![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Surely there is room in the article for a simple, factual statement about logic and a logical fallacy. One should be made aware that there is an appeal to the majority being used. It does not matter which sides of the debate anyone is on, this logical fallacy still applies and is a neutral statement. Some on both sides seem to attempt to make lists of a major amount of scientists, instead of just giving evidence, facts, and data about the problem. -- Joseph Prymak ( talk) 07:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
To sum up the argument about the logical fallacy of an appeal to the majority: It is not relevant to the argument for or against human caused global warming (and the consequences) by appealing to some percentage or "consensus" of scientists. Again, what exactly is consensus in detail? -- Joseph Prymak ( talk) 18:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
-- Slashme ( talk) 09:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 17:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Propose setting up a subsection on Scientific Debates in contrast to just for/against, as follows:
In July 2008, the American Physical Society's quarterly Forum on Physics and Society began a scientific debate for and aginst the IPCC's conclusions noting: [1] [2] [3]
". . .There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred. . ."
What is significant here is a formal scientific debate with articles both pro/con in the publications of a major scientific association. This is likely the first of more to come. DLH ( talk) 22:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Oliver, I am talking about the IPCC enforcing their own standards of transparency, i.e. requiring authors to have their data archived before a paper can be a contributor to an IPCC report or at least sharing the data after the fact. A collusion of sorts currently exists among climate science journals and the IPCC to not enforce the policies they have published. If you are unfamiliar with the facts here, I am sorry. I can point you to a few URLs which you may find helpful. [ [11]] [12]] [13]] When the IPCC was asked to enforce their policies, they replied that it "would be inappropriate" for the IPCC to get involved. RonCram ( talk) 14:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Surely this article should have the title of 'Global Warming Dispute'. The opening lines state that the 'global warming controversy is a dispute'. Should it not be the other way round? The global warming dispute contains many controversies.
Bob
Bobman999 (
talk)
22:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The following statement : Furthermore, it has also been argued that it would cause more damage to the economy of the U.S. than to those of other countries, thus providing an unfair economic advantage to some countries.
Is supported by the following text : [ [14]]
However, I can't find where exactly in the article it is said that Kyoto would affect the USA more than other countries. I claim that this is false since
I agree that Kyoto could hurt the US economy more than developing nations (since they have no target), but so it is the case for all industrialized countries. There is nothing US-specific in this case. So we should either
-- zorxd ( talk) 19:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Per the discussion above, I am moving the politic sections to a more relevant article. RonCram ( talk) 13:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Ron, I suggest you rewrite this entire article, offline or on a directory of your user page. You seem to be very interested in this topic. The problem is that when you add in material about the sceptic's side of the argument, the article becomes unbalanced and then we have to respond, which takes time. This can work for small additions, but if you edit in large sections, then it is not going to work well, because our attitide will be more or less that it is up to you to be balanced.
If you attempt to rewrite the whole article, you are forced to consider both sides of the arguments. When you are done, we can take a look and perhaps suggest some changes. From my experience at wikipedia, rewriting entire articles when you want to make is in many cases the best way to proceed. A few months ago I noted that many thermodynamics articles contained big mistakes. I rewrote large parts of the affected articles: Helmholtz free energy, Fundamental thermodynamic relation, Internal energy and a few more, I also created the article Relations between heat capacities. All this to correct errors and to bring more rigor in the thermodynamics articles.
Of course, thermodynamics is not a controversial subject, but I could easily have initiated edit wars merely by making small edits, changing just a few equations and sentences while not comprehensively rewriting the entire article. The only resistance I've encoutered for my efforts was on this page. I wrote the appendix but some editor (an engineer) complained that I changed the article into a "thermodynamics thesis" :) . Count Iblis ( talk) 16:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
A recent peer-reviewed article has assessed the reliability of computer-modelled climate predictions by comparing them to historical time series. The authors concluded "At the annual and the climatic (30-year) scales, GCM interpolated series are irrelevant to reality." [ [15]] The paper is titled "On the credibility of climate predictions." RonCram ( talk) 00:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The last sentence of the abstract says: "local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported". I think this is the best summary of the article. In the article they explain that they've looked at the performance of the GCM on the local level and they find that they don't perform well. They don't study the performance of the models on the global level for which they are intended. But they then simply say that in their opinion the usual argument that at larger spatial scales the models perform better has not been properly tested. Count Iblis ( talk) 14:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The paper is junk; but there is so much junk on this page that a little more can't much discredit it William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
On what basis is the paper junk? I've read the reviews and none classify it as junk. Showman60 ( talk) 21:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems strange to me that an article on global warming controversy does not mention the Hockey Stick controversy or the many other disputes involving climate science and statistics. I have written a short entry to introduce the subject. I am aware that some people will consider this entry one-sided and it no doubt is. Unfortunately, I do not know how the other side would respond and so I am not the best person to write for the other side. Please attempt to make this entry better. RonCram ( talk) 17:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
See also Hockey stick controversy
Charges of poor statistical methodologies and lack of statistical validation in climate research were first leveled at "Hockey Stick" graph produced by Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes. [4] Congressional committee chairman Joe Barton requested the paper be examined by a statistician. In response Edward Wegman and co-authors produced The Wegman Report [5] which concluded: "As statisticians, we were struck by the isolation of communities such as the paleoclimate community that rely heavily on statistical methods, yet do not seem to be interacting with the mainstream statistical community. The public policy implications of this debate are financially staggering and yet apparently no independent statistical expertise was sought or used."
Stephen McIntyre writes a blog Climate Audit which details his charges of additional statistical missteps by climate scientists and their refusal to archive or share data so their papers can be fully audited. [16] [17]
David Stockwell has evaluated the modeling of the CSIRO Drought Exceptional Circumstances Report and the R code used to produce it. Stockwell concluded: "In a statistical re-analysis of the data from the Drought Exceptional Circumstances Report, all climate models failed standard internal validation tests for regional droughted area in Australia over the last century." [6]
The entry may appear to be one-sided but the facts are not set aside just because climate scientists cannot muster a response. I note that Count agrees with me that this article should address the Hockey Stick and have restored the entry. So, if anyone has any relevant information that may balance this entry, please add it. But we cannot deny readers the facts just because it may harm the reputation of climate science. That is not what WP:POV is about. RonCram ( talk) 13:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Previously, the article mentioned the charges of unwarranted changes to the instrumental record but it did not really support the charge with any citations. I have provided a citation of guest blog by John Goetz on Climate Audit and how this was picked up on Roger Pielke's website in a guest blog by Joe D'Aleo. For those who do not know, D'Aleo is a Fellow of AMS and a very respected researcher. His charge of unwarranted changes to the record will carry more weight with some people than Goetz, but it was Goetz who did the work originally and so D'Aleo credits him with it. Here is the entry:
Kim, I noticed you deleted the entry without any comment here on the Talk page. You did make a comment in the edit summary but it did not make any sense. The citation needed you mentioned was in the text I relocated. But nothing in my text was speculative OR. Everything was was well-sourced. What exactly is your problem with the entry? RonCram ( talk) 03:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking the survey isn't of climate scientists and therefore doesn't belong here. Only 3% were geophysicists and only 23.5% ever dealt professionally with climate change (and dealing professionally doesn't qualify them - I've dealt professionally with climate change and that doesn't make me a scientific expert). Basically it tells us what engineers and some geologists in Alberta think, which may be relevant to subsidiary issues like peak oil and carbon sequestration, but not whether climatologists know what they're talking about. Brian A Schmidt ( talk) 15:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
This is an article about the scientific debate and contains peer-reviewed papers on both sides. I added a new external link that should have been completely non-controversial.
