. On the other hand, popular sources generally rely on scientific sources, so perhaps we need to do a little digging. --Uncle Ed 15:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - the article is balanced considering the status of the science. However, a number of vocal skeptical editors continue to insist on "equal time" or whatever for their mainly political opinions. Just because these skeptics make a lot of "noise" here on the talk page does not mean there is a pov problem with the article - it presents the science and includes minority questions in relation to their scientific "weight" in the issue - that's what npov means. Vsmith 21:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion on NPOV - this is a discussion on whether NPOV is disputed. Keep your comments on NPOV itself to the NPOV thread above.--Tjsynkral 21:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Another minor point is that the tag is not intended to be used every time there is a dispute regarding an issue (as there is here). It is only supposed to be used if the article doesn't give this dispute proper mention. In this particular case, the dispute is mentioned and linked to. Narssarssuaq 21:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute. The NPOV flag should appear any time there is a specific issue that is actionable within content policies. The specific issue in this article is addressed in the root post and throughout Talk:Global_warming#NPOV_Dispute - the article does not conform to Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#POV_forks. This is a specific issue that is actionable within content policies. Therefore, the template should fly until the dispute is fully resolved.--Tjsynkral 21:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is mainly giving an overview of the science. This science only disputed by quite few scientists, and their minority viewpoints are properly mentioned and linked to in the article.

Wikipedia:Content forking seems to have nothing to do with this. Narssarssuaq

21:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

A significant number of users disagree that the minority viewpoints are properly mentioned and linked. Therefore, there is good cause for a POV. --Tjsynkral 23:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Funnily a couple of months ago someone actually went through a couple of months of discussion and classified all of the users based on their "status quo" or anti-establishment edits. The vast majority of editors were in agreement that the current article was about right. There were a small number of editors (who tended to be a bit SPA) who did lots of edits on this period. Not the other way round. If you have the energy, go through the archive and find the article or do the same. --BozMo talk 21:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

To the question as to whether the article is disputed, I would say, no, not with any informed analysis. Lots of editors drop in on this page and say, "but what about..." citing rumors or tv shows or (occasionally) actual science. In virtually all cases it has been discussed before and the few real scientific points appear on the page (e.g. solar variation).

Unfortunately, due the the high visibility and polarized political debate on this topic, it is hard to tell whether there is a reasoned debate about the neutrality of the page. But I have not seen one that I recognize as such. Perhaps we should have a comprehensive list of objections or reasons that an editor might consider the article NPOV, and we could see if any meet the standard for a reasonable objection to neutrality? bikeable (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely there should be the {{POV}} template if there is a dispute on the neutrality of the article. I only ask then you provide some arguments as to how this article does not conform to the

NPOV policy. ~ UBeR

22:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course the {{POV}} tag should be at the top and I will put it there again because the article is clearly biased.

Mike

10:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The article leans somewhat more towards the skeptic POV than it should, but not enough to need a POV tag. I've removed it again William M. Connolley 10:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The article leans somewhat more towards the skeptic POV than it should - Isnt this POV ? --Childhood's End 15:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the talk page old fruit. We're allowed to mention our opinions about the article. Unless you'd rather we all pretended to have no opinions at all? William M. Connolley 15:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not taking any sides here, but I thought this specific discussion was about whether this article should have a POV tag according to WP policies, not according to our personal opinions. --Childhood's End 15:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with William. If anything, this article gives somewhat too much credit to the "controversy". But the basic science is represented correctly, and therefore I disagree with the POV tag. Hardern 15:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Some of the science is represented correctly, while the rest of the science that contradicts the findings of the science cited on the GW page has been omitted and forked to

Global warming controversy or Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. I believe this is strong evidence of improper POV forking. --Tjsynkral

00:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Given the huge attention the controversy has been given in media etc, I could actually agree that a little more on it ideally should be mentioned in the article. The problem is that the article is already very long. Another point is that more encyclopedic information on the global warming controversy must be NPOV, and thus not necessarily positive for either of the advocate groups. Narssarssuaq 13:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

On the whole this article is pretty good, compared with some of the material on the internet, so I dont support a POV tag. If you think it is skewed, please say clearly which way you think it is skewed (I dont have time to go through archives and edits!) and which bits you object to. Here is one POV remark that should be removed: "It appears likely that solar variations are too small to directly explain a significant fraction of the observed warming". That statement is redundant now that we have cited papers arguing the case in both directions. It was already criticised by 128.115.27.10. I wonder who wrote it? Looks like it was our dear friend William! Paul Matthews 16:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, chummy, the statement is a lead in to the para its in, to explain why people should wish to boost solar variations with feedbacks William M. Connolley 22:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is being written by watermelons (i.e. green on the outside and red on the inside). The name should be changed to WACOpedia.

In my opinion, recent changes to the article by

WP:NPOV problem. --Tjsynkral

04:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue has to deal with the matter of assessment. Instead of just presenting the science, this article has always tried to prove AGW. And we all know that the proof or disproof of AGW is used (politically at least) to support the Kyoto Protocol.

Assessments by international and national agencies say (mostly) that the science is settled (sometimes using the word "settled" - although the article about this was deleted! - and sometimes using terms like "scientific consensus"). Assessments by many individual scientists who disagree with these agencies.

The issue for us contributing editors is whether to:

1. slant the article in favor of AGW
2. slant the article against AGW (as Dr. C says we are already doing!)
3. remain scrupulously neutral about whether AGW is "scientifically supported"

If we do #3, we must be careful not to bend over backwards and act like idiots. We must not omit anything which indicates support!

I'm just saying that we should not tell the reader that "most scientists support AGW" but rather say things like:

• According to the
  IPCC, NASA
  , etc. (list 'em all!), most scientists support AGW; and,
• According to some scientists (Lindzen, etc. - list 'em all!), it is not true that most scientists support AGW

By AGW, I mean the theory - not the phenomenon. Whether another 2 degrees Fahrenheit of warming would be good or not, is a related but distinct question. I am only addressing here what position our article should take on the "degree of unanimity of scientists" on the question of whether "most modern warming" is anthropogenic. --Uncle Ed 15:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Both #1 and #2 are contrary to wikipedia policies of NPOV, so what we should do is clear. I agree with your approach. --Blue Tie 10:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The term "global temperature(s)" appears in the article 7 times. But now, the very concept of a "global temperature" has been called into question. Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr Institute and others, argue that "[i]t is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth." [7] Thoughts anyone? Delta x 07:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Its non-notable nonsense William M. Connolley 09:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It is notable and it should be included!

Mike

10:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Gosh! Really! Because you use an exclamation mark! OR for Some other reason!?! William M. Connolley 10:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That article is so error-filled that I'm thinking about writing one of those "Comments on..." followups to the journal, but someone likely has beat me to it. It's amazing that it was published. Raymond Arritt 15:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, someone should surely be critiquing the study about which the news article at issue is written, but Wikipedia isn't the place for original critiques. The news article was published by Science Daily, but more importantly (for notability) it was linked from the

WP:IDONTLIKEIT. DickClarkMises

14:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"If, for example, it is 10 degrees at one point and 40 degrees at another, the average is 25 degrees. But if instead there is 25 degrees both places, the average is still 25 degrees." Amazing! Good that he told me. Hardern 15:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, it's important to note that some researchers question whether data is really valid or notable if it only affects third-worlders, poor people, etc. If it starts to impinge on the lifestyle of residents of large industrialized cities, then maybe we have something to talk about. Otherwise, temperature rises, rising seas, etc, really have no place in discussions of real science. --Steve, Sm8900 16:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

:-) --Steve, Sm8900 16:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank god for that addition -- I caught this between edits and was sort of stunned...! bikeable (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I come from the school of Sarcasm is our Friend. :-) :-) Thanks...figured I should add that...I do know one virtue Wikipedians have is that they do follow discussions pretty closely. See you. --Steve, Sm8900 16:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I was browsing the internet looking for information on Global Warming and found the Wikipedia article and this associated talk page. I am still not really sure if global warming is a problem or not. For that matter it probably resides somewhere in between the current debate. But this discussion page is something else. There is a lot of bias for both sides. If this discussion page is for what articles, theory's or opinions to add I would suggest that the lot of you should recuse yourselves. An Encyclopedia should be an unbiased resourse and relevant qualified opinions should not be dismissed or omitted. For instance in the above talk box user:Deltax asks: The term "global temperature(s)" appears in the article 7 times. But now, the very concept of a "global temperature" has been called into question. Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr Institute and others, argue that "[i]t is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth." [23] Thoughts anyone? And the response from William M. Connolley is "Its non-notable nonsense". I know nothing about the professor or the institute but I click on the link and read the article in Science Daily. As a layman I have little experience with global weather and would expect to have anything I say about climate changes discounted. But a professor at the University of Copenhagans opinion is "non-notable nonsense". Interesting! I leave you with this quote: The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. --John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859).

Darrell

Can someone tell me where I might find the following: 1. A precise scientific definition of the term global temperature? 2. A complete list of names along with the credentials of the "2500+ scientific expert reviewers" who contributed to the latest IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)? Thanks. Delta x 03:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK the author/review list for AR4 isn't out yet, but the TAR list is at the obvious place: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm. For global t, it depends what you mean: if you mean "how do people construct the "global temperature records" then there are various papers you could read William M. Connolley 09:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the list. It'll have to do for now. Regarding global t's, all I'm looking for is a simple definition of the term. I don't want to try to formulate a definition myself after having read through "various papers." I just want to be directed to a credible reference source where said definition can be found. Surely such a source must exist. If not, I'll have no choice but to assume that the term, despite all protestations to the contrary is, in fact, utterly devoid of any scientific meaning. Again, thanks for any help you can provide. Delta x 11:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to formulate your own. I'm saying that if you look up the papers, you'll find out how its done in the "global" temperature records. As for a defn, thats a different matter William M. Connolley 11:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

But this "different matter" is the very reason for my inquiry. And so I'm still looking for an answer. Maybe Bjarne Andresen really does have a point when he says "it is impossible to talk about a single temperature for...the climate of Earth." In any event, I'm reminded at this juncture of that famous saying of Bertrand Russell:

"Mathematics is that science in which we do not know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true." [8]

Or to paraphrase slightly:

"Global warming is that science in which we do not know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true." Delta x 13:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's a definition you're looking for, the IPCC writes, "The global surface temperature is the area-weighted global average of (i) the sea-surface temperature over the oceans (i.e. the subsurface bulk temperature in the first few meters of the ocean), and (ii) the surface-air temperature over land at 1.5 m above the ground." ~ UBeR 22:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"Thoughts anyone?" Since when do climate models assume that the entire Earth is in global thermal equilibrium at a single temperature? Local thermal equilibrium is assumed and that is a very good approximation. In fact, there are deviations from local thermal equilibrium, giving rise to "transport phenomena" which are included in the models. E.g., note that you can only derive the value of the viscosity from first principles using the differential collision cross section of molecules using the Boltzmann equation by considering a gas that is slightly out of local thermal equilibrium, i.e. a gas that, strictly speaking, is not described by a temperature. Count Iblis 13:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Folks, nobody here claimed to be discussing a "global temperature." what we are discussing is global climate conditions. So while this is an interesting and valid discussion, it does not refute any aspect of global warming theories. Just wanted to mention that. thanks. --Sm8900 14:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No one claimed we're talking about global temperature but rather global climate conditions, despite the former appearing seven times in the article and the latter none? ~ UBeR 22:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The article should be readable to lay people, therefore subtle issues cannot be discussed. Count Iblis 22:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

How about a separate article on the concept of

Global Temperature itself? Delta x

23:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't necessarily merit its own article. You have the IPCC definition I posted above, and maybe some methods--not much.

