![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
It appears Lord Monckton may have rushed into print too early. Since William said he was waiting for my rebuttal, I decided to post a few thoughts even though I have not completed a thorough analysis. Here are the facts as I see them:
1. The 4AR SPM is a political document not based on the science. This is seen first in the reasons given by Christopher Landsea on why he resigned from the IPCC. [1] [2] It is also seen in the fact the science document is not being released until it conforms to the SPM, written by and for policymakers.
2. In several places, the 4AR SPM does exactly what Landsea was afraid of – it changes the science. Here are some examples:
3. The 4AR SPM makes no mention of the report by Bratcher and Giese of a possible shift in climate change regime to pre-1976 conditions. [8] The oceans have cooled since 2003 and surface air temps were lower than expected in 2006. Both of these facts are consistent with the observations and prediction of B+G and were completely ignored by the IPCC.
4. The 4AR SPM pretends the oceans are warming when in the fact the oceans have been cooling since 2003. [9] RonCram 03:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
From what I understand, this page is for the "Global Warming Controversy" not for "Debunking" it. The "Global Warming" Wiki section is pretty well set up for that. Is it too much to ask to keep the sections and the politics between those who don't agree with one side or the other out of the respective section? I have made some edits today, for example, that removed allot of the "yea, but..." junk from some areas of the "Global Warming Controversy" Wiki, because if everything has a "yea but..." on it, its not really "Controversy" is it? If this article is in deed for “Controversy” then that’s what should be here, whether or not environmentalists agree with it.-- Zeeboid 19:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
It is interesting the amount of interest that the editors on wiki seem to have on both sides of an issue. Few politically sensitive articles and their oppsoing piece are not controlled by the same group. It is often hard to tell which article is worse - they are always both pretty bad.
Actually, the place for this article is in the global warming article not as a separate article. I am horrified by the extremists - that have taken up residence on the global warming article and are pretending that they can just ignore WP:NPOV. I personally think the evidence more than supports the view that global warming is manmade, but that in no way excuses these thugs that seem to think they can just bullies others with alternative evidence and ignore basic policy Mike 13:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Zeeboid. I see the purpose of your first edit (the he said/she said style is bad and does not fit the article), the rest of your edits is controproductive. There is indeed a consensus about global warming in the scientific community (see scientific opinion on climate change and attribution of recent climate change) that has just been reinforced by the IPCC AR4 SPM release (and will be further explained in the full AR4 reports later this year). The number of scientists opposing this consensis is small - there are about 3000 scientists with input into the AR4, uncluding more than 850 authors. There are, if I count correctly, 23 people on List of scientists opposing global warming consensus, and many of these are not even climate scientists. Many others are not active scientists any more and haven't published anything relevant in many years.This is just "a few". -- Stephan Schulz 20:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The Oregon Petition does not help refute the "few scientists" because it's not, in fact, a reliable list of scientists; this is well documented. You don't necessarily need to spell out the names individually, you just need to use reliable, verifiable sources. Also note that the petition does not say global warming is not primarily caused by humans; it says there's no evidence for "catastrophic heating" caused by humans. -- Nethgirb 19:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
To quote the Oregon Petition, which it appears people are dismissing without reading: "Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist."
So, we're down to 17,800 scients who have been independently verified to not agree with Human Caused Global Warming. Is that enough to support the edits to the article I made earlier changing "A Few scients don't agree" to "many scients don't agree" ammong other changes? Also, Did you Raymond Arritt, actual read the Oregon Petition? Because I have read much of the IPCC.-- Zeeboid 20:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
After your edits, the The neutrality of this article is disputed. It is quite clear that there is only one side that many here wish to view, even though in Science, the deffinition of what IS ACTUAL science is something that stands up to open dispute. The edit history on a page set up for the Global warming controversy shows that an open dispute of the topic is far from what is going on.--
Zeeboid
21:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Exxon Secrets.org? Democracy Now.org? Mother Jones.com? MonBiot.com? Sheldon Rampton's World? -- Zeeboid 22:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Connolley reverted edits with no explanation. I put my edits back and would like to remind Connolley of a few things regarding reverts. From the Revert policies and guidelines.
"Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously."
Cannot say if this was done or not, but in light of the following items you can draw your own conclusions.
"Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism."
The edits that were reverted were not in any manner able to be construed as vandalism.
"If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it."
As I mentioned, there was no summary explanation and if an explanation of the revert was made in the talk page then I missed it as it was NOT its own subject and would have been buried somewhere else.
"If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it."
This is pretty self-explanatory. The revert was done to remove content that, prima facia, opposes the views of ONE side of the discussion on this page. Nothing more than that.
Let us review some more from the Wikipedia policies and guidelines about revert wars (which, basically are
Revert wars are usually considered harmful for the following reasons: 1. They disrespect the work of the contributor. Being reverted can feel a bit like a slap in the face: "I worked hard on those edits, and someone just rolled it all back" 2. They cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles 3. They make the page history less useful, waste space in the database 4. They make it hard for other people to contribute, and flood recent changes and watchlists Editors are discouraged to revert because there is disagreement, or the edit is bad or problematic. Users are encourage to explore alternate methods like raising the objections on a talk page, or following the processes in dispute resolution.
Someone that is a member of the " Harmonious Editing Club should know better.
However, this is not an isolated incident. Just going through talk pages one will notice [ pattern] that [ [12]] to develop.
[ reading]. -- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 21:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I will ask this only one time...and I'm looking for answers from each of you.
User:Raymond_arritt, User:BozMo and User:William_M._Connolley:
1. Explain why you reverted the edits (essentially deleting them) as oppossed to improving them?
2. What policy was violated to cause you to justify reverting?
3. What other avenues of correction/improving did you take before reverting?
The reverts I am referencing are:
-- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 22:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
As set forth earlier today, text based on sources that are not "scientific" should be deleted. Here is the first part of a list of text that qualifies and should be deleted immediately. Reasons for the deletions are provided (in greater detail than previously provided).
That is just the tip of the iceberg.
Understand that I am presenting the content that fits your criteria. You have subjectively applied some rationalizations for deleting/censoring content and using the same standards I compiled this first list of qualifying content for removal. The only question is which standard do you choose to be applied EQUALLY and without splitting hairs: delete content that is questionable, poorly written, etc OR fix the content? Do we restore the content you DELETED or do we remove these texts of equal qualifications? Just as you dismiss outright the validity of my sources, the validity of these sources is also equally disqualified. -- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 04:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I've removed this section added by Mnyakko. It starts out with baseless accustations by Jim "Global Warming is the greatest Hoax" Inhofe, ends with a similiar one from James Spann (best known for the weather channel fight he is involved in), and the middle two paragraphs contain raw research dollar figure for research by "global warming theorists" (in other words, everyone but the tiny minority that are the skeptics) - meaningless given the group size. Raul654 05:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes indeed, apparently Bush is very keen on pro-GWT research. How anyone believes that is beyond me. But this is a common skeptic canard. Most (all?) of the research money is distributed n scientific merit (apart from pork like bridge-building in Alsaka, of course) William M. Connolley 16:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Interesting article in Human Events, a conservative weekly publication that has been around for decades. [14] I guess it should not have been news to me that Gore was such a poor science student in college, but it was. According to one observer, now even the NY Times is telling Al Gore to "cool his jets." [15] RonCram 14:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
If the NYT has information as to why Gore should back off a bit it could become the article.
Do article abstracts say things like, "This article affirms/denies the theory of anthropogenic global warming?"
Or is it more like, "We examine the relationship of cosmic rays to cloud formation, and the consequent effects on global average air temperature. Changes in the sun's magnetism are found to affect the amount of sunshine which reaches the earth's surface."
Would the latter be counted as one of 928 abstracts not contradicting the GW consensus? -- Uncle Ed 14:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I just thought of something. All the advocates on one side or another seem to be either "groups" or "indidivuals". Is it just me, or do the groups tend to be warmers and the individuals skeptics?
I can't think of more than a handful of individual scientists supporting GW theory, but there seem to be dozens of skeptics. And only a couple of small organizations oppose GWT, while the big (gov't-linked) orgs seem overwhelmingly for it.
Is it money, or power over money? Does ideology drive politicians to provide funding?
Are individuals, especially retired scientists, merely people with nothing to lose? -- Uncle Ed 16:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not doing that, Ellen Goodman of the Boston Globe is.
My only extrapolation was to link libs & dems, cons & reps.
But which came first, the chicken or the egg? Are cons biased, and is "most S are C" proof of this?
Correlation is not causation, which reminds me: how are we doing on our writing about the causal link between CO2 levels and air temp? Are there any proxy records showing that one tends to follow the other, or do they both rise and fall together? -- Uncle Ed 17:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
"...and solar variation. A 2004 study at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany concluded that "the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years" and attributed recent global climate change to this increase in solar activity"
I cannot wait to see how this gets trimmed down and altered so as to create the illusion that it is unworthy of being mentioned. Sadly, this tidbit should be in every single Global Warming article...and I know it would not last 24 hours. -- Tony of Race to the Right 18:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The section title "sun activity fallacy" perked up my interest. Increased sun activity in recent years is old information - Astronomy magazine mentioned it several years ago. Mars, Venus, etc are all getting warmer - ditto and many other sources. The testiness of the editors seems to betray a flagging confidence. If man is causing some of the current warming I doubt ( I actually saw the percent that manmade activities are supposed to contribute ( forgot where ) but it is not impressive ) that is the cause of the moon's warming up - but that seems to be the consensus of "scientists". Do these "scientists" have degrees?
And what percentage of the scientific community believed the world was flat? Numbers do not make science. It is scary what direction this country is heading when global warming theorists are among the growing list of groups who adopt a "we say so, no discussion allowed" philosophy and are trying to carry that out in legislation. -- Tony of Race to the Right 01:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
If the policy of wiki is actually "verifiability, not truth", then wiki is destined to keep on putting out a very low quality product. Much/most of the wiki history articles are worthless, except for the discussion pages. Too bad that the science articles are following the same vein - of course if you can count climatology as a science, at least in present day political conditions.
[18] User:KimDabelsteinPetersen deleted content earlier today from the "Funding of global warming theorist" section. The reason for deletion: "GEF's funding is all help to developing countries to live up to UNFCCC requirements (neither pro nor contra))" This is erroneous. Considering the nature of her nearly 300+ edits (about 95% of which are on global warming
A quick Google search of "Global Environment Facility" "global warming" turns up in the first hit a development summary for just ONE project involving GEF. Among the goals of this one project (for a mere US$7MM), "provide governments concerned with tools to assess the potential implications of climate change for their environmental and resource management policies". And the translation from poli-speak to plain English is "tell governments how the UN wants the governments to manage industry resources".
Why should this stay in the article? It would be the same standard that allows misleading comments about ties to Exxon being used in the neighboring section to discredit "opponents" without so much as an edit, much less a deletion. "[George C Marshall] Institute has received numerous large grants from ExxonMobil..."--curious how $630,000 over 7 years (avg $90,000/year) for an institute that also focuses on non-climate research such as "national defense, bioterrorism, and missile defense" Source: Exxonsecrets.org. THAT gets no challenge to date for either POV or accuracy while deleting information about Global Environment Facility and getting over $2billion for one year. What is GEF's function? "The Global Environment Facility (GEF), established in 1991, helps developing countries fund projects and programs that protect the global environment. GEF grants support projects related to biodiversity, climate change, international waters, land degradation, the ozone layer, and persistent organic pollutants." [19] That hardly seems to match with 'funding is all help to developing countries to live up to UNFCCC requirements'. Additionally, GEF is not a 'wall flower' in the global warming debate. [20] -- Tony of Race to the Right 03:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Do we delete text if the funding is not explicitly lables "global warming research" or do we leave it in the article?
This is NOT an official policy determination. It is to gauge from those who have been editing this page recently the standards that are to be applied to the page. It is also to help users understand and follow a set of standards for this article, its text and the sourcing of those texts. Discussion is open. Thank you. -- Tony of Race to the Right 17:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Do we delete text if the beneficiary does not have an explicitly stated purpose of "global warming research" or do we leave it in the article?
This is NOT an official policy determination. It is to gauge from those who have been editing this page recently the standards that are to be applied to the page. It is also to help users understand and follow a set of standards for this article, its text and the sourcing of those texts. Discussion is open. Thank you. -- Tony of Race to the Right 17:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Do we leave in text making 2nd & 3rd degree links between parties (such as "benefactor" and "beneficiary") or do we require direct links between parties?
This is NOT an official policy determination. It is to gauge from those who have been editing this page recently the standards that are to be applied to the page. It is also to help users understand and follow a set of standards for this article, its text and the sourcing of those texts. Discussion is open. Thank you. -- Tony of Race to the Right 17:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Cut from intro:
Among the governments of developed countries, there is little debate about attribution of global warming to human activities. As of December 2006, 166 states have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol, whose objective is to prevent dangerous anthropogenic climate change; and the administrations of both the United States and Australia—the only two developed nations not to have ratified the treaty—have acknowledged that global warming is anthropogenic.
There is, however, an ongoing political debate about what actions should be taken to mitigate or adapt to global warming.
For example, the Clinton administration did not submit the treaty to the Senate, after that body preemptively rejected such measures unanimously (95-0). [1] The Bush administration also has not submitted the 1997 Kyoto protocol for ratification by the U.S. Senate on the grounds that it exempts 80 percent of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and that it would damage the American economy. [2] The UK-sponsored Stern Review, commanded by Tony Blair's government in response to the House of Lords Economics Committee's report that had issued substantial scientific uncertainties about climate change, [3] concluded that "the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting." [4] In addition to economic arguments, concerns include social justice for the adversely affected including likely climate refugees, need for intergenerational equity, and loss of biodiversity.
The above implies that the pro-AGW side is correct, and in the overwhelming majority. Both these points, however, are disputed by the anti-AGW side.
It would be better to lay out the points of contention first, and to say what the various sides assert about them.
If numbers of advocates are at issue, then let's describe the dispute over the numbers. For example, the pro-AGW side says that scientists are virtually unanimous in their support of AGW theory; while the anti-AGW side says that 25% or more of climate scientists doubt or disagree with it. -- Uncle Ed 21:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
None of the above 4 statements are sourced. Why have them in an encyclopedia article. Is there some sort of rush, here? I don't want to see pro-AGW or anti-AGW stuff in the article, if it's just some contributor's opinion.
This is not a blog. We are not debating AGW here. We are contributing to an article about the debate. If we can't remember where we read or heard something, why put it in the body of the article? -- Uncle Ed 21:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
User:Raymond arritt has cemented the standard of this article. "Partisan sources" are absolutely not allowed. That includes Mother Jones, btw. And details about members of the debate are also not to be included (though typical of his POV edits, there is not any explanation). Additionally, the biased editors do NOT discuss these changes beforehand as common courtesy would dictate. I accept their standard and have made changes using the standards in practice. If this double standard continues and the obvious and blatant one-sidedness of reverts and content deletion continues then other steps will have to explored to remedy this continuing problem. -- Tony of Race to the Right 03:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC) [edit]--I should say that I am disappointed in the standards chosen, but accept them and shall carry them out. If you don't like them blame Connelly, arritt, et al. -- Tony of Race to the Right 03:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
To quote Kim: "We actually do check the references here." and "the source didn't show/say/support the claim of the text"
Perhaps you should recheck (or even actually check) the sources you deleted. You deleted "In 1996 Global Environment Facility's quarterly report showed over $2 billion in research funding and donations." and 2 sources ( http://www.gefweb.org/COUNCIL/GEF_C10/arintro.pdf and <nowiki>http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54074).</nowiki> On page 23 of the pdf file on the GEF website was the pledge page which states, "Contributions to the First GEF Replenishment (US$ millions)" and "Total Pledges 2,030.2". $2,030.2 in "US$ million" is $2.030 billion. That is the first source you deleted and it understates what was in the second source. The understating is not surprising since the GEF's report was on a shorter timeframe than the second source was referring to. However, the second source said
"global warming is an industry. In 1996, at the same U.N. meeting at which the Second Assessment Report was released, Mohamed T. El-Ashry, chief executive officer and chairman of the Global Environment Facility, released its quarterly report. He told the delegates that his agency had leveraged $462.3 million into $3.2 billion in climate change projects. And that was just the beginning."
So far we have the 2nd source being deleted by William M. Connolley at 22:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC) because "[it] is hopelessly biased. Rants about scientists being pressurised into silence are far too common, and always badly sourced" even though the source was not being cited for the silencing of GW skeptics. I add additionally sourcing 'from the horse's mouth' and you ( Kim D. Petersen delete the text and both sources claiming neither source supported the text (remember, the text stating GEF rec'd over $2MM in funding & donations).
So please explain again why you deleted the text?
The third source and its text were also deleted by you. The text was "Global Environment Facility assists developing countries with environmental programs and local sustainable development projects, some of which are related to climate change." and the source was GEF...basically the first paragraph on the page. (Again, you said the source didn't show/say/support the text and we (imply you included) actually do check the references here." 100% of the references you deleted with that reasoning were nearly directly quoted in the text you also deleted. I am incredibly curious to know the thought process (and what you actually read in any of the 3 sources). Now the inclusion of this third source may seem odd, but that is because the funding info was previously deleted by you (edit #107865385) with the reasoning of "GEF's funding is all help to developing countries to live up to UNFCCC requirements (neither pro nor contra)" Clearly, GEF's own stated purpose is directly contradicting your claim, so in re-inserting relevant funding information I also added the source and text to address your previous deletion. The source, btw, GEF's What is the GEF webpage. So, please, again, since I am not a smart person, explain this to me again. Why did you delete all of the texts that you have? And if you are feeling bold could you please enlighten us all why you are not deleting text that is actually not supported by its citations which happen to be pro-GW? This is a recurring pattern with you specifically and nearly all of the editors on this article.
Finally, Kim wrote: "Oh and btw. you may want to check what "environmental and resource management policies" entail - if this is support to a local government in adhering to requirements that are put down by international treaties - then its neither pro- nor contra."
Kim, that implies that there must be a direct link between the funding and the research and the entity presenting a position. Review some of the pulp that has been allowed to exist on this article that use links to tobacco as discrediting someone for their GW positions, playing 6-degrees of seperation to diminish their positions...I noticed you did not delete any of those poorly linked benefactor-beneficiary passages but jumped all over this one (seriously--less than 12 hours to delete the contr-GW text. So, why did you delete all of these things? while leaving identically problematic passages in the article which support your POV? -- Tony of Race to the Right 07:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Vincent Gray is a long-time reviewer of IPCC reports. He has published a critique of the AR4 SPM that has been accepted for publication in "Energy and Environment" and is available online. [28] I would suggest anyone interested in this controversy read Dr. Gray's critique. He says: "I will therefore confine these comments to the aspects of the “2007 Summary for Policymakers” which I find the most distasteful. They come under the headings of unreliable data, inadequate statistical treatment and gross exaggeration of model capacity." Enjoy! RonCram 18:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Tony, I apologize. I thought the wikipedia article on Vincent Gray was on the climate scientist. I see now that it is not. That should be remedied as Dr. Gray deserves his own article. Dr. Gray earned his Ph.D. in Chemistry at Cambridge University and published more than 100 scientfic papers in several different fields, including climate science, environment, sociobiology and theoretical biology. This paper has a short bio on page 30. [29] Since 1990, he has been working mainly in climate science. He was until recently a visiting scholar at the Beijing Climate Centre in China. [30] You can check Google Scholar for his climate writings. [31] RonCram 22:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I fixed up the horrible section of betting on GW. Once that was done I realized that it actually has no place in this article. It is more along the lines of "trivia" and does not seem to fit the "important and interesting" criteria by Wikipedia. Additionally, it is problematic in a POV prism. It sets up the false impression that "skeptics" are not confident in their skepticism. This actually is not true, in that the bet requires a premise of warming vs cooling. The most widely held view held by the skeptics is, in a nutshell, that man is either not the cause of, or an insignificant factor in the warming. The source for the section perpetuates this misleading facade (no surprise from that source, is typical and should always be treated with a skeptical eye). -- Tony of Race to the Right 20:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I have an idea but am not sure how to implement it.
I think it would be very helpful to readers and editors if the academic credentials for each person listed was provided. There is little room for POV complaints/actions regarding someone's level of degree and field of study. This would also go a long way to eliminating POV problems regarding who is/is not credible, etc.
I agree that the article will get cluttered with the information. So, if someone know how to make a "Academic Credentials" section similar to the Notes and References sections then we can simply put the information there. Then we can also put the year & institution for each degree.
If needed, we could create a template for the in text tag so it would be something like:
...and the in text result would be something like:
...and the Credentials section output would be something like:
Help would be appreciated.
Thanks. -- Tony of Race to the Right 20:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
If we had a section about how many people that graduate with a degree in climate-related majors keep whatever funding or grants they get aftwards if their research shows something different than the consensus view. Sln3412 06:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
-- Kim D. Petersen 09:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)As far as certain scientists who are disfavored in the grants process or in peer-reviewed publication because of their political views, I guess I’d say: prove it. I have no doubt that extra-scientific factors often play a role in the publication process and in proposal reviews. However, the nature of peer-reviewed publication and funding is so decentralized that if you can’t publish your work somewhere or get it supported, eventually, well, there must be a reason, and, hint, hint, it’s not an environmental conspiracy.