It has been deleted a few times now, most recently by someone claiming the link does not meet the style guideline of WP:EL. This is completely absurd. There is nothing in the guideline that makes the link suspect. The link is directly relevant because it contains information and links to both sides of the scientific debate and it is regularly updated, providing Wikipedia readers with recent information. RonCram ( talk) 15:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Carriage return. I did not look at WP:EL this go around. But I did read WP:NOTLINK and with its use of "mere" I see nothing wrong with the directory. It says some are good and some are not. This "article" is not merely a linkfest, and the Climate directory compliments it well. 264 references is certainly bloatware, that passive smoking section is more added bloat... but there are only 15 external links. Certainly adding another 25 external links would simply add more fuel to the bloat-fire, but here we have a directory of sources in one location... and it only needs one link. It may well be that a cabal would read the policy exactly as you have but imho it is counter-intuitive in this particular case. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 00:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Let's wait a few days Count Iblis ( talk) 18:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I entered this:
This article is massively overblown. Can we split it? "Scientific controversy of Global Warming" and "Political, economic and social controversy of Global Warming" perhaps?
There is also alot of warbling on, and on, and on, and quotes that are probably far too long. There are sections that are barely relevant, broken links, and a table of "history" of public opinion that effectively covers from... 2003 - 2006... and includes two data points... 2003 and 2006 (no, seriously). Did someone create that with intent to expand and forget about it?
Anyway, anyone in agreement that this article needs serious downsizing attention? Jaimaster ( talk) 09:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a typo in "2.1.2 Petitions" - "Oregon Petition". It says "31,0000" where it should be "31,000". The article is locked so I can't fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larrycz ( talk • contribs) 10:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
It seems the theory of global warming has run into new problems because of a dramatic increase in methane gas that is not possibly anthropogenic. [19] I have not yet been able to read the paper by Ronald Prinn and his post-doc Matthew Rigby because I have not found it online yet. If anyone finds it, please post a link here or notify me on my Talk page. Thanks! RonCram ( talk) 20:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
[21] William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we do indeed need a new section. We have now seen many examples of sceptics misrepresenting new scientific results as if they are contradicting AGW. This is clearly very relevant to the topic of this wiki article: "Global Warming Controversy". Count Iblis ( talk) 14:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Reference 60 is missing as of 11/23/08. I suggest deletion of the corresponding statement, or if anyone knows the reference, they can add it in. 172.190.36.181 ( talk) 15:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I have a problem with this statement: "The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation." More specifically, the sources used do not provide evidence that there is a majority of scientists in agreement.
The first source (editorial news article) ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/04/AR2007020400953.html) writes: "a document drafted by hundreds of scientists representing 113 governments [supports the theory of global warming]".
The second source (editorial news article) ( http://www.csm.ornl.gov/PR/NS-10-25-03.html) writes: "American and international researchers have reached a consensus on the role of industrialization in climate change, though consensus doesn't equal unanimity." and
"There's broad agreement that the burning of fossil fuel and deforestation are causes," Tom Wilbanks, a senior researcher in ORNL's Environmental Services Division.
The third source ( http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html) writes: "Most of the literate world today regards "global warming" as both real and dangerous."
"Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far)." and
"The petition [in support of global warming] was eventually signed by 700 scientists including a great many members of the National Academy of Sciences and Nobel laureates. Only about three or four of the signers, however, had any involvement in climatology." and
"One might think that such growing skepticism would have some influence on public debate, but the insistence on "scientific unanimity" continues unabated." and
"Why, one might wonder, is there such insistence on scientific unanimity on the warming issue? After all, unanimity in science is virtually nonexistent on far less complex matters. Unanimity on an issue as uncertain as "global warming" would be surprising and suspicious. Moreover, why are the opinions of scientists sought regardless of their field of expertise? Biologists and physicians are rarely asked to endorse some theory in high energy physics. Apparently, when one comes to "global warming," any scientist's agreement will do." and on, and on.
The first source does not state a "majority" and only talks about some scientists (not "climate" scientists) agreeing, the second source says there is a consensus, but with absolutely no evidence (and again does not reference "climate" scientists at all), the third source (amusingly) actually refutes the idea that a majority of "climate" scientists (and, in fact, scientists in general) support global warming. The first sentence in the third source says "literate world [agrees]" and the article actually discusses the mislead public perception (literate world being the public). The rest of the article states that most of the "scientific consensus" is politically created and there is no such consensus from climatologists.
I think the evidence I provide above warrants an immediate deletion of the statement: "The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation." It is political propaganda, unsupported, and (in my opinion) disgusting. While I'm not very familiar with wikipedia guidelines, I don't think wikipedia would accept propaganda
Conclusion: The lack of evidence to support that statement makes it inappropriate for wikipedia and I will delete it shortly (pending arguments).
Side note: The third source does provide very valuable insight into the politics behind global warming and should be read by anyone writing this wikipedia article and anyone interested in a good and informative (if somewhat long) read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.241.11 ( talk) 15:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Brian, we wouldn't, because there aren't any peer-reviewed scientific journals that support creationism (unless you count "Creation" magazine, which doesn't claim to be a scientific journal). I would be interested in any case to read peer-reviewed articles which contradict the theory that increased greenhouse gases are leading to climate change, because I have yet to find any. As you say, such an article wouldn't necessarily mean that climate change is not human-made or not occurring, but it is very irritating to constantly hear people say that there is a debate in the scientific community without being able to provide any papers which demonstrate a debate in the scientific community. The idea that there is a debate in the scientific community about the existence of anthropogenic climate change is leading to massive delays in addressing the issue (for example, there are many Australian parliamentarians who claim that such a debate exists). That is why it is of such critical importance and why it is so irritating to have people claim there is a debate without providing any sources to back up their claim. -- Sumthingweird ( talk) 02:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) can we stop arguing about comment removal please? This talk is clogged up enough as it is. C, if I read your original comments right, you wnat to disagree about "majority" of scientists. You can't do that with one or two anecdotal examples. Rosa Compagnucci is a very minor figure, and is WG II at that. Itoh is minor. Lindzen isn't, but he is the one outstanding example available for you, so doesn't really help. Please don't fall for the "senate minority" nonsense William M. Connolley ( talk) 10:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
"Several skeptical scientists—Fred Singer, Fred Seitz and Patrick Michaels—have been linked to organizations funded by ExxonMobil and Philip Morris for the purpose of promoting global warming skepticism (see section: Risks of passive smoking)."