Edit: Apparently, if you do

Global climate. It is very broad and doesn't seem to delve in to what we're discussing here. ~ UBeR

00:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the IPCC definition, although I did find it somewhat obscure. I suspect that most people would probably just stare at it, to use that marvelous phrase of Luther's, "like cows at a new gate." Delta x 02:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I couldn't say I disagree. They still leave ambiguity. (Area-weighted, whatever that means and how it is calculated. Subsurface bulk temperature [whatever that means] of the first few meters of the ocean from the shores or first few meters below the surface?) Definitely, they do not clarify how representative this "average" is. ~ UBeR 02:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty straightforward. "Area weighted" means that a region that has lots of stations doesn't disproportionately affect the average -- the stations for a given unit area are averaged together, and then all the unit areas are averaged. The exact method is a little more complicated but that's the basic idea. Subsurface means, well, below the surface (the first few meters below the air-sea interface). Raymond Arritt 02:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That clarifies the IPCC def. a bit. But it still doesn't get to the heart of what I'm trying to understand, which is this statement by Bjarne Andresen that "the Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average." Delta x 09:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

So start the BA page and discuss it there William M. Connolley 09:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Delta x, I think you raise a point that should be brought up under "controversies". (Is that a separate page?) I do not happen to agree with the point of view (as I mentioned above) that the earth is too complex to have an average temperature, but it is an interesting criticism. --Blue Tie 11:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If it was published, it shouldn't be all rubbish. Anyhow, I can see no use for it in the article at present. If it becomes clear and unison that IPCC calculations mentioned in the article are probably significantly wrong as a result of this, it should be mentioned in the article, but not before. Narssarssuaq 10:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Looking more closely into the article synopsis, I'm not sure if I understand why it was published. As experts of thermodynamics, they are probably right in their claim that temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system (whatever that is), but the rest of the synopsis contains some strange points. Narssarssuaq 11:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This whole topic makes no sense. What exactly is it that scientists are supposed to have suddenly realized is no longer valid? The concept that there is only one temperature for the whole planet? Who ever said there was? The concept that no one can take many local temperatures, and find an average for them? Who could argue with that simple concept? This whole question seems totally immaterial. i agree with Willam M Connolley, above, and the others. Thanks. --Sm8900 13:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. They seem to have concerns that apply at a microscopic level but not necessarily in a macroscopic, real-world case. Semantically, the term "global temperature" may of course "exist" if it's just defined properly. Their point seems to be that the term may be ambiguous. Although their conclusions seem far-fetched, it might be interesting to read the justifications for their claims, which judging from the name of the journal are of a thermodynamic nature. Narssarssuaq 13:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If there are plenty of problems evaluating regional and climate trends and temperature, I'm hard pressed to consider the difficulties on a global scale. ~ UBeR 17:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my gosh. There are difficulties evaluating anything on any scale larger than ten people. Does that mean that humanity should no longer take measurements, make hypotheses, or react to general trends? --Sm8900 18:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice straw man argument. I'm almost impressed. ~ UBeR 19:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Uber, I am not trying to create a conflict here, with you or anyone else. However, I want to make sure I understand. Were you stating that it is problematic to try to find any general trends at all, on even a regional scale, and therefore on a global scale? if so, that seems to be a bit too broad a generalization, in my own opinion. thanks. --Sm8900 20:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. i guess this discussion is sort of winding down. one more thought: if anyone wants to mention some specific difficulties entailed in tracking global temperature averages, i think we'd all be interested. I think the only problem some of us had was that it sounded at some point like some were doubting the ability to track global temperatures at all, and our ability to reach any conclusions, and therefore made it sound as if that one point refuted the entire global warming concept all at once. however, of course any discussion of specific aspect, (whether right now or later on), is probably valid. Thanks. --Sm8900 13:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Understandably, presuppositions should be avoided because they are dangerous things. There are are potential difficulties in climate-change studies when they "generalize regional patterns from single stations, single seasons, or a few parameters over short duration from averaging dissimilar stations; or generalize an average regional pattern from coarse-scale general circulation models." And there are reasons to be concerned how regional trends are used for global predictions. One reason I bring this is up as important is is because "many management decisions affecting climate-change policy and most mitigation efforts may be at local and regional scales. Thus, it is critically important to assess the direction and magnitude of climate change at local and regional scales. Such regional information is also vital to evaluate simulations of climate change at national and global scales (Doherty and Mearns, 1999)." Furthermore, as an example, Alward et al. (1999) documented nighttime temperature rise since 1964 at CPER. The publishing journal suggested a title that suggested global trends. Melillo (1999) furthered this, and later the AP sensationalized the results. "This chain of events may not be uncommon, and few stop to ask whether neighboring stations show similar long-term trend." ~ UBeR 17:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that there can be no question that a planetary temperature can be defined. Take a bottle of water. You may stick a thermometer in it and determine the temperature of the bottle. However, with sufficient skill and accuracy you would find diferences in temperature depending upon how close the temperature of the bottle was to the outside environment, where you took your measurement and different energy levels between molecular or atomic particles. However, an overall temperature is typically acceptable for most purposes. The problem with the global earth temperature is that it may not be correctly or well defined. For example, if we average the temperature of the whole earth, to the core, I suspect that we have too little data (and not much variation over time) to consider it helpful. So we want to measure the temperature of that area that we might call the "Biosphere". This would include soil, oceans, air and so on. This has never been sufficiently well measured that we can describe an "average". What we HAVE measured most commonly is ground-level atmospheric temperatures. And probably to a level that we can describe "Ground Level Atmospheric Temperature" as a measured and evaluated condition with some value. However, that is not necessarily the same thing as "Global Temperature".

The mixing of temperatures problem vs averages reminds me of the man who had his feet in an oven and his head on a block of ice. On average he was comfortable. --Blue Tie 15:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

But we are not talking about a man, but a planet, so the physical comfort of a planet is meaningless. The impacts to habitat, agriculture, rainfall patterns, and others are, however, pertinent to the article. So if I understand you and UBeR correctly, if it's difficult to project future trends in a region or local area, then we should ignore tracking global temperature trends? This doesn't make sense to me. What is the prevailing consensus of the scientific community? What do the IPCC, academies and other societies mention?

IPCC SPM 2007: "The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is very likely caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries,"

Joint Science Academies 2005: "...there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring."

Americal Meteorlogical Society 2003: "There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years."

I don't see what the problem is and why some are concerned about how the topic is handled in the article. Just because a non-climatologist editor is 'hard-pressed' to understand the complexities of climatology on a global scale does not obviate the scientific findings and assessments to-date. 66.225.251.176 16:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Your comments do not seem to grasp the discussion. The statement about a man being comfortable was a joke, ok? No one here is arguing that the scientific findings and assessments do not exist. --Blue Tie 03:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This page is permanently semi-protected against vandalism (its open for debate if you must but it seems to be useful). I've just protected it against moves, since it seems to have suffered a few pointless moves recently and I can't see any reason to move it in the future. But if anyone cares to object, please do William M. Connolley 21:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems warranted enough by the recent move activity. Skyemoor 19:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This page is 176 kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage. See

Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page for guidance. --Uncle Ed

19:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to ask User:UBeR to do this, as he has past experience in moving to archives (and he carried out the move a competent and evenhanded way). Raymond Arritt 19:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the talk page is locked? As far as I can tell, archiving old discussion should still be possible. I think he block is only from moving the main article. ~ UBeR 19:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguous antecedents. The first "this page" referred to the main page; Ed's "this page" referred to Talk. At least I think so... Raymond Arritt 20:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I meant it's okay to semiprotect

Global warming. --Uncle Ed

20:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes: the article page is protected against moves and semi-prot against edits. The talk page has no protection. I would also like to see this page archived William M. Connolley 21:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not think the main page should be semi-protected from editing. IP vandals are not such a big nuisance and easy to revert quickly. A move protect is fine, because there isn't any foreseeable reason to move the page. I've decided archiving the talk page during the start every month (of course leaving ongoing discussions) will probably work well. ~ UBeR 21:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

On such a politically charged scientific topic, semi-prot makes perfect sense; if people want to make edits, then it would be better forthem to do so with full attribution, keeping the article churn down to a dull roar. Skyemoor 22:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Uber reverted [9] my edit with the curious edit comment Rv. edit by William. The SPM does not suggest cooling as a result from solar forcings, nor does the figure suggest it. Firstly, he has left the text pointing to SPM-2, which is wrong, since SPM-2 is changes since 1750. SPM-4 is the figure you want, since it shows the effects graphed over the century. So we see that since 1950 the natural curve, which is blue, shows... oh yes, cooling. Ubers rv restores the phrase "but non-negligible". This is not supportable from SPM-2 at all, but it wouldn't be supportable even if the SPM-2 figures were since 1950 William M. Connolley 22:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. From what I'm reading, the article states: "Other phenomena such as solar variation and volcanoes have had smaller but non-negligible effects on global mean temperature since 1950." The SPM states: "A significant fraction of the reconstructed Northern Hemisphere interdecadal temperature variability over [the last seven centuries prior to 1950] is very likely attributable to volcanic eruptions and changes in solar irradiance . . ." ~ UBeR 22:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Noticed it should probably say up to instead of since 1950... ~ UBeR 22:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I had reverted without catching the automatic message in time; the explanation should have read "rvt per talk page". Yes, the volcanic eruptions result in cooling spikes. "Changes in solar irradiance since 1750 are estimated to cause a radiative forcing of +0.12 [+0.06 to +0.30]W m-2, which is less than half the estimate given in the TAR. {2.7}".

"It is very unlikely that climate changes of at least the seven centuries prior to 1950 were due to variability generated within the climate system alone. A significant fraction of the reconstructed Northern Hemisphere interdecadal temperature variability over those centuries is very likely attributable to volcanic eruptions and changes in solar irradiance, and it is likely that anthropogenic forcing contributed to the early 20th century warming evident in these records." Skyemoor 01:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand Ubers response. He has quoted text about *prior* to 1950. The piece of the page we're reverting over is about post 1950. So why quote irrelevant text? William M. Connolley 13:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

As a definition we have:

Global warming is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation.

Personally, I feel this falls short since past episodes of warming are often labelled as "global warming" even if not recent.

I tried:

Global warming is an observable increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans, especially that occuring in recent decades and its projected continuation.

Which allows for the fact the term "global warming" gets applied to the past. In doing so I felt necessary to change "observed" to "observable" to avoid a grammatical problem with the past tense observation of future warming, but Raymond didn't like that.

So does anyone have suggestions for how to define "global warming" without falsely suggesting that the term is only used for the modern case. Dragons flight 16:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what wrong with adding "especially that occuring in recent decades" to what we have William M. Connolley 17:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

(ec) How about:

Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans, especially that observed to occur in recent decades, and its projected continuation.

I think that addressed the core of both Raymond's and Blue Tie's objections. Dragons flight 17:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

To please the memory of Strunk and White: Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans, especially that observed in recent decades and its projected continuation.

--Stephan Schulz 17:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Stephan's proposal sounds good. The phrase "global warming" is only rarely applied to past warming episodes (e.g., paleoclimate studies), but I can see the point of leaving the door open. Raymond Arritt 17:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Where "rarely" includes two section headers in the article?  ;-) Okay, I've put in Stephan's version. Dragons flight 18:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the change (particularly the inclusion of "especially"), but I still have some concerns. They are in two areas:

1.This is a physical phenomenon. As gravity exists with or without observation so does the heating and cooling of bodies in space, including planets (such as Venus, Earth and Mars). It bothers me that we limit it in this way.

2.It is not a recent phenomenon. It is an enduring thing lasting over billions of years. What is recent is the attention it has received and the concerns over human involvement in the recent changes. But the phenomenon is not recent. The opening paragraph should reflect both realities.... perhaps like this:

Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans. Observations of recent, rapid global warming and its projected continuation have given rise to warnings regarding environmental and climate change.