Kevin E. Trenberth has received $5.575 million ($6.804 million in constant 2005 dollars) in grant funding for the 17 projects which he was Primary Investigator. [5] [6] Projects were conducted from 1978 to the present and the funding agencies were National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation, National Center for Atmospheric Research and NASA. [7] All 17 projects were related to atmospheric observations, global water cycles, short-term climate fluctuations, climate modeling and global drought in 1988. [8]
I've cut the above from the article - it is classifiable as WP:NOR (imho). Apparently the section was created to lead support to the statements by James Spann. Please give references to external (for Wikipedia) sources for these numbers and the allegation that these are all support for a climate change "theorist" viewpoint. -- Kim D. Petersen 09:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC) More specifically (but not exclusively) i believe the section to go against:
-- Kim D. Petersen 09:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The article needs a section on the inadequacies of climate models. We could use sources like Gray's critique of the AR4 SPM [36] and news articles like "Antarctic Temperatures Disagree with Climate Model Predictions." [37] I am certain a great deal of info can be cited here that readers would find helpful. RonCram 12:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Stephan, Dr. Gray is an IPCC reviewer. He has comparable weight when discussing the IPCC process because he was a part of it. Your argument is going nowhere. RonCram 16:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
(reindent) This might be a better analogy. I have a friend with a pHD in math who has done some modeling work to predict changes in traffic patterns, given the projected growth of the city. Inputs are things like speed limits, traffic light configurations, new housing developments, new shopping centers, people moving into or out of the city, etc. Clearly traffic is chaotic, and yet by continously refining his model, he is able to reasonably predict the effects of different courses of action. This helps the city make judgements on matters like road construction and repair, zoning, traffic laws, etc. that will result in saving the taxpayers both commute time and tax money. It is undoubtedly an estimate but like climate models, it is possible to see how well the model predicts known responses to known changes, improving the model if it was wrong, or improving our confidence in its powers of prediction if it was not. After a lot of iterations of tweaking, the model has significant value.
Like our climate example, traffic is chaotic. It is not chaotic, random, or difficult to predict that putting a shopping center up at the end of the road will increase traffic on the road. This doesn't remove the randomness, but adjusts the baseline about which randomness operates. This is the kind of thing we're talking about, and I think that this is my last best attempt to clarify. I'd ask you to take a gander at my longer post regarding models at the bottom of this section if you haven't already.
As far as global cooling, there was never anything resembling a scientific consensus on that, only a couple of scientists. They argued cooling, others argued warming from greenhouse gases, and the rest of the scientific community said that they couldn't be sure either way. This "we used to believe there would be global cooling" thing is just another widely propagated myth.
We're a long, long way away from discussing the article right now. Mishlai 19:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
(reindent): That's why I asked what "running backwards" should mean. I suspect Zeeboid talks about applying todays climate models to previous times. That works well within the known limitations of the models. They generally assume relatively small pertubations of the current state, and only model forcings that change within the time frame we are interested in. No climate model, as far as I know, deals with plate tectonics reconfiguring continents, or with large-scale orbital forcings, or with the slow transition of the sun towards a red giant. It's like modelling a falling body. As long as you deal with a small distance, you can assume constant gravity, and get excellent results. But if you move far enough away, your model will suffer. And if the body hits the ground, your model totally breaks. -- Stephan Schulz 19:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
My goodness this is hostile. First, the incomplete nature of our climate models is a limitation that is acknowledge by climatologists. It isn't nearly as bad as is often made out, but I do think that model limitations is an appropriate section of the controversy article. Just keep the model criticism level-headed. Calling a model the same thing as a guess is just rehtoric. Let me try to address a few things:
If by "running backwards" you mean "predict the past", then yes, the models do that. That's one of the ways that climatologists test their models for accuracy. Showing the effects of things like the historical eruption of Mt. Pinatubo is an important trial for climate models. This is standard practice, and if the results do not match history within reason, then this is an indication that something is wrong - perhaps the effects of aerosols have been over or underestimated, etc. I don't think they actually "run backwards" so much as start at a date in the past and run forward towards the future, "predicting" what we already know and giving us a guage of the model's accuracy. True test are predictions of the future, and models have done respectably well there too. If by "run backwards" you mean predict the climate of 4 million years ago, we can't do that because we lack data on the matter, and because the longer you run a model (for more years of prediction), the larger the errors get since each predicted change is based on the initial conditions from the last predicted change. Near-term climate predictions (decades) are more confident than longer term climate predictions. The models wouldn't be able to meaningfully predict 4 million years in the future either.
Hansen actually predicted the future remarkably well with his 1988 scientific understanding - now 19 years out of date. It's frequently cited by denier sources that Hansen over-estimated future warming by 300%, but this is a blatant lie that has been repeated so often that I suspect most people saying it think its true.
Hansen showed a graph with 3 lines for temperature predictions in best, middle, and wost cases when he testified to the Senate in 1988. He made it plainly clear that the middle graph was the one that he thought most likely, and observations since then have been close to that. 10 years later in 1998, Patrick Michaels testified to the Senate. He took Hansen's graph, erased the middle and low scenarios, and then accused Hansen of overestimating climate change based on the High scenario only. It was a thoroughly dishonest assertion, and one that deserves to be put to rest. You can see Hansen's 1988 graph here [42] Criticism of misalignment of the dips in the graphs is meaningless, because Hansen assumed a volcanic eruption in the mid-90s, and instead got one in the early 90s. The climate model doesn't predict volcanic eruptions for you, you have to input that.
Further, it's meaningless to criticize modern models based on the models of 1988. They're far better now. Computers have changed a bit in the 19 years since, as has climate science. We've also collected data with a keen eye towards climate change during those two decades, which is tremendously helpful in making the models more accurate.
Here's a quote from AR4 SPM:
"Since IPCC's first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global averaged temperature increases between about 0.15 and 0.3C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with the observed values of about 0.2C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections"
As far as climate vs weather, there isn't any comparison. Climate has to do with the broader long-term changes, and not with the year to year or day to day variations that are the concern of weather forecasters. These are actually easier to predict. It's quite simple to deduce that the earth will warm in response to say, increased solar output. We can estimate the amount of warming that would be expected in the next decade because of it, but no one can tell you what the average temperature of any given year will be because it varies around the average. Certainly no one can tell you how many inches of rain Seattle will get on March 3rd, 2032. We can, however, make predictions about changes to average precipitation that might be expected in the northwest U.S. 30 years from now.
If you'll forgive a bad analogy, it's maybe a bit like making predictions about the thowing of a carpenter's hammer: The individual flips, twists and gyrations are so seemingly chaotic that it would be difficult to predict them. Predicting the hammer's overall arc, distance traveled after so long, etc. with reasonable accuracy would not be that difficult. The hammer's head, because of uneven weight distribution, would orbit around the "average arc". The thrower could probably tell you about how far the hammer will go, but probably could not tell you in any detail how it will flip and twist along the way.
Similarly, predicting weather deals with the all the chaos - the flips and twists of wind and temperature, while predicting climate is concerned with the planet's broader arc.
In conclusion, I still believe that the modelling limitations are worth mentioning. This is one of the key complaints of the denier side. Just recognize that the article will need to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of the models to be NPOV, and that unsupported claims will not fly.
Mishlai 05:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The article also needs a section discussing how
Phil Jones at the
Climatic Research Unit does not make his data and methods available for audit. Neither does the
National Climatic Data Center. The article should point out that this is contrary to normal science which is built around openness and reproducibility. How can other scientists check the work being done when the standards of science are being ignored? The article also should point out that these groups will occasionally change the way data is handled so that warmer years in the past are downgraded to make it look like the 1990s are the warmest years ever.
[43]
RonCram
12:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Somehow this discussion has gotten off topic. The discussion of computer models is in the section above. This is about openness and reproducibility.
Karl Popper was the most influential philosopher of science of the 20th century. He distinguished between science and pseudo-science. If someone claims to be doing science but does not make his methods and data available so they can be verified/falsified, they are doing pseudo-science. Most of climate science is producing pseudo-science. The keepers of the temperature record will not release their data or methods. And they keep changing the way they do things. Read this link and then come back and comment.
[44]
RonCram
16:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Lets please keep the discussion on topic. This section is not for the discussion of climate model equations. Thank you. ~
UBeR
18:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The first paragraph of this section does not specifically mention any of the individuals or organizations mentioned under "Supporters and Opponents of the Global Warming Theory." I suggest the following as a replacement:
I welcome comments and suggestions on this proposed alteration of the first paragraph of the "Funding of Opponents" Section. Dicksonlaprade 17:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Some global warming skeptics have links to fossil fuel companies.
For example, Frederick Seitz is currently on the board of directors for the George C. Marshall Institute, [62] which has received several large contributions from petroleum-related organizations such as ExxonMobil, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, and the Carthage Foundation. [63]
[65]Similarly, Richard Lindzen has received money from various coal and oil companies for consulting, for appearing before the Senate, and for giving a speech which cast doubt on anthropogenic global warming.[66]Many organizations which deny the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming, such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, also have close ties to the energy industry.[67] [68]Many supporters of anthropogenic global warming claim that these energy-industry ties suggest a conflict of interest. [69][70] [71] [72] [73] [74]Partly as a result of such criticism, ExxonMobil announced in February of 2007 that they would discontinue funding for the Competitive Enterprise Institute. [75] [76]
Stephan Schulz reverted edits with no explanation. I put my edits back and would like to remind Stephan Schulz of a few things regarding reverts. From the Revert policies and guidelines.
Cannot say if this was done or not, but in light of the following items you can draw your own conclusions.
The edits that were reverted were-- Kim D. Petersen 20:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC) not in any manner able to be construed as vandalism.
As I mentioned, there was no summary explanation and if an explanation of the revert was made in the talk page then I missed it as it was NOT its own subject and would have been buried somewhere else.
This is pretty self-explanatory. The revert was done to remove content that, prima facia, opposes the views of ONE side of the discussion on this page. Nothing more than that.
Let us review some more from the Wikipedia policies and guidelines about revert wars (which, basically are
To those working around the "3 reverts rule" for WMC explain yourselves here.-- Zeeboid 19:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
People who revert-war to insert spurious tags shouldn't Wikilawyer. Guettarda 19:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Three quick items and them I take this grievance elsewhere. FIRST..."not adhering to WP:NPOV since you are giving WP:Undue_weight"--please quantify the weight that should be given? SECOND...From Neutrality Project's Talk page, "All major viewpoints must be described in a fair and equal way, otherwise there is a bias towards the single viewpoint." by Peter Dodge. Notice it says nothing about quantity (as 'undue weight' does). POV issues on this article are not quantity but actual content; unfair characterizations, hypocrisy in which sources are permitted to pass by Connelley/Kim gatekeepers...and so on. The POV issues are QUALITY issues, not QUANTITY. THREE...From what you "editors who have been working on these articles for years" are allowing into the article it is almost as if there really is not controversy at all. Is this correct? -- Tony of Race to the Right 21:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
It is ridiculous to say there is no scientific controversy. Sometimes you hear people pretending that AGW skeptics are on a par with flat-earthers or holocaust deniers. This is ludicrous. Are there any flat-earthers who are professors at MIT? Or Harvard? Or Univ of Penn? Or USC? Of course not. There is a real scientific controversy because all of the better science is being done by skeptics. The AGWers will not even play by the rules, refusing to provide their data and methods. The arrogance of claiming the issue is settled is beyond belief. RonCram 22:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Zeeboid, There has been a tendency to simply revert things in this article without discussion. I would agree with you that this is wrong, but it takes two to make a fight. Why not post your edits again here and ask for comment - and see if we can move forward! Mike 21:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Should the article agree with the anti-AGW view that "there is no controversy within the scientific community" and that "there is a scientific consensus" on global warming?
An alternative to this would be to say:
In a science article, the "anti-mainstream" point of view might not merit much mention, lest we give it undue weight. But this is not a science article. We are talking about what everyone is disputing.
Is Wikipedia quite sure what proportion of scientists favor or disagree with AGW theory? Is it 95%, 99%, 99.9% or what? Or should Wikipedia retreat to a neutral position and fairly describe the two opposing viewpoints about the proportion? -- Uncle Ed 15:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention to detail. I should not have said "last dozen years" but "the years between 1993 and 2003" as surveyed by Naomi Oreskes. In that period, she wrote, "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position." [80] -- Uncle Ed 00:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Useful comments, Birdbrainscan. I would say a partial explanation is that the people who have motivation to edit this page tend to be the ones that hold strong opinions on the subject (on either side). -- Nethgirb 09:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I added a link to global surface temperature, because I thought I might redirect that to something like global average air temperature, but that is an empty page too.
Are we talking about air temperature as measured by thermometers near the ground? Does this include satellite and balloon data? Not arguing, just asking for clarification of the term. -- Uncle Ed 13:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I thought it was a reasonable and honest question, and thank you SS for answering. Mishlai 01:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for the disruptive red link. I should simply have asked the question and not made the edit. -- Uncle Ed 19:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I tried to add a small link to peak oil and found that such heresy was not allowed in WIkipedia, I came across this article. It seems to be written by people with a more open mind on the subject so I've added a short section.
I've not spent a lot of time, because given previous experience of the failing to enforce WP:NPOV on this subject it will be quickly removed never to be heard of again until the historians look back to wonder why the subject was never mentioned in WIkipedia until it became obviouis that fossil fuels were running out and global warming wasn't the real problem. Mike 13:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
PS. I've cut, edited and pasted the link from the last attempt that was made to insert something into global warming (I think there were about a dozen attempts to have something from a sentence to a whole section .... all deleted by extremely unwikipedian like extremists) for a fuller text see: original text .... Mike 13:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Controversy or not Reading the article about the existence of a "controversy" seems that there is not any controversy at all and instead the few not supporting human-causation in rising temperatures are outliers.
If this is the case the article seems to be unnecessary entirely. If it is not the case then the article's balance is not to Wikipedia's standards.
Dual philosophies used in enforcement of policies, guidelines and content. Questions seem to persists relating to the validity of sources. On one hand sources that are not in agreement with the "global warming conseneus" viewpoint are removed with the related text. On the other hand sources that are in agreement with the "global warming consensus" viewpoint are replaced.
Questions persists relating to the Wikipedia standards for handling edits. When edits are made that are about one side of the Global Warming Controversy they are deleted or reverted with little, if any explanation. When edits are made about the other side of the Global Warming Controversy there are attempts to "make them better" instead of deletions. 15:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course there is a controversy - stop sounding like a Christian evangelist and wake up and listen instead of preaching that since everyone else is wrong there is no controversy! Mike 15:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good, Mishlai -- Nethgirb 13:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
In reviewing, I particularly like Mishlai's way of summing up where we need to take this. One last thought I have: one criterion for what to include could be positions or claims that have gotten serious traction in the media - who the newspapers and talk shows call upon to represent a view. That's the story, as far as a "public" debate. I'll propose that print and broadcast media get the most weight, versus blogs and web discussion boards; I presume the traditional media still have the wider reach. Birdbrainscan 01:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
This article has clearly had issues for years regarding POV and dispute resolutions are in order. Please to not remove the bias tags until this article has been through the entire review processes that it has submitted through. 15:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I would strongly suggest that it is not this article that is the problem but the Global warming article. I don't support many of the views in this article but I do support their right to have a place in Wikipedia. Unfortunately this view is not supported by the Gestapo who have hold of the Global Warming article. It is time Wikipedia actually stuck to its guns and enforded the WP:NPOV view on the global warming page. Mike 15:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Some experts have questioned the presumption underlying most predictions of global warming, namely that fossil fuels are effectively unlimited within the timescale of global warming predictions. For example, in a controversial paper from Uppsala in Sweden [83]. The authors warn that all the fuel will be burnt before there is enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to realise predictions of melting ice caps and searing temperatures another paper from the Journal de Physique [84] reported that:
a possible "modified medium scenarios", with an energy consumption or population that would not rise as quickly as assumed, but that would call massively on coal after oil becomes expensive, ... leads to a couple degrees increase (in global temperatures) [9]
The the Hubbert peak theory, is a model predicting the output from a natural resource such as an oil, gas or coal field and is used by most oil companies and governments. According to Matthew Simmons, Chairman of Simmons & Company International the peak oil model indicates that global oil production may have peaked in December 2005, [10] however the US government are more cautious and estimate [85] world supply of oil will peak in 2015. As burning oil is a major contributor to Greenhouse warming the peak oil theory predicts that the contribution from burning oil will decline after the point of peak oil production has passed and therefore the contribution of crude oil to global will also decrease.
The model has also been used to predict the size of world coal and gas with similar conclusions. According to Bentley, world gas production will peak anywhere from 2010 to 2020 [11]. Since compressed natural gas powered cars are already available in North America, peak oil and peak gas are related for transportation usage. Gregson Vaux has analyzed the expected peak in U.S. coal production (the world’s largest reserves of coal) and predicted peak coal taking place sometime between 2032 and 2060, with earlier dates more likely if coal is used as a partial substitute for plateauing or declining global oil supplies and North American natural gas supplies [86] [87].
Can we make a list of advocates who employ this argument? Weather and climate are two different things. Connolley can't say whether it will snow 12 days from now in any particular place or region, but he can predict the average amount of annual snowfall with considerable accuracy. -- Uncle Ed 18:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
In my view the controversy is about five claims, positions or proposals:
In my view, the article should be organized into an outline that discusses these five issues. Regarding the satellite data, it is possible it fits better under point #2 rather than #1. If I have left out any other main points, let's discuss them. RonCram 18:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think Kyoto or other policy steps are relevant to this article. We should stick to controversy about the science. Kyoto can be discussed in the Kyoto article. This isn't a forum to advocate nuclear power, solar cells, carbon taxes, giant mirrors, or drought resistant crops as an answer to these problems. Mishlai 19:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
This article often fails to identify who is saying these things and instead resorts to a "some people say" statement. - Vcelloho 20:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I see that Peak Oil is back in fashion. I've removed it again. I believe it is quite simply Not Notable in the context of the global warming debate. I can't think of a single example of any skeptic arging that we can forget the problem because we'll run out of fuel. The sole paper the added text refs is only about oil and gas [91].
Even if you believe this issue is notable - which I don't - then (a) the position that H put it at - above arguments for and against GW - is clearly far too high. And of course (b) most of the added section is on oil, which ignores the much larger coal reserves. He Peak Oil article itself argues for a coal peak around 2150 which is inconsistent with what has been added here. William M. Connolley 23:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually only the articles have to be NPOV; wiki sensibly makes no such requirement for editors, which could never be verified or enforced. Now you've had your rant, why not settle down and actually answer the objections above? What would be nice would be to find someone known as a skeptic - start at List of scientists opposing global warming consensus if you're not familiar with them - and find just *one* of them who has claimed lack of fossil fuels will be a problem William M. Connolley 23:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Although it seems reasonable to suspect that the compound noun "global warming" is a generic term and that the present warming is merely a special case, the use of "global warming" in a generic sense is exceedingly rare. (Actually I haven't been able to find any such uses but am leaving the door open for the possibility.) Accordingly I've removed the generic definition from the intro as it serves only to distract the reader from the topic at hand, which is the controversy or lack thereof with regard to the present warming. Raymond Arritt 01:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Mike, On principle I would always prefer to build rather than revert but the drop in of a big section is too much to try to fix in an already messy article. Is there (yet) a decent Wikipedia article on fossil fuel availability for us to cite? I think we should write that, source is properly and then link from both this and the Global Warming artile. It is a very interesting topic. Also the paragraph which started "Most reputable scientists agree that fossil fuel stocks are practically finite when considered in the same timescale as global warming..." went on to talk about 2300. Very little mainstream global warming discussion is on this timescale, so "same timescale" is a bit misleading. -- BozMo talk 10:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The section: "Supporters and opponents of the global warming theory" leaves me absolutely cold and provides very little information about the various controversies over global warming.
My instinct is simply to remove this as I can't see the point (except for petty point scoring). The article has a tag that there are too many lists. Unless someone has a good reason for it staying, I'll remove this section. Mike 10:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Stephan, is that a yes of a no to removing the list. Mike 11:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
How is it one-sided? On the "pro" side there are 6 entries for supporting organizations plus 3 for former skeptics. On the skeptic side there are 12 entries for individuals and organizations. If anything, that is giving way too much weight to the skeptics, wouldn't you say? -- Nethgirb 13:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
(reset indent) We could put some brief references to this in the section on existence of a consensus. It probably doesn't merit very much more than links to the main articles Scientific opinion on climate change and List of scientists opposing global warming consensus. I'd like to see the list torched, though, what with "listiness" considered one of the seven deadly sins in terms of WP style. Raymond Arritt 19:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
For future reference, as they were on the article before removal:
Scientific organisations that have stated support of the current scientific opinion on climate change include:
Scientific organisations that have expressed opposition of the current scientific opinion on climate change include:
Scientists who have expressed opposition include:
Opponents from outside the scientific community include:
Organizations skeptical of global warming include:
Former skeptics include:
Conclusion Just to try and summarise - it seems the final concensus was to reduce the size of this section to a link to the pages "lists of people who support/oppose ...." Mike 14:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I can't understand why "Betting on global warming" is a section. I can see it adds to the evidence about the "Debate over the existence of a consensus", because it shows that no one appears to be betting for global warming not to happen.... so basically it isn't a controversy on its own. Or is there some kind of controversy about the way bets on global warming should be handled?