This statement appears to be unsourced and reference 255 should be corrected or the corresponding statement should be removed. Thanks. 138.67.4.49 ( talk) 00:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
The bias is mostly well concealed, but if the article was written with the same amount of bias for the skeptic side, the article would be completely revised in a second. The Enlightened Democrat ( talk) 04:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I do understand the article is well-sourced and it survived too AfDs, but the article title seems a bit POV to me and it furthers the cause of global warming denial. "Controversy" is a POV term in the title of the article. Should we move it to a more neutral title like Non-mainstream view on global warming? Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 15:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
My mom with a bachelors' in chemistry from the fifties was spouting party rhetoric claiming scientists were fudging their data and politicians were listening to them. I told her the science would work itself out and it's really two issues, the second one being that if you're not a scientist, the average American and their elected officials aren't capable of the critical thinking that would identify which if any scientists are falsely reporting their findings. I get the impression from this article that nobody is disputing the data reports, but mostly the conclusions drawn from them. However, if there are disputes about whether data is being accurately reported, it ought to be indicated in the article.
A conroversy in the style of Jaimaster and friends is disgusting -and nothing about reality - The Storch and Stehr source i edited
I'd like to see a better reason for an revert than "off-topic" - and i doubt a revert will erase the fact that as well in GB or the USA, not to speak of China conclusions e.g. based on the Stern report wont get much into real policy. Storchs remark about global warming being real and to be acceopted is already state of the art while being controversial as well.
My problem with this section, esp. the part currently in dispute, is that it's not about the article, currently defined as "The global warming controversy is a dispute regarding the nature, causes, and consequences of global warming." It's a different controversy about how to react to warming that has little to do with the scientific basis of climate change. I suppose we could broaden the article to "Global Warming Controversies" or start a new article. I don't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian A Schmidt ( talk • contribs) 22:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
PS.: In the meantime, Storchs points were mentioned and repeated on different conferences and public discussions, e.g. at Hygienemuseum Dresden. Yes, its an ongoing controversy and you still miss real life her. -- Polentario ( talk) 00:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, per my suggestion last week, I've deleted the Precautionary Principle section as outside the scope of the rest of the article. If there's another article that covers adaptation v. mitigation responses to climate change, that would appropriate for inclusion in the See Also section, I think. We'll see what people think of this change. Brian A Schmidt ( talk) 21:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The section 2.4.2 Surface station siting and adjustments
There is also a argument that the changes in the white paint used from old fashioned white wash to latext paint causes a difference in UV absorption. This article http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/05/rising_surface_temperatures_ba.html covers the topic. This page http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/14/a-typical-day-in-the-stevenson-screen-paint-test/ shows the exact experimental data.
This link http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/05/bad_paint_job_rising_surface_t.html is exceptionally clear cut on the issue with a well done and simple experiment.
The argument is that the change in paint could account for the entire rise in observed temperature in the 20th century.
-- Rkeene0517 ( talk) 20:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The more general argument is that the airport based weather measurement system was designed to keep airplanes from crashing in bad weather, not measuring 1 degree C rise over a century. The measurement system is fundamentally flawed. -- Rkeene0517 ( talk) 20:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I recently repaired a Union of Concerned Scientists link. The reference is basically just a fluffy marketing summary of a real paper and, as such, is an extremely poor reference. However, I noticed that it also says
Projections indicate that demand for food in Asia will exceed the supply by 2010.
In trying to explain why the link is dead, the fact that it is fluff and the fact that it incorrectly predicts global starvation in 2010 seem to be important. The second part is particularly important because these people are also predicting CO2 based Global Warming.
At any rate, BozMo decided to remove my comments explaining why the link is dead as POV/synthesis from reference. I, of course, think that my comments are fair and balanced, so I have placed this here for comment. Q Science ( talk) 01:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
According to this report, three of five scientists in a government science panel have rejected the hypothesis that late 20th century warming was predominantly caused by man. [33] The news article translates into English large passages from the original Japanese version. At this point, I do not have any specific suggestion on changes to improve the article. But it seems to me editors need to be aware of this information because it may affect the article in several places. RonCram ( talk) 05:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia at its worst. The Register merely published some English translations of a Japanese report, they have absolutely nothing to with the content of the report. The researchers also conclude that global warming and the halting of the temperature rise are related to solar activity, a notion previously dismissed by the IPCC:
"The hypothesis that the majority of global warming can be ascribed to the Greenhouse Effect is mistaken." the report’s introduction states.
Kanya Kusano, Program Director and Group Leader for the Earth Simulator at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science & Technology (JAMSTEC) reiterates this point: "[The IPCC's] conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a continuous, monotonic increase, should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis,"
Shunichi Akasofu, head of the International Arctic Research Center in Alaska, cites historical data to challenge the claim that very recent temperatures represent an anomaly: "We should be cautious, IPCC’s theory that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with CO2 is nothing but a hypothesis. " "Before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for truth… The opinion that great disaster will really happen must be broken." Akasofu concludes.
While it may be that some kind of global warming may be occurring, it certainly has not been proven and at this point it may be impossible to prove. The type of absurd environmental fascism blatantly evident on Wikipedia reeks of profound misunderstanding of not only science of complex systems and computer models, but corrupt nature of the politics and funding of science. In short, you do not what you are talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.46.214.106 ( talk) 20:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I have run across this paper which suggests an alternate theory: Michal Kravcik, Jan Hronsky, Jaroslav Tesliar, Robert Zvara The New Theory of The Global Warming 2002-01-26 Their cause is not CO2 in the atmosphere, but systematic world-wide deforestation. Is there any merit in including it under alternate hypothesis?