This is a back-construction of the term that does not follow its conventional usage. Yes, it sounds reasonable to expect that "global warming" could be applied to any period in which the mean temperature warms. But even in scientific contexts the term when used without qualifiers is almost universally understood to mean the modern warming period. Why not simply adopt the meaning of the term as it is broadly understood, following

WP:COMMONNAME? Raymond Arritt

18:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me point you to a website that highlights this difference in a way, and if you think about it, you will realize that how the issue is defined, right from the start, kicks off whether the article will be biased in a direction or not. Here is the website: http://zfacts.com/p/49.html.

Consider that this article could best be used to be coldly objective and unbiased, leaving the normative biases and debates on other pages, with links back and forth. This page does not have to advocate any position. Just report the positions reasonably. --Blue Tie 19:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see an authoritative source for your definition. The zfacts site is very amateurish and error-filled; it cannot be taken seriously as a factual source. Raymond Arritt 20:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

So you say. But, that your opinion of zfacts is irrelevant. I was using it not as an authority but as a way to help express my point. I was hoping you were trying to have a meeting of the minds, but perhaps that is not how it is. The point I was making was that Global Warming is a phenomenon that has existed for ages past and exists now. Its causes at various times may have been similar or different, I do not know and I do not care really. But it has existed a long time. In scientific articles reviews of the past include warming of past periods, also times of global warming. The heading of the article, if it is broad enough and scientifically valid enough, will help reduce the NPOV problems. And there are such problems. However, if you need an authoritative source, I will find one. But really, why is it necessary to find an authoritative source to say that "water is wet"? --Blue Tie 02:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The present intro of the article looks like a good compromise. It makes a nod to the (specious) idea that "global warming" is a term that means any temperature rise at any time, while making it clear that the actual usage of the term overwhelmingly refers to the recent period of warming. Raymond Arritt 02:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the "if a tree falls..." argument is that if we aren't documenting it, then we shouldn't be reporting it. The sentence should read, "Global warming is the observed increase..." ~ UBeR 02:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

By that logic, gravity should only be described in terms of recent observations, rather than as a fundamental law of nature that has existed along with time. Only our observation makes it real. I do not agree with this philosophy. I believe that if we were not here to observe, the Universe would still continue to contain stars and planets and other things that have gravity -- and that get warm or cold.--Blue Tie 02:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Not by any means. Gravitation, being a physical law, can applied be everywhere. Global warming is our observed increase in global temperatures. Global warming is not a law, and is not applicable everywhere. Do you seriously believe we are constantly warming, or do you actual give credence to the fact that cooling also does occur (even in large scales, such as in Antarctica)? P.S. The current version is shit. ~ UBeR 08:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Now, now. The question is, "Can it occur without direct observation?". The answer obviously is 'yes'. So 'observed' is an unnecessarily limiting adjective. Entropy is an on-going process in untold areas in the universe, yet we wouldn't decline to state that just because we are not documenting it in every location constantly. --

I personly like the defintions you guys have but mine is the simple words. "

I have been asked to provide an authoritative source for a definition of the term that excludes the sense of recency. So here it is.

An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change. --The American Heritage Dictionary, 2004 edition. --Blue Tie 03:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

global warming: an increase in the earth's average atmospheric temperature that causes corresponding changes in climate and that may result from the greenhouse effect. Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. --Skyemoor 09:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

global warming: An increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase great enough to cause changes in the global climate. The Earth has experienced numerous episodes of global warming through its history, and currently appears to be undergoing such warming. The present warming is generally attributed to an increase in the greenhouse effect , brought about by increased levels of greenhouse gases, largely due to the effects of human industry and agriculture. Expected long-term effects of current global warming are rising sea levels, flooding, melting of polar ice caps and glaciers, fluctuations in temperature and precipitation, more frequent and stronger El Niños and La Niñas, drought, heat waves, and forest fires. See more at greenhouse effect. The American Heritage Science Dictionary. --Skyemoor 09:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm against partisan editing, whether I agree with your side or not. All of us must make neutral edits and avoid tendentious edits. The deletion Blue Tie just made seemed partisan to me. That is, it seemed to support "my side". But I can't support deletion of verifiable material simply because it leads to a conclusion I dislike.

Anyway, we need clarity on volcanoes and solar variation. Some sources say these natural factors account for much more than half of atmospheric temperature variations (both as reconstruted from proxies before 1850, and as measured by thermometers, etc. since then). Other sources say these natural factors account for less than half.

There is a sharp distinction here. Let's not blur it by deleting references. Let's amplify it by describing it. The more references the better.

What does the UN's assessment panel say? What does the Max Planck institute say? What do Lindzen, Baliunas, Singer, et al., say?

What deletion seemed partisan? I apologize if it seemed that way. The truth is, in some cases I am arguing for positions that I do not personally agree with because they are supported by wikipedia policy of neutrality and verifiability. If you are referring to the volcanos and solar irradiance statement, it is simply (and embarrasingly) unsupported by the citation. Indeed the article text says that these have a probably cooling effect but solar irradiance has a warming effect according to the text around the figure cited in the source, so the cited source says exactly opposite of what the text says. Hence the delete. --Blue Tie 14:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

SPM-4 clearly shows cooling from 1950 from solar/volcanic sources (the reference is clearly to the figure, not to the surrounding text; I don't see anything in the surrounding text to support BT's solar irradiance has a warming effect - what do you mean?). I'm unsure how BT can assert that "The citation simply does not support the statement". From 1850-present there is SPM-2, with solar less than 1/10 of GHG. I don't know where Ed gets the more/less than half stuff, though William M. Connolley 14:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

BT commonly says "the citation does not support the statement" when the citation does support the statement. For example, he contended that [10] did not support the idea that "global warming" is usually understood to refer to the current warming period. Assuming he actually read the cited reference, it's hard to imagine what part of "Scientists use the term ‘global warming’ to refer to the idea that the world’s average temperature may be about five degrees Fahrenheit higher in 75 years than it is now" he had so much trouble with. At the time I thought it may have been a casual oversight, but a pattern is emerging. Raymond Arritt 14:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops, hold the phone. Assuming this evalution of BT's edits was made in good faith ...

Are you saying that the citation supports the statement and that BT incorrectly said it didn't?

And is BT saying that (1) the statement isn't true, even though the citation supports it or that (2) that statement may or not be true, but merely is not supported by the citation? I would hate to have to dig into to this. Can't somebody make this clearer?

Like:

• Volcanoes spew dust, etc. This screens sunlight from reaching the surface, which leads to a bit of cooling.
• Solar variation correlates with periods of more or less sunlight reaching the surface.
• Some scientists {who?} say these two factors account for the bulk of all the warming and cooling ever seen. Other scientists {who again?} say there factors account for less than half of (1) warming & cooling detected by proxy, (2) warming & cooling in the modern warming period or (3) all warming & cooling. --Uncle Ed 15:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ed

Basically the Source is a series of graphs showing output of computer models, not actual fact or history. There is no text describing, in sufficient detail to draw the conclusion reached, how to read the bands. The blue band that would be associated with volcanism and solar radiation seems to rise before 1950 (which was the peak) and then decline to levels that were similar to levels about 1900. However, in many instances, the upper part of the blue band for recent years, overlaps the lower part of the blue band for 1950 -- the peak year. So, the peak year, 1950 appears anomalous in the graph anyway and there is no way to determine if there is a statistically significant difference between the theoretical effects of volcanism and solar radiation in the computer model for 1950 and 2006. In short, the statement is Unsubstantiated Original Research. --Blue Tie 15:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the request for discussion.

I reviewed the specific source (Figure 4) 3 times. The source does not discuss volcanism nor solar irradiance in the way described. Instead it discusses the differences between climate model results when the effects of man on the climate are included or excluded. The results with men excluded are due to solar irradiance and volcanism alone, per the source. The source does not describe the net effect of solar irradiance and volcanism on the current level of warming. That is why I said the source does not support the statement. The source would support the statement that "the current episode of global warming is likely caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases". However that is, essentially, redundant, I think. --Blue Tie 14:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. The statement questionned by BT was Other phenomena such as

solar variation and volcanoes have had smaller probably cooling effects on global mean temperature since 1950. Fig SPM-4 shows (lowest row, blue curve) the T history repreoduced by GCMs with natural forcing (sol/vol) only. And it shows... cooling since 1950. Which is to say... that sol/vol have probably (though not definitely) had a net cooling effect since 1950 William M. Connolley

14:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that is that the charts are not actual history. They are results of climactic models. The text does not describe it that way. Futhermore, the charts showing this are from a study that really was not that focused on the effects of volcanism and solar radiation but on the anthropogenic effects. The text of the study is absolutely silent on this issue. So this comment is an original research interpretation of a chart where the underlying assumptions and conclusions are not well described or expressed. And my reading of the chart (which I agree is also Original Research -- but that is the problem with Original Research) informs me that the difference between 1950 and present is not significant enough to be declared "probably" different. The statement has problems with Original Research.--Blue Tie 15:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh again. You resolutely refuse to see the obvious when its against you. Your "actual history" stuff is nonsense - there is no way to do this stuff through natural history, of course. The sense from the charts is also obvious: sol/vol cooling from 1950 William M. Connolley 15:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, please assume good faith. There is nothing "against me". I am commenting upon a source. If the things I have said about the source are not true, then show that. If you are arguing that there is no evidence in science that describes history, I disagree. If you are trying to say that there is no way to historically know a speculative alternative history, I agree -- and hence, this is part of my concern over the statement in the article. The information in the article is original research based upon the charts and there is no way to know that this OR is correct. This is a violation of wikipedia standards. I again, and for the second time, request that you remain

civil by refraining from personal comment or speculations about some motives I might have. Assume good faith. --Blue Tie

18:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ed, did you net even look at the graph which is the source? And why did you delete my reply to this [11]? I'm baffled. anyway, all you need to do is actually look at the ref given William M. Connolley 16:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

BT seems to be saying ... what? I'm having trouble following. Please simplify your comments for a middle-aged man who means well but never finished college. --Uncle Ed 15:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ed,

Probably something wrong with me -- too complex. It is not about what an editor is saying. It is what a cite will support. Wikipedia policies say that we should not do original research. The statement in the article is not supported by the citation. It is that simple. But to be specific:

• The source is a graph of model results, not actual fact
• The source covers a larger range of time. The text uses a point on the graph that is extreme as a point of comparison.
• The source requires interpretation of a graph, but insufficient information about the graph is provided to draw conclusions such as those put in the article.
• The interpretation that is put forward in the article is suspect because the band of the current period vs the 1950 period(which is the extreme point)seem to overlap -- or come close enough that a question about statistical significance arises. --Blue Tie 16:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The Guideline on wikipedia regarding weasle words is

• the spirit of Wikipedia draws very strongly from the neutrality and verifiability policies, both of which are acutely compromised by this practice, editors are encouraged to Avoid Weasel Words.