It seems outdated, so if no one objects, I'll remove this section and add to "Debate over the existence of a consensus" Mike 12:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Conclusion: the consensus appears to be for deletion of this section Having given enough time for all the views that is what I have done! Mike 14:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I've restored it. Sorry, there is so much talk on this page that I'd missed this section. The issue of whether sketpics believe what they say is indeed put into relief by this little section, so I think its valuable. To point out the obvious: if you believe in GW, you expect warming to continue. If you believe its natural variation, you have no such reason. Several solar people (from the late unlamented GW on mars no less) purport to predict *cooling* from solar William M. Connolley 15:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
“ | A betting market on climate futures, like other kinds of futures markets, could be used to establish the market consensus on climate change. [12] Few skeptics have been willing to bet against the IPCC consensus position, however. British climate scientist James Annan proposed bets with global warming skeptics concerning whether future temperatures will increase. Two Russian solar physicists, Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev, accepted the wager of US$10,000 that the average global temperature during 2012-2017 would be lower than during 1998-2003. Annan first directly challenged Richard Lindzen. Lindzen had been willing to bet that global temperatures would drop over the next 20 years. Annan claimed Lindzen wanted odds of 50-1 against falling temperatures. The Guardian columnist George Monbiot challenged Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute to a GB£5,000 bet of global warming versus global cooling. [13] Annan and other proponents of the consensus state they have challenged other skeptics to bets over global warming that were not accepted. [14] | ” |
Mike 10:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Since I last read the section it has been improved in both writing style and sources, so I now support leaving it in. -- Nethgirb 12:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry - didn't see this poll. Seems a valid section, I have put it back in as my "vote". Vsmith 17:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Following the discussion I wondered whether the section could be reduced in size - but I started yawning at the first sentence. I couldn't see who had bet against who, who had won and there was absolutely no comment. It really needs to be scrapped or if it has to go back it needs a drastic rewrite. Given that the article is too long already I can't see the point of removing it particularly and I can see why the consensus was to remove it - if people want it back it needs a drastic rewrite! Mike 19:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
It is a relevant and interesting aspect of the controversy. And the section is not very long anyway. I'm all for trimming down the size of the article, but why not instead work on one of the sections that's really too long, maybe like "Debate over the existence of a consensus"? -- Nethgirb 23:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
My gut instinct seeing the puny nature of this section is that it is far too short and doesn't relate to my everyday experiences at all. E.g. our heating bills should be reducing shortly because of global warming - we even moved house to the North partly in the expectation that global warming will make this a more desireable area to live in a few decades - so there clearly are benefits. Do others agree this ought to be boosted! Mike 12:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I thought I would do a search to find a neutral discussion comparing the benefits and harm of global warming. What I was looking for was an article with both sides - I assumed most scientific papers on global warming would include a section on "benefits" so I did a search for global warming and "benefits" and I struggled to find even one "respectable" scientific paper mentioning any benefit (even the obvious one I have of sitting here without the heating in February - watching my windmill go round!) The following are links & quotes I have found but so far not many give the pros/cons from a NPOV!
Neutral: [99] Links: [100] Commentary: [101] [102] [103] Benefit: [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] Harm subscription!
A funny quote
“ | The Benefits of Global Warming: "there may be a flip side to the dire news: an abundance of calamari." [109] | ” |
A thought provoking quote:
“ | Many climate scientists argue that any local benefits of the warming trend are more than offset by the global costs. One worry: That discussion of the benefits could undermine efforts to slow global warming. Even Greenlanders who welcome the recent climate changes recognize a downside. Mr. Magnusson says he typically uses a snowmobile to herd his 2,300 reindeer. But the area where he can use his snowmobile is shrinking, and the melting snow and ice could eventually make snowmobiling impossible. He says he will adapt by using horses, helicopters or by simply walking.
Still there's no denying the good news for many Greenlanders. [110] |
” |
A good quote (in a very biased report) is:
“ | As eminent Yale Professor Robert Mendehlson testified before the Senate in 2000,26 “Climate change is likely to result in small net benefits for the United States over the next century. The primary sector that will benefit is agriculture. The large gains in this sector will more than compensate for damages expected in the coastal, energy, and water sectors, unless warming is unexpectedly severe. Forestry is also expected to enjoy small gains. Added together, the United States will likely enjoy small benefits of between $14 and $23 billion a year and will only suffer damages in the neighborhood of $13 billion if warming reaches 5°C over the next century. Recent predictions of warming by 2100 suggest temperature increases of between 1.5°C and 4°C, suggesting that impacts are likely to be beneficial in the U.S.” page6 | ” |
Finally (after some 100 articles) a quote from a global warming evangelistsupporter (sorry got a little fed up with reading so much nonsense on both sides) that mentions the benefits:
“ | Spokespeople for the fossil-fuel industry like to point out that carbon dioxide, far from being a pollutant, is "plant food." Some argue that increased carbon concentrations and warmer temperatures will enhance plant and tree growth, lengthen growing seasons and generally lead to more comfortable weather in temperate zones. But any beneficial impacts could easily be overwhelmed by such negative consequences as drought and insect infestation. It is, in fact, impossible to predict the myriad ways climate change will impact the planet and neither climate scientists nor coal industry spokesmen know what the net effect on human life will be. Ecologist Herman Daly has proposed that environmental policy be guided by the rule that we do not destroy what we cannot now replace. Most would agree that the planet's climate is irreplaceable. [111] | ” |
Mike 10:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Both these sections come across as petty point scoring by one or other of the parties and must leave any sensible person reading this article stone cold.
Big companies fund scientists in all manner of fields, governments put pressure on scientists .... it isn't news. If these sections are to remain, then there needs to be a lot more background. Why are the big companies/government funding, what result is it having. As far as I can tell these two sections are simply "oh look someone's paying someone to do something" .... "you know what that means .... I can't tell you because we don't have any evidence, and I can't find anyone willing to say it in print .... but nod, wink ... there's no smoke without fire". Unless someone can find some evidence of wrongdoing, or even some quote saying there is something special then this funding/pressure isn't novel and isn't worth keeping. I vote to scrap these two sections and do something more useful with the space Mike 13:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Can someone explain why there is a petty editing war on this subject? Mike 17:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can see: "Some global warming studies, including the influential "Hockey Stick" study by Mann, have been shown to contain errors, shoddy methods and manipulated data sets and have not been reproduced. [112] [113] " has been replaced by what appears to be a statement with no content - OK it needed changing but this really isn't a fair representation of the views. Mike 17:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point, Dr. C.:
The present article is not about what climatologists are saying amongst each other but about how the general public is reacting to what they hear about climate in the media. The upshot is that faith in the graph drives political support for the Kyoto Protocol. -- Uncle Ed 22:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
So the question is whether (1) S&B were wrong and resignations from Climate Research prove this - or whether (2) S&B were right, and the resignations were the result of political pressure. On this point, shall Wikipedia choose #1, #2, or remain neutral? -- Uncle Ed 22:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Can people please just stick to the point It matters not at all whether anyone here believes of disbelieves the Crocket stick graph, all that matters is that the view of those "Assertions by opponents of the global warming" is accurately portrayed. As far as this article is concerned, the only truth is whether or not it is an assertion given by the oponents of global warming - anything else is irrelevant to this discussion Lets just have some some proposals for wording and stop this nonsense! Mike 00:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
This article should let the reader know what the controversy was about, and in general terms who said what. It should also provide context for that information to ensure that readers are not misled, that items that would not make it into the main article as scientific content are not given undue weight here. In short, this is not a forum for safely evangelizing the significant minority or tiny minority positions on the topic. That would be a POV fork. Undue weight still applies.
I would be comfortable with an entry that got most of those points in there in a neutral fashion. It probably doesn't need to be that long. It shouldn't read as "McIntyre & McKintrick study = no global warming" either, though it can certainly say that people claim(ed) that. Mishlai 02:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Mishlai - well done, I really couldn't tell whether you were pro./anti!
I picked out the following as seeming to describe the conflict:
“ | INTRO: The hockey stick graph is used to describe the form of stick which global warming activists use to battle each other in a ritual combat known as editing (Perhaps there's a more accurate description?)
|
” |
Is this a fair summary of the argument? Can it be the basis of a small section - with a link to the article? Mike 09:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
“ | The main points of hockey stick controversy are (1) that a graph by Mann used by many to highlight recent warming show a "sudden acceleration" in the latter 20th century while other sources show periodic ups and downs; (2) Because past temperatures can only be estimated indirectly, there is debate over whether present warming is much higher than anything before modern methods of temperature measurements; (3) the politics of global warming relies heavily on the visual impact of the hockey stick. | ” |
Mike 11:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I've read the comments and where possible taken account of what has been said - I'm not sure but does this reflect what people are saying:
Currently in: Assertions by opponents of the global warming theory, we have
“ |
|
” |
Which was:-
“ | Some global warming studies, including the influential "Hockey Stick" study by Mann, have been shown to contain errors, shoddy methods and manipulated data sets and have not been reproduced. [117] [118] | ” |
And from what has been said it seems it ought to be something like:
“ | The main points of hockey stick controversy are (1) that a graph by |
” |
Mike 15:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
“ | The main point of the hockey stick controversy surrounds a graph of temperature reconstruction over the past 1000 years by MBH that shows a "sudden acceleration" of warming in the latter 20th century. There have been charges that this graph may rest on incomplete data or faulty analysis(cite refs here, presumably M&M, maybe Wegman), though these charges have been disputed (ref Mann, Briffa?) Because temperatures before the mid-19th century can only be estimated indirectly, such reconstructions are necessary to determine whether present warming is unusual in historical context. | ” |
Easy Mike. I think you've gotten the idea that I'm nitpicking just to be difficult, which is not the case, or perhaps just being too critical of your hard work, which I did not intend. Writing a statement that everyone can agree on will require some careful word-smithing and a lot of revisions. We are, I assume, just writing a quick statement with a link to the main article, yes?
“ | The main point of the hockey stick controversy surrounds a graph of temperature reconstruction over the past 1000 years by MBH that shows a temperature rise in the 20th century that is unusual when compared to the rest of the last millenium. There have been charges that this graph may rest on incomplete data or faulty analysis(cite refs here, presumably M&M, maybe Wegman), though these charges have been disputed (ref Mann, Briffa?) Because temperatures before the widespread measurements began in the mid-19th century can only be estimated indirectly, such reconstructions are necessary to determine whether present warming is unusual in historical context. | ” |
Mishlai 22:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks everyone - sorry if I was grumpy at the lack of progress! I've tried to take Raymonds, article and add in the point by RonCram and try to explain (as I understand it) that there are two graphs for historical temperature which differ by the amount of "swing" in the historic period (is this right?):
“ | The main point of the hockey stick controversy surrounds a graph of temperature reconstruction over the past 1000 years by MBH that shows a temperature rise in the 20th century that is unusual when compared to the rest of the last millenium. There have been suggestions that this graph may rest on incomplete data or faulty analysis(cite refs here, presumably M&M, maybe Wegman), though these suggestions have been disputed (ref Mann, Briffa?) Alternative graphs show more historical ups and downs which lessen the visual impact of the rise.
Because temperatures before widespread measurements began in the mid-19th century are estimated indirectly, there have also been suggestions [120] that older temperatures have been underestimated which arguably reduces the significance of the recent rise; such reconstructions are necessary to determine whether present warming is unusual in historical context. |
” |
I presume the intention is that this doesn't go back in the section "assertions by opponents" as a bullet point but gets placed as a new section in section 4 "temperature measurements/Hockey stick controversy". Mike 23:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
And if so, does it have a "main:Hockey stick... link at the beginning of the section? Mike 23:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
“ | The main point of the hockey stick controversy surrounds a graph of temperature reconstruction over the past 1000 years by MBH that shows a temperature rise in the 20th century that is unusual when compared to the rest of the last millenium. The temperatures for time periods preceding the instrument record are estimated by analysis of proxies. Some have claimed that this graph may rest on incomplete data or faulty analysis(cite refs here, presumably M&M, maybe Wegman) and that the true graph should show higher and more variable historical temperatures, though these claims have been disputed (ref Mann, Briffa?) The higher historical temperatures and variation of the graph provided by MM05 lessens the visual impact of the more recent rise in temperature. | ” |
Mishlai 23:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
McK is *not* central to the debate: he is quite unimportant; if anyone matters its McI: just look at who runs CA; or even read the McK document I joined the project in the late summer of 2003 and we published a paper9 in October 2003... and of course fig 3 in that is not from '95 but from '90... By contrast McI insists that none of the reconstructions can be considered reliable, on the grounds (I think) that he doesn't believe the proxies. This has the important consequence that McI *doesn't* assert that the MWP is warmer than now: McI's party line (as I understand it) is simply that we don't know. McK seems to have broken that line (possibly because he couldn't resist it, possibly because he is clueless, who knows) and actually asserted that he believes his own "corrected" reconstruction (or has he? The source used by our resident skeptics is http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf but I can't find a killer quote in there, only implications). See http://www.climateaudit.org/?page_id=1002 section "Are you saying the 15th century was warmer than the present?" wot says No, we are saying that the hockey stick graph used by IPCC provides no statistically significant information about how the current climate compares to that of the 15th century (and earlier) to forestall the inevitable, I'll point out that they continue with And notwithstanding that, to the extent readers consider the results informative, if a correct PC method and the unedited version of the Gaspé series are used, the graph used by the IPCC to measure the average temperature of the Northern Hemisphere shows values in the 15th century exceed those at the end of the 20th century. which amounts to having their cake and eating it; but the initial "No", I think, must stand. You might wonder who "we" is in that context. The page header says "CA by McI"; is this the royal we? Who knows? I've mailed McI to see if he cares to clarify this point William M. Connolley 00:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Just so we don't lose the diplomatic progress here... are we back to this?
“ | The main point of the hockey stick controversy surrounds a graph of temperature reconstruction over the past 1000 years by MBH that shows a temperature rise in the 20th century that is unusual when compared to the rest of the last millenium. The temperatures for time periods preceding the instrument record are estimated by analysis of proxies. Some have claimed that this graph may rest on incomplete data or faulty analysis(cite refs here, presumably M&M, maybe Wegman), though these claims have been disputed (ref Mann, Briffa?) | ” |
Mishlai 12:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
“ | The main point of the hockey stick controversy surrounds a graph of temperature reconstruction over the past 1000 years by MBH that shows a temperature rise in the 20th century that is unusual when compared to the rest of the last millenium. The temperatures for time periods preceding the instrument record are estimated by analysis of proxies. The "hockey stick" graph received its name because its shape resembles a hockey stick. Following the graph's inclusion in the IPCC's Third Assessment Report in 2001, it was widely used as an illustration that 20th century temperatures were unusual when compared to recent history. Critics of the graph have claimed that it may rest on incomplete data or faulty analysis(cite refs here, presumably M&M, maybe Wegman), though these claims have been disputed (ref Mann, Briffa?) | ” |
Here's a link with several good quotes: [122] Mike 16:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Let's all avoid personal remarks like:
I would prefer that we use comments like:
A hot fudge sundae to the first 3 contributors who can point out which personal remark *I* made, but who are tactful enough not to mention it on here! :-) -- Uncle Ed 12:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
According to the article only those who disagree with AGW get funding. And there also is the perception presented in an undisputed manner that "skeptics...are lobbyists more than researchers".
So, there is no money whatsoever being used to fund research for those who have a stated position or lobbying function agreeing with AGW? No person agreeing with AGW is a part of a group or organization which received money in any fashion from those also pushing the AGW viewpoint? -- Tony of Race to the Right 18:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it's worth mentioning funding for research where we have evidence that a particular outcome of that research was desired. Exxon is a case where this is true -- they specifically implemented a program to counter the consensus, so I think that's notable. The AEI offering $10,000 to write an essay disputing 4AR is probably another. -- Nethgirb 20:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Conseratives argue that:
Ironically, it is the pro-AGW side which trumpets premise #1 the loudest, but they seem to apply it only to anti-AGW research. As if money only motivates "those evil deniers, linked to capitalists" but not "those sneaky warmers, linked to socialism and global governance".
Anyway, I'm not trying to promote a view here. I'm only saying that the view that scientific support for AGW is utterly objective and thus completely reliable has its opponents. How many words should we devote to the anti-AGW view, in an article about the AGW controversy?
The main point of the pro-AGW camp is that there's a scientific consensus. If someone suggests that "the science is not settled", and that pro-AGW advocacy is influencing research or assessments, than it must be mentioned to some degree. Not given "undue weight" of course, but not dismissed out of hand, any more than Holocaust denial is. -- Uncle Ed 12:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I think we're getting a bit off topic here. First, I was probably wrong to suggest in my comment above that we should mention funding issues when we have evidence that a particular research outcome was desired. I should have said: that's what gives an argument merit. But, since this article is about controversy not truth, the rule for inclusion should probably be whether the argument (right or wrong) has been made by notable sources. Senator Inhofe and the Union of Concerned Scientists are probably notable, for example. I suggest we require more than one notable source in the interest of keeping only common arguments in the article. Sound good? -- Nethgirb 22:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
We need more discussion on this topic! Mike 15:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Practically every sentence of this article is contentious, which makes it hard to edit. Also, it is too long. One way to fix both problems is to have fewer sentences.
I therefore propose that we enter a phase of diet in which we have no new material added, instead focusing on removing duplicative and unnecessary material, summarizing overly wordy sections, adding citations, fixing inaccurate statements, reorganization, etc. Editors who add nontrivial amounts of material get their contributions moved to this talk page for serious discussion before any new material is accepted. Maybe when it's under 30 KB we can proceed as normal. -- Nethgirb 10:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
But can you start it with: "What does the reader need to know to understand the controversy?"
Can I say that is a most civilised and positive discussion! Mike 14:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
From a recent change:
The three possible positions, for those who are "sure" about what causes warming are:
As far as I know, there has yet to be a single scientist outside of position #2. I can't even think of a pundit who's claimed #1.
The question is not "Is any of the warming human-caused?" but rather "How much of the warming is human-caused?" -- Uncle Ed 21:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Uncle Ed - I think the controversy can be split into twoseven parts.
Some scientists have complained of media bias. Here's an article mentioning Roger Pielke:
Here's Pielke's response:
I've read a lot of these in recent years. How shall we mention this in the current article? -- Uncle Ed 21:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Did we say "no scientists" dispute the temperature record, or "hardly any"? Here's Pielke again:
I'm not saying we should change the Global warming article to reflect the views of the minority. That would be POV-pushing.
I'm just saying that the Global warming controversy article should list any scientists who have expressed doubts about the "consensus view" that most global modern warming is anthropogenic. And Pielke is one of at least a handful who have linked "observed warming" (via land-based thermometers) with the Urban heat island effect. -- Uncle Ed 21:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Regular visitors to this Talk page know I have expressed concern about the fact the pro-AGWers (the "Warmers") do not practice good science. Scientists are supposed to archive their data and methods and make it easy for other scientists to review their work. The Warmers do not do this. It seems as though every time someone does some kind of a review or audit, the Warmers get caught with their hands in the cookie jar fudging data and purposely biasing their methods. McIntyre and McKitrick caught Mann et al and broke their Hockey Stick. Now it seems Jean S and McIntyre have caught Hansen. Take a look at this. [125] —Preceding unsigned comment added by RonCram ( talk • contribs)
I have posted on this issue before, but I thought it would make sense to bring several of these issues about fudging data and changing the temperature record together in one place. This is only a sampling but it does show why the skeptics are so concerned with the bad science being done by the Warmers:
McIntyre wrote a paper, “More on Hockey Sticks: the Case of Jones et al [1998]” for presentation at the U.S. Climate Change Workshop in November 2005. [132] In this paper McIntyre argues that when Mann’s errors are removed, 20th century temps are seen to be unexceptional. McIntyre did not sign the paper written by McKitrick claiming the corrected Mann reconstruction showed 20th century temps were unexceptional. William Connelly (on this page and other Wikipedia Talk pages) has claimed this showed there was some disagreement between McIntyre and McKitrick. Not true. McIntyre also shows unjustified data modification in Briffa’s work and the unreliability of the Polar Urals. RonCram 17:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Mishlai, you say:"... the NAS found that MBH98's results were not significantly altered by fixing the statistical errors." This is misleading. The NAS found that Mann's conclusions were unfounded. The most that could be said was that current temps are higher than at any time in 400 years (or was it 600 years?) Prior to that, the uncertainties were too high to make any claims at all. By the way, more information is coming out about how the temperature record has been modified and adjusted by Mann and Jones. It seems apparent now that temperatures were warmer in the 30s than in the 90s. And that certainly makes sense because the dust bowl years of the 30s were very hot. Regarding your faith in the upward march of temperatures, have you ever considered the possibility of a change in climate regime? From 1945 to 1975, we had a sustained period of cooling. From 1976 to 1998, a sustained period of warming. From 1976 on up, rising temperatures correlated well with rising CO2. However, rising CO2 did not correlate well with falling temperatures from 1945 to 1975. Have you ever wondered why that is? Is it possible it could happen again? RonCram 13:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
William and Mishlai, the statement "Warming/cooling goes with the balance of radiative forcing" is overly simplistic. You are leaving out the most important aspect of all, natural climate variability - including ocean-atmosphere interactions. I asked Mishlai for a source that would credit a sharp reduction of aerosols in 1975/76 for a reason. Not only because I do not think the evidence supports such a claim but also because I can cite a peer-reviewed article that credits natural climate variability for the regime shift in 1975. Bratcher and Giese note the regime shift in 1945 and the shift in 1975/76 and predict a return to pre-1976 conditions by around 2006. [134] I point this out because a belief we will see uninterrupted rising temperatures from now until 2100 is ridiculous in the extreme. The planet will continue to have regime shifts every thirty years or so. This is a fact the IPCC (and true believers in the IPCC) has failed to grasp. RonCram 18:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Can we remove these tags? The article doesn't appear to me to be anything but as neutral as anything about a controversy, and well listed. What are the issues? If there are problems, I can try to clean up what is perceived as such; but I don't really see what the issues are. Sln3412 23:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
In order to avoid weasel wording, do we know what we mean by "climate scientist" and do we use it with consistency? I've noticed 5 occurences of that phrase in the article, yet it shocks me every time how uncertain I am of what it should tell me. "Climate scientist" would suggest to me "someone who specializes in climatology", but climatology cannot be wholly possessed by a single person can it?