"These criticisms have been described as "failed" by William Connolley." Is a reference to blog posts by someone who is famous because of wikipedia. Doesn't that violate some sort of credible source or relevance rule? 216.255.104.61 ( talk) 15:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
In Print: [35]
Preprint: [36] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.136.47.95 ( talk) 21:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, if the paper has been published in a peer-reviewed journal then it should definitely be included. However, the International Journal of Modern Physics has it listed as a "Review Paper" [38]. I'm not sure what that means. Does that mean it's in the process of being peer-reviewed? If that's the case, then we should wait for the outcome before including it.-- CurtisSwain ( talk) 01:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't really addressing the issue from the POV of wiki rules, but from the POV of Truth. G&T is trash; if you read the blog I pointed to you'll find its numerous flaws. I'm interested in Truth. As for You are constantly asking for peer-reviewed references from "the other side" - I think you'll find you are wrong William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Who wants to do the honors at WP:AN3? (I have two project reports to write today.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 13:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
This article, Global warming controversy has been identified as too long at 154 kb, which under WP:SIZE is over 54 kb above the limit. It receives on average 750 hits per day [39] as to Global warming which osculates from 10K to 20K hits a day. [40] We can therefore safely edit this article directly without concern over creating a major disruption. Sandbox editing may not be necessary, however if we choose do to do so, it should not be a challenge. I will log all content moved, removed, or changed in this thread; and will accompany each edit with the necessary rationale and potential alternatives for such actions. All previous threads of discussions have been archived with the exception of "A new global warming theory?", which appears to be ongoing. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 08:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
“ | Human emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) lead to depletion of the ozone layer in the atmosphere and intensify ozone holes over the Antarctic. This concept was politically controversial in the 1990s but was broadly accepted in the scientific community (e.g., by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and other national academies); Paul Crutzen, Mario Molina, and F. Sherwood Rowland were awarded the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for discovering the chemical mechanism that links CFCs to ozone depletion. The Montreal Protocol was negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations and is widely seen as a model for the Kyoto Protocol. The scientific basis of ozone depletion has been disputed by some global warming skeptics and related institutions, including Sallie Baliunas, [12] Patrick Michaels, [13] Kary Mullis, [14] [14] Steven Milloy, [15] [16] Fred Singer, [17] [18] and Frederick Seitz. [19] | ” |
“ | By the early 1980s, [20] concerns began to arise regarding the health risks of passive smoking and whether policy responses such as smoking bans are appropriate. Medical, governmental, and UN organizations such as the United States Surgeon General, [21] the United States Environmental Protection Agency, [22] and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization [23] have concluded that the scientific evidence shows that passive smoking is harmful. The risks of passive smoking were disputed by some global warming skeptics and related institutions, including Richard Lindzen, [24] [25] Steven Milloy, [26] Fred Singer (1994), [27] Fred Seitz, [28] Michael Crichton, [29] Michael Fumento in 1997 [30] [31] the Cooler Heads Coalition (Consumer Alert) [32] [33] and the Institute of Public Affairs. [34] [35] According to the Union of Concerned Scientists [36] [37] criticism of the scientific consensus on smoking and on global warming was embodied in The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, a lobby group [38] [39] directed by Milloy and established with support from Philip Morris and subsequently from ExxonMobil. Science advisors to TASSC included Fred Singer, Fred Seitz and Patrick Michaels. [36] [40] TASSC originally campaigned against restrictions on passive smoking, and later on global warming. |
” |
For the last action enumerated, the concept of classifying "those who agree" and "those who disagree" are inherenty non-neutral and lacks argumenative maturity; many groups rather than polarizing their position attempt to qualify theirs. In this system where we separate the "sides", we inherently favor of opponents as: groups either have to identify with the proponent's claims or—if they so choose to qualify their assertions—automatically become classified as opponents. Our purpose is to remain as uninvolved observers, not active participants or mediators, we cannot use this system.
One article, Consensus on climate change controversy, has been spun off and the scope of the section raise to possible includ three articles, although the thir article "Climate change denial" can be cut. I've used an express summery section, which takes the first paragraph of its containing sections. We may have to at a later time copyedit the main article so that we can use a lead flow systyem. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 01:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
“ | ” |
- Related to debates
- A Public Debate on the Science of Global Warming: Dr. James E. Hansen and Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, November 20, 1998.
- Debate on March 15, 2007 sponsored by Intelligence Squared involving Richard Lindzen, Philip Stott, Michael Crichton, Gavin Schmidt, Brenda Ekwurzel, and Richard C. J. Somerville
- Blue Planet in Green Shackles:What Is Endangered: Climate or Freedom, by Václav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, first published 2007
- Related to the hockey stick graph
- ClimateAudit: statistical criticism of "hockey stick" climate history reconstructions
- False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al. (1998) reconstruction: Contains links to several sources disputing the McIntyre and McKitrick critique of Michael E. Mann's famous graph.
- Climate-specialized media
- New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (Considers global warming a "hoax")
- Friends of Science: Providing Insight into Climate Science (Skeptical of human-caused warming)
- National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration article, September 2006 Global temperatures 4th warmest on record/local U.S. temperatures 0.7 °F (−17.4 °C) below 20th century average.
- Other media
- Climate change: A guide for the perplexed from New Scientist
- CO2 or Solar? A discussion about the evidence for anthropogenic warming and the possible role of solar activity increase.
- CO2 Science Catalogs peer reviewed papers on Medieval Warm Period and other Global warming issues.
- Climate scepticism: The top 10, a list from the BBC of the top reasons why climate sceptics dispute the evidence that human activities such as industrial emissions of greenhouse gases and deforestation are bringing potentially dangerous changes to the Earth's climate.
- The Greenhouse Conspiracy: British television documentary aired in 1990, noting the lack of concrete evidence for global warming in 1990.
- MU Professor Refutes National Television Ads Downplaying Global Warming Engineering Professor Curt Davis says CEI TV Spots are Misrepresenting His Research.
- The Denial Machine: Information about a documentary arguing that the fossil fuel industry kept the global warming debate alive long after the science had been settled.
- Global Warming or Global Governance? (Google video) - the other side of the global warming story
- Kyoto protocol based on flawed statistics by Marcel Croc, translation by Angela den Tex, Natuurwetenschap & Techniek, February, 2005.
I strongly object to removing the section on Ordovician CO2 and temperatures as "irrelevant and not notable". The CO2 concentration was 14 times today's value, but the temperature was only 2°C warmer than today. If true, this would completely discredit the global warming theory. The usual explanation that the Sun was about 4% dimmer should also be included even though it produces only about a 4°C change. In addition, because some of this information has been in the article since before January 2008, it should not be deleted without discussion. (I actually prefer the older version.) Q Science ( talk) 04:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
The Ordovician period was about 450 million years ago. The climate during that time wasn't just affected by CO2 but by other very, very major influences. In just one example, the land masses were in a completely different place from where they are now; see e.g., here. There would have been no Gulf Stream (because there was no western boundary as at present), a dramatically different thermohaline circulation, and the like. Another example, solar luminosity also was about 4-5% less than present. And so on. The study of Ordovician climate, while interesting in an academic sense, has no direct parallels to present climate. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 14:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
This text is to be found under the section "funding for partisans" and links to the section "risks of passive smoking" in this very article. However, no such section exists and the text (and link) should either be removed or edited to link to the article on the passive smoking debate. Since it seems to only be there to provide another example of partisan funding, it should either be removed or, at least, reworded to note that it is only suggesting such an example. I can't edit this myself as I'm not a Wikipedia member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.154.200 ( talk) 16:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The statement by John Gardner in 1957 is not relevant to this article. It should be removed. Q Science ( talk) 20:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Deletion of the post below was the subject of a request for third party comment;
There should also be more exposition of the defective science used to claim man made global warming effects such as the false claim of global temperature sensitivity to albedo variations and the assumption that the Earth radiates like a black body. This assumption is based on the confusion reflection with absorption/emission, unsound science of the type used by advocates of perpetual motion, amusing but wrong.-- Damorbel ( talk) 19:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
In my view, it should be obvious that the above makes no constructive contribution to discussion on this article. It offers no concrete suggestions as to
WP:RS which might be included in the article. It risks inflaming discussion and making the talk-page a less enjoyable and productive environment for all editors.
Note that I do not intend this to imply that any particular view on Global Warming is off-topic, only that discussion should be restricted to material which makes a constructive contribution to the article.
The only fault I find with the initial deletion is that the editor making it offered no explanation of the decision to delete. But even that should not be strictly necessary for those editors familiar with the
WP:TALK guidelines, especially given the obviously problematic nature of the post concerned.