• If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view

• The example "Most scientists believe that there is truth" is said to be bad construction in part because:
  • Most can range in any amount more than 50% up to 99%
  • The statement gives no necessary contextual data such as how the individual beliefs were counted
  • Or whether the statement concerns all scientists or only those presently alive

There is something else here. The words "few" and "many" are not cited. They constitute a violation of

Incidentally, the opening paragraph (as currently designed) uses the word "most". It is used in the context of a literal quote. In a way, this is using weasel words by proxy, but at least it is verifiable. A better solution should be found that does not rely on weasel words by proxy, but as long as it is verifiable, its somewhat less of a problem. --Blue Tie 15:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"Most" actually connotates a majority, where 'many' simply means more than a few, so "most" is not a weasel word. --Skyemoor 20:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

According to

Avoid Weasel Words it is, or perhaps I should say, "can be".--Blue Tie

20:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There are not many peer reviewed studies about the opinion of climate scientists, but then trivial to verify facts do not need citatons in order not to violate OR. Count Iblis 15:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That might be a better view. However, I did not count 2000 in the IPCC. I saw about 50. And as far as the count of those who disagree, you would have to cite a poll or something, otherwise it would again be Original Research -- how can you otherwise claim to know who all the scientists who disagree are? --Blue Tie 15:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on these users' changes in history:

WP:NPOV. User:Vsmith re-added the words after they were removed again. If you feel these words should be included please give your rationale on the talk page - otherwise on their face these edits violate Wikipedia standards. --Tjsynkral

16:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless you are addressing people who will review NPOV things, I think it best to not make things personal. However, I would point out that the current version (as of this instant) is not so bad. --Blue Tie 16:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as content, I agree. On the other hand the writing style of the new intro is terrible, whereas it was reasonably good before the latest round. We need better for one of Wikipedia's top 100 articles. Would you like to take a try at copyediting the intro? Raymond Arritt 17:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, few is kinda weasely - hmm... but leaving it out gives the impression that a significant number disagree rather than maybe as much as 1% (20 : 2000). Of course if your POV aligns with the 1%, then you don't want readers to know how few there are - so maybe removing few could be seen as POV pushing by making those few more significant than the really are - just maybe. Therefore, it seems necessary for the weasel fighter to make the point non-pov by replacing those horrible weasels with balancing numbers to avoid POV problems. Cheers, Vsmith 21:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not know the POV of the 1% or the 99% or any other %. I know my own POV, but it is irrelevant. The bottom line is that there are three really important principles in wikipedia to avoid such disputes. One of these is "No Original Research". Another is "Verifiability". And the other is NPOV. They all work together. The word "few" is original research and uncited. It is inherently POV. If there really are 2000 vs 20 then you should cite apoll that demonstrates that. Otherwise it is original research and it does not work here. I saw that ratio mentioned by someone else. Is there a source for that ratio or is it anecdotal? I've asked before and not had a reply. --Blue Tie 21:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

1% and 99% are numbers. Do you have a verifiable source on those numbers? If not you are just blowing steam. --Tjsynkral 22:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems you are avoiding the problem my numbers were used to illustrate. I can use those numbers here on the talk page for illustration purposes, to put them in the article would require verification. You've both sidestepped the point I am making about balance and pov. Removing few can be seen as pov pushing as it makes a minor viewpoint seem more important. Vsmith 23:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

How does having NO word push any viewpoint? It's absolutely not NPOV to say "few" - that is clearly a weasel word. Since dozens of scientists, with solid credentials, appear on the

WP:AWW as "few" - so just don't use any adjective unless you're prepared to back it up with a reliable source. --Tjsynkral

23:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

How about "relatively few" - that is not a weasel word. It states the comparison within a specific group. We could also put it as a "minority" - numerous could be changed to "most" - that is supported by the subpage - and if not true then it is easy to disprove. (i'll accept "most" as being >75%). --Kim D. Petersen 23:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Where do I begin with the logical fallacies? First of all, "relatively few" is a weasel word because it still puts an editor's analysis on the number of scientists who dissent, without attribution. That's a violation of

WP:AWW

.

What specific group are you referring to? Are you referring to the number of scientists whose names are mentioned on one subpage, vs how many are mentioned on the other? Wikipedia pages cannot be used as references! Many scientists may not appear on the disagreeing scientists page. To make a claim about all scientists, which is exactly what you're doing, you need a valid sample - and scientists that a WPer happened to hear about and add to the article do not make up a valid sample.

"Minority" is not supported by the subpage for the same reason given above: not a valid sample. When you have a valid sample you can start talking to me about words like "few" or "relatively few" or "minority."

Nothing is easy to disprove - and if you're inserting weasel words, the burden of proof is on YOU. Saying that "few" scientists dissent because of a lack of proof to the contrary is a blatant, and embarrassing for you, Argument from ignorance fallacy. --Tjsynkral 00:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have also demonstrated that the phrase "climate scientists" is weasel-wording (see this

I read your argument and do not feel you have demonstrated 'climate scientists' is weasel-wording.If a scientist is performing research on directly climate-related topics, they are climate scientists. There are many specialties, of course, and some are more directly related than others. --Skyemoor 20:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That does not seem to fit the notion of weasel wording as I read it, but perhaps the term "climate scientists" is rather vague. I note that wikipedia calls it "original research" when you introduce a neologism without citing the source for it. --Blue Tie 21:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As I tried to point out in the above mentioned discussion, if you define "climate scientist" as a scientist performing research on directly climate-related topics, this means that any chemist performing research on directly climate-related topics becomes a climate scientist. But the fact is that a chemist remains a chemist and his/her scientifc knowledge remains stricly confined to chemistry. It is thus more precise to call him a chemist rather than a "climate scientist", and calling him/her a climate scientist only gives the false idea that this person is qualified to give scientific opinions about whole concepts such as global warming, which is totally misleading. No wonder why William Connolley saw "no need for a precise definition of climate scientist". --Childhood's End 13:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"Chemist" is a very general term. The norm is to use "climate scientist" about chemists working with climate. Narssarssuaq 08:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

All words are weasel words in a strict sense. They are mainly a problem in start class articles where words such as "many", "most" etc. are thrown out without any justification for it, such as "Many critics think this record is good". This article has citations for everything. Sometimes the terms used have to be more vague than at other times. I don't think weasel words are a problem in this article. Narssarssuaq 07:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Per Raymond Arritt's request above, I opened a new section.

One of the criticisms of wikipedia is that articles are created and edited "piecemeal" and as a result they lose a sense of consistency and cohesiveness. In addition, the overall structure is sometimes a bit hodge-podge. This may be true here. I believe that the whole article could be improved, not so much by re-writing as by re-organizing the current content and then filling in holes or (in a few cases) deleting extraneous material or moving it to a better page. A HUGE amount of good work has gone into this already. But perhaps a reorganization would help. I have noticed in other articles that go through this process that some huge holes emerge that were previously overlooked. And a re-organizatation may be an appropriate improvement for a "top 100" article as I understand that this is.

I would see a re-organization along the lines of:

• Introduction (Summary)
• What Global Warming is (and how it comes about)
  • Factors that may produce Global Warming (The science of how it works)
    • Greenhouse gases
    • Solar Radiation
    • etc?
  • Factors that may mitigate Global Warming (The science of how it is reduced)
    • Aerosols
    • Volcanism & Disasters
    • Clouds and Albedo
    • etc?
• How Global Warming is Studied (and the history of its studies)
  • Historical Global Temperature Studies
  • The (alleged) role of civilization on Global Temperature Variation
  • Projections of Global Temperatures
• Possible effects of higher temperatures on other Climate and Environment factors
• Debates over Global Warming, forecasts and actions
  • An explanation of the difficulty in developing and interpreting evidence
  • Debates over the existance of the phenomenon
  • Debates over the role of man in the phenomenon
  • Debates over climate forecasts
  • Debates over efforts to mitigate anticipated warming

Where there are separate articles that cover these sections, they should be summarized reasonably and linked. The introduction should summarize these sections and should be written both first and then scrapped and re-written over again after everything is consolidated.

In short, rather than just revise the opening, I think that the whole article could be re-organized and then the opening re-written.

But, having said that, I have previously provided an opening that might work with the article as it is. I will reproduce my prior efforts, with any changes that seem right, below. --Blue Tie 18:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Per Raymond's request here is a potential opening. (I actually think just the first paragraph is enough and the rest should be distributed through the article). I do not think this is superior to a version that would be written after an article re-organization.

Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans of sufficient magnitude that it results in climate change. Although the concept had been studied since the mid 1800's the term "Global Warming" was coined in the mid to late 1970's and most of the research dates from that time forward. That research produced observations of recent, rapid warming and forecasts a significant continuation of this temperature rise for at least a century. Along with the forecasts, researchers have produced warnings regarding environmental and climate change but the findings and warnings are also a matter of dispute among scientists and politicians.

Global average air temperature near Earth's surface rose 0.74

Wrong on so many counts. You have the wrong Cox; and anyway Cox and Liepert doubt none of the IPCC findings; the aerosols/albedo point is confused to the point of meaninglessness; "results in climate change" is stupid: it *is* climate change. You appear to have dropped you concerns over sourcing (thankfully). The original version before you sstarted meddling was better William M. Connolley 19:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Could be that the details are wrong. It was a proposal. But the comments about "results in climate change" is from objective sources on the meaning of the term "global warming", so your issue may be with them more than with me. Would you like quotes? I have not dropped any concerns over sourcing. Sources continue to be critical to wikipedia and if that is something you do not like your preferences are contrary to the wikipedia standards. I am sorry but I disagree with your assessment of the "original version", it was not better, it was worse. As for your meddling comment, one last time I will request that you refrain from personal attacks. --Blue Tie 19:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh good, I do hope it *is* the last time. If you haven't dropped sourcing concerns, why are sources for your pet defn of GW absent? For the 1800's claims? For... so much of the rest of this nonsense. And... totally misrepresenting Cox/Liepert is hardly a detail - it just shows you don't know what you are talking about William M. Connolley 20:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope it is the last time too. But you seem to insist on being uncivil. I do not know why.

The sources are absent because I was being quick. It was just a proposal for discussion, not a full solution. I did not mean to misrepresent someone, I was trying to incorporate some other person's comments that I saw somewhere in the discussion. Once more: This was a proposal not a solution. It was for discussion and change, not for incorporation. My goal was to address the problems with NPOV.

One of the cool/annoying things about wikipedia is that it is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. It does not require you to know much about a subject. Instead you must be able to reference it and put things forward in an NPOV way. This is particularly difficult for people like you who do know things. You have to put up with those who don't know as much as you -- and the rules of wikipedia do not completely favor your personal knowledge. In fact, often when someone knows a great deal, they are not able to be objective and then problems with original sources and npov really start to kick in. I understand that. I am sympathetic. But wikipedia still requires adequate sourcing and npov, even when that is annoying. --Blue Tie 20:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The first process of challenge should be to the featured article status. Posting a nomination to check POV makes no sense to a featured article which has a higher standard of integrity to it. Therefore this POV tag tag should go.--BozMo talk 21:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I am unaware of any such "process". I do not believe it is right. Can you cite a reference or wikipedia guideline supporting your position? (This unsigned comment was added by Blue Tie)

The only way a POV tag can be removed is if the article has been modified to meet Wikipedia standards. As it stands right now there are a number of issues with the article and, as soon as one of us corrects the problems, another edit warrer comes along and reverts the page to a version that blatantly violates

WP:OR by introducing statements and adjectives without any reference to back them up. --Tjsynkral

22:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This is such an obvious issue. The article is clearly not meeting NPOV, and anyone coming to the article should be warned about it. The closest that can be said is that some people think it clearly reflects their own views - and that because only their view is right it reflects all the "right" views!