So, is a "climate scientist" someone involved in developing the climate models? That would mean that instead of a climate scientist, we would be talking about either a mathematician, a modeler, a statistician or a computer scientist of some sort. Or are we talking about a geologist? Astrophysician? Meteorologist? We should then use the proper qualifier. Or are we pretending that a "climate scientist" is someone who specializes in all climatology-relevant fields if even such a person exists? The phrase "climate scientist" certainly makes it sound like that, and that seems at worst false, at best weasel wording. -- Childhood's End 16:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Climate scientist has different connotations to climatologist. A climate modeller is probably not a climatologist. Climate scientist is fine; note that 2/5 of the uses of CS in this article are direct quotes William M. Connolley 15:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I added a weasel-worded tag to the article while this discussion was clarified, which I hoped it would be. Vsmith has removed the tag on the grounds that a climate scientist is a scientist who studies some aspect of climate, nothing weasely about it.
I must disagree and hope to get further thoughts about this. According to Vsmith's definition of "climate scientist", anybody can be a climate scientist and so I am. Where I live, I've noticed that since 20 years, winters really start later than they used to (January instead of November or December), and they also end later (April or even May instead of March). This is only a part of my "study of some aspect of climate".
According to WP's article on weasel words, "Generally, weasel terms are statements that are misleading because they lack the normal substantiations of their truthfulness, as well as the background information against which these statements are made. Weasel terms are the equivalent of spin in the political sphere in British English."
Wikipedia has a policy on weasel words. Its introductory statement says that "Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources, lending them the force of authority without letting the reader decide whether the source of the opinion is reliable."
It seems to me that "climate scientist" is dangerously used to grant authority to any scientist supporting the IPCC to speak about any topic that can be related to climate. Yet, we know that a modeller has no more authority than anyone else regarding astrophysics, and that a chemist has little authority regarding geology, and so forth.
Even if the climate community has developped the practice of using "climate scientist" when it refers to anyone who participated or scientifically supports the IPCC, an encyclopedia cannot endorse a catchphrase if it misleads readers with regard to the authority of the scientists or if its main effect is political spin. A chemist is a chemist is a chemist.
Unless "climate scientist" is proplerly defined and that we can agree that this definition matches with the usage that is made of that catchphrase, this article can obviously seem to be weasel-worded to 99% of readers.
I'll put the tag again. It can easily be removed only by either:
i- providing a definition of "climate scientist" that most people can agree with
ii- changing the occurences of "climate scientist" (save the quotes) for the proper qualifiers (chemist, geologist, modeller, etc.)
--
Childhood's End
14:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Some ecologists would be climate scientists. Some wouldn't. I see no need for a precise definition of CS. William M. Connolley 17:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
A climate scientist is a scientist who studies some aspect of climate. What is so difficlt about that statement? That climate scientist could be a meteorologist, a climatologist, a climate modeler, a geoscientist who focuses on the atmosphere/earth interaction, a chemist who studies the chemistry of the atmosphere, a physist who studies the physics of the atmospheric gases and radiations ... Now, If anyone discussed as a climate scientist can be further ident ified into one of the sub-disciplines or supporting disciplins all the better. However, the term climate scientist is non-controversial and well understood by anyone in the field of climate study. I'll agree that someone else may not understand the broad meaning of the term (maybe a lawyer - who just wnats to be picky), but the concept is really quite simple. An Earth scientist is quite obvioulsy a scientist working in one of the subfields - or a chemist or physisist working to solve some problem in an Earth science field. It is a broad, inclusive term - as is climate scientist. Nothing misleading here at all - nor to pov-pushing. Now please cease the tenditious lawerly quibbling. Vsmith 16:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Um. I hadn't noticed JA was a climatologist n his wiki page. I didn't write that (notice careful choice of "saved" above). I've corrected it to the description his blog uses. Who says "JA is referred to widely as a Climatologist"? And wiki pages have been known to be wrong. I'm not saying that JA *isnt* a climatologist... but that CS is a better description. Hansen, of course, trained as a physicist (and in astronomy, but isn't one) but has been specifically involved in climate for ages. He is now a climate scientist, which is probably a subset of physics William M. Connolley 19:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Also... has anyone noticed that the wiki climatologist page is only a redirect? And the guardian, the BBC and Pielke all think he is a CS William M. Connolley 20:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
What is wrong with what's in "scientists involved in climate-related fields"? If a scientist is involved in a field related to climate, isn't that what defines a "climate scientist" rather than a drug researcher or an environmental activist or a mechanic?
Now we need to know what climate-related fields are.... Meteorology, climate & atmospheric sciences? Um, ecologists? Botanists?
Under the Weather: Climate, Ecosystems, and Infectious Disease and Climatology as a Profession
"Certain scientists who once might have called themselves, say, meteorologists or oceanographers, were now designated "climate scientists." There was still no specific professional organization or other institutional framework to support "climate science" as an independent discipline, but that did not much matter in the new order of holistic interdisciplinary work."
Like I said, this is going to be an interesting one. Wu. Sln3412 00:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Whew - what a harangue! I would just like to chime in on this last quotation that Sln3412 found. First, keep in mind that many universities do not create a department for a specialization such as climatology. Profs have to be hired by a department, and students graduate with a degree in a subject named for their department. James Hansen took degrees in physics, but he applies this to atmospheric physics in service of climate science. I took an undergrad course on climatology recently - it was listed in our Geography department because there is no "department of climatology" here, and Geography is the prof's home department. So a degree in Physical Geography might fit in with being a climatologist.as well. So anyway... after all this long back and forth, I fail to grasp why anyone should even care whether we say "climatologist" or "climate scientist." Yeesh. We all need to get lives. Birdbrainscan 02:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I created a page specificly for this theory, and put the a link to it in Assertions by opponents section, where the theory is spoken of. However, I could not find a way to fit it in there to where it looks and feels like it belongs. I'm guessing it needs rewording, if it is to fit in there. Well, do as you like; but I think it should be left, if at all posible. SadanYagci 20:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the article for places to shorten, I found this to be a good candidate. All of the petitions referenced are 1998 or older, which makes them pretty irrelevant to the present level of consensus. In 1998 there was a great deal more question than there is now. Alternately, the four of them could be summarized with a few sentences. Mishlai 00:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
There is a section for politics links, and a section for science links. No way is prisonplanet any kind of source for science. I move we cut this link out as just WP:SOAPBOX Birdbrainscan 05:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Having heard no objection or any reply for the past four days, I intend to go ahead and remove the link to prisonplanet from the list of "Science" links. I just took another look at the site, and while the linked page does indeed collect a half-dozen links to headlines about planets, the page itself has little to offer other than rhetoric. The rest of prisonplanet spends little time on questions of science at all. Birdbrainscan 01:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
It is high time to change this page to something that actually talks about the CONTROVERSY and does not simply push the GW alarmists POV. The Global warming page does that very well already. I am putting in my time to try to give a genuine NPOV - debate the changes here with me and others. DO NOT SIMPLY KEEP REVERTING ALL MY CHANGES - IT IS NOT WIKIPEDIC. ~ Rameses 05:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Raymond, yes the current article is a mess. I think the article should focus on the scientific controversy but should mention the international politics (I am thinking the article should mention that China and India will not agree to Kyoto because of their developing economies) and have some information on carbon trading since that is somewhat controversial. I have not seen the wiki article UBeR mentioned and really do not have any desire to get into US politics. Nor do I think the article should be US-centric. I hope everyone will stop by and pitch in on the effort. RonCram 13:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Stephan, Giegengack identifies himself as a skeptic, as do the others. To claim he is not a skeptic when he claims he is - well, that is just ridiculous. It appears Soon has published at least four articles on climate. [136] Baliunas appears to have a much larger publishing record. [137] Both Soon and Baliunas are recognized as accomplished researchers or they would not be employed by Harvard-Smithsonian. There are good reasons for their skepticism. You are correct about Motl, he is a physicist. But you seem to ignore the fact climate scientists often appeal to physics for support for AGW. Motl, as a Harvard professor of physics, does not buy it and his blog is one place the scientific debate is going on. [138] ClimateAudit is a unique website in which real science is being done. [139] It is not a peer-reviewed journal, but the peer-review of McIntyre's posts (and posts by a few others like Willis Eschenbach, Gerald Browning, Warwick Hughes etc.) is going on all the time. Judith Curry, Steve Bloom and others (climate modelers and climatologists) make comments about the studies being posted. Warwick Hughes also has a website with a great deal on the science debate. [140] Warwick Hughes was the guy who asked Phil Jones for his data and was told "Why should I when you are just going to try to find problems with it?" Hughes has done a lot of work matching data sets with grid cells. What he has learned does not reflect well on Phil Jones. But the Sandbox page also lists a good deal of peer-reviewed literature as well - articles by Bratcher and Giese, Pielke Sr., Barrett, Warren and Wiscomb, Vallina and Simo, Knappenberger and others. Several of these authors may not identify themselves as skeptics but their research provides reasons for open minded people to question the claims of AGW. As such, their research has become part of the debate. I would like to say that RealClimate is also a place where the debate is going on, but that is wishful thinking. Posts by skeptics are just censored so the debate is short-circuited. I have not even discussed Svensmark or Pilkey or several others. The debate is real. Again, I invite you to participate in the debate and provide whatever refutation or answers you can find. I expect you would know more than me about your position so please participate or the article will look POV. RonCram 00:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
This is regarding the following paragraph:
The source given is to http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1056. Why it specifically links to Benny Peiser first, I do not know, especially when considering the blog site links to this page as the default for their "Who are the sixty" page. Nevermind that this blog is written by journalist, lawyers, and public relations people--a lot of what they're saying is poorly sourced (or not at all). For example, linking to this site. They, of course, get their information from these sites (and of course back to the blog), which, all so conveniently, do not function.
They write, "We will report daily on their credentials and their connections (or their lack of connections) to the oil or tobacco industries" (I don't quite see the connection between tobacco and climatology, but okay). We write, "many of the signatories were non-scientists or lacked relevant scientific backgrounds." Most of the site's criticism is on the people who are members of NRSP, who they criticize solely for the lack of saying who their sponsors are due to confidentiality agreements. That's not very uncommon. A lot of the people on who they report on, they say, are people in the fields in meteorology, hydrology, geosciences, etc., who, by Connolley's definition, could very well be climatologists/climate scientists. A majority of these people still work in departments of Earth and atmospheric sciences of universities or other organizations. ~ UBeR 20:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
DeSmogBlog is a public relations website for the AGW community. It is not run by a climate researcher or scientist and nothing it says can be considered coming from a scientist. RealClimate is a public relations website as well but it does gets contributions from climate researchers that are sometimes appropriate for inclusion. ClimateAudit is led by McIntyre, who has published on climate repeatedly. Several of the other regulars have published as well. Almost any thread on ClimateAudit can be suitable for Wikipedia. RonCram 00:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I just survived my first edit conflict - hi Stephan! Here's the post I typed while he was typing the above paragraph... - :Let me try again to make this clear: in this section, I have not linked to DeSmogBlog as an authority for some factual claim about climate. Rather, I have linked to them as an example of the point the section is making, that some people questioned who the sixty scientists were. That's the point of the paragraph! As I tried to explain the first time, they are part of the story, just as the letter to Harper is part of the story that we are recounting in this section. Again: stop looking for peer-reviewed journal articles on who signed the letter to Harper! The letter is noteworthy - it got a fair amount of attention. The letter was not a peer-reviewed journal article either, but we cover it because it is an event in the controversy. This page is about the debate, including the parties to the debate; other pages are there to go into the substance of the science. I'm not asking for peer-reviewed journal papers to prove the letter was sent. Can you see my point? We are talking about people, not molecules: who are the parties to the debate, and what are they saying? In that sense, I'd have no problem with seeing this page include more coverage of Sen. Inhofe, RealClimate, AEI, Marshall Institute, Fraser Institute, et al. But it would have to be description of their make-up, their role in the debate, what scientists they cite and how, as well as where they fit on the political spectrum. Birdbrainscan 01:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
DeSmogBlog is a PR website. It is not involved in the scientific debate. ClimateAudit is involved in the scientific debate. You can watch as the science is being done, tested and reviewed by scientists who favor AGW. In fact, if you feel you have something worthwhile to point out - you can be involved in reviewing McI's (and others) work on the site. Every time McIntyre has been involved in a scientific debate, he has won. The scientific reputations of Drs. Mann and Jones have suffered tremendously because of the auditing done by McIntyre. This is not a public relations victory, it was a scientific victory. Mann had to publish a Corrigendum because of McI. Birdbrainscan, I just read the post about why you linked to DeSmogBlog. It seems to me that it would be okay to link to the site as long as the site is not presented as an authority on science. RonCram 00:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this subsection, I think that:
- The title is quite unencyclopedic
- This section focuses on the wrong debate (although it's true that you do not find nowadays many skeptics denying that the Earth is warming, it seems to me that the debate is mostly held as to whether the warming is or is not anthropogenic.
--
Childhood's End
19:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the section title exhibits some refreshing creativity and I don't see how it is unencyclopedic. I do think MrRedact and UBeR are right that the section needs to be supported more by external sources saying the nature/climate of skepticism has changed (which it seems to have done). Also it might be more appropriate to move this subsection to the "History" section. -- Nethgirb 06:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The basic idea of the section is good but the material in its present form is unacceptable -- WP:NPOV, WP:SYNT, you name it. There have been critical analyses of the evolution of climate-change skepticism so there's plenty of basis for a short section on the matter -- I recall a quotes like "the skeptics have taken global warming from impossible to inevitable with no stop in between". Instead of the present synthesis, the section needs to find existing articles that discuss the matter and build from there. Raymond Arritt 19:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the section is salvageable; it isn't elegant and it doesn't flow, but it does touch on the main issues and it seems to cover both sides reasonably. Birdbrainscan 01:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Well it's interesting that it sure looks like they are changing their stance. Real Climate wrote in their year end summation for 2006 [142] "Most dizzying turn-around of a climate skeptic: Fred Singer 'global warming is not happening' ( 1998, 2000, 2002, 2005) to global warming is 'unstoppable' ( [143])" Here's the link to Singer's and Avery's paper [144]. They admit here that the earth IS warming but are still reluctant to say that it's due to human activities. It seems obvious to me that what's really going on is that Exxon et al are trying to delay any real action on climate change until it's too late thereby keeping the profit machine going as long as possible. IOW, let future generations deal with it, we want our money now! 66.14.116.114 18:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
And about the skepticism not changing admitting AGW, read these comments from former skeptic Ronald Bailey (one time author of Global Warming and Other Eco Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death): "Details like sea level rise will continue to be debated by researchers, but if the debate over whether or not humanity is contributing to global warming wasn't over before, it is now.... as the new IPCC Summary makes clear, climate change Pollyannaism is no longer looking very tenable" [145]. Fact is, there are lots of former skeptics coming out of the closet [146]. I also think that 4.246.200.210 is right that the issue of if GW is happening at all has been the central skepticism. 66.14.116.114 22:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know where I should edit this in, or if it's needed at all. It seems some people pay quite a bit of attention to this article so if it's needed I just wanted to throw it out there. Eos4life 22:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
This documentary lists a good number of skeptical scientists that are not named on Wikipedia's Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. They are probably not listed because we could not locate a quote that would meet the rigorous demands of some of our fellow editors here... or perhaps they were never discussed. It just goes to show there are many more skeptics than the mainstream group would like people to know about. RonCram 18:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The writing style in this article has grown more and more awkward. I'm going to attempt to straighten it out here and there. Needless to say, if anyone disagrees with my edits then join in with your own. But please try not to make the writing style any more tortuous than it already is. Raymond Arritt 03:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Rameses would like to add:
Having seen the film, Reiter does indeed make some ambiguous claims. But its not at all clear that he is talking about the SPM or the WGI report. Given his specialism, the WGII or III reports are more likely (even granting there is some basis to his claim). So we cannot say "summary" here, cos that means SPM. Also, as Stephan pointed out, "There have been cases where scientists have been wrongly listed" is wrong, in Reiters case, because even he says he was removed. Reiter claims others, vagule, but names no names. None of this is reliable enough to be included William M. Connolley 10:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
At present the article does not discuss a very large issue in this controversy, data withholding by climate scientists. Mann withheld code and has tried to stonewall on a number of data sharing issues. The source code was one of the most difficult, but eventually Mann turned over the code. The actions of Phil Jones are also very much an issue and may result in a lawsuit (although recently Pat Frank of Stanford has been arguing to just reconstruct the temperature record in a full and open manner in order to shame Jones into releasing his data and methods). I have put together a few links for you to peruse to get a better handle on the issues and the amount of discussion and controversy that has been generated so far. Please take a look. The first three involve Mann. Then one on Jones and several others on the issue at large.
I am attempting to create a new outline for this article that will include this issue along with several others. Please take a look at User:RonCram/AGWControversySandbox and help me make the outline better. Once it gets to a certain level, we can bring it back here for further discussion. Thanks! RonCram 18:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
They laughed at Copernicus. They laughed at the Wright brothers. Yes, well, they also laughed at the Marx Brothers. Being laughed at does not mean you are right. -- Michael Shermer
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- Carl Sagan
1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. 2. The only way to discover the limits of the possible is to go beyond them into the impossible. 3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. --Arthur C. Clarke
To wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough to be persecuted by an unkind establishment. One must also be right. --Bill Clinton
In an effort to explain some of the issues involved in this controversy, I have written an article Scientific data archiving which provides the policies of NSF, science journals and some of the issues around data archiving and replication. I have tried to make the article of general interest by not limiting the discussion strictly to climate science.
On the issue of climate research affecting public policy and therefore demanding greater scrutiny, JohnA has written: ‘’But the costs resulting from mistakes in climate studies, could measured in billions of dollars. Isn’t it time that climate scientists started demanding from their peers that all data sources, source codes, notes and methodologies be archived for open review prior to publication? It’s no longer a $5 mistake when climate reconstructions go wrong…’’
In a post above, William had suggested that more sources were required before the controversy regarding data archiving and sharing should be mentioned in this article. Of course, many other sources are available and some are listed below. However, it should be expected that Steve McIntyre would dominate this list. The website he runs is called “ClimateAudit” for a reason. Audits are not possible without data archiving and sharing.
Others who have entered the fray include:
The group below all signed a letter to Science Magazine on the issue:
Also above, Brian wondered about the status on the Jones request. At least two scientists have requested information, Steve McIntyre and Willis Eschenbach. They are requesting the data and methods used in compiling the temperature record kept at CRU and for his 1990 study on UHI. (Jones claims the data from Russian weather stations is homogeneous and most scientists have a difficult time believing that). When Warwick Hughes first requested the temperature data, Jones replied : ‘’Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.’’ [170] Several scientists are arguing for a lawsuit against Jones and CRU under the FOI Act to force Jones to provide his data and methods. Pat Frank of Stanford is arguing that McIntyre and others should reconstruct the global temperature record from available data in an open and auditable way. Frank believes the differences between the McIntyre series and the Jones series will shame Jones into releasing his data and methods. [171] [172] [173]
Brian also expressed his opinion that the controversy was mainly about Mann and Jones. This is far from accurate. The links provided above discuss requests for information on Osborn and Briffa 2006, Esper et al [2002] and Thompson et al 1989 (Dunde); 1997 (Guliya). [175] None of these requests were satisfactorily met. Here are some additional links:
SDA is currently embarassingly naive. Neither Science nor Nature enforce such policies. Like I say, had the letter been *published* it might have been a bit different. But your evidence is still 95% from CA, who are obsessed with this issue. I agree that there *is* an issue here; I disagree that its any notable part of the GWC William M. Connolley 11:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know where I can place bets of a few hundred pounds on Global warming not happening? 88.111.137.110 22:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Connolley,
I seriously suggest you read the article on "
ownership" of Wikipedia articles.
You do NOT own the articles here. This is a collaborative effort, and some submissions may happen that you don't agree with. That is too bad, but that's how Wikipedia works.
You act like every edit has to be approved by you personally, and if some submission is made that doesn't agree with your viewpoint that it is in your right to delete them.
You should know better as an admin, and if not, I would recommend going through the official guidelines once more.
Please refrain from reverting any submission you don't agree with, without discussing those changes first. Otherwise I will have to file a complaint against your inappropriate behaviour.