Regards,
Muzhogg (
talk)
23:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Please don't derail this talk page section, as the other two have been. Leave the debates of the strength of the consensus/Al Gore/"denialism" to the sections above (ideally, this wouldn't be on this talk page at all but let's be realistic). The question remains unanswered: the latest polls under the "public opinion" section of this article are from 2007, and show radically different results than newer polls like this one. Does anyone object to that section being updated and overhauled? Oren0 ( talk) 06:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello all. I wonder if someone could add Fred Singer to the "Changing Positions of Skeptics" section. In the article Unstoppable disinformation every 15 minutes from Fred Singer are links to his previous firm denials of any global warming. He reversed this view just a few years later by stating that global warming is "unstoppable" - but it's caused by the sun (and there's nothing we can do about it so don't even try). Actually he's made many comments that seem to vacillate back and forth, no, yes, no, yes which you can see here. I think this is a classic case of the changing position of a rather prominent skeptic. 63.196.193.251 ( talk) 06:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
This contribution was removed "If confirmed, this effect might reduce the positive "amplifying" feedback assumed in climate model" with the justification "climate models make no such assumption" Exactly the point made, thus far a valid point.-- Damorbel ( talk) 06:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems the tide is turning in favor of the "denialists" because of recent public opinion polls. It seems global warming and the environment are at the very bottom of polls where people are asked what they most care about. Out of 20, it is 20. It also seems more scientists are coming out every day to challenge the "consensus" of man-made Global Warming. Also, I believe over half of the US is against the idea now. This article should include recent polling data, seeing as there have been some very recent shifts. PokeHomsar ( talk) 15:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
That should suffice for now. PokeHomsar ( talk) 16:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2009/01/global-warming-polls-dead-last.html
Here you go. PokeHomsar ( talk) 16:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
You don't seem to get it, do you? Politicians, in this economy, will see no reason to meddle with it while there are more pressing situations. And when the world is showing a significant cooling trend starting, Al Gore is out of work. PokeHomsar ( talk) 17:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that we can agree that global temperatures change. There is just no agreement on what causes it, what to do about it, and what will happen if we do nothing. That's the problem. The earth is warming/cooling, but we don't know why, what to do about it, and what would happen if we did nothing. PokeHomsar ( talk) 17:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Al Gore vs. scientists. Try that. His predictions are apocalyptic vs. the "likely" effects, which is my whole point. This whole debate has left the realm of science and fallen into the realm of politics. This is what happened to evolution, abortion, bat corking, and several other things. Facts just don't matter anymore. This whole international debate has become a shouting match. PokeHomsar ( talk) 17:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Raul654, the fact of the matter is, the debate continues whether you like it or not. When I said the tide was turning is that more and more scientists are questioning the "consensus." And there's no clear evidence that we're causing any of the problems. When we were burning crazy amounts of coal during the 30s, 40s, and 50s, the global temperature went down. And you also seem to forget that the scientists in the 70s were warning about the "consensus" they had reached on global cooling. Many of them were warning we'd be in the next Ice Age by the year 2000. You see my point? PokeHomsar ( talk) 18:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
It turns out that Obama and the EPA suppressed memos that contradicted Obama's position on cap-and-trade. It showed that the Earth will cool until 2030 and that CO2 is not a pollutant. It was a 98 page report... Want links? Although, it seems not a single media operation except for Glenn Beck is covering it... PokeHomsar ( talk) 13:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The man who wrote the report showed the graphs for the report on Glenn Beck this afternoon. I'll try to get the clip later... PokeHomsar ( talk) 02:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Alan Carlin went on Fox and Friends this morning... This link has a transcript of the relevant conversation:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/sam-theodosopoulos/2009/06/30/meet-alan-carlin-epa-s-inconvenient-voice PokeHomsar ( talk) 03:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a "teach the controversy" diversion, and the posters here are too cautious to call you out on your ideologically driven postings. I counted 83 pages, by the way. Did you even bother to read the crap that you reference? For those 83 pages, only 3 pages of references? I have more references for a ten page journal article, let alone something submitted for the use of the EPA. I suppose that can be explained by the fact that the author was an economist, rather than a scientist. Would you suggest that bad work is suppressed, or just deemed unfit? Ninahexan ( talk) 03:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Considering it is a report and not an article for a paper and, thus, has less quotes of people (where most of your references are of) and more scholarly papers quoted. A scholarly quote and analysis can span several pages. Also, the graphs in the report speak for themselves. That's the real meat of the memo. PokeHomsar ( talk) 14:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? The graphs that show global temperatures going down until 2030 don't speak for themselves for anyone with an ounce of common sense? PokeHomsar ( talk) 16:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Or you suffer from it for not wanting to even accept the possibility that this memo speaks the truth. PokeHomsar ( talk) 02:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I suggest claims to know/see/read "the truth" have little place in this Wiki article. This memo is widely reported [48], that the EPA took action indicating that they wanted to avoid public discussion is clear to all. Boris, this "truth "is your own and as such must be respected but it has no place in Wikipedia, the policy is very clear [49].-- Damorbel ( talk) 06:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
"Boris is plenty reliable" the evidence for this seems to be his statement "I was quite willing to accept that the memo was truthful -- before I had read it" which is fine but it is a POV completely unsupported thus quite out of the NPOV Wiki requirement. There is nothing else that supports your assertion, something better please.-- Damorbel ( talk) 09:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
And what precisely does Gavin Schmidt (nice guy) have to say on the matter? Its no good just giving a name, this is just obfuscation and time wasting. -- Damorbel ( talk) 12:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
How do we know that "Boris is a WP:RS"? To quote WP:RS "This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians". At the very least Boris should not be anonymous, surely this a complete contradiction of " Wikipedia:Reliable sources". Where is the verifiability of Boris's "Truth". I would very much like to check Boris's assertions but i don't have the means to do this, do you?. As it says in verifiability "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation"; I would like to see verifiability from Boris, without it time and space are wasted. -- Damorbel ( talk) 12:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
"Boris is an RS." Where is this in " Wikipedia:Reliable sources"? I can't find anything in here Wikipedia:Reliable source examples either. In the light of this guidance I cannot take statements like "I've never claimed that you know it" as a positive contribution; I think you need to do better. -- Damorbel ( talk) 13:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Rule 5, Stephan. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 13:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
What is "Rule 5" Boris, does it have anything to do with Wikipedia? Do you have a Wikipedia:Reliable sources for it.-- Damorbel ( talk) 15:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The public opinion section seems pretty outdated. Is there a reason the latest data we have there is from 2007, when new polls like this one are being conducted on a regular basis? Oren0 ( talk) 04:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the NASA report released on June 5, 2009, kills the man-made global warming debate... PokeHomsar ( talk) 15:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that we can not find credible lists to support the sceptics view, and those lists that do exist do more harm for the position because they contain such inaccuracies (I believe one list had people asking to be taken off of it, and the makers of the list refused because they wanted to increse their numbers). rather than trolling this board Back from Beyond (you tried that on the AA board as well) would you care to bring in some WP:RS To back up your claim. Coffeepusher ( talk) 19:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
As of today, we have 307 confirmed sock puppets of User: Scibaby, 120 suspected socks, several that no-one categorized, several that are pending investigations, and probably a number of sleepers. As we all know that it is completely valid to generalize from a sample size of one, we can safely assume that astroturfing makes the opposition to the mainstream opinion on global warming appear to be about 500 times larger than it actually is. Where do we put this gem of information? ;-) -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 06:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I have only read a fraction of this page so far (down to greenhouse gases), and the large majority of paragraphs I read up to this point seem to primarily be concerned with disproving the "deniers"' arguments, rather than factually showing the issues from both sides.