Mike

16:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

We have to be careful that political or popular opinions are not confused with scientific opinions. The latter is all we are concerned with in this article. --Skyemoor 16:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ms. Kim's latest edit is blatant POV pushing, and flies in the face of

I disagree. If there are trivial to check facts then you don't need sources at all. This is how wikipedia functons on practice in case of science articles. Count Iblis 22:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Iblis, I'm going to have to ask that you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy. Saying "most" and "few" is not trivial. Your subjective opinion matters little here. Read up on

verifiability again. If it lacks sources (that is, not using Wikipedia as a source), and it questioned, the burden is on the editor who wishes to have it included. (Jimbo, of course, would argue it merits deletion on the spot.) Your backwards reasoning doesn't work well here. ~ UBeR

23:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I know about wiki policies, but some are not applicable to scientific articles, at least not if you take them literally. We had similar discussions about scitations of facts in the article about relativity and in some other articles. We don't cite trivial derivations even though they may be non trivial to lay persons. In this case the word "few" doesn't need a citation per se, because unlike what you claim, it is a trivial fact. In the relativity article we just removed all the "citation needed" tags without giving the requested citations. Count Iblis 23:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Read my above comment again. ~ UBeR 23:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't work that way. You can't just selectively use tags to hold an article hostage. If you belong to a minority of editors that disagree then your edits will simply be reverted regardless of what the relevant wiki policies in your interpretation may be saying. Of course, the majority of the editors are not unreasonble, so there is no real conflict with the wiki rules at all, just with your interpretation of them. Count Iblis 17:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with UBer's analysis of Kim's edits. I would revert to the last edit prior to her changes but I believe I may be hitting 3RR. I encourage any user who agrees that these edits violate Wiki policies please revert Kim's edits. --Tjsynkral 23:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Kim's edits to solar variation in intro

Kim's latest edit to the intro on solar variation shows

There is a difference between prior to 1950 and since 1950. Scafetta and West[12] say that "We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45–50% of the 1900–2000 global warming, and 25–35% of the 1980–2000 global warming." - notice the falling contribution. --Kim D. Petersen 23:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. Falling ≠ cooling. It means less warming than previous. This is precisely why the SPM never states solar variation has caused cooling since 1950. And if you actually read carefully, what you reverted said "till" not "since." The previous version was correct, per the SPM, and even understated per the literature. ~ UBeR 23:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The percentage wasn't stated in the SPM because SA and China protested the phrase that described the solar influence as less than 20% (see this month's SciAm). Skyemoor 01:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please differentiate between a section describing only solar - and a section describing Other phenomena such as solar variation and volcanoes --Kim D. Petersen 23:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Note btw. that Scafetta&West do not "calculate 65-75% of the 1900–1980 global warming has a solar origin." at all - neither in the 400 year paper[13] - nor in the last century paper.[14] - the 65-75% figure is no where to be found in either paper - nor in a following reply [15] --Kim D. Petersen

Sorry for that, I unfortunately was using Lindzen from that I think. Of course, I meant "likely contributed approximately 75% of the 1900–1950 global warming but only 25–35% of the 1980–2000 global warming." ~ UBeR 23:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This page has been protected due to the ongoing edit war. Please use this section to discuss the criteria that this page must meet to both adhere to

I'll now chime in with my thoughts on the article.

The introduction of the article renders an opinion on the amount of the scientific community that supports human-caused global warming, and the amount in dissent. Words such as "numerous" and "few" strongly imply a large number for the former and a small number for the latter. If this is true, the use of these words needs to be followed immediately by a supporting reference per

Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change or Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

is evidence of such. Not so - these WP articles are not a scientific amassing of all scientists' opinions, so it may be that one page has had more attention paid to it than the other, and there may be many scientific opinions not mentioned on either page. (And by the way, it's also inappropriate to fork opposing scientists onto a separate page, because their opinion is as scientific as any other, but that's an issue for that particular page.) Wikipedia pages cannot be used as sources for other Wikipedia pages. You need scientific literature.

By putting such a heavy statement as "numerous" and "few" in the introduction without basis, we may be introducing a factual inaccuracy and biased POV into the article. --Tjsynkral 00:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

--

Also is the solar variation and its role on temperature up to the 1950 and 1980. Details in "Kim's latest edits" section above. ~ UBeR 00:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Tjsynkral - the climate change pages are part of a whole. This means (imho) that they are each describing subsubjects of the same issue - the only alternative to this is a sequence of monolithic pages because each is dependant on the same information. The subject of scientific opinion is described in detail (with numerous references) on the specific subpage - as for the opposing scientific view - that is described on yet another subpage. So there are either of 2 possibilities here - either we accept or correct the subpages - or we include the information as a whole in the current page. --Kim D. Petersen 00:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue here is whether we should say "numerous" and "few" without any valid sample - only citing Wikipedia pages as a reference for these hyperbole adjectives. No reliable sources have been provided to back up the notion that numerous scientists hold one view or that few scientists hold another view. I've made comments under your entry above in the Weasel Words section. --Tjsynkral 00:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The biggest problem is "few". That word cannot be legitiately supported except by Original Research without valid sources. But the word "numerous" is sufficiently nonspecific that it should also go. There have been solutions to this that do no damage to the article but these have been rejected for words that are not in harmony with WP:NPOV. --Blue Tie 00:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

numerous : indefinitely large numerically. Synonymous with "many" - which is a bad word. --Tjsynkral 00:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me how the following is not correct, or does not adhere to

scientific societies and academies of science, there are scientists who disagree about the primary causes of the observed warming." It removes subjectivity. ~ UBeR

00:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a good way of putting the statement out of any POV. But that has been rejected. --Blue Tie 00:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems like the "numerous and few camp" feels that there should be POV (despite the

Wiki policy against it. I've said numerous times that I would support this statement if it was 100% accounted for in a reliable source and the reference was included. Right now there's no substance to those words at all apart from the number of scientists who are mentioned on Wikipedia pages. --Tjsynkral

01:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is that its misleading - and thus not neutral. --Kim D. Petersen 01:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what is misleading about UBeR's version? --Tjsynkral 01:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It gives

undue weight to the scientists who disagree - we get the impression that this group is significant, and that is most certainly not the case if you check the subpages and verify the sources available there. --Kim D. Petersen

09:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. UBeR's wording gives no magnitude to either scientific opinion, so it does not give any weight to anything. It is neutral to say certain scientists feel one way and other scientists feel another, and that could easily mean a million of one and two of the other. A user can read the subpages to get an (scentifically invalid, but I digress) idea of the scientists supporting either position. --Tjsynkral 02:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you are delivering

WP:Undue_weight

to it by not being willing to weight the issue - please:

1. (as asked before) State your basis for beliving that we cannot trust the reliable sources of the various scientific academies (all the G8 ones + a lot of others) who all state that the IPCC assessment is a reliable and accurate description of a consensus + the synthesis documentation by (for instance) Oreskes (linking them as per
   Scientific opinion on climate change
   the indepth examination.

1. State your rationale for us to overemphasizing a criticism by arguably a few (unless you can find documentation that they are more than that) in comparison to the former. Remember a consensus in Science is not unanimous - but it is a majority - so by definition if the first statement is correct - the second group has to be smaller. We've also pointed out that even the starchest critic against the Oreskes study is admitting that the opposition is minor. --Kim D. Petersen 06:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The basic problem is that many of us believe "many" and "few" (or whatever words one chooses to describe the dichtomoty) are objectively correct. The IPCC consensus supports that. The dozens of scientific societies supporting the anthropogenic view of global warming support that. The Oreske study of academic literature supports that. The cited wiki articles contain many references that underpin that conclusion. To say nothing of the interactions some of us have had with practicing scientists as our colleagues. The prohibition against

weasel words contains an explicit exception "when contrasting a minority opinion". Within the scientific community, one view is the majority and the other is the minority and we should say so, and the guideline on weasel words allows us to do so. If you agree that their is an objective difference between the two groups then I don't understand the problem. If you don't agree that there is a clear distinction between the two groups, then that is the issue that needs to be discussed right now rather than the language being used. Dragons flight

01:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Great. Yes, you may use "many" or "few" or whatever you would like -- so long as you have

attributable. --Tjsynkral

01:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you agree there is a majority or not? If you agree, then this is silly wikilawyering since the introduction of an article is not a sensible place to dump dozens of references in support of the consensus. If you don't agree, then please explain why not? Dragons flight 02:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've seen no satisfactory evidence either way, so I cannot form an opinion. I prefer not to use my imagination for issues involving global policy. --Tjsynkral 03:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DragonsFlight; I see no reason why we can't use "majority" in relation to the IPCC/Academies opinion and "minority" for those skeptical of AGW. Neither of those are on the weasel words list and the use of those terms is Prima Facia. Attribution is covered on the linked pages.--Skyemoor 01:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have a reference that establishes majority and minority, can I see it? --Tjsynkral 01:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I said Prima Facia. The IPCC assessments are the opinion benchmarks, and the number of academies and societies backing it up are the proof. To argue otherwise verily borders on wikilawyering. --Skyemoor 02:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean

WP:A. --Tjsynkral

02:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You've criticized me for spelling, but then you clearly misunderstand the meaning. Your continued stonewalling is nothing more than wikilawyering. --66.225.251.176 08:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a brilliant reference, but Benny Peiser thinks so[16] pro bono. As you probably know, the G8+ Academies of Science speak of "consensus" in re global warming, which implies at least a supermajority. Also, quousque tandem, Tjsynkral, and quo vadis? --Stephan Schulz 02:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The pro-AGW camp are quick to shout dirty pool when someone introduces weak and unscientific sources on the skeptic side... so your reference deserves to be treated no differently. However, any reference is better than no reference at all - include this in a citation in the problem sentence, and let the reader decide for himself if this is valid research. --Tjsynkral 03:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

See here  :) Count Iblis 02:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC) (complete reference (instead of Science abstract) --Kim D. Petersen 02:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC))

Wikilawyering or raise doubt and manufacture uncertainty? Cheers, Vsmith 02:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Vsmith, thanks for bringing out that Red Herring. Because oil companies are skeptical of certain global warming conclusions, anyone who is skeptical of global warming conclusions is clearly acting on a vested interest. Unfortunately, that is a logical fallacy, and it does not look good for others on your side of the dispute. --Tjsynkral 03:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... went fishing, got a bite :-) Vsmith 11:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" [17] Cosigned: Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Brazil), Royal Society of Canada, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Academié des Sciences (France), Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher (Germany), Indian National Science Academy, Accademia dei Lincei (Italy), Science Council of Japan, Russian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society (United Kingdom), National Academy of Sciences (United States). That covers the national science academies for the

On Oreskes: "Please note that the whole ISI data set includes just 13 abstracts (less than 2%) that *explicitly* endorse what she has called the 'consensus view.' The vast majority of abstracts do not deal with or mention anthropogenic global warming whatsoever. I also maintain that she ignored a few abstracts that explicitly reject what she calls the consensus view." ~ UBeR 03:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That is Peiser's view (please give the author when quoting). Oreske claims ~20% explicitly endorse the consensus (chapter in Climate Change, MIT Press, in press). Dragons flight 03:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

And the noteworthy thing in the same Peiser letter is: "Undoubtedly, sceptical scientists are a small minority." --Kim D. Petersen 03:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

We could of course do it like this: "While this conclusion has been endorsed by numerous ^{[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]} scientific societies and academies of science" - but the subpage link is rather more clear. --Kim D. Petersen 04:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, sorry, that still doesn't cut it. I'm going to assume that none of those citations has anything to do with what proportion of scientists share this opinion - so your modification would only be acceptable if the sentence read like "While this conclusion has been endorsed by the AMS, the IPCC, the Royal Society....." --Tjsynkral 04:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Am I right in presuming from comments you have made the only level of proof you would accept would be a poll of all relevant scientists? If not perhaps you would like to outline what level of proof you would accept. -- Michael Johnson 04:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