-- Frescard 23:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader. What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such. - Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Appropriate_sources Raul654 06:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Raul654. You make a compelling argument to remove your friend's blog. ~
UBeR
18:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
It appears Lord Monckton may have rushed into print too early. Since William said he was waiting for my rebuttal, I decided to post a few thoughts even though I have not completed a thorough analysis. Here are the facts as I see them:
1. The 4AR SPM is a political document not based on the science. This is seen first in the reasons given by Christopher Landsea on why he resigned from the IPCC. [1] [2] It is also seen in the fact the science document is not being released until it conforms to the SPM, written by and for policymakers.
2. In several places, the 4AR SPM does exactly what Landsea was afraid of – it changes the science. Here are some examples:
3. The 4AR SPM makes no mention of the report by Bratcher and Giese of a possible shift in climate change regime to pre-1976 conditions. [8] The oceans have cooled since 2003 and surface air temps were lower than expected in 2006. Both of these facts are consistent with the observations and prediction of B+G and were completely ignored by the IPCC.
4. The 4AR SPM pretends the oceans are warming when in the fact the oceans have been cooling since 2003. [9] RonCram 03:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
From what I understand, this page is for the "Global Warming Controversy" not for "Debunking" it. The "Global Warming" Wiki section is pretty well set up for that. Is it too much to ask to keep the sections and the politics between those who don't agree with one side or the other out of the respective section? I have made some edits today, for example, that removed allot of the "yea, but..." junk from some areas of the "Global Warming Controversy" Wiki, because if everything has a "yea but..." on it, its not really "Controversy" is it? If this article is in deed for “Controversy” then that’s what should be here, whether or not environmentalists agree with it.-- Zeeboid 19:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
It is interesting the amount of interest that the editors on wiki seem to have on both sides of an issue. Few politically sensitive articles and their oppsoing piece are not controlled by the same group. It is often hard to tell which article is worse - they are always both pretty bad.
Actually, the place for this article is in the global warming article not as a separate article. I am horrified by the extremists - that have taken up residence on the global warming article and are pretending that they can just ignore WP:NPOV. I personally think the evidence more than supports the view that global warming is manmade, but that in no way excuses these thugs that seem to think they can just bullies others with alternative evidence and ignore basic policy Mike 13:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Zeeboid. I see the purpose of your first edit (the he said/she said style is bad and does not fit the article), the rest of your edits is controproductive. There is indeed a consensus about global warming in the scientific community (see scientific opinion on climate change and attribution of recent climate change) that has just been reinforced by the IPCC AR4 SPM release (and will be further explained in the full AR4 reports later this year). The number of scientists opposing this consensis is small - there are about 3000 scientists with input into the AR4, uncluding more than 850 authors. There are, if I count correctly, 23 people on List of scientists opposing global warming consensus, and many of these are not even climate scientists. Many others are not active scientists any more and haven't published anything relevant in many years.This is just "a few". -- Stephan Schulz 20:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The Oregon Petition does not help refute the "few scientists" because it's not, in fact, a reliable list of scientists; this is well documented. You don't necessarily need to spell out the names individually, you just need to use reliable, verifiable sources. Also note that the petition does not say global warming is not primarily caused by humans; it says there's no evidence for "catastrophic heating" caused by humans. -- Nethgirb 19:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
To quote the Oregon Petition, which it appears people are dismissing without reading: "Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist."
So, we're down to 17,800 scients who have been independently verified to not agree with Human Caused Global Warming. Is that enough to support the edits to the article I made earlier changing "A Few scients don't agree" to "many scients don't agree" ammong other changes? Also, Did you Raymond Arritt, actual read the Oregon Petition? Because I have read much of the IPCC.-- Zeeboid 20:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
After your edits, the The neutrality of this article is disputed. It is quite clear that there is only one side that many here wish to view, even though in Science, the deffinition of what IS ACTUAL science is something that stands up to open dispute. The edit history on a page set up for the Global warming controversy shows that an open dispute of the topic is far from what is going on.--
Zeeboid
21:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Exxon Secrets.org? Democracy Now.org? Mother Jones.com? MonBiot.com? Sheldon Rampton's World? -- Zeeboid 22:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Connolley reverted edits with no explanation. I put my edits back and would like to remind Connolley of a few things regarding reverts. From the Revert policies and guidelines.
"Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously."
Cannot say if this was done or not, but in light of the following items you can draw your own conclusions.
"Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism."
The edits that were reverted were not in any manner able to be construed as vandalism.
"If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it."
As I mentioned, there was no summary explanation and if an explanation of the revert was made in the talk page then I missed it as it was NOT its own subject and would have been buried somewhere else.
"If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it."
This is pretty self-explanatory. The revert was done to remove content that, prima facia, opposes the views of ONE side of the discussion on this page. Nothing more than that.
Let us review some more from the Wikipedia policies and guidelines about revert wars (which, basically are
Revert wars are usually considered harmful for the following reasons: 1. They disrespect the work of the contributor. Being reverted can feel a bit like a slap in the face: "I worked hard on those edits, and someone just rolled it all back" 2. They cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles 3. They make the page history less useful, waste space in the database 4. They make it hard for other people to contribute, and flood recent changes and watchlists Editors are discouraged to revert because there is disagreement, or the edit is bad or problematic. Users are encourage to explore alternate methods like raising the objections on a talk page, or following the processes in dispute resolution.
Someone that is a member of the " Harmonious Editing Club should know better.
However, this is not an isolated incident. Just going through talk pages one will notice [ pattern] that [ [12]] to develop.
[ reading]. -- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 21:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I will ask this only one time...and I'm looking for answers from each of you.
User:Raymond_arritt, User:BozMo and User:William_M._Connolley:
1. Explain why you reverted the edits (essentially deleting them) as oppossed to improving them?
2. What policy was violated to cause you to justify reverting?
3. What other avenues of correction/improving did you take before reverting?
The reverts I am referencing are:
-- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 22:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
As set forth earlier today, text based on sources that are not "scientific" should be deleted. Here is the first part of a list of text that qualifies and should be deleted immediately. Reasons for the deletions are provided (in greater detail than previously provided).
That is just the tip of the iceberg.
Understand that I am presenting the content that fits your criteria. You have subjectively applied some rationalizations for deleting/censoring content and using the same standards I compiled this first list of qualifying content for removal. The only question is which standard do you choose to be applied EQUALLY and without splitting hairs: delete content that is questionable, poorly written, etc OR fix the content? Do we restore the content you DELETED or do we remove these texts of equal qualifications? Just as you dismiss outright the validity of my sources, the validity of these sources is also equally disqualified. -- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 04:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I've removed this section added by Mnyakko. It starts out with baseless accustations by Jim "Global Warming is the greatest Hoax" Inhofe, ends with a similiar one from James Spann (best known for the weather channel fight he is involved in), and the middle two paragraphs contain raw research dollar figure for research by "global warming theorists" (in other words, everyone but the tiny minority that are the skeptics) - meaningless given the group size. Raul654 05:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes indeed, apparently Bush is very keen on pro-GWT research. How anyone believes that is beyond me. But this is a common skeptic canard. Most (all?) of the research money is distributed n scientific merit (apart from pork like bridge-building in Alsaka, of course) William M. Connolley 16:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Interesting article in Human Events, a conservative weekly publication that has been around for decades. [14] I guess it should not have been news to me that Gore was such a poor science student in college, but it was. According to one observer, now even the NY Times is telling Al Gore to "cool his jets." [15] RonCram 14:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
If the NYT has information as to why Gore should back off a bit it could become the article.
Do article abstracts say things like, "This article affirms/denies the theory of anthropogenic global warming?"
Or is it more like, "We examine the relationship of cosmic rays to cloud formation, and the consequent effects on global average air temperature. Changes in the sun's magnetism are found to affect the amount of sunshine which reaches the earth's surface."
Would the latter be counted as one of 928 abstracts not contradicting the GW consensus? -- Uncle Ed 14:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I just thought of something. All the advocates on one side or another seem to be either "groups" or "indidivuals". Is it just me, or do the groups tend to be warmers and the individuals skeptics?
I can't think of more than a handful of individual scientists supporting GW theory, but there seem to be dozens of skeptics. And only a couple of small organizations oppose GWT, while the big (gov't-linked) orgs seem overwhelmingly for it.
Is it money, or power over money? Does ideology drive politicians to provide funding?
Are individuals, especially retired scientists, merely people with nothing to lose? -- Uncle Ed 16:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not doing that, Ellen Goodman of the Boston Globe is.
My only extrapolation was to link libs & dems, cons & reps.
But which came first, the chicken or the egg? Are cons biased, and is "most S are C" proof of this?
Correlation is not causation, which reminds me: how are we doing on our writing about the causal link between CO2 levels and air temp? Are there any proxy records showing that one tends to follow the other, or do they both rise and fall together? -- Uncle Ed 17:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
"...and solar variation. A 2004 study at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany concluded that "the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years" and attributed recent global climate change to this increase in solar activity"
I cannot wait to see how this gets trimmed down and altered so as to create the illusion that it is unworthy of being mentioned. Sadly, this tidbit should be in every single Global Warming article...and I know it would not last 24 hours. -- Tony of Race to the Right 18:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The section title "sun activity fallacy" perked up my interest. Increased sun activity in recent years is old information - Astronomy magazine mentioned it several years ago. Mars, Venus, etc are all getting warmer - ditto and many other sources. The testiness of the editors seems to betray a flagging confidence. If man is causing some of the current warming I doubt ( I actually saw the percent that manmade activities are supposed to contribute ( forgot where ) but it is not impressive ) that is the cause of the moon's warming up - but that seems to be the consensus of "scientists". Do these "scientists" have degrees?
And what percentage of the scientific community believed the world was flat? Numbers do not make science. It is scary what direction this country is heading when global warming theorists are among the growing list of groups who adopt a "we say so, no discussion allowed" philosophy and are trying to carry that out in legislation. -- Tony of Race to the Right 01:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
If the policy of wiki is actually "verifiability, not truth", then wiki is destined to keep on putting out a very low quality product. Much/most of the wiki history articles are worthless, except for the discussion pages. Too bad that the science articles are following the same vein - of course if you can count climatology as a science, at least in present day political conditions.
[18] User:KimDabelsteinPetersen deleted content earlier today from the "Funding of global warming theorist" section. The reason for deletion: "GEF's funding is all help to developing countries to live up to UNFCCC requirements (neither pro nor contra))" This is erroneous. Considering the nature of her nearly 300+ edits (about 95% of which are on global warming
A quick Google search of "Global Environment Facility" "global warming" turns up in the first hit a development summary for just ONE project involving GEF. Among the goals of this one project (for a mere US$7MM), "provide governments concerned with tools to assess the potential implications of climate change for their environmental and resource management policies". And the translation from poli-speak to plain English is "tell governments how the UN wants the governments to manage industry resources".
Why should this stay in the article? It would be the same standard that allows misleading comments about ties to Exxon being used in the neighboring section to discredit "opponents" without so much as an edit, much less a deletion. "[George C Marshall] Institute has received numerous large grants from ExxonMobil..."--curious how $630,000 over 7 years (avg $90,000/year) for an institute that also focuses on non-climate research such as "national defense, bioterrorism, and missile defense" Source: Exxonsecrets.org. THAT gets no challenge to date for either POV or accuracy while deleting information about Global Environment Facility and getting over $2billion for one year. What is GEF's function? "The Global Environment Facility (GEF), established in 1991, helps developing countries fund projects and programs that protect the global environment. GEF grants support projects related to biodiversity, climate change, international waters, land degradation, the ozone layer, and persistent organic pollutants." [19] That hardly seems to match with 'funding is all help to developing countries to live up to UNFCCC requirements'. Additionally, GEF is not a 'wall flower' in the global warming debate. [20] -- Tony of Race to the Right 03:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Do we delete text if the funding is not explicitly lables "global warming research" or do we leave it in the article?
This is NOT an official policy determination. It is to gauge from those who have been editing this page recently the standards that are to be applied to the page. It is also to help users understand and follow a set of standards for this article, its text and the sourcing of those texts. Discussion is open. Thank you. -- Tony of Race to the Right 17:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Do we delete text if the beneficiary does not have an explicitly stated purpose of "global warming research" or do we leave it in the article?
This is NOT an official policy determination. It is to gauge from those who have been editing this page recently the standards that are to be applied to the page. It is also to help users understand and follow a set of standards for this article, its text and the sourcing of those texts. Discussion is open. Thank you. -- Tony of Race to the Right 17:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Do we leave in text making 2nd & 3rd degree links between parties (such as "benefactor" and "beneficiary") or do we require direct links between parties?
This is NOT an official policy determination. It is to gauge from those who have been editing this page recently the standards that are to be applied to the page. It is also to help users understand and follow a set of standards for this article, its text and the sourcing of those texts. Discussion is open. Thank you. -- Tony of Race to the Right 17:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Cut from intro:
Among the governments of developed countries, there is little debate about attribution of global warming to human activities. As of December 2006, 166 states have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol, whose objective is to prevent dangerous anthropogenic climate change; and the administrations of both the United States and Australia—the only two developed nations not to have ratified the treaty—have acknowledged that global warming is anthropogenic.
There is, however, an ongoing political debate about what actions should be taken to mitigate or adapt to global warming.
For example, the Clinton administration did not submit the treaty to the Senate, after that body preemptively rejected such measures unanimously (95-0). [1] The Bush administration also has not submitted the 1997 Kyoto protocol for ratification by the U.S. Senate on the grounds that it exempts 80 percent of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and that it would damage the American economy. [2] The UK-sponsored Stern Review, commanded by Tony Blair's government in response to the House of Lords Economics Committee's report that had issued substantial scientific uncertainties about climate change, [3] concluded that "the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting." [4] In addition to economic arguments, concerns include social justice for the adversely affected including likely climate refugees, need for intergenerational equity, and loss of biodiversity.
The above implies that the pro-AGW side is correct, and in the overwhelming majority. Both these points, however, are disputed by the anti-AGW side.
It would be better to lay out the points of contention first, and to say what the various sides assert about them.
If numbers of advocates are at issue, then let's describe the dispute over the numbers. For example, the pro-AGW side says that scientists are virtually unanimous in their support of AGW theory; while the anti-AGW side says that 25% or more of climate scientists doubt or disagree with it. -- Uncle Ed 21:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
None of the above 4 statements are sourced. Why have them in an encyclopedia article. Is there some sort of rush, here? I don't want to see pro-AGW or anti-AGW stuff in the article, if it's just some contributor's opinion.
This is not a blog. We are not debating AGW here. We are contributing to an article about the debate. If we can't remember where we read or heard something, why put it in the body of the article? -- Uncle Ed 21:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
User:Raymond arritt has cemented the standard of this article. "Partisan sources" are absolutely not allowed. That includes Mother Jones, btw. And details about members of the debate are also not to be included (though typical of his POV edits, there is not any explanation). Additionally, the biased editors do NOT discuss these changes beforehand as common courtesy would dictate. I accept their standard and have made changes using the standards in practice. If this double standard continues and the obvious and blatant one-sidedness of reverts and content deletion continues then other steps will have to explored to remedy this continuing problem. -- Tony of Race to the Right 03:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC) [edit]--I should say that I am disappointed in the standards chosen, but accept them and shall carry them out. If you don't like them blame Connelly, arritt, et al. -- Tony of Race to the Right 03:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
To quote Kim: "We actually do check the references here." and "the source didn't show/say/support the claim of the text"
Perhaps you should recheck (or even actually check) the sources you deleted. You deleted "In 1996 Global Environment Facility's quarterly report showed over $2 billion in research funding and donations." and 2 sources ( http://www.gefweb.org/COUNCIL/GEF_C10/arintro.pdf and <nowiki>http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54074).</nowiki> On page 23 of the pdf file on the GEF website was the pledge page which states, "Contributions to the First GEF Replenishment (US$ millions)" and "Total Pledges 2,030.2". $2,030.2 in "US$ million" is $2.030 billion. That is the first source you deleted and it understates what was in the second source. The understating is not surprising since the GEF's report was on a shorter timeframe than the second source was referring to. However, the second source said
"global warming is an industry. In 1996, at the same U.N. meeting at which the Second Assessment Report was released, Mohamed T. El-Ashry, chief executive officer and chairman of the Global Environment Facility, released its quarterly report. He told the delegates that his agency had leveraged $462.3 million into $3.2 billion in climate change projects. And that was just the beginning."
So far we have the 2nd source being deleted by William M. Connolley at 22:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC) because "[it] is hopelessly biased. Rants about scientists being pressurised into silence are far too common, and always badly sourced" even though the source was not being cited for the silencing of GW skeptics. I add additionally sourcing 'from the horse's mouth' and you ( Kim D. Petersen delete the text and both sources claiming neither source supported the text (remember, the text stating GEF rec'd over $2MM in funding & donations).
So please explain again why you deleted the text?
The third source and its text were also deleted by you. The text was "Global Environment Facility assists developing countries with environmental programs and local sustainable development projects, some of which are related to climate change." and the source was GEF...basically the first paragraph on the page. (Again, you said the source didn't show/say/support the text and we (imply you included) actually do check the references here." 100% of the references you deleted with that reasoning were nearly directly quoted in the text you also deleted. I am incredibly curious to know the thought process (and what you actually read in any of the 3 sources). Now the inclusion of this third source may seem odd, but that is because the funding info was previously deleted by you (edit #107865385) with the reasoning of "GEF's funding is all help to developing countries to live up to UNFCCC requirements (neither pro nor contra)" Clearly, GEF's own stated purpose is directly contradicting your claim, so in re-inserting relevant funding information I also added the source and text to address your previous deletion. The source, btw, GEF's What is the GEF webpage. So, please, again, since I am not a smart person, explain this to me again. Why did you delete all of the texts that you have? And if you are feeling bold could you please enlighten us all why you are not deleting text that is actually not supported by its citations which happen to be pro-GW? This is a recurring pattern with you specifically and nearly all of the editors on this article.
Finally, Kim wrote: "Oh and btw. you may want to check what "environmental and resource management policies" entail - if this is support to a local government in adhering to requirements that are put down by international treaties - then its neither pro- nor contra."
Kim, that implies that there must be a direct link between the funding and the research and the entity presenting a position. Review some of the pulp that has been allowed to exist on this article that use links to tobacco as discrediting someone for their GW positions, playing 6-degrees of seperation to diminish their positions...I noticed you did not delete any of those poorly linked benefactor-beneficiary passages but jumped all over this one (seriously--less than 12 hours to delete the contr-GW text. So, why did you delete all of these things? while leaving identically problematic passages in the article which support your POV? -- Tony of Race to the Right 07:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Vincent Gray is a long-time reviewer of IPCC reports. He has published a critique of the AR4 SPM that has been accepted for publication in "Energy and Environment" and is available online. [28] I would suggest anyone interested in this controversy read Dr. Gray's critique. He says: "I will therefore confine these comments to the aspects of the “2007 Summary for Policymakers” which I find the most distasteful. They come under the headings of unreliable data, inadequate statistical treatment and gross exaggeration of model capacity." Enjoy! RonCram 18:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Tony, I apologize. I thought the wikipedia article on Vincent Gray was on the climate scientist. I see now that it is not. That should be remedied as Dr. Gray deserves his own article. Dr. Gray earned his Ph.D. in Chemistry at Cambridge University and published more than 100 scientfic papers in several different fields, including climate science, environment, sociobiology and theoretical biology. This paper has a short bio on page 30. [29] Since 1990, he has been working mainly in climate science. He was until recently a visiting scholar at the Beijing Climate Centre in China. [30] You can check Google Scholar for his climate writings. [31] RonCram 22:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I fixed up the horrible section of betting on GW. Once that was done I realized that it actually has no place in this article. It is more along the lines of "trivia" and does not seem to fit the "important and interesting" criteria by Wikipedia. Additionally, it is problematic in a POV prism. It sets up the false impression that "skeptics" are not confident in their skepticism. This actually is not true, in that the bet requires a premise of warming vs cooling. The most widely held view held by the skeptics is, in a nutshell, that man is either not the cause of, or an insignificant factor in the warming. The source for the section perpetuates this misleading facade (no surprise from that source, is typical and should always be treated with a skeptical eye). -- Tony of Race to the Right 20:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I have an idea but am not sure how to implement it.
I think it would be very helpful to readers and editors if the academic credentials for each person listed was provided. There is little room for POV complaints/actions regarding someone's level of degree and field of study. This would also go a long way to eliminating POV problems regarding who is/is not credible, etc.
I agree that the article will get cluttered with the information. So, if someone know how to make a "Academic Credentials" section similar to the Notes and References sections then we can simply put the information there. Then we can also put the year & institution for each degree.
If needed, we could create a template for the in text tag so it would be something like:
...and the in text result would be something like:
...and the Credentials section output would be something like:
Help would be appreciated.
Thanks. -- Tony of Race to the Right 20:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
If we had a section about how many people that graduate with a degree in climate-related majors keep whatever funding or grants they get aftwards if their research shows something different than the consensus view. Sln3412 06:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
-- Kim D. Petersen 09:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)As far as certain scientists who are disfavored in the grants process or in peer-reviewed publication because of their political views, I guess I’d say: prove it. I have no doubt that extra-scientific factors often play a role in the publication process and in proposal reviews. However, the nature of peer-reviewed publication and funding is so decentralized that if you can’t publish your work somewhere or get it supported, eventually, well, there must be a reason, and, hint, hint, it’s not an environmental conspiracy.