Segments and sentences like
are left standing all over the place without any juxtaposition to anything from those supporting hoax-claim.
Frankly, no matter which side of this you support, this page looks like a giant page of anti-hoax PR, written by global warming supporters to discredit hoax supporters through the power of Wikipedia's credibility. (Clearly violating
NPOV in the process.)
imo, this page needs massive improvement to be in compliance with Wikipedia's statutes.
And just to make this clear, in expectation of the inevitable global warming support trolls who will come with excuses that that is due to the overwhelming evidence of global warming, yadda yadda bla bla: What I am talking about is independent from what which side believes is scientific fact. Even if one side clearly had all the facts on their side, that is no excuse to have a page about a controversy clearly biased towards one side of said controversy.
Besides, especially if you think that the scientific evidence for global warming is overwhelming, you should have no reason to fear facing what they say.
80.171.27.69 (
talk)
13:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
P.S.: Examples were chosen at random and have no particular rating as being the "worst", "best" or "outstanding" examples.
I must say that I agree. The part about confirming scientists... it basically says that "All scientists agree and that people who try and find scientists who disagree are downright wrong". This article really could use a revamp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.181.234 ( talk) 04:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I came to this page looking for a neutral article on Global Warming but all I find is editors putting up counter arguments to global warming one after another and then knocking them down. It just seems to me that this article looks more like a persuasive essay than anything else. I myself am not a great supporter of this thesis. The more I read about the issue the more it seems to me that people are just going with the flow without bothering to look anything up on their own (commenting on the survey results of course). Hey, look! My TV says burning fossile fuels are making the climate warmer! Let's stop! Oh, wow! That car says its environmentally friendly! Let's buy it! I live in Canada, and personally, I would love for the climate here to get warmer. But from what I've seen in the past half a decade, my summers are getting shorter and cooler, and my winters are getting longer and even colder. It's nearing the end of August and we've only had barely 2 weeks of real summer here in Toronto! I even remember having to wear my fall jacket going out in July! Then yesterday, a freak storm spawned four tornadoes in Vaughan and Durham and people are blaming Global Warming again! Now, I'm not saying that I'm against the whole concept of Climate Change. I'm pretty sure something is happening to our climate. But when editing an article about Global Warming Controversy, please making take a more neutral stance on the subject. -- Jianyang55555 ( talk) 01:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
The paragraph stating that " no scientific body of national or international standing has issued a dissenting statement. " is out of date. As of Feb 2009, the Polish Academy of Science (a national Polish scientific body) issued a statement doubting the factual basis of anthropogenic global warming. I edited the paragraph to reflect this, including a link to a pdf of the translated document from the Polish Academy of Science, and this was reverted by some person who does not want this page to be correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffhall318 ( talk • contribs) 22:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
To redirect criticism of global warming to this article is wrong, global warming controversy and global warming criticism are not the same thing. The global warming criticism article should be a list of criticisms made by others of global warming perhaps with a list of counters by global warming scientists at the end. As it stands this is intended to discredit said claims, and is not written from a neutral position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.102.13 ( talk) 15:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
PDO should be mentioned since it is usually part of skeptical arguments against AGW being primary cause of recent warming. related to Nature paper about warming being on hold for 30 yrs or so, counterarguments about "weather" vs. "climate", short-term trends vs long-term trends, cherry picking to create trends, recent temp trends being flat or not, etc.
also the "Solar variation" section and subsequent headings are a bit disorganized. Perhaps divide into two sections?
1-"Alternative hypotheses" section that lists solar variation, natural causes (some geologist viewpoints), PDO, cosmic ray cloud nucleation, iris cloud effect, etc. that offers alternative theories to AGW ...
2-"AGW criticisms and debate" where the issue is primarily criticism about methodology or supporting evidence such as instrumental records (urban heat island), climate modeling, arctic/antarctic ice melt, ocean temps, sea level rise, temp predictions/forecasts, weather vs. climate debate, Vostok ice core samples CO2 800yr lag / CO2 sensitivity arguments/counters, aerosol cooling effect/sensitivity, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.81.68 ( talk) 23:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Please retain this notice for at least 2 weeks to allow interested parties time to see it. I feel that editors who are interested in Global Warming or Climate Change related articles may also be interested in participating in the following RfC: RfC: How should this page be disambiguated? -- GoRight ( talk) 05:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Would anyone care to include information on API's recently revealed "secret game plan" to whip up popular discontent against President Obama's climate change bill (borrowing from the success they perceive that rightwingers have had in whipping up manufactured rage against his health care reform)? API is funded by the usual suspects in Big Oil. [51] (PDF) More here [52] 4.246.206.237 ( talk) 14:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that organizing this page based on various issues and the position of both sides on each issue makes it virtually impossible for a non-scientist to comprehend the large picture differences between both sides.
I think that it would be much better if the page has only two sections listing *facts* in support of each point of view.
I'm rather skeptical that my proposition would be implemented; a desire for clarity could indeed be perceived as POV pushing. IMHO, the current obfuscated format of the page serves the viewpoint in support of global warming because public opinion is on that side already (which doesn't mean that such a position is based on scientific evidence.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.30.243 ( talk • contribs)
The article contains a lot of quoted text. Is there not a policy or guideline somewhere that recommends against that? -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 08:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
This article lacks a long term simulations on where we will be when fossil fuels run out and how our environmental dollars can best be spent. Does anyone doubt that humans we will consume all of our fossil fuels? Fossil fuels will run out, so where will our money best be spent over the next 100years? I believe this article strongly lacks this long term perspective and that it should be the heart of debates. In 100years, would we be better off spending money on preventing garbage, toxins and pharmaceuticals from accumulating in our environment than delaying the use of fossil fuels? Would serious famines be better avoided if we used up fossil fuels faster. This sounds counter intuitive but I believe long term modelling could prove this to be true. This issue is truly a long term issue, so please add a "100 year scenario" section to this article and do not pretend that fossil fuels will not be consumed. We really should be debating where our money should be spent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.191.34.146 ( talk) 13:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I am hoping that someone can find studies which add some perspective to this article about the tradeoffs on how we spend our environmental dollars. I think it is extremely naive for us to believe that the world will not use the majority of available fossil fuels. How can this be quantified in a study? Excellent question, but you can be sure that the huge windfall fossil fuel endowed countries enjoy will not be stopped. No one wants to address this question because it seems pathetic for environmentalist to acknowledge we are incapable of change. Therefore, we continue to present climate change models which defy human capabilities and thus spend our environmental dollars unwisely. Is this not a worthy skeptical viewpoint? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.191.34.146 ( talk) 12:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I find it ridiculous that this page has so very few people arguing on it.. I usually hang out at forums about LIFT (the aerodynamic kind) and find there are thousands of voices wanting to add something.. This article seems to be virtually dead.. How come?????????????
I find it strange..