To be able to say "few" "most" "majority" etc. a source is needed which establishes these words, preferably with numbers and empirical data. A valid sample is critical; saying that most of the members of the IPCC agree with this view does not allow a conclusion about most of all scientists. If the magnitude of support of one view cannot be established in this way, either list the organizations or leave weasel words out and direct the reader to see the subpages. It's never okay to have weasel words in the text. --Tjsynkral 04:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Many of them say there is a scientific consensus (or similar words to the same effect) and hence would be directly relevant to the statement that a majority of scientists agree. Dragons flight 04:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but these statements are on behalf of the members and as mentioned above the statements are directly related - do you care to state why you believe that this isn't so? Preferably you will have to show how each statement is an incorrect assessment of the members opinion - for instance by linking to disagreements for each position paper and the amount of opposition that is demonstrated by these..... (your argument is getting rather silly). --Kim D. Petersen 04:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You are claiming consensus based on X Y Z A B and C agree with this view, and then making the leap that X Y Z A B and C represent the majority of the scientific community without documentation. If the latter statement is true it should be simple to prove using a reliable source. Please read the Wikipedia guidelines regarding claims of consensus in

WP:RS. --Tjsynkral

04:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry your argument using

WP:RS is invalid - as all of the above sources are considered reliable sources - and do state exactly this. (ie. its a collection of reliable sources that endorse this particular consensus). --Kim D. Petersen

04:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The IPCC has the consensus view of the IPCC, and so on. Nobody claims to have the consensus view for all scientists. --Tjsynkral 04:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The IPCC process was constructed to determine the consensus of the scientific community. And the scientific community, as represented by the most respected organizations, has endorsed their conclusions. It is the consensus of the scientific community as a whole. Dragons flight 05:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC) P.S. In case I was at all ambiguous, it is routinely claimed that the IPCC represents the consensus of the community as a whole. As for example, the national academies do. Dragons flight 05:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

We've shown that even the skeptics admit that there is a majority consensus; to attempt to withhold the use of "majority" or "established" is simply obdurately wikilawyering. --66.225.251.176 08:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Cite please, showing how the IPCC was organized by scientists to create scientific consensus rather than by politicians to create advice for those politicians. --Blue Tie 05:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC) PS. The consensus mentioned by the national academies seems to be specific to the claim that human activity had an impact on global warming. I am not sure that this is the same thing as a full claim that the whole IPCC study and all conclusions and results are agreed to as a consensus. But I get the impression that this is the halo effect that is sought. --Blue Tie 05:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Cite the need to provide proof that the IPCC was organized by scientists in order to use it as a reference for the scientific consensus. --Skyemoor 09:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The IPCC's self-proclaimed role is "to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."^[16] So much for the possibility of natural causes eh? --Childhood's End 13:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You are | begging the question. --Skyemoor 14:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Begging the question is not logically incorrect when the question raised ought to be addressed... Besides, the list of sophisms used by the climate change cartel is pretty long and I would be pleased to discuss it with you. --Childhood's End 14:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll slightly restate the question, then, since you seem to have misattributed it; Can you cite the need/requirement to provide proof that the IPCC was organized by scientists in order to use it as a reference for the scientific consensus? No is a perfectly valid answer. --Skyemoor 14:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to answer no but unfortunately, anything that would be presumed to be knowledge about what really happens behind the political doors of the UN would be pure fantasy. --Childhood's End 15:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You've demonstrated no need or requirement, and instead have attempted to swerve this scientific discussion into the realm of international politics, so your insistence above for a cite has no basis of support. --Skyemoor 17:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Just as a reminder, it is the idea of a consensus that should require a demonstration, not the other way around. A consensus cannot be presumed as you seem to do. If you want to use the IPCC as part of your proof of the existence of a consensus, what the IPCC is must be clearly understood. --Childhood's End 19:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with much of what you just said. That being said, because of what even the skeptics say about the consensus, I take the same stance that Bozmo does on this issue. --Skyemoor 00:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with citing the UN panel's assessment of the science. It should simply not be taken as the final word. Wikipedia has no policy which exalts UN agencies like the IPCC over any other source.

One would think that we'd be extra cautious with the

Zionism is racism - passed one year (1975), overturned a dozen or so years later (1991). Or its pronoucements on human rights: violators like Sudan

used to be criticized heavily, but were later allowed on the HRC and could vote themselves free of criticism.

Our

Summary For Policymakers, which is the part which offers an assessment of 'the science'? --Uncle Ed

13:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the political Zionism example as being pertinent to the scientific AGW topic at hand. The composition of the panel would be pertinent to for the discussion of the number of GW scientists, but anything more than that would be its own article. --Skyemoor 14:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

For several days, I've been meaning to open an account so as to edit this article. Interestingly enough, the changes I wanted to make have already been made in part. Frankly, I felt it was a disgrace that this article claimed "most scientists" blah blah. 1st of all, "most" is false and 2nd, so what about "scientists" - unless their field fo expertise is indeed climate change. I have a friend who's a soil scientist. What does he know about climate change? Nothing! Also, any assertions claiming appeals to authority must be backed up by un-biased citations. This article is a mess. Avamarie2k 04:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Provide us your rationale (or cites, if you have them) that "most" is false. --Skyemoor 11:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Negative proof. Remember, the burden is on you. ~ UBeR 18:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You made the claim that ""most" is false". Either support or let it wilt away. -- Skyemoor 17:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I am saying "false" on this page. And, if I were to put that in the article, I would cite it. However, the article did say "most" and that was not cited and even it it were, there are other problems with that as per my comments above. Avamarie2k 14:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No sorry UBeR - there is ample evidence in the consensus statements by the academies and scientific communities to deliver at least a heavy documentation for it being most. Now the time has come to show that there is an equally reliable source (or sources) shedding doubt upon this. --Kim D. Petersen 06:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the question that needs to be asked is this: just exactly how many scientists are there currently engaged in climate related study/research in the US, England, and worldwide? And of these scientists, how many have had their opinions/views/findings/research incorporated into the so-called "scientific consensus" (as it stands, a somewhat vague and meaningless term) on man-made global warming? Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me to discover that the number of scientists making up the so-called "scientific consensus" (of whom the majority are at present only anonymous individuals) are in fact but a tiny fraction of the actual number of highly credentialed scientist working in the areas of climatology and related fields. But without hard data.... In any event, I believe efforts need to be made to find and incorporate such information into the article. Doing so would undoubtedly go a long way toward helping with with, among other things, dispute resolution. And toward that end, I offer this as my small contribution; it is a table showing the Number of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers in the United States 1995 Profile (1998) (may not be much but it's all I've found thus far). Delta x 13:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Your observation that the majority of the scientists making the so-called "scientific consensus" remain anonymous to this day is important. This idea of a consensus has been built around a presumption that since there are thousands of scientists around the world, the fact that only a few of them have expressed doubt towards the

precise definition according to William Connolley). This misleading concept is in total ignorance of the fact that all the scientists writing climate-related papers (be it in chemistry, geology, physics, ...) have knowledge in only one or two scientific fields and thus cannot scientifically disprove the whole concept of global warming, which is built around dozens of research fields and climate models that these scientists know little about. To sum up, since the so-called "scientific consensus" is built from presumptions and from ignoring important nuances, it seems more and more to amount to original research. --Childhood's End

13:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There are two problems with letting this article declare that there is a "scientific consensus" on this controversial science topic:

• Science is not a matter of voting or polls. It only takes one scientist discovering one exception to a theory to "falsify" it (see falsification).
• The method of determining how many scientists (or what percent of them) agree or disagree with any particular "fact" or "hypothesis" has not been agreed upon. Do we go by signed statements, appeals and petitions; pronouncements by scientific organizations; UN assessments; opinion surveys; literature searches of journal abstracts? --Uncle Ed 13:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There are prevailing scientific opinions, however. The SPM and statements by Academies are signed statements. --Skyemoor 14:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ed, what are you suggesting is the appropriate way to gauge scientific consensus? It seems to me that any intro is going to be brief, and we can not avoid some issues associated with that brevity. There is pretty clear evidence of a scientific consensus, at least measured by some of those metrics. I have no problem being a bit shy on details when writing an intro, and leaving the details to the article which focuses on it (

Scientific opinion on climate change). --TeaDrinker

18:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There is far too much wikilawyering going on here as a cover for POV pushing. One exemplar is YOU NEED A SOURCE THAT SAYS PRECISELY WHAT THE ARTICLE IS SAYING. (No, Wikipedia articles do not count as sources.). Its not true: wiki does *not* need to precisely repeat outside sources and wiki articles *can* be used as sources for statements William M. Connolley 10:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention what looks like a fair bit of trolling (I name no names, so its not a personal attack). I am unable to work out whether some of the contributors actually doubt the things they challenge in the article or are enjoying an argument over a very prominent article. Anyway a featured article shouldn't stay protected for long. Perhaps the discussion on featured status is where all these questions should be thrown where by definition there is a wider community to take on the trolls? --BozMo talk 11:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This probably is at the heart of the issue: Should an article be required to abide by the standards of verifiability and original research or not? Some people feel that it does not have to do that. Others believe that this failure has led to problems with NPOV. It is a fundamental issue with regard to this page. I am one of those who believes that no injury is done and great benefit is done by adhering to the core values of NPOV, verifiability and reliable sources.

But I do consider it a lack of good faith to declare that people are trolls because you do not agree with their opinions. This is just inappropriate accusation and argunmentum ad hominem. And even though you do not name names, it is certainly a personal attack -- it is just a personal attack where the targets remain unnamed. I do not see how that helps the resolve the issue one bit. --Blue Tie 12:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing, by definition, would be using an article to advance one's own views - to use Wikipedia to endorse your own view's correctness. NPOV, on the other hand, means to refrain from drawing conclusions about conflicting views; to permit all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one; to refrain studiously from stating which is better; and to leave reader to form their own opinions.

I would prefer for

Global warming to adhere to NPOV. --Uncle Ed

13:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This conversation just repeats and repeats. I think the issue is one of

undue weight. There are people who disagree with all sorts of theories (evolution for example has far far more opponents amongst more credible scientists than global warming does). The article should represent the consensus respecting the overall size and importance of differing groups. FWIW Personally I doubt that things are as cut and dried as the current scientific consensus makes out (because specialist scientific judgement is always myopic; as per Y2K, and because the modelling is so complicated you could hide a herd of elephants in it) but I edit Wikipedia to reflect the consensus not my own personal views. In that regard stating impling that I "declare that people are trolls because you do not agree with their opinions" isn't accurate. I am not a climatologist, but I have enough training as a scientist to recognise roughly where the scientific consensus (rightly or wrongly) is. My judgement is that the article a month ago reflected somewhere nearer consensus but that every tiny piece of "evidence against" gets disproportionately rammed into this article by people who then get indignant about it and start claiming they want every word (even arbitrary ones) proven by outside sources. I am afraid I call a troll a troll. --BozMo talk

14:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict with BozMo along same lines) Agreed that NPOV also warns not to give [undue weight] to minority opinions, especially tiny minority opinions. --Skyemoor 14:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well said Bozmo. I agree (apart from the cut-and-dried, which it isn't) William M. Connolley 14:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

BozMo, I'm interested in why you hold that opinion about evolution ... has far far more opponents amongst more credible scientists than global warming does. And do you mean in absolute numbers, e.g., 500 people you can name? Or in percentage terms? Last poll of biologists I saw was 99.8% in favor, 0.2% opposed. That would make opponents a tiny minority.

Also, you said: The article should represent the consensus respecting the overall size and importance of differing groups What did you mean here? Where is there such a consensus? Among supporters of the Kyoto Protocol, there's virtually no opposition to AGW theory. Is this the group you had in mind, or what?