Kevin E. Trenberth has received $5.575 million ($6.804 million in constant 2005 dollars) in grant funding for the 17 projects which he was Primary Investigator. [5] [6] Projects were conducted from 1978 to the present and the funding agencies were National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation, National Center for Atmospheric Research and NASA. [7] All 17 projects were related to atmospheric observations, global water cycles, short-term climate fluctuations, climate modeling and global drought in 1988. [8]
I've cut the above from the article - it is classifiable as WP:NOR (imho). Apparently the section was created to lead support to the statements by James Spann. Please give references to external (for Wikipedia) sources for these numbers and the allegation that these are all support for a climate change "theorist" viewpoint. -- Kim D. Petersen 09:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC) More specifically (but not exclusively) i believe the section to go against:
-- Kim D. Petersen 09:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The article needs a section on the inadequacies of climate models. We could use sources like Gray's critique of the AR4 SPM [36] and news articles like "Antarctic Temperatures Disagree with Climate Model Predictions." [37] I am certain a great deal of info can be cited here that readers would find helpful. RonCram 12:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Stephan, Dr. Gray is an IPCC reviewer. He has comparable weight when discussing the IPCC process because he was a part of it. Your argument is going nowhere. RonCram 16:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
(reindent) This might be a better analogy. I have a friend with a pHD in math who has done some modeling work to predict changes in traffic patterns, given the projected growth of the city. Inputs are things like speed limits, traffic light configurations, new housing developments, new shopping centers, people moving into or out of the city, etc. Clearly traffic is chaotic, and yet by continously refining his model, he is able to reasonably predict the effects of different courses of action. This helps the city make judgements on matters like road construction and repair, zoning, traffic laws, etc. that will result in saving the taxpayers both commute time and tax money. It is undoubtedly an estimate but like climate models, it is possible to see how well the model predicts known responses to known changes, improving the model if it was wrong, or improving our confidence in its powers of prediction if it was not. After a lot of iterations of tweaking, the model has significant value.
Like our climate example, traffic is chaotic. It is not chaotic, random, or difficult to predict that putting a shopping center up at the end of the road will increase traffic on the road. This doesn't remove the randomness, but adjusts the baseline about which randomness operates. This is the kind of thing we're talking about, and I think that this is my last best attempt to clarify. I'd ask you to take a gander at my longer post regarding models at the bottom of this section if you haven't already.
As far as global cooling, there was never anything resembling a scientific consensus on that, only a couple of scientists. They argued cooling, others argued warming from greenhouse gases, and the rest of the scientific community said that they couldn't be sure either way. This "we used to believe there would be global cooling" thing is just another widely propagated myth.
We're a long, long way away from discussing the article right now. Mishlai 19:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
(reindent): That's why I asked what "running backwards" should mean. I suspect Zeeboid talks about applying todays climate models to previous times. That works well within the known limitations of the models. They generally assume relatively small pertubations of the current state, and only model forcings that change within the time frame we are interested in. No climate model, as far as I know, deals with plate tectonics reconfiguring continents, or with large-scale orbital forcings, or with the slow transition of the sun towards a red giant. It's like modelling a falling body. As long as you deal with a small distance, you can assume constant gravity, and get excellent results. But if you move far enough away, your model will suffer. And if the body hits the ground, your model totally breaks. -- Stephan Schulz 19:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
My goodness this is hostile. First, the incomplete nature of our climate models is a limitation that is acknowledge by climatologists. It isn't nearly as bad as is often made out, but I do think that model limitations is an appropriate section of the controversy article. Just keep the model criticism level-headed. Calling a model the same thing as a guess is just rehtoric. Let me try to address a few things:
If by "running backwards" you mean "predict the past", then yes, the models do that. That's one of the ways that climatologists test their models for accuracy. Showing the effects of things like the historical eruption of Mt. Pinatubo is an important trial for climate models. This is standard practice, and if the results do not match history within reason, then this is an indication that something is wrong - perhaps the effects of aerosols have been over or underestimated, etc. I don't think they actually "run backwards" so much as start at a date in the past and run forward towards the future, "predicting" what we already know and giving us a guage of the model's accuracy. True test are predictions of the future, and models have done respectably well there too. If by "run backwards" you mean predict the climate of 4 million years ago, we can't do that because we lack data on the matter, and because the longer you run a model (for more years of prediction), the larger the errors get since each predicted change is based on the initial conditions from the last predicted change. Near-term climate predictions (decades) are more confident than longer term climate predictions. The models wouldn't be able to meaningfully predict 4 million years in the future either.
Hansen actually predicted the future remarkably well with his 1988 scientific understanding - now 19 years out of date. It's frequently cited by denier sources that Hansen over-estimated future warming by 300%, but this is a blatant lie that has been repeated so often that I suspect most people saying it think its true.
Hansen showed a graph with 3 lines for temperature predictions in best, middle, and wost cases when he testified to the Senate in 1988. He made it plainly clear that the middle graph was the one that he thought most likely, and observations since then have been close to that. 10 years later in 1998, Patrick Michaels testified to the Senate. He took Hansen's graph, erased the middle and low scenarios, and then accused Hansen of overestimating climate change based on the High scenario only. It was a thoroughly dishonest assertion, and one that deserves to be put to rest. You can see Hansen's 1988 graph here [42] Criticism of misalignment of the dips in the graphs is meaningless, because Hansen assumed a volcanic eruption in the mid-90s, and instead got one in the early 90s. The climate model doesn't predict volcanic eruptions for you, you have to input that.
Further, it's meaningless to criticize modern models based on the models of 1988. They're far better now. Computers have changed a bit in the 19 years since, as has climate science. We've also collected data with a keen eye towards climate change during those two decades, which is tremendously helpful in making the models more accurate.
Here's a quote from AR4 SPM:
"Since IPCC's first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global averaged temperature increases between about 0.15 and 0.3C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with the observed values of about 0.2C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections"
As far as climate vs weather, there isn't any comparison. Climate has to do with the broader long-term changes, and not with the year to year or day to day variations that are the concern of weather forecasters. These are actually easier to predict. It's quite simple to deduce that the earth will warm in response to say, increased solar output. We can estimate the amount of warming that would be expected in the next decade because of it, but no one can tell you what the average temperature of any given year will be because it varies around the average. Certainly no one can tell you how many inches of rain Seattle will get on March 3rd, 2032. We can, however, make predictions about changes to average precipitation that might be expected in the northwest U.S. 30 years from now.
If you'll forgive a bad analogy, it's maybe a bit like making predictions about the thowing of a carpenter's hammer: The individual flips, twists and gyrations are so seemingly chaotic that it would be difficult to predict them. Predicting the hammer's overall arc, distance traveled after so long, etc. with reasonable accuracy would not be that difficult. The hammer's head, because of uneven weight distribution, would orbit around the "average arc". The thrower could probably tell you about how far the hammer will go, but probably could not tell you in any detail how it will flip and twist along the way.
Similarly, predicting weather deals with the all the chaos - the flips and twists of wind and temperature, while predicting climate is concerned with the planet's broader arc.
In conclusion, I still believe that the modelling limitations are worth mentioning. This is one of the key complaints of the denier side. Just recognize that the article will need to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of the models to be NPOV, and that unsupported claims will not fly.
Mishlai 05:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The article also needs a section discussing how
Phil Jones at the
Climatic Research Unit does not make his data and methods available for audit. Neither does the
National Climatic Data Center. The article should point out that this is contrary to normal science which is built around openness and reproducibility. How can other scientists check the work being done when the standards of science are being ignored? The article also should point out that these groups will occasionally change the way data is handled so that warmer years in the past are downgraded to make it look like the 1990s are the warmest years ever.
[43]
RonCram
12:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Somehow this discussion has gotten off topic. The discussion of computer models is in the section above. This is about openness and reproducibility.
Karl Popper was the most influential philosopher of science of the 20th century. He distinguished between science and pseudo-science. If someone claims to be doing science but does not make his methods and data available so they can be verified/falsified, they are doing pseudo-science. Most of climate science is producing pseudo-science. The keepers of the temperature record will not release their data or methods. And they keep changing the way they do things. Read this link and then come back and comment.
[44]
RonCram
16:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Lets please keep the discussion on topic. This section is not for the discussion of climate model equations. Thank you. ~
UBeR
18:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The first paragraph of this section does not specifically mention any of the individuals or organizations mentioned under "Supporters and Opponents of the Global Warming Theory." I suggest the following as a replacement:
I welcome comments and suggestions on this proposed alteration of the first paragraph of the "Funding of Opponents" Section. Dicksonlaprade 17:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Some global warming skeptics have links to fossil fuel companies.
For example, Frederick Seitz is currently on the board of directors for the George C. Marshall Institute, [62] which has received several large contributions from petroleum-related organizations such as ExxonMobil, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, and the Carthage Foundation. [63]
[65]Similarly, Richard Lindzen has received money from various coal and oil companies for consulting, for appearing before the Senate, and for giving a speech which cast doubt on anthropogenic global warming.[66]Many organizations which deny the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming, such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, also have close ties to the energy industry.[67] [68]Many supporters of anthropogenic global warming claim that these energy-industry ties suggest a conflict of interest. [69][70] [71] [72] [73] [74]Partly as a result of such criticism, ExxonMobil announced in February of 2007 that they would discontinue funding for the Competitive Enterprise Institute. [75] [76]
Stephan Schulz reverted edits with no explanation. I put my edits back and would like to remind Stephan Schulz of a few things regarding reverts. From the Revert policies and guidelines.
Cannot say if this was done or not, but in light of the following items you can draw your own conclusions.
The edits that were reverted were-- Kim D. Petersen 20:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC) not in any manner able to be construed as vandalism.
As I mentioned, there was no summary explanation and if an explanation of the revert was made in the talk page then I missed it as it was NOT its own subject and would have been buried somewhere else.
This is pretty self-explanatory. The revert was done to remove content that, prima facia, opposes the views of ONE side of the discussion on this page. Nothing more than that.
Let us review some more from the Wikipedia policies and guidelines about revert wars (which, basically are
To those working around the "3 reverts rule" for WMC explain yourselves here.-- Zeeboid 19:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
People who revert-war to insert spurious tags shouldn't Wikilawyer. Guettarda 19:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Three quick items and them I take this grievance elsewhere. FIRST..."not adhering to WP:NPOV since you are giving WP:Undue_weight"--please quantify the weight that should be given? SECOND...From Neutrality Project's Talk page, "All major viewpoints must be described in a fair and equal way, otherwise there is a bias towards the single viewpoint." by Peter Dodge. Notice it says nothing about quantity (as 'undue weight' does). POV issues on this article are not quantity but actual content; unfair characterizations, hypocrisy in which sources are permitted to pass by Connelley/Kim gatekeepers...and so on. The POV issues are QUALITY issues, not QUANTITY. THREE...From what you "editors who have been working on these articles for years" are allowing into the article it is almost as if there really is not controversy at all. Is this correct? -- Tony of Race to the Right 21:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
It is ridiculous to say there is no scientific controversy. Sometimes you hear people pretending that AGW skeptics are on a par with flat-earthers or holocaust deniers. This is ludicrous. Are there any flat-earthers who are professors at MIT? Or Harvard? Or Univ of Penn? Or USC? Of course not. There is a real scientific controversy because all of the better science is being done by skeptics. The AGWers will not even play by the rules, refusing to provide their data and methods. The arrogance of claiming the issue is settled is beyond belief. RonCram 22:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Zeeboid, There has been a tendency to simply revert things in this article without discussion. I would agree with you that this is wrong, but it takes two to make a fight. Why not post your edits again here and ask for comment - and see if we can move forward! Mike 21:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Should the article agree with the anti-AGW view that "there is no controversy within the scientific community" and that "there is a scientific consensus" on global warming?
An alternative to this would be to say:
In a science article, the "anti-mainstream" point of view might not merit much mention, lest we give it undue weight. But this is not a science article. We are talking about what everyone is disputing.
Is Wikipedia quite sure what proportion of scientists favor or disagree with AGW theory? Is it 95%, 99%, 99.9% or what? Or should Wikipedia retreat to a neutral position and fairly describe the two opposing viewpoints about the proportion? -- Uncle Ed 15:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention to detail. I should not have said "last dozen years" but "the years between 1993 and 2003" as surveyed by Naomi Oreskes. In that period, she wrote, "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position." [80] -- Uncle Ed 00:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Useful comments, Birdbrainscan. I would say a partial explanation is that the people who have motivation to edit this page tend to be the ones that hold strong opinions on the subject (on either side). -- Nethgirb 09:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I added a link to global surface temperature, because I thought I might redirect that to something like global average air temperature, but that is an empty page too.
Are we talking about air temperature as measured by thermometers near the ground? Does this include satellite and balloon data? Not arguing, just asking for clarification of the term. -- Uncle Ed 13:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I thought it was a reasonable and honest question, and thank you SS for answering. Mishlai 01:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for the disruptive red link. I should simply have asked the question and not made the edit. -- Uncle Ed 19:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I tried to add a small link to peak oil and found that such heresy was not allowed in WIkipedia, I came across this article. It seems to be written by people with a more open mind on the subject so I've added a short section.
I've not spent a lot of time, because given previous experience of the failing to enforce WP:NPOV on this subject it will be quickly removed never to be heard of again until the historians look back to wonder why the subject was never mentioned in WIkipedia until it became obviouis that fossil fuels were running out and global warming wasn't the real problem. Mike 13:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
PS. I've cut, edited and pasted the link from the last attempt that was made to insert something into global warming (I think there were about a dozen attempts to have something from a sentence to a whole section .... all deleted by extremely unwikipedian like extremists) for a fuller text see: original text .... Mike 13:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Controversy or not Reading the article about the existence of a "controversy" seems that there is not any controversy at all and instead the few not supporting human-causation in rising temperatures are outliers.
If this is the case the article seems to be unnecessary entirely. If it is not the case then the article's balance is not to Wikipedia's standards.
Dual philosophies used in enforcement of policies, guidelines and content. Questions seem to persists relating to the validity of sources. On one hand sources that are not in agreement with the "global warming conseneus" viewpoint are removed with the related text. On the other hand sources that are in agreement with the "global warming consensus" viewpoint are replaced.
Questions persists relating to the Wikipedia standards for handling edits. When edits are made that are about one side of the Global Warming Controversy they are deleted or reverted with little, if any explanation. When edits are made about the other side of the Global Warming Controversy there are attempts to "make them better" instead of deletions. 15:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course there is a controversy - stop sounding like a Christian evangelist and wake up and listen instead of preaching that since everyone else is wrong there is no controversy! Mike 15:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good, Mishlai -- Nethgirb 13:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
In reviewing, I particularly like Mishlai's way of summing up where we need to take this. One last thought I have: one criterion for what to include could be positions or claims that have gotten serious traction in the media - who the newspapers and talk shows call upon to represent a view. That's the story, as far as a "public" debate. I'll propose that print and broadcast media get the most weight, versus blogs and web discussion boards; I presume the traditional media still have the wider reach. Birdbrainscan 01:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
This article has clearly had issues for years regarding POV and dispute resolutions are in order. Please to not remove the bias tags until this article has been through the entire review processes that it has submitted through. 15:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I would strongly suggest that it is not this article that is the problem but the Global warming article. I don't support many of the views in this article but I do support their right to have a place in Wikipedia. Unfortunately this view is not supported by the Gestapo who have hold of the Global Warming article. It is time Wikipedia actually stuck to its guns and enforded the WP:NPOV view on the global warming page. Mike 15:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Some experts have questioned the presumption underlying most predictions of global warming, namely that fossil fuels are effectively unlimited within the timescale of global warming predictions. For example, in a controversial paper from Uppsala in Sweden [83]. The authors warn that all the fuel will be burnt before there is enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to realise predictions of melting ice caps and searing temperatures another paper from the Journal de Physique [84] reported that:
a possible "modified medium scenarios", with an energy consumption or population that would not rise as quickly as assumed, but that would call massively on coal after oil becomes expensive, ... leads to a couple degrees increase (in global temperatures) [9]
The the Hubbert peak theory, is a model predicting the output from a natural resource such as an oil, gas or coal field and is used by most oil companies and governments. According to Matthew Simmons, Chairman of Simmons & Company International the peak oil model indicates that global oil production may have peaked in December 2005, [10] however the US government are more cautious and estimate [85] world supply of oil will peak in 2015. As burning oil is a major contributor to Greenhouse warming the peak oil theory predicts that the contribution from burning oil will decline after the point of peak oil production has passed and therefore the contribution of crude oil to global will also decrease.
The model has also been used to predict the size of world coal and gas with similar conclusions. According to Bentley, world gas production will peak anywhere from 2010 to 2020 [11]. Since compressed natural gas powered cars are already available in North America, peak oil and peak gas are related for transportation usage. Gregson Vaux has analyzed the expected peak in U.S. coal production (the world’s largest reserves of coal) and predicted peak coal taking place sometime between 2032 and 2060, with earlier dates more likely if coal is used as a partial substitute for plateauing or declining global oil supplies and North American natural gas supplies [86] [87].
Can we make a list of advocates who employ this argument? Weather and climate are two different things. Connolley can't say whether it will snow 12 days from now in any particular place or region, but he can predict the average amount of annual snowfall with considerable accuracy. -- Uncle Ed 18:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
In my view the controversy is about five claims, positions or proposals:
In my view, the article should be organized into an outline that discusses these five issues. Regarding the satellite data, it is possible it fits better under point #2 rather than #1. If I have left out any other main points, let's discuss them. RonCram 18:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think Kyoto or other policy steps are relevant to this article. We should stick to controversy about the science. Kyoto can be discussed in the Kyoto article. This isn't a forum to advocate nuclear power, solar cells, carbon taxes, giant mirrors, or drought resistant crops as an answer to these problems. Mishlai 19:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
This article often fails to identify who is saying these things and instead resorts to a "some people say" statement. - Vcelloho 20:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I see that Peak Oil is back in fashion. I've removed it again. I believe it is quite simply Not Notable in the context of the global warming debate. I can't think of a single example of any skeptic arging that we can forget the problem because we'll run out of fuel. The sole paper the added text refs is only about oil and gas [91].
Even if you believe this issue is notable - which I don't - then (a) the position that H put it at - above arguments for and against GW - is clearly far too high. And of course (b) most of the added section is on oil, which ignores the much larger coal reserves. He Peak Oil article itself argues for a coal peak around 2150 which is inconsistent with what has been added here. William M. Connolley 23:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually only the articles have to be NPOV; wiki sensibly makes no such requirement for editors, which could never be verified or enforced. Now you've had your rant, why not settle down and actually answer the objections above? What would be nice would be to find someone known as a skeptic - start at List of scientists opposing global warming consensus if you're not familiar with them - and find just *one* of them who has claimed lack of fossil fuels will be a problem William M. Connolley 23:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Although it seems reasonable to suspect that the compound noun "global warming" is a generic term and that the present warming is merely a special case, the use of "global warming" in a generic sense is exceedingly rare. (Actually I haven't been able to find any such uses but am leaving the door open for the possibility.) Accordingly I've removed the generic definition from the intro as it serves only to distract the reader from the topic at hand, which is the controversy or lack thereof with regard to the present warming. Raymond Arritt 01:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Mike, On principle I would always prefer to build rather than revert but the drop in of a big section is too much to try to fix in an already messy article. Is there (yet) a decent Wikipedia article on fossil fuel availability for us to cite? I think we should write that, source is properly and then link from both this and the Global Warming artile. It is a very interesting topic. Also the paragraph which started "Most reputable scientists agree that fossil fuel stocks are practically finite when considered in the same timescale as global warming..." went on to talk about 2300. Very little mainstream global warming discussion is on this timescale, so "same timescale" is a bit misleading. -- BozMo talk 10:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The section: "Supporters and opponents of the global warming theory" leaves me absolutely cold and provides very little information about the various controversies over global warming.
My instinct is simply to remove this as I can't see the point (except for petty point scoring). The article has a tag that there are too many lists. Unless someone has a good reason for it staying, I'll remove this section. Mike 10:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Stephan, is that a yes of a no to removing the list. Mike 11:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
How is it one-sided? On the "pro" side there are 6 entries for supporting organizations plus 3 for former skeptics. On the skeptic side there are 12 entries for individuals and organizations. If anything, that is giving way too much weight to the skeptics, wouldn't you say? -- Nethgirb 13:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
(reset indent) We could put some brief references to this in the section on existence of a consensus. It probably doesn't merit very much more than links to the main articles Scientific opinion on climate change and List of scientists opposing global warming consensus. I'd like to see the list torched, though, what with "listiness" considered one of the seven deadly sins in terms of WP style. Raymond Arritt 19:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
For future reference, as they were on the article before removal:
Scientific organisations that have stated support of the current scientific opinion on climate change include:
Scientific organisations that have expressed opposition of the current scientific opinion on climate change include:
Scientists who have expressed opposition include:
Opponents from outside the scientific community include:
Organizations skeptical of global warming include:
Former skeptics include:
Conclusion Just to try and summarise - it seems the final concensus was to reduce the size of this section to a link to the pages "lists of people who support/oppose ...." Mike 14:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I can't understand why "Betting on global warming" is a section. I can see it adds to the evidence about the "Debate over the existence of a consensus", because it shows that no one appears to be betting for global warming not to happen.... so basically it isn't a controversy on its own. Or is there some kind of controversy about the way bets on global warming should be handled?