The Global warming controversy is not an encyclopedia article, it is a blog, a clone of RealClimate dedicated to defending one hypothesis and attacking the credibility of all other hypotheses as "skeptical". In the article the word "skeptic" or "skeptical" appears 22 times, it is only used by those claiming that disagreement or controversy over the greenhouse hypothesis is fundamentally misguided, false or even corrupt, it has nothing to do with Scientific skepticism. Similarly the greenhouse hypothesis proponents defend their position by claiming that no informed person can disagree with them, they claim that there is a " consensus" (21 times) about the greenhouse theory. Needless to say this entirely against the principles of Wikipedia and a misuse of the word. The very existence of this article is proof that there is no consensus, so "skeptical" authors should be properly represented here. In the Global warming controversy article the word skeptic is a title awarded to people and organisations who do not accept the editors POV, this has nothing to do with Scientific skepticism and is completely at variance with the principles of Wikipedia. -- Damorbel ( talk) 10:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
"the term applied by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement.... etc., etc., etc." At least one link please, Boris! Or is this just your POV? -- Damorbel ( talk) 07:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Global warming theory declares that planet Earth is warmed 33K by gases such as H2O, CO2 etc from 255K to 288K, this comes by declaring the temperature of a planet to be dependent on its albedo Temperature relation between a planet and its starwhere it declare the albedo to be 0.367 giving Te = 248.567K. But there is not even any consensus which albedo to choose, examples has two for every planet. Perhaps the consensus is found here Albedo or here Hyper Physics. Much is made of the angle of reflection when distinguishing between geometric and bond albedo to calculate planetary temperatures, where does one find any physics based explanation as to why the reflectivity of an object in space affects its temperature in any way? (Yes I've read all the truly dumb ideas based on "energy balance" and "black body in the infrared" but only believers in perpetual motion accept these.)-- Damorbel ( talk) 18:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
What I wrote above is pure physics, nothing to do with POV. POV is the sort of consensus described in Boris' links above. Your failure to distinguish hard physics from opinion seems to indicate lack of expertise in the subject. When writing about physics 1/you must understand the matter thoroughly so that you are able to present the science correctly; which leads to 2/, your understanding will only be sufficient when you have verified the origins of the matter.
I notice that you concern yourself with Scientific opinion on climate change, why should this matter? The absence of the science presented by the august bodies mentioned in the link is painfully obvious, the controversy is all about this appalling deficiency.-- Damorbel ( talk) 22:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
OK people, I'm invoking Rule 5 here. This party is over. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 22:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Tell me about rule 5 Boris, is it just the same as rule 12? -- Damorbel ( talk) 07:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
As I thought , we have seen Boris' Rule 5 before. Anything further to say? Usually you trot out the none-existent Rule 5 when the argument is lost, this time it's the whole global warming scam that is lost. You must be quite worried, having to resort to "funny" rules when trying to cut discussion on the rubbish physics behind the Greenhouse effect. Do you recommend this kind of behaviour to other Wiki editors? -- Damorbel ( talk) 08:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Iblis! ROFLMAO? (Rolling on Floor Laughing My Ass Off?) Is this what you wanted to say?. Don't be shy, first let it all hang out then, when that's finished, give us the technical stuff, you know you can!-- Damorbel ( talk) 15:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted the following addition:
Controversies around carbon taxes (maybe even a worldwide carbon tax, but that strays into black helicopter land) are certainly a valid topic. But I've checked the sources, and they do not support the above text. Neither mentions sceptics, one is an opinion piece by a Chinese analyst who argues against US carbon tariffs, and the other is a factual description of a proposed carbon tax in France. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 20:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
crichton03aliens
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).autogenerated2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Add Category:Climate crisis 99.155.156.1 ( talk) 05:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article mention that only 36% of Americans believe that human activity is causing global warming? In the USA the idea that man is causing global warming is a minority view. Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/22/climate-change-us-pew-survey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.11.87 ( talk) 15:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
at Salon, originally from Der Spiegel [57] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.243.107 ( talk) 23:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't we mention Climate Gate, or is it too early yet? 84.72.61.221 ( talk) 02:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Apology for my last rather confusing edit summary "Tjbs". I had typed in "It isn't disputed that a small nunber of orgs dispute global warming", but when I committed this seems to have emerged a "Tjbs, perhaps some random keypresses gathered by the computer during my attempt to commit the edit. -- TS 20:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Reference to extensive comparisons of anthropogenic climate change with religious indoctrination would be interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.100.229.99 ( talk) 04:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
What about including this in external links:
Munk Debate on Climate Change with Elizabeth May, George Monbiot, Bjørn Lomborg, Lord Nigel Lawson, 01 December 2009, with debate video.
-- Pevos ( talk) 09:08, 3 December 2009 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Surely there is room in the article for a simple, factual statement about logic and a logical fallacy. One should be made aware that there is an appeal to the majority being used. It does not matter which sides of the debate anyone is on, this logical fallacy still applies and is a neutral statement. Some on both sides seem to attempt to make lists of a major amount of scientists, instead of just giving evidence, facts, and data about the problem. -- Joseph Prymak ( talk) 07:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
To sum up the argument about the logical fallacy of an appeal to the majority: It is not relevant to the argument for or against human caused global warming (and the consequences) by appealing to some percentage or "consensus" of scientists. Again, what exactly is consensus in detail? -- Joseph Prymak ( talk) 18:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
-- Slashme ( talk) 09:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 17:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Propose setting up a subsection on Scientific Debates in contrast to just for/against, as follows:
In July 2008, the American Physical Society's quarterly Forum on Physics and Society began a scientific debate for and aginst the IPCC's conclusions noting: [1] [2] [3]
". . .There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred. . ."
What is significant here is a formal scientific debate with articles both pro/con in the publications of a major scientific association. This is likely the first of more to come. DLH ( talk) 22:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Oliver, I am talking about the IPCC enforcing their own standards of transparency, i.e. requiring authors to have their data archived before a paper can be a contributor to an IPCC report or at least sharing the data after the fact. A collusion of sorts currently exists among climate science journals and the IPCC to not enforce the policies they have published. If you are unfamiliar with the facts here, I am sorry. I can point you to a few URLs which you may find helpful. [ [11]] [12]] [13]] When the IPCC was asked to enforce their policies, they replied that it "would be inappropriate" for the IPCC to get involved. RonCram ( talk) 14:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Surely this article should have the title of 'Global Warming Dispute'. The opening lines state that the 'global warming controversy is a dispute'. Should it not be the other way round? The global warming dispute contains many controversies.
Bob
Bobman999 (
talk)
22:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The following statement : Furthermore, it has also been argued that it would cause more damage to the economy of the U.S. than to those of other countries, thus providing an unfair economic advantage to some countries.
Is supported by the following text : [ [14]]
However, I can't find where exactly in the article it is said that Kyoto would affect the USA more than other countries. I claim that this is false since
I agree that Kyoto could hurt the US economy more than developing nations (since they have no target), but so it is the case for all industrialized countries. There is nothing US-specific in this case. So we should either
-- zorxd ( talk) 19:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Per the discussion above, I am moving the politic sections to a more relevant article. RonCram ( talk) 13:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Ron, I suggest you rewrite this entire article, offline or on a directory of your user page. You seem to be very interested in this topic. The problem is that when you add in material about the sceptic's side of the argument, the article becomes unbalanced and then we have to respond, which takes time. This can work for small additions, but if you edit in large sections, then it is not going to work well, because our attitide will be more or less that it is up to you to be balanced.