• Maybe you meant a "consensus amoung contributing editors", here at Wikipedia. If so, what do we do then? Vote? And if 80 to 85 percent agree on anything, declare that "a consensus"?
• I would be happy with a rule that said if 15 to 20% of contributors to a page dispute the "factuality" of something, then the article cannot state it as a fact. We would have to change (blank) is true to According to source A, (blank) is true. If this is what you had in mind, I would think it was a step in the right direction. --Uncle Ed 14:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ed i think that you know that Bozmo is referring to the

Kyoto protocol is rather irrelevant (and a strawman) since the consensus opinion can be used both to support and to oppose it (please see Pielke's comment on Oreskes here and the response by Oreskes in the same. --Kim D. Petersen

14:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. There are, I believe, at least 700 "verified" scientists who dispute evolution in writing. See Project Steve. Of course that's almost none until you compare it to the people who are "skeptical" (perhaps rightly) of global warming. I am prepared to be convinced that I am wrong to perceive consensus amongst scientists. I would accept any group substantially representing the scientific community: I go for peer-reviewed scientific papers on the topic but in the UK you could equally take say Fellows of the Royal Society or similar. There are very very few people on record as still disputing the basic assertion ("mankind has had a warming influence on the climate" or similar). They could all be wrong. It is not Wikipedia's job to double guess them. --BozMo talk 14:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic, but since I'm a Steve (in fact, Steve #387) I feel compelled to add that Project Steve collects Steves that explicitely support the Theory of Evolution. --Stephan Schulz 18:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

William states that Wikipedia can be used as a source. But not even the most extreme of administrators or his patrons can agree with this statement. Lest it be forgotten, Wikipedia is user edit encyclopedia. To use Wikipedia as a source is circular reasoning (begging the question). "Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation are not regarded as reliable sources. However, wikis are excellent places to locate primary and secondary sources." The problem isn't wiki-lawyering. The problem is people not adhering to the rules. The proposition is not so difficult: Find a source that clearly states what the majority of scientists think and find a source (if not the same one) that states a few scientists believe otherwise. If this source is, adherent to

--Kim Bruning 21:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is indeed wikilawyering. There are voluminous references that were transferred to their own article as this article became too wieldy (and is getting that way again). Some editors want all cites listed again back in this article, because "To use Wikipedia as a source is circular reasoning (begging the question)". Aside from the improper reference to btq, they seem to want to tie the hands of editors that simply want to reference spillover material in another article, which is wikilawyering at its finest. If additional references will also be helpful, then that is a valid request; but to limit the ability to access other information acquired through the same process, merely on another page, is using WP policy as a bludgeon, instead of a tool. --Skyemoor 00:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop using the perceived wikilawyering as an excuse to avoid the real issue. Lest some do not know, Wikipedia holds no policy on wiki-lawyering, and using it as an excuse to evade what we're talking about amounts to little more than a fallacious argument. Begging the question is presupposing the premise of a conclusion, based on the conclusion itself: We should write in Wikipedia most scientists say because Wikipedia writes most scientist say. Do you see the problem in this logic? I'll reiterate so as to make it clear as day for you: "Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation are not regarded as reliable sources." Problem is not a difficult one in reality. It only becomes one when you choose to ignore the principles Wikipedia founded on. ~ UBeR 00:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You are in effect saying that we are forbidden from using

WP:SUMMARY

:

"There is no need to repeat all specific references for the subtopics in the main 'Summary style' article: the 'Summary style' article summarizes the content of each of the subtopics, without need to give detailed references for each of them in the main article: these detailed references can be found in the subarticles. The 'Summary style' article only contains the main references that apply to that article as a whole." (emphasis added)

Linking to a more specialized article where references are provided is different from using Wikipedia as a source, which is how some insist on portraying the matter. Thus your argument has merit only if the subsidiary articles do not themselves contain references to support the question at hand. Raymond Arritt 01:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

They don't. --Tjsynkral 02:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

From WP:Wikilawyering--WikiLawyering (and the related term pettifogging) is a pejorative term that refers to certain practices frowned upon by the Wikipedia community, including:

1. Using formal legal terms when discussing Wikipedia policy;
2. Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit;
3. Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express; and
4. Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.

Skyemoor 01:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Skyemoor, I'm not sure if you noticed the large blaring template at the top proclaiming the essay was not a policy or guideline. Your attempts at polarizations and rationalization simply waste space. Arritt, I'm not sure if you were aware of this, but

WP:SUMMARY does not apply to the lead. For example, the "Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere" section is a perfectly reasonable summary style for a section, and details to the reader that "Main article: Greenhouse effect." The lead isn't applicable here. I don't know why a few of you wish to make such an ado over nothing. ~ UBeR

03:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I never claimed it was WP policy or a guideline, so stop beating your strawman. The subject of wikilawyering does carry substantial weight in RfAs, RfCs, and similar processes, so quit trying to justify its use here. "Your attempts at polarizations and rationalization simply waste space." Physician, heal thyself.

"WP:SUMMARY does not apply to the lead". Please show us where it says that in the WP:SUMMARY, without rationalization. --Skyemoor 11:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point, though I think it could be reasonably assumed you were arguing as if it held merit based off my comment prior to your post that "Wikipedia holds no policy on wiki-lawyering." In addition, it could still be reasonably assume based off your continuation to avoid the point, and rather threatening such diversions are acceptable and logical based on false premises, despite the fact that it still remains there is no rule against me explaining to you the various Wikipedia policies, if you choose to ignore them or cannot comprehend them. If you're interested in summarizing a section: "Longer sections should be spun off into their own articles and a several paragraph summary should be left in its place. Such sections are linked to the detailed article with a {{main|<name of detailed article>}} or comparable template under the section title." If you're interested for more detail: "Longer articles are split into

lead sections that are concise encyclopedic articles in their own right." I hope I've helped you. ~ UBeR

21:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's try to at least get some insight, and see where it leads us. Could some people do a pubmed (or similar) search, and get some rough figures on where the consensus lies within the scientific community? It won't be pretty, but it's a good starting point. After that, at least we'll have some kind of idea, where now we're just casting around. --Kim Bruning 03:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I fear you're asking for trouble with that approach - I suspect any such study anyone here does is going to be branded Original Research by those currently objecting (and indeed, they would have a point). We do have Studies that have been done, Oreskes, and Peiser, and both found that, at least in the case of published literature, "Undoubtedly, sceptical scientists are a small minority." (and that's a quote from Peiser!), so surely we can provide a cite for wording it as "While this conclusion has been endorsed by numerous scientific societies and academies of science, a small minority of scientists disagree about the primary causes of the observed warming." -- Leland McInnes 05:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A bit earlier in this thread, I pointed out that it would be unfair to brand such a thing Original Research. Our job is to work based on sources, and that's what this is doing. Let's get an overview of the many sources available to us. --Kim Bruning 06:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This, I fear, is where you start beating your head against a brick wall. We have such an overview of the many sources regarding endorsement of the IPCC position by "scientific societies and academies of science". The overview is

Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change, and it provides a number of references to statements of endorsement of the IPCC position by: the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States [18], the American Meteorological Society [19], and the Federal Climate Change Science Program [20]. This page was linked to as reference for the phrase "this conclusion has been endorsed by numerous scientific societies and academies of science", and this is apparently exactly what is being objected to. One of those who is complaining, when pointed to the fact that the referenced Wikipedia page contains all the required references, simply responded "They don't" [21]. -- Leland McInnes

07:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I can think of a number situations where quoting a different wikipedia page is valid, while sticking to the spirit of

reliable sources

. (This list need not be exhaustive)

1. It's only a minor point, everyone already knows it by heart, no one really cares anyway, but having some source is still nice for people who want to read further, or who are less well versed in the topic. real life example: Quoting [[Amino acid]] in a bioinformatics paper probably won't raise many eyebrows.
2. The page is part of a set of pages about the same topic, and they cross-reference each other heavily to reduce duplication of effort.
3. The references on said page are solid, and we're really referring to that set of references

Based solely on what you're telling me, I would think that 2 and 3 apply here. Though could we hear from someone who did indeed oppose that particular reference? Perhaps I'm missing something important? --Kim Bruning 15:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm seriously considering a FAR request on this one. Not only has there been an eternal discussion about giving this article a POV tag, it has now actually been identified as containing weasel words and has even been protected over a dispute. In my outsider opinion, this is blatantly incompatible with the FA criteria of neutrality and stability. Any other views on this? Nick Mks 12:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think another wider discussion would help to put to bed some of the POV claims and trolling which keep reappearing: at any rate an FAR should have been done before flags were put on what was until very recently a very balanced article. "identified as containing weasel words" though is a bit of an overstatement: putting this flag onto the article was one of the things which was part of an edit war of some kind. --BozMo talk 13:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see a review. I have been working on this article for around five years, but I verev dreamed it was good enough to be featured. It has neutrality problems and uses vague terminology.

• It takes sides on numerous points on which scientists are in disagreement
• It fails to clarify the several different uses of "global warming". --Uncle Ed 13:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Since I read no negative advice (apart from the assertion that the weasel word tag is perhaps unilateral), I have officially filed for FAR. Nick Mks 17:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have read an accusation that I did 5rr. To be honest, I am unaware of violations of the 3rr rule, but if I did that, it was wrong and unfair to others. It is possible that a lack of good understanding of the rule may have contributed to my error. I have not deeply studied it, I do not typically review it to accuse others and thus, and I have never run afoul of it before. So, I may not have it well entrenched in my mind. However, I tried to avoid reverting the same passage or subject more than twice. Perhaps I lost count. In any case, if I did conduct myself badly in that regard (and some people are sure I did so particularly to them):

I apologize to all for such bad behavior

in advance prior to being blocked for some period. --Blue Tie 12:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Blue Tie, Thank you, that's fine. You should read

WP:3RR for reference, and try not to revert the same article repeatedly at all (which is edit warring) certainly no more than 3 times in 24 hours. As it happens the "block" rule exists to protect articles not as a vengence or anything so once the article was protected you got off without a block. --BozMo talk

13:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have apologized to each person that I may have injured individually. I am taking myself out of editing for 24 hours from the time it was reported, because I do not want it to be a matter of a technicality. But I also sinned ignorantly. I had read 3rr some time ago, but it has changed and is clearer now. Gotta run --Blue Tie 14:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to add more fat to the fire, but I have just one question. Is it possible to add a section for "Arguments against global warming"? it would give a valid outlet to many skeptics here, and also for many of the extended discussions on this talk page. Does that sound good to people here? --Sm8900 14:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This still raises problems with

Global Warming controversy which maps out the debate and is linked too. --BozMo talk

15:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a bad idea. ~ UBeR 19:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Uber. I appreciate your feedback. However, sorry, but I thought you were a global warming skeptic? I'm not trying to be a smart-aleck here, just actually curious. Do you oppose that section on formatting grounds, or because of something else? thanks. --Sm8900 20:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please explain why Undue weight would apply in this case. Are we saying, on such a controversial topic, that to give the many views which dispute Global warming would be undue weight? Who decided Global warming as described by scientists, who say themselves they are only 90% sure, is THE VIEW, and all others are peripheral? Judgesurreal777 21:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Would there be any requirement that the arguments against be published in an academic journal, or would an off-the-cuff remark on a TV show or newspaper editorial suffice? Raymond Arritt 21:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight would apply because of the dearth of a significant minority of climate scientists opposing AGW. Perhaps you would want to visit Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Political or PR controversy is not the same as scientific controversy. -- Skyemoor 00:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

See here. And even this article does not give too much undue weight on the minority view.

Quote from the article:

"The scientific theory is widely accepted within the scientific community[2]. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are skeptical of the theorists, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory.