It seems outdated, so if no one objects, I'll remove this section and add to "Debate over the existence of a consensus" Mike 12:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Conclusion: the consensus appears to be for deletion of this section Having given enough time for all the views that is what I have done! Mike 14:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I've restored it. Sorry, there is so much talk on this page that I'd missed this section. The issue of whether sketpics believe what they say is indeed put into relief by this little section, so I think its valuable. To point out the obvious: if you believe in GW, you expect warming to continue. If you believe its natural variation, you have no such reason. Several solar people (from the late unlamented GW on mars no less) purport to predict *cooling* from solar William M. Connolley 15:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
“ | A betting market on climate futures, like other kinds of futures markets, could be used to establish the market consensus on climate change. [12] Few skeptics have been willing to bet against the IPCC consensus position, however. British climate scientist James Annan proposed bets with global warming skeptics concerning whether future temperatures will increase. Two Russian solar physicists, Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev, accepted the wager of US$10,000 that the average global temperature during 2012-2017 would be lower than during 1998-2003. Annan first directly challenged Richard Lindzen. Lindzen had been willing to bet that global temperatures would drop over the next 20 years. Annan claimed Lindzen wanted odds of 50-1 against falling temperatures. The Guardian columnist George Monbiot challenged Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute to a GB£5,000 bet of global warming versus global cooling. [13] Annan and other proponents of the consensus state they have challenged other skeptics to bets over global warming that were not accepted. [14] | ” |
Mike 10:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Since I last read the section it has been improved in both writing style and sources, so I now support leaving it in. -- Nethgirb 12:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry - didn't see this poll. Seems a valid section, I have put it back in as my "vote". Vsmith 17:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Following the discussion I wondered whether the section could be reduced in size - but I started yawning at the first sentence. I couldn't see who had bet against who, who had won and there was absolutely no comment. It really needs to be scrapped or if it has to go back it needs a drastic rewrite. Given that the article is too long already I can't see the point of removing it particularly and I can see why the consensus was to remove it - if people want it back it needs a drastic rewrite! Mike 19:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
It is a relevant and interesting aspect of the controversy. And the section is not very long anyway. I'm all for trimming down the size of the article, but why not instead work on one of the sections that's really too long, maybe like "Debate over the existence of a consensus"? -- Nethgirb 23:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
My gut instinct seeing the puny nature of this section is that it is far too short and doesn't relate to my everyday experiences at all. E.g. our heating bills should be reducing shortly because of global warming - we even moved house to the North partly in the expectation that global warming will make this a more desireable area to live in a few decades - so there clearly are benefits. Do others agree this ought to be boosted! Mike 12:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I thought I would do a search to find a neutral discussion comparing the benefits and harm of global warming. What I was looking for was an article with both sides - I assumed most scientific papers on global warming would include a section on "benefits" so I did a search for global warming and "benefits" and I struggled to find even one "respectable" scientific paper mentioning any benefit (even the obvious one I have of sitting here without the heating in February - watching my windmill go round!) The following are links & quotes I have found but so far not many give the pros/cons from a NPOV!
Neutral: [99] Links: [100] Commentary: [101] [102] [103] Benefit: [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] Harm subscription!
A funny quote
“ | The Benefits of Global Warming: "there may be a flip side to the dire news: an abundance of calamari." [109] | ” |
A thought provoking quote:
“ | Many climate scientists argue that any local benefits of the warming trend are more than offset by the global costs. One worry: That discussion of the benefits could undermine efforts to slow global warming. Even Greenlanders who welcome the recent climate changes recognize a downside. Mr. Magnusson says he typically uses a snowmobile to herd his 2,300 reindeer. But the area where he can use his snowmobile is shrinking, and the melting snow and ice could eventually make snowmobiling impossible. He says he will adapt by using horses, helicopters or by simply walking.
Still there's no denying the good news for many Greenlanders. [110] |
” |
A good quote (in a very biased report) is:
“ | As eminent Yale Professor Robert Mendehlson testified before the Senate in 2000,26 “Climate change is likely to result in small net benefits for the United States over the next century. The primary sector that will benefit is agriculture. The large gains in this sector will more than compensate for damages expected in the coastal, energy, and water sectors, unless warming is unexpectedly severe. Forestry is also expected to enjoy small gains. Added together, the United States will likely enjoy small benefits of between $14 and $23 billion a year and will only suffer damages in the neighborhood of $13 billion if warming reaches 5°C over the next century. Recent predictions of warming by 2100 suggest temperature increases of between 1.5°C and 4°C, suggesting that impacts are likely to be beneficial in the U.S.” page6 | ” |
Finally (after some 100 articles) a quote from a global warming evangelistsupporter (sorry got a little fed up with reading so much nonsense on both sides) that mentions the benefits:
“ | Spokespeople for the fossil-fuel industry like to point out that carbon dioxide, far from being a pollutant, is "plant food." Some argue that increased carbon concentrations and warmer temperatures will enhance plant and tree growth, lengthen growing seasons and generally lead to more comfortable weather in temperate zones. But any beneficial impacts could easily be overwhelmed by such negative consequences as drought and insect infestation. It is, in fact, impossible to predict the myriad ways climate change will impact the planet and neither climate scientists nor coal industry spokesmen know what the net effect on human life will be. Ecologist Herman Daly has proposed that environmental policy be guided by the rule that we do not destroy what we cannot now replace. Most would agree that the planet's climate is irreplaceable. [111] | ” |
Mike 10:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Both these sections come across as petty point scoring by one or other of the parties and must leave any sensible person reading this article stone cold.
Big companies fund scientists in all manner of fields, governments put pressure on scientists .... it isn't news. If these sections are to remain, then there needs to be a lot more background. Why are the big companies/government funding, what result is it having. As far as I can tell these two sections are simply "oh look someone's paying someone to do something" .... "you know what that means .... I can't tell you because we don't have any evidence, and I can't find anyone willing to say it in print .... but nod, wink ... there's no smoke without fire". Unless someone can find some evidence of wrongdoing, or even some quote saying there is something special then this funding/pressure isn't novel and isn't worth keeping. I vote to scrap these two sections and do something more useful with the space Mike 13:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Can someone explain why there is a petty editing war on this subject? Mike 17:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can see: "Some global warming studies, including the influential "Hockey Stick" study by Mann, have been shown to contain errors, shoddy methods and manipulated data sets and have not been reproduced. [112] [113] " has been replaced by what appears to be a statement with no content - OK it needed changing but this really isn't a fair representation of the views. Mike 17:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point, Dr. C.:
The present article is not about what climatologists are saying amongst each other but about how the general public is reacting to what they hear about climate in the media. The upshot is that faith in the graph drives political support for the Kyoto Protocol. -- Uncle Ed 22:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
So the question is whether (1) S&B were wrong and resignations from Climate Research prove this - or whether (2) S&B were right, and the resignations were the result of political pressure. On this point, shall Wikipedia choose #1, #2, or remain neutral? -- Uncle Ed 22:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Can people please just stick to the point It matters not at all whether anyone here believes of disbelieves the Crocket stick graph, all that matters is that the view of those "Assertions by opponents of the global warming" is accurately portrayed. As far as this article is concerned, the only truth is whether or not it is an assertion given by the oponents of global warming - anything else is irrelevant to this discussion Lets just have some some proposals for wording and stop this nonsense! Mike 00:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
This article should let the reader know what the controversy was about, and in general terms who said what. It should also provide context for that information to ensure that readers are not misled, that items that would not make it into the main article as scientific content are not given undue weight here. In short, this is not a forum for safely evangelizing the significant minority or tiny minority positions on the topic. That would be a POV fork. Undue weight still applies.
I would be comfortable with an entry that got most of those points in there in a neutral fashion. It probably doesn't need to be that long. It shouldn't read as "McIntyre & McKintrick study = no global warming" either, though it can certainly say that people claim(ed) that. Mishlai 02:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Mishlai - well done, I really couldn't tell whether you were pro./anti!
I picked out the following as seeming to describe the conflict:
“ | INTRO: The hockey stick graph is used to describe the form of stick which global warming activists use to battle each other in a ritual combat known as editing (Perhaps there's a more accurate description?)
|
” |
Is this a fair summary of the argument? Can it be the basis of a small section - with a link to the article? Mike 09:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
“ | The main points of hockey stick controversy are (1) that a graph by Mann used by many to highlight recent warming show a "sudden acceleration" in the latter 20th century while other sources show periodic ups and downs; (2) Because past temperatures can only be estimated indirectly, there is debate over whether present warming is much higher than anything before modern methods of temperature measurements; (3) the politics of global warming relies heavily on the visual impact of the hockey stick. | ” |
Mike 11:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I've read the comments and where possible taken account of what has been said - I'm not sure but does this reflect what people are saying:
Currently in: Assertions by opponents of the global warming theory, we have
“ |
|
” |
Which was:-
“ | Some global warming studies, including the influential "Hockey Stick" study by Mann, have been shown to contain errors, shoddy methods and manipulated data sets and have not been reproduced. [117] [118] | ” |
And from what has been said it seems it ought to be something like:
“ | The main points of hockey stick controversy are (1) that a graph by |
” |
Mike 15:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
“ | The main point of the hockey stick controversy surrounds a graph of temperature reconstruction over the past 1000 years by MBH that shows a "sudden acceleration" of warming in the latter 20th century. There have been charges that this graph may rest on incomplete data or faulty analysis(cite refs here, presumably M&M, maybe Wegman), though these charges have been disputed (ref Mann, Briffa?) Because temperatures before the mid-19th century can only be estimated indirectly, such reconstructions are necessary to determine whether present warming is unusual in historical context. | ” |
Easy Mike. I think you've gotten the idea that I'm nitpicking just to be difficult, which is not the case, or perhaps just being too critical of your hard work, which I did not intend. Writing a statement that everyone can agree on will require some careful word-smithing and a lot of revisions. We are, I assume, just writing a quick statement with a link to the main article, yes?
“ | The main point of the hockey stick controversy surrounds a graph of temperature reconstruction over the past 1000 years by MBH that shows a temperature rise in the 20th century that is unusual when compared to the rest of the last millenium. There have been charges that this graph may rest on incomplete data or faulty analysis(cite refs here, presumably M&M, maybe Wegman), though these charges have been disputed (ref Mann, Briffa?) Because temperatures before the widespread measurements began in the mid-19th century can only be estimated indirectly, such reconstructions are necessary to determine whether present warming is unusual in historical context. | ” |
Mishlai 22:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks everyone - sorry if I was grumpy at the lack of progress! I've tried to take Raymonds, article and add in the point by RonCram and try to explain (as I understand it) that there are two graphs for historical temperature which differ by the amount of "swing" in the historic period (is this right?):
“ | The main point of the hockey stick controversy surrounds a graph of temperature reconstruction over the past 1000 years by MBH that shows a temperature rise in the 20th century that is unusual when compared to the rest of the last millenium. There have been suggestions that this graph may rest on incomplete data or faulty analysis(cite refs here, presumably M&M, maybe Wegman), though these suggestions have been disputed (ref Mann, Briffa?) Alternative graphs show more historical ups and downs which lessen the visual impact of the rise.
Because temperatures before widespread measurements began in the mid-19th century are estimated indirectly, there have also been suggestions [120] that older temperatures have been underestimated which arguably reduces the significance of the recent rise; such reconstructions are necessary to determine whether present warming is unusual in historical context. |
” |
I presume the intention is that this doesn't go back in the section "assertions by opponents" as a bullet point but gets placed as a new section in section 4 "temperature measurements/Hockey stick controversy". Mike 23:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
And if so, does it have a "main:Hockey stick... link at the beginning of the section? Mike 23:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
“ | The main point of the hockey stick controversy surrounds a graph of temperature reconstruction over the past 1000 years by MBH that shows a temperature rise in the 20th century that is unusual when compared to the rest of the last millenium. The temperatures for time periods preceding the instrument record are estimated by analysis of proxies. Some have claimed that this graph may rest on incomplete data or faulty analysis(cite refs here, presumably M&M, maybe Wegman) and that the true graph should show higher and more variable historical temperatures, though these claims have been disputed (ref Mann, Briffa?) The higher historical temperatures and variation of the graph provided by MM05 lessens the visual impact of the more recent rise in temperature. | ” |
Mishlai 23:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
McK is *not* central to the debate: he is quite unimportant; if anyone matters its McI: just look at who runs CA; or even read the McK document I joined the project in the late summer of 2003 and we published a paper9 in October 2003... and of course fig 3 in that is not from '95 but from '90... By contrast McI insists that none of the reconstructions can be considered reliable, on the grounds (I think) that he doesn't believe the proxies. This has the important consequence that McI *doesn't* assert that the MWP is warmer than now: McI's party line (as I understand it) is simply that we don't know. McK seems to have broken that line (possibly because he couldn't resist it, possibly because he is clueless, who knows) and actually asserted that he believes his own "corrected" reconstruction (or has he? The source used by our resident skeptics is http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf but I can't find a killer quote in there, only implications). See http://www.climateaudit.org/?page_id=1002 section "Are you saying the 15th century was warmer than the present?" wot says No, we are saying that the hockey stick graph used by IPCC provides no statistically significant information about how the current climate compares to that of the 15th century (and earlier) to forestall the inevitable, I'll point out that they continue with And notwithstanding that, to the extent readers consider the results informative, if a correct PC method and the unedited version of the Gaspé series are used, the graph used by the IPCC to measure the average temperature of the Northern Hemisphere shows values in the 15th century exceed those at the end of the 20th century. which amounts to having their cake and eating it; but the initial "No", I think, must stand. You might wonder who "we" is in that context. The page header says "CA by McI"; is this the royal we? Who knows? I've mailed McI to see if he cares to clarify this point William M. Connolley 00:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Just so we don't lose the diplomatic progress here... are we back to this?
“ | The main point of the hockey stick controversy surrounds a graph of temperature reconstruction over the past 1000 years by MBH that shows a temperature rise in the 20th century that is unusual when compared to the rest of the last millenium. The temperatures for time periods preceding the instrument record are estimated by analysis of proxies. Some have claimed that this graph may rest on incomplete data or faulty analysis(cite refs here, presumably M&M, maybe Wegman), though these claims have been disputed (ref Mann, Briffa?) | ” |
Mishlai 12:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
“ | The main point of the hockey stick controversy surrounds a graph of temperature reconstruction over the past 1000 years by MBH that shows a temperature rise in the 20th century that is unusual when compared to the rest of the last millenium. The temperatures for time periods preceding the instrument record are estimated by analysis of proxies. The "hockey stick" graph received its name because its shape resembles a hockey stick. Following the graph's inclusion in the IPCC's Third Assessment Report in 2001, it was widely used as an illustration that 20th century temperatures were unusual when compared to recent history. Critics of the graph have claimed that it may rest on incomplete data or faulty analysis(cite refs here, presumably M&M, maybe Wegman), though these claims have been disputed (ref Mann, Briffa?) | ” |
Here's a link with several good quotes: [122] Mike 16:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Let's all avoid personal remarks like:
I would prefer that we use comments like:
A hot fudge sundae to the first 3 contributors who can point out which personal remark *I* made, but who are tactful enough not to mention it on here! :-) -- Uncle Ed 12:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
According to the article only those who disagree with AGW get funding. And there also is the perception presented in an undisputed manner that "skeptics...are lobbyists more than researchers".
So, there is no money whatsoever being used to fund research for those who have a stated position or lobbying function agreeing with AGW? No person agreeing with AGW is a part of a group or organization which received money in any fashion from those also pushing the AGW viewpoint? -- Tony of Race to the Right 18:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it's worth mentioning funding for research where we have evidence that a particular outcome of that research was desired. Exxon is a case where this is true -- they specifically implemented a program to counter the consensus, so I think that's notable. The AEI offering $10,000 to write an essay disputing 4AR is probably another. -- Nethgirb 20:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Conseratives argue that:
Ironically, it is the pro-AGW side which trumpets premise #1 the loudest, but they seem to apply it only to anti-AGW research. As if money only motivates "those evil deniers, linked to capitalists" but not "those sneaky warmers, linked to socialism and global governance".
Anyway, I'm not trying to promote a view here. I'm only saying that the view that scientific support for AGW is utterly objective and thus completely reliable has its opponents. How many words should we devote to the anti-AGW view, in an article about the AGW controversy?
The main point of the pro-AGW camp is that there's a scientific consensus. If someone suggests that "the science is not settled", and that pro-AGW advocacy is influencing research or assessments, than it must be mentioned to some degree. Not given "undue weight" of course, but not dismissed out of hand, any more than Holocaust denial is. -- Uncle Ed 12:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I think we're getting a bit off topic here. First, I was probably wrong to suggest in my comment above that we should mention funding issues when we have evidence that a particular research outcome was desired. I should have said: that's what gives an argument merit. But, since this article is about controversy not truth, the rule for inclusion should probably be whether the argument (right or wrong) has been made by notable sources. Senator Inhofe and the Union of Concerned Scientists are probably notable, for example. I suggest we require more than one notable source in the interest of keeping only common arguments in the article. Sound good? -- Nethgirb 22:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
We need more discussion on this topic! Mike 15:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Practically every sentence of this article is contentious, which makes it hard to edit. Also, it is too long. One way to fix both problems is to have fewer sentences.
I therefore propose that we enter a phase of diet in which we have no new material added, instead focusing on removing duplicative and unnecessary material, summarizing overly wordy sections, adding citations, fixing inaccurate statements, reorganization, etc. Editors who add nontrivial amounts of material get their contributions moved to this talk page for serious discussion before any new material is accepted. Maybe when it's under 30 KB we can proceed as normal. -- Nethgirb 10:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
But can you start it with: "What does the reader need to know to understand the controversy?"
Can I say that is a most civilised and positive discussion! Mike 14:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
From a recent change:
The three possible positions, for those who are "sure" about what causes warming are:
As far as I know, there has yet to be a single scientist outside of position #2. I can't even think of a pundit who's claimed #1.
The question is not "Is any of the warming human-caused?" but rather "How much of the warming is human-caused?" -- Uncle Ed 21:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Uncle Ed - I think the controversy can be split into twoseven parts.
Some scientists have complained of media bias. Here's an article mentioning Roger Pielke:
Here's Pielke's response:
I've read a lot of these in recent years. How shall we mention this in the current article? -- Uncle Ed 21:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Did we say "no scientists" dispute the temperature record, or "hardly any"? Here's Pielke again:
I'm not saying we should change the Global warming article to reflect the views of the minority. That would be POV-pushing.
I'm just saying that the Global warming controversy article should list any scientists who have expressed doubts about the "consensus view" that most global modern warming is anthropogenic. And Pielke is one of at least a handful who have linked "observed warming" (via land-based thermometers) with the Urban heat island effect. -- Uncle Ed 21:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Regular visitors to this Talk page know I have expressed concern about the fact the pro-AGWers (the "Warmers") do not practice good science. Scientists are supposed to archive their data and methods and make it easy for other scientists to review their work. The Warmers do not do this. It seems as though every time someone does some kind of a review or audit, the Warmers get caught with their hands in the cookie jar fudging data and purposely biasing their methods. McIntyre and McKitrick caught Mann et al and broke their Hockey Stick. Now it seems Jean S and McIntyre have caught Hansen. Take a look at this. [125] —Preceding unsigned comment added by RonCram ( talk • contribs)
I have posted on this issue before, but I thought it would make sense to bring several of these issues about fudging data and changing the temperature record together in one place. This is only a sampling but it does show why the skeptics are so concerned with the bad science being done by the Warmers:
McIntyre wrote a paper, “More on Hockey Sticks: the Case of Jones et al [1998]” for presentation at the U.S. Climate Change Workshop in November 2005. [132] In this paper McIntyre argues that when Mann’s errors are removed, 20th century temps are seen to be unexceptional. McIntyre did not sign the paper written by McKitrick claiming the corrected Mann reconstruction showed 20th century temps were unexceptional. William Connelly (on this page and other Wikipedia Talk pages) has claimed this showed there was some disagreement between McIntyre and McKitrick. Not true. McIntyre also shows unjustified data modification in Briffa’s work and the unreliability of the Polar Urals. RonCram 17:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Mishlai, you say:"... the NAS found that MBH98's results were not significantly altered by fixing the statistical errors." This is misleading. The NAS found that Mann's conclusions were unfounded. The most that could be said was that current temps are higher than at any time in 400 years (or was it 600 years?) Prior to that, the uncertainties were too high to make any claims at all. By the way, more information is coming out about how the temperature record has been modified and adjusted by Mann and Jones. It seems apparent now that temperatures were warmer in the 30s than in the 90s. And that certainly makes sense because the dust bowl years of the 30s were very hot. Regarding your faith in the upward march of temperatures, have you ever considered the possibility of a change in climate regime? From 1945 to 1975, we had a sustained period of cooling. From 1976 to 1998, a sustained period of warming. From 1976 on up, rising temperatures correlated well with rising CO2. However, rising CO2 did not correlate well with falling temperatures from 1945 to 1975. Have you ever wondered why that is? Is it possible it could happen again? RonCram 13:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
William and Mishlai, the statement "Warming/cooling goes with the balance of radiative forcing" is overly simplistic. You are leaving out the most important aspect of all, natural climate variability - including ocean-atmosphere interactions. I asked Mishlai for a source that would credit a sharp reduction of aerosols in 1975/76 for a reason. Not only because I do not think the evidence supports such a claim but also because I can cite a peer-reviewed article that credits natural climate variability for the regime shift in 1975. Bratcher and Giese note the regime shift in 1945 and the shift in 1975/76 and predict a return to pre-1976 conditions by around 2006. [134] I point this out because a belief we will see uninterrupted rising temperatures from now until 2100 is ridiculous in the extreme. The planet will continue to have regime shifts every thirty years or so. This is a fact the IPCC (and true believers in the IPCC) has failed to grasp. RonCram 18:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Can we remove these tags? The article doesn't appear to me to be anything but as neutral as anything about a controversy, and well listed. What are the issues? If there are problems, I can try to clean up what is perceived as such; but I don't really see what the issues are. Sln3412 23:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
In order to avoid weasel wording, do we know what we mean by "climate scientist" and do we use it with consistency? I've noticed 5 occurences of that phrase in the article, yet it shocks me every time how uncertain I am of what it should tell me. "Climate scientist" would suggest to me "someone who specializes in climatology", but climatology cannot be wholly possessed by a single person can it?
So, is a "climate scientist" someone involved in developing the climate models? That would mean that instead of a climate scientist, we would be talking about either a mathematician, a modeler, a statistician or a computer scientist of some sort. Or are we talking about a geologist? Astrophysician? Meteorologist? We should then use the proper qualifier. Or are we pretending that a "climate scientist" is someone who specializes in all climatology-relevant fields if even such a person exists? The phrase "climate scientist" certainly makes it sound like that, and that seems at worst false, at best weasel wording. -- Childhood's End 16:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Climate scientist has different connotations to climatologist. A climate modeller is probably not a climatologist. Climate scientist is fine; note that 2/5 of the uses of CS in this article are direct quotes William M. Connolley 15:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I added a weasel-worded tag to the article while this discussion was clarified, which I hoped it would be. Vsmith has removed the tag on the grounds that a climate scientist is a scientist who studies some aspect of climate, nothing weasely about it.
I must disagree and hope to get further thoughts about this. According to Vsmith's definition of "climate scientist", anybody can be a climate scientist and so I am. Where I live, I've noticed that since 20 years, winters really start later than they used to (January instead of November or December), and they also end later (April or even May instead of March). This is only a part of my "study of some aspect of climate".
According to WP's article on weasel words, "Generally, weasel terms are statements that are misleading because they lack the normal substantiations of their truthfulness, as well as the background information against which these statements are made. Weasel terms are the equivalent of spin in the political sphere in British English."
Wikipedia has a policy on weasel words. Its introductory statement says that "Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources, lending them the force of authority without letting the reader decide whether the source of the opinion is reliable."
It seems to me that "climate scientist" is dangerously used to grant authority to any scientist supporting the IPCC to speak about any topic that can be related to climate. Yet, we know that a modeller has no more authority than anyone else regarding astrophysics, and that a chemist has little authority regarding geology, and so forth.
Even if the climate community has developped the practice of using "climate scientist" when it refers to anyone who participated or scientifically supports the IPCC, an encyclopedia cannot endorse a catchphrase if it misleads readers with regard to the authority of the scientists or if its main effect is political spin. A chemist is a chemist is a chemist.
Unless "climate scientist" is proplerly defined and that we can agree that this definition matches with the usage that is made of that catchphrase, this article can obviously seem to be weasel-worded to 99% of readers.
I'll put the tag again. It can easily be removed only by either:
i- providing a definition of "climate scientist" that most people can agree with
ii- changing the occurences of "climate scientist" (save the quotes) for the proper qualifiers (chemist, geologist, modeller, etc.)
--
Childhood's End
14:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Some ecologists would be climate scientists. Some wouldn't. I see no need for a precise definition of CS. William M. Connolley 17:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
A climate scientist is a scientist who studies some aspect of climate. What is so difficlt about that statement? That climate scientist could be a meteorologist, a climatologist, a climate modeler, a geoscientist who focuses on the atmosphere/earth interaction, a chemist who studies the chemistry of the atmosphere, a physist who studies the physics of the atmospheric gases and radiations ... Now, If anyone discussed as a climate scientist can be further ident ified into one of the sub-disciplines or supporting disciplins all the better. However, the term climate scientist is non-controversial and well understood by anyone in the field of climate study. I'll agree that someone else may not understand the broad meaning of the term (maybe a lawyer - who just wnats to be picky), but the concept is really quite simple. An Earth scientist is quite obvioulsy a scientist working in one of the subfields - or a chemist or physisist working to solve some problem in an Earth science field. It is a broad, inclusive term - as is climate scientist. Nothing misleading here at all - nor to pov-pushing. Now please cease the tenditious lawerly quibbling. Vsmith 16:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Um. I hadn't noticed JA was a climatologist n his wiki page. I didn't write that (notice careful choice of "saved" above). I've corrected it to the description his blog uses. Who says "JA is referred to widely as a Climatologist"? And wiki pages have been known to be wrong. I'm not saying that JA *isnt* a climatologist... but that CS is a better description. Hansen, of course, trained as a physicist (and in astronomy, but isn't one) but has been specifically involved in climate for ages. He is now a climate scientist, which is probably a subset of physics William M. Connolley 19:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Also... has anyone noticed that the wiki climatologist page is only a redirect? And the guardian, the BBC and Pielke all think he is a CS William M. Connolley 20:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
What is wrong with what's in "scientists involved in climate-related fields"? If a scientist is involved in a field related to climate, isn't that what defines a "climate scientist" rather than a drug researcher or an environmental activist or a mechanic?
Now we need to know what climate-related fields are.... Meteorology, climate & atmospheric sciences? Um, ecologists? Botanists?
Under the Weather: Climate, Ecosystems, and Infectious Disease and Climatology as a Profession
"Certain scientists who once might have called themselves, say, meteorologists or oceanographers, were now designated "climate scientists." There was still no specific professional organization or other institutional framework to support "climate science" as an independent discipline, but that did not much matter in the new order of holistic interdisciplinary work."
Like I said, this is going to be an interesting one. Wu. Sln3412 00:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Whew - what a harangue! I would just like to chime in on this last quotation that Sln3412 found. First, keep in mind that many universities do not create a department for a specialization such as climatology. Profs have to be hired by a department, and students graduate with a degree in a subject named for their department. James Hansen took degrees in physics, but he applies this to atmospheric physics in service of climate science. I took an undergrad course on climatology recently - it was listed in our Geography department because there is no "department of climatology" here, and Geography is the prof's home department. So a degree in Physical Geography might fit in with being a climatologist.as well. So anyway... after all this long back and forth, I fail to grasp why anyone should even care whether we say "climatologist" or "climate scientist." Yeesh. We all need to get lives. Birdbrainscan 02:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I created a page specificly for this theory, and put the a link to it in Assertions by opponents section, where the theory is spoken of. However, I could not find a way to fit it in there to where it looks and feels like it belongs. I'm guessing it needs rewording, if it is to fit in there. Well, do as you like; but I think it should be left, if at all posible. SadanYagci 20:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the article for places to shorten, I found this to be a good candidate. All of the petitions referenced are 1998 or older, which makes them pretty irrelevant to the present level of consensus. In 1998 there was a great deal more question than there is now. Alternately, the four of them could be summarized with a few sentences. Mishlai 00:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
There is a section for politics links, and a section for science links. No way is prisonplanet any kind of source for science. I move we cut this link out as just WP:SOAPBOX Birdbrainscan 05:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Having heard no objection or any reply for the past four days, I intend to go ahead and remove the link to prisonplanet from the list of "Science" links. I just took another look at the site, and while the linked page does indeed collect a half-dozen links to headlines about planets, the page itself has little to offer other than rhetoric. The rest of prisonplanet spends little time on questions of science at all. Birdbrainscan 01:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
It is high time to change this page to something that actually talks about the CONTROVERSY and does not simply push the GW alarmists POV. The Global warming page does that very well already. I am putting in my time to try to give a genuine NPOV - debate the changes here with me and others. DO NOT SIMPLY KEEP REVERTING ALL MY CHANGES - IT IS NOT WIKIPEDIC. ~ Rameses 05:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Raymond, yes the current article is a mess. I think the article should focus on the scientific controversy but should mention the international politics (I am thinking the article should mention that China and India will not agree to Kyoto because of their developing economies) and have some information on carbon trading since that is somewhat controversial. I have not seen the wiki article UBeR mentioned and really do not have any desire to get into US politics. Nor do I think the article should be US-centric. I hope everyone will stop by and pitch in on the effort. RonCram 13:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Stephan, Giegengack identifies himself as a skeptic, as do the others. To claim he is not a skeptic when he claims he is - well, that is just ridiculous. It appears Soon has published at least four articles on climate. [136] Baliunas appears to have a much larger publishing record. [137] Both Soon and Baliunas are recognized as accomplished researchers or they would not be employed by Harvard-Smithsonian. There are good reasons for their skepticism. You are correct about Motl, he is a physicist. But you seem to ignore the fact climate scientists often appeal to physics for support for AGW. Motl, as a Harvard professor of physics, does not buy it and his blog is one place the scientific debate is going on. [138] ClimateAudit is a unique website in which real science is being done. [139] It is not a peer-reviewed journal, but the peer-review of McIntyre's posts (and posts by a few others like Willis Eschenbach, Gerald Browning, Warwick Hughes etc.) is going on all the time. Judith Curry, Steve Bloom and others (climate modelers and climatologists) make comments about the studies being posted. Warwick Hughes also has a website with a great deal on the science debate. [140] Warwick Hughes was the guy who asked Phil Jones for his data and was told "Why should I when you are just going to try to find problems with it?" Hughes has done a lot of work matching data sets with grid cells. What he has learned does not reflect well on Phil Jones. But the Sandbox page also lists a good deal of peer-reviewed literature as well - articles by Bratcher and Giese, Pielke Sr., Barrett, Warren and Wiscomb, Vallina and Simo, Knappenberger and others. Several of these authors may not identify themselves as skeptics but their research provides reasons for open minded people to question the claims of AGW. As such, their research has become part of the debate. I would like to say that RealClimate is also a place where the debate is going on, but that is wishful thinking. Posts by skeptics are just censored so the debate is short-circuited. I have not even discussed Svensmark or Pilkey or several others. The debate is real. Again, I invite you to participate in the debate and provide whatever refutation or answers you can find. I expect you would know more than me about your position so please participate or the article will look POV. RonCram 00:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
This is regarding the following paragraph:
The source given is to http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1056. Why it specifically links to Benny Peiser first, I do not know, especially when considering the blog site links to this page as the default for their "Who are the sixty" page. Nevermind that this blog is written by journalist, lawyers, and public relations people--a lot of what they're saying is poorly sourced (or not at all). For example, linking to this site. They, of course, get their information from these sites (and of course back to the blog), which, all so conveniently, do not function.
They write, "We will report daily on their credentials and their connections (or their lack of connections) to the oil or tobacco industries" (I don't quite see the connection between tobacco and climatology, but okay). We write, "many of the signatories were non-scientists or lacked relevant scientific backgrounds." Most of the site's criticism is on the people who are members of NRSP, who they criticize solely for the lack of saying who their sponsors are due to confidentiality agreements. That's not very uncommon. A lot of the people on who they report on, they say, are people in the fields in meteorology, hydrology, geosciences, etc., who, by Connolley's definition, could very well be climatologists/climate scientists. A majority of these people still work in departments of Earth and atmospheric sciences of universities or other organizations. ~ UBeR 20:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
DeSmogBlog is a public relations website for the AGW community. It is not run by a climate researcher or scientist and nothing it says can be considered coming from a scientist. RealClimate is a public relations website as well but it does gets contributions from climate researchers that are sometimes appropriate for inclusion. ClimateAudit is led by McIntyre, who has published on climate repeatedly. Several of the other regulars have published as well. Almost any thread on ClimateAudit can be suitable for Wikipedia. RonCram 00:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I just survived my first edit conflict - hi Stephan! Here's the post I typed while he was typing the above paragraph... - :Let me try again to make this clear: in this section, I have not linked to DeSmogBlog as an authority for some factual claim about climate. Rather, I have linked to them as an example of the point the section is making, that some people questioned who the sixty scientists were. That's the point of the paragraph! As I tried to explain the first time, they are part of the story, just as the letter to Harper is part of the story that we are recounting in this section. Again: stop looking for peer-reviewed journal articles on who signed the letter to Harper! The letter is noteworthy - it got a fair amount of attention. The letter was not a peer-reviewed journal article either, but we cover it because it is an event in the controversy. This page is about the debate, including the parties to the debate; other pages are there to go into the substance of the science. I'm not asking for peer-reviewed journal papers to prove the letter was sent. Can you see my point? We are talking about people, not molecules: who are the parties to the debate, and what are they saying? In that sense, I'd have no problem with seeing this page include more coverage of Sen. Inhofe, RealClimate, AEI, Marshall Institute, Fraser Institute, et al. But it would have to be description of their make-up, their role in the debate, what scientists they cite and how, as well as where they fit on the political spectrum. Birdbrainscan 01:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
DeSmogBlog is a PR website. It is not involved in the scientific debate. ClimateAudit is involved in the scientific debate. You can watch as the science is being done, tested and reviewed by scientists who favor AGW. In fact, if you feel you have something worthwhile to point out - you can be involved in reviewing McI's (and others) work on the site. Every time McIntyre has been involved in a scientific debate, he has won. The scientific reputations of Drs. Mann and Jones have suffered tremendously because of the auditing done by McIntyre. This is not a public relations victory, it was a scientific victory. Mann had to publish a Corrigendum because of McI. Birdbrainscan, I just read the post about why you linked to DeSmogBlog. It seems to me that it would be okay to link to the site as long as the site is not presented as an authority on science. RonCram 00:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this subsection, I think that:
- The title is quite unencyclopedic
- This section focuses on the wrong debate (although it's true that you do not find nowadays many skeptics denying that the Earth is warming, it seems to me that the debate is mostly held as to whether the warming is or is not anthropogenic.
--
Childhood's End
19:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the section title exhibits some refreshing creativity and I don't see how it is unencyclopedic. I do think MrRedact and UBeR are right that the section needs to be supported more by external sources saying the nature/climate of skepticism has changed (which it seems to have done). Also it might be more appropriate to move this subsection to the "History" section. -- Nethgirb 06:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The basic idea of the section is good but the material in its present form is unacceptable -- WP:NPOV, WP:SYNT, you name it. There have been critical analyses of the evolution of climate-change skepticism so there's plenty of basis for a short section on the matter -- I recall a quotes like "the skeptics have taken global warming from impossible to inevitable with no stop in between". Instead of the present synthesis, the section needs to find existing articles that discuss the matter and build from there. Raymond Arritt 19:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the section is salvageable; it isn't elegant and it doesn't flow, but it does touch on the main issues and it seems to cover both sides reasonably. Birdbrainscan 01:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Well it's interesting that it sure looks like they are changing their stance. Real Climate wrote in their year end summation for 2006 [142] "Most dizzying turn-around of a climate skeptic: Fred Singer 'global warming is not happening' ( 1998, 2000, 2002, 2005) to global warming is 'unstoppable' ( [143])" Here's the link to Singer's and Avery's paper [144]. They admit here that the earth IS warming but are still reluctant to say that it's due to human activities. It seems obvious to me that what's really going on is that Exxon et al are trying to delay any real action on climate change until it's too late thereby keeping the profit machine going as long as possible. IOW, let future generations deal with it, we want our money now! 66.14.116.114 18:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
And about the skepticism not changing admitting AGW, read these comments from former skeptic Ronald Bailey (one time author of Global Warming and Other Eco Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death): "Details like sea level rise will continue to be debated by researchers, but if the debate over whether or not humanity is contributing to global warming wasn't over before, it is now.... as the new IPCC Summary makes clear, climate change Pollyannaism is no longer looking very tenable" [145]. Fact is, there are lots of former skeptics coming out of the closet [146]. I also think that 4.246.200.210 is right that the issue of if GW is happening at all has been the central skepticism. 66.14.116.114 22:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know where I should edit this in, or if it's needed at all. It seems some people pay quite a bit of attention to this article so if it's needed I just wanted to throw it out there. Eos4life 22:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
This documentary lists a good number of skeptical scientists that are not named on Wikipedia's Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. They are probably not listed because we could not locate a quote that would meet the rigorous demands of some of our fellow editors here... or perhaps they were never discussed. It just goes to show there are many more skeptics than the mainstream group would like people to know about. RonCram 18:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The writing style in this article has grown more and more awkward. I'm going to attempt to straighten it out here and there. Needless to say, if anyone disagrees with my edits then join in with your own. But please try not to make the writing style any more tortuous than it already is. Raymond Arritt 03:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Rameses would like to add:
Having seen the film, Reiter does indeed make some ambiguous claims. But its not at all clear that he is talking about the SPM or the WGI report. Given his specialism, the WGII or III reports are more likely (even granting there is some basis to his claim). So we cannot say "summary" here, cos that means SPM. Also, as Stephan pointed out, "There have been cases where scientists have been wrongly listed" is wrong, in Reiters case, because even he says he was removed. Reiter claims others, vagule, but names no names. None of this is reliable enough to be included William M. Connolley 10:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
At present the article does not discuss a very large issue in this controversy, data withholding by climate scientists. Mann withheld code and has tried to stonewall on a number of data sharing issues. The source code was one of the most difficult, but eventually Mann turned over the code. The actions of Phil Jones are also very much an issue and may result in a lawsuit (although recently Pat Frank of Stanford has been arguing to just reconstruct the temperature record in a full and open manner in order to shame Jones into releasing his data and methods). I have put together a few links for you to peruse to get a better handle on the issues and the amount of discussion and controversy that has been generated so far. Please take a look. The first three involve Mann. Then one on Jones and several others on the issue at large.
I am attempting to create a new outline for this article that will include this issue along with several others. Please take a look at User:RonCram/AGWControversySandbox and help me make the outline better. Once it gets to a certain level, we can bring it back here for further discussion. Thanks! RonCram 18:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
They laughed at Copernicus. They laughed at the Wright brothers. Yes, well, they also laughed at the Marx Brothers. Being laughed at does not mean you are right. -- Michael Shermer
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- Carl Sagan
1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. 2. The only way to discover the limits of the possible is to go beyond them into the impossible. 3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. --Arthur C. Clarke
To wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough to be persecuted by an unkind establishment. One must also be right. --Bill Clinton
In an effort to explain some of the issues involved in this controversy, I have written an article Scientific data archiving which provides the policies of NSF, science journals and some of the issues around data archiving and replication. I have tried to make the article of general interest by not limiting the discussion strictly to climate science.
On the issue of climate research affecting public policy and therefore demanding greater scrutiny, JohnA has written: ‘’But the costs resulting from mistakes in climate studies, could measured in billions of dollars. Isn’t it time that climate scientists started demanding from their peers that all data sources, source codes, notes and methodologies be archived for open review prior to publication? It’s no longer a $5 mistake when climate reconstructions go wrong…’’
In a post above, William had suggested that more sources were required before the controversy regarding data archiving and sharing should be mentioned in this article. Of course, many other sources are available and some are listed below. However, it should be expected that Steve McIntyre would dominate this list. The website he runs is called “ClimateAudit” for a reason. Audits are not possible without data archiving and sharing.
Others who have entered the fray include:
The group below all signed a letter to Science Magazine on the issue:
Also above, Brian wondered about the status on the Jones request. At least two scientists have requested information, Steve McIntyre and Willis Eschenbach. They are requesting the data and methods used in compiling the temperature record kept at CRU and for his 1990 study on UHI. (Jones claims the data from Russian weather stations is homogeneous and most scientists have a difficult time believing that). When Warwick Hughes first requested the temperature data, Jones replied : ‘’Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.’’ [170] Several scientists are arguing for a lawsuit against Jones and CRU under the FOI Act to force Jones to provide his data and methods. Pat Frank of Stanford is arguing that McIntyre and others should reconstruct the global temperature record from available data in an open and auditable way. Frank believes the differences between the McIntyre series and the Jones series will shame Jones into releasing his data and methods. [171] [172] [173]
Brian also expressed his opinion that the controversy was mainly about Mann and Jones. This is far from accurate. The links provided above discuss requests for information on Osborn and Briffa 2006, Esper et al [2002] and Thompson et al 1989 (Dunde); 1997 (Guliya). [175] None of these requests were satisfactorily met. Here are some additional links:
SDA is currently embarassingly naive. Neither Science nor Nature enforce such policies. Like I say, had the letter been *published* it might have been a bit different. But your evidence is still 95% from CA, who are obsessed with this issue. I agree that there *is* an issue here; I disagree that its any notable part of the GWC William M. Connolley 11:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know where I can place bets of a few hundred pounds on Global warming not happening? 88.111.137.110 22:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Connolley,
I seriously suggest you read the article on "
ownership" of Wikipedia articles.
You do NOT own the articles here. This is a collaborative effort, and some submissions may happen that you don't agree with. That is too bad, but that's how Wikipedia works.
You act like every edit has to be approved by you personally, and if some submission is made that doesn't agree with your viewpoint that it is in your right to delete them.
You should know better as an admin, and if not, I would recommend going through the official guidelines once more.
Please refrain from reverting any submission you don't agree with, without discussing those changes first. Otherwise I will have to file a complaint against your inappropriate behaviour.
-- Frescard 23:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader. What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such. - Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Appropriate_sources Raul654 06:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Raul654. You make a compelling argument to remove your friend's blog. ~
UBeR
18:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)