[2] http://www.ipcc.ch/ "

Count Iblis 17:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, why don't you join http://uncyclopedia.org/? ~ UBeR 19:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with UBeR on their equivalence. --Skyemoor 01:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

One of them is silly and not to be taken seriously; the other is worth reading. I won't say which is which. Raymond Arritt 02:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not stay on wikipedia and make it better?--Blue Tie 11:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well... alternatively perhaps you will make it worse? There certainly is a problem with POV critics who rather than trying to turn Wikipedia into conservapedia could go there. It may be better for people who do not want to live in a world where "nature cannot be fooled" --BozMo talk 11:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of POV, you're actually pretty good at showing yours... --Childhood's End 13:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Which is that "nature cannot be fooled"? Yes, I am. --BozMo talk 13:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, or you might make it worse. But such statements are not in harmony with the wikipedia principles of civility. This is the encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit. There are people who have legitimately left the project over that fact. I understand their concerns. But it is a sort of hypocrisy to tell others to leave when it is you who has a problem with the fundamental nature of the forum. --Blue Tie 13:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

All media is already split and partisan. Wiki's are no different then the rest of the media. I forsee a time where we Conservatives will give up on the braindead Socialists and migrate to conservapedia, just like there is a CNN and a FOX news channel. We can only take so much of being lied to. Bold faced lies, I don't know how you Socialists sleep at night, how do you sleep at night? How in the heck do you sleep at night, lying constantly, 24/7.

"What are we going to do about Global Warming, since there is a Consensus." Two lies in one sentence, how efficient and compact. Lie 1) There is a consensus. Lie 2) The globe is warming. How do you know the globe is warming? Does anyone know the total thermal+chemical+kinetic energy the core+magma+mantle+ocean+whispy atmosphere have? The Earth doesn't just consist of the whispy atmosphere, it includes all of those elements of core+magma+mantle+ocean+atmosphere, including the not-so vacuume space. Lies. Two lies in one sentence. How much more can we take?70.176.5.79 16:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

There is plenty of consensus, as attested e.g. by all major academises of science. Additionally, the latest IPCC report has been accepted by all gouvernments of the world, including such socialist favourites like the US, Switzerland, amd Saudi Arabia. And your second "point" is a trival strawman. Read any definition of "global warming" - it is not remotely the same as "the whole globe is warming". --Stephan Schulz 16:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm really glad I have a degree in science and can actually go and check out things like global warming myself. Suprisingly, there is nothing in the temperature record to distinguish it from simple noise. That is to say, if there has been manmade global warming, then it ought to be present in the power spectrum of the temperature graph. Furthermore, it ought to be quite obvious to any serious engineers (which seems to exclude climatologists!) that temperature variability to dramatically decline with any form of proxy measure that averages the temperature over a period such as yearly tree rings! The result is that historical temperature variability will appear less via proxy measure than current accurate measures. But having said that, I can't see why the global warming evangelists should not be allowed to stay on Wikipedia - afterall all opinions, nomatter how rediculous should be documented in wikipedia so long as they have a notable source even if it is the IPCC.

Mike

17:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

All media is split and partisan? That's only something that an American could say. ;-) (aka: beware of bias!) --Kim Bruning 17:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"I have a degree in science ...there is nothing in the temperature record to distinguish it from simple noise." Interesting. What approaches did you take to determine noise thresholds? What noise threshold did you arrive at? Did you model discretely or stochastically? What series did you use? What weight did you assign to outliers? Or did you 'eyeball' it?

I saw this oasis of a thread as an attempt at levity, nothing more. Let's all take a big breath and let it out slowly. --Skyemoor 17:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 and was first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. It is the process by which emission of infrared radiation by atmospheric gases warms a planet's surface. On Earth, the major natural greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect (not including clouds); carbon dioxide, which causes 9-26%; methane, which causes 4-9%, and ozone, which causes 3-7%.

This needs citations--I assume this comes from the IPCC Puddytang 02:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 31% and 149% respectively above pre-industrial levels since 1750. If this data goes back to 1750, why does our only graph only go back to 1960? Puddytang 02:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Because near-real-time measurements that show seasonal oscillations (see the figure caption) only go back to 1957. Measurements before then did not resolve seasonal fluctuations. Raymond Arritt 02:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

propose that solar forcing accounts for 16% or 36% of recent greenhouse warming.[27]

The use of the word greenhouse here is obviously a mistake. Puddytang 02:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Good catch! Remember that when the article is unprotected. Raymond Arritt 02:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No, its correct - see the reference. It doesn't need cites because those are in the GHE article William M. Connolley 09:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see its in Stott&Co, but what do they mean? Do they say GH warming is X, and solar is an extra 16% to 36% of X? That would make solar smaller (at most it contributes abour 25% to the combined warming). Or did they confuse the terms and solaar is 15% to 36% of the combined warming? The second is what most people so far have assumed... --Stephan Schulz 09:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

They claculate the warming from various forcings. Solar is then 16-whatever of the pure GHG warming; the pure GHG warming is larger than the observed warming William M. Connolley 10:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Greenhouse may be "correct" as the way used in the reference, but it could be restated for clarity to the novice - perhaps: recent warming due to the greenhouse effect. Those not used to the jargon need clarification. As for the uncertainties in meaning pointed out by Stephan - that possible confusion is more important and may need further clarification in the article. Vsmith 10:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The words "many", "few", "most" are words that provide weight to associated claims and phrases. But they have problems of verifiablity, original research and POV.

The word "many" is too vague to be verifiable. To one person, "many" may be "three". To another it may be "three thousand". To yet another it may be "Over 20%". This makes a claim that "many have done X" unverifiable.

The word "few" is even worse. Not only is it vague and thus unverifiable but it also requires hidden, unreported original research. It requires that we somehow have defined, numerically, what few is, but we keep that secret. Then we insist that some sample we have taken represents the population as a whole without good reason, or worse we assume that our sample actually IS the population! For example, we may read 15 studies that support the use of weasel words in articles and 4 studies that denounce weasel words in articles. We might then say "Many studies support the use of weasel words in articles but a few do not". However we have confused our sampling with fact and we are making an unverified and unsubstantiated statement. Perhaps there are 100 more studies that denounce weasel words, yet we only found 4. (Or perhaps, as a POV pusher, we pretended to only find 4). Our conclusion that there are "few" is absolutely dependant upon our original research that there are only 19 articles on the subject and that 4 out of 19 constitutes "few".

The word "most" is perhaps the least weasely of the list. After all, it must be at least more than half but less than 100% so there is at least that much quantification. But that is still a large and vague area and is still unacceptable. That is why it is rejected on

But if we don't use such descriptors, wikipedia quality may suffer. The concern is, that without some sort of weighting, the "truth" is miscommunicated and the article becomes misleading. This is at the heart and core of the "undue weight" concerns, and it is valid. For example, we might say "There are scientists who claim that water is very wet and there are scientists who dispute that claim". This statement avoids the use of weasel words and it can be verified by a citation to a poll. So on its surface, it appears to be in harmony with wikipedia principles. But that edit also hides the "truth" of the matter: The poll showed 4 million scientists on one side of the issue and 2 men and a boy on the other side of the issue.

This gives rise to questions of "undue weight" and wikipedia is clear that undue weight should not be ascribed to minority views. Of course, this leads to questions about "how much is too much weight". But before we can get to that question, or before we even to begin to determine that undue weight is being given to a minority view, we must establish that one view is, indeed, a minority view. This requires original research, which wikipedia rejects. That one view is the minority view may need to be established through citations to some reasonable polling by an objective, third party source.

To all of this, some would say "Nevermind all that wikilawyering, its a red herring -- this is about the truth".

Unfortunately for that view, wikipedia content is not supported on the basis of it being the "truth". It is supportedy by verifiability. This is a very challenging problem for those who know the "truth". It is painful to see truth compromised on the pyre of verifiability. But that is how wikipedia works. That is how it can be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. And it is a key component to NPOV. Verifiability is fundamental to the nature of wikipedia.

Solutions

So far, I can only find a 4 solutions to this dilemma. Here they are, listed in order of what I consider to be worst to best solution. Perhaps others may add more.

Ignore the weight

"There is a debate over the wetness of water"

"There are scientists with published papers demonstrating that water is wet. Other scientists have published papers describing it as dry and gritty".

Some scientists content that at some temperatures ice is dry!

Mike

16:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you expect from a socialist organization? The truth? Honesty? Facts? The United Nations is an international socialist organization, duh. Read their 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights'. Rights from a Socialist, poo, absolutely worthless. Even the paper it is written on is less valuable then when it was blank.

This is a discussion forum on a scientific subject for an encyclopedia; if you want to be taken seriously, please cite scientific references so that we can examine them for merit and possible content inclusion. --

Mike

16:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible solution

How's this as a proposed new section? [this is only sample text, not the actual listings.

'Current positions

NOAA

- issued report dated ____ stating global warming is manmade.

IPCC

- Major UN Group, stated that global arming is "likely manmade."

EPA

issued report dated___ that warming is manmade.

Freedom Foundation - issued statement that global warming is a natural cycle, dated ____/

what do people think? see you. --Sm8900 19:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, no. ~ UBeR 21:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion/votes please

This is a featured article and has been protected too long. I suggest the overarching NPOV discussion is sent to the FAR review to get an outcome from a wider audience. The protecting admin hasn't started a debate on what the other outstanding issues are so I will. Assuming the issue is weasel words (which is implied by the edit summary), I propose to have a straw poll and if the results look reasonable I will unblock the page starting with whatever the outcome is (and hope people respect it while we discuss further). I also won't vote myself so anyone who suspects me of whatever bias can be assured that at least by having me organise it one vote aginst them is removed. I don't want a flagged page (I think we should move down the pecking order one step at a time and a featured article first gets unfeatured before any other demotions). However, I don't want to prejudice the debate by choosing the options, so I invite User:UBeR to fill in option 2. PLEASE COULD EVERYONE WHO VOTES (once UBeR has filled in his choice) try to choose the best version for Wikipedia and not get pulled down partisan lines.--BozMo talk 14:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

SEE BELOW FOR VOTE.

Other discussion

# Neither (assuming we are talking about the lede). The first option is missing a key point: AGW is also ongoing, not just predicted in the future. On the second, I don't know which one would be selected, so I can't accede or refrain from it. --Skyemoor 15:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer an earlire version, essentially one pre the current edit war, where DF updated the intro. Specifically, this version. Can we sort out a version before beginning voting? Skyemoor, would that one be OK by you? William M. Connolley 15:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I accept this new version as the option 1, unless anyone disagrees. --BozMo talk 15:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine by me, though we still need work on 'numerous' and 'few'. --Skyemoor 15:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE DON'T VOTE UNTIL OPTION 2 IS SPECIFIED> I WON'T CLOSE FOR 24 HOURS after that point. --BozMo talk 15:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep protected until there is sensible discussion I was overjoyed to see that finally someone have locked the article to prevent the removal of the NPOV tag which was the very first step in bringing back some neutrality. Whoever did it - Well Done!. I believe the only approach which will work is to create a disambiguation page with links to many different pages both in favour and against the various ideas on greenhouse warming. Possibly the articles need to be as basic as "case for the IPPCC view on global warming" "Case against the IPCC view", "Case for solar variation", etc. etc. Each with a very tight remit so that it is impossible for the "other side" to delete evidence put forward by notable sources on some pretext such as "only climatologists have the insight to understand this issue"! What I'm saying is that on such a contentious range of issues, it is impossible to have one balanced article, and that the real need is to have balance within wikipedia by ensuring all points of views receive adequate coverage.

Mike

16:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

ARTICLES are not protected to keep a particular version. They are protected to stop edit warring. As soon as this war is resolved the protect will come off. --

POV Forking, and is strongly discouraged. --Kim Bruning

16:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Should the current

POV Forking that exists in the way of the Global Warming Controversy pages be melded in to this then?--Zeeboid 17:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Protect a bit longer. Instead of debating content forking, create a "Global Climate" Project or perhaps a "Global Climate Change" project, with a Project navigation box and so forth. I think one article could be a master article linking to all the others. --Blue Tie