If you attempt to rewrite the whole article, you are forced to consider both sides of the arguments. When you are done, we can take a look and perhaps suggest some changes. From my experience at wikipedia, rewriting entire articles when you want to make is in many cases the best way to proceed. A few months ago I noted that many thermodynamics articles contained big mistakes. I rewrote large parts of the affected articles: Helmholtz free energy, Fundamental thermodynamic relation, Internal energy and a few more, I also created the article Relations between heat capacities. All this to correct errors and to bring more rigor in the thermodynamics articles.
Of course, thermodynamics is not a controversial subject, but I could easily have initiated edit wars merely by making small edits, changing just a few equations and sentences while not comprehensively rewriting the entire article. The only resistance I've encoutered for my efforts was on this page. I wrote the appendix but some editor (an engineer) complained that I changed the article into a "thermodynamics thesis" :) . Count Iblis ( talk) 16:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
A recent peer-reviewed article has assessed the reliability of computer-modelled climate predictions by comparing them to historical time series. The authors concluded "At the annual and the climatic (30-year) scales, GCM interpolated series are irrelevant to reality." [ [15]] The paper is titled "On the credibility of climate predictions." RonCram ( talk) 00:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The last sentence of the abstract says: "local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported". I think this is the best summary of the article. In the article they explain that they've looked at the performance of the GCM on the local level and they find that they don't perform well. They don't study the performance of the models on the global level for which they are intended. But they then simply say that in their opinion the usual argument that at larger spatial scales the models perform better has not been properly tested. Count Iblis ( talk) 14:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The paper is junk; but there is so much junk on this page that a little more can't much discredit it William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
On what basis is the paper junk? I've read the reviews and none classify it as junk. Showman60 ( talk) 21:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems strange to me that an article on global warming controversy does not mention the Hockey Stick controversy or the many other disputes involving climate science and statistics. I have written a short entry to introduce the subject. I am aware that some people will consider this entry one-sided and it no doubt is. Unfortunately, I do not know how the other side would respond and so I am not the best person to write for the other side. Please attempt to make this entry better. RonCram ( talk) 17:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
See also Hockey stick controversy
Charges of poor statistical methodologies and lack of statistical validation in climate research were first leveled at "Hockey Stick" graph produced by Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes. [4] Congressional committee chairman Joe Barton requested the paper be examined by a statistician. In response Edward Wegman and co-authors produced The Wegman Report [5] which concluded: "As statisticians, we were struck by the isolation of communities such as the paleoclimate community that rely heavily on statistical methods, yet do not seem to be interacting with the mainstream statistical community. The public policy implications of this debate are financially staggering and yet apparently no independent statistical expertise was sought or used."
Stephen McIntyre writes a blog Climate Audit which details his charges of additional statistical missteps by climate scientists and their refusal to archive or share data so their papers can be fully audited. [16] [17]
David Stockwell has evaluated the modeling of the CSIRO Drought Exceptional Circumstances Report and the R code used to produce it. Stockwell concluded: "In a statistical re-analysis of the data from the Drought Exceptional Circumstances Report, all climate models failed standard internal validation tests for regional droughted area in Australia over the last century." [6]
The entry may appear to be one-sided but the facts are not set aside just because climate scientists cannot muster a response. I note that Count agrees with me that this article should address the Hockey Stick and have restored the entry. So, if anyone has any relevant information that may balance this entry, please add it. But we cannot deny readers the facts just because it may harm the reputation of climate science. That is not what WP:POV is about. RonCram ( talk) 13:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Previously, the article mentioned the charges of unwarranted changes to the instrumental record but it did not really support the charge with any citations. I have provided a citation of guest blog by John Goetz on Climate Audit and how this was picked up on Roger Pielke's website in a guest blog by Joe D'Aleo. For those who do not know, D'Aleo is a Fellow of AMS and a very respected researcher. His charge of unwarranted changes to the record will carry more weight with some people than Goetz, but it was Goetz who did the work originally and so D'Aleo credits him with it. Here is the entry:
Kim, I noticed you deleted the entry without any comment here on the Talk page. You did make a comment in the edit summary but it did not make any sense. The citation needed you mentioned was in the text I relocated. But nothing in my text was speculative OR. Everything was was well-sourced. What exactly is your problem with the entry? RonCram ( talk) 03:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking the survey isn't of climate scientists and therefore doesn't belong here. Only 3% were geophysicists and only 23.5% ever dealt professionally with climate change (and dealing professionally doesn't qualify them - I've dealt professionally with climate change and that doesn't make me a scientific expert). Basically it tells us what engineers and some geologists in Alberta think, which may be relevant to subsidiary issues like peak oil and carbon sequestration, but not whether climatologists know what they're talking about. Brian A Schmidt ( talk) 15:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
This is an article about the scientific debate and contains peer-reviewed papers on both sides. I added a new external link that should have been completely non-controversial.
It has been deleted a few times now, most recently by someone claiming the link does not meet the style guideline of WP:EL. This is completely absurd. There is nothing in the guideline that makes the link suspect. The link is directly relevant because it contains information and links to both sides of the scientific debate and it is regularly updated, providing Wikipedia readers with recent information. RonCram ( talk) 15:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Carriage return. I did not look at WP:EL this go around. But I did read WP:NOTLINK and with its use of "mere" I see nothing wrong with the directory. It says some are good and some are not. This "article" is not merely a linkfest, and the Climate directory compliments it well. 264 references is certainly bloatware, that passive smoking section is more added bloat... but there are only 15 external links. Certainly adding another 25 external links would simply add more fuel to the bloat-fire, but here we have a directory of sources in one location... and it only needs one link. It may well be that a cabal would read the policy exactly as you have but imho it is counter-intuitive in this particular case. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 00:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Let's wait a few days Count Iblis ( talk) 18:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I entered this:
This article is massively overblown. Can we split it? "Scientific controversy of Global Warming" and "Political, economic and social controversy of Global Warming" perhaps?
There is also alot of warbling on, and on, and on, and quotes that are probably far too long. There are sections that are barely relevant, broken links, and a table of "history" of public opinion that effectively covers from... 2003 - 2006... and includes two data points... 2003 and 2006 (no, seriously). Did someone create that with intent to expand and forget about it?
Anyway, anyone in agreement that this article needs serious downsizing attention? Jaimaster ( talk) 09:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a typo in "2.1.2 Petitions" - "Oregon Petition". It says "31,0000" where it should be "31,000". The article is locked so I can't fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larrycz ( talk • contribs) 10:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
It seems the theory of global warming has run into new problems because of a dramatic increase in methane gas that is not possibly anthropogenic. [19] I have not yet been able to read the paper by Ronald Prinn and his post-doc Matthew Rigby because I have not found it online yet. If anyone finds it, please post a link here or notify me on my Talk page. Thanks! RonCram ( talk) 20:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
[21] William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we do indeed need a new section. We have now seen many examples of sceptics misrepresenting new scientific results as if they are contradicting AGW. This is clearly very relevant to the topic of this wiki article: "Global Warming Controversy". Count Iblis ( talk) 14:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Reference 60 is missing as of 11/23/08. I suggest deletion of the corresponding statement, or if anyone knows the reference, they can add it in. 172.190.36.181 ( talk) 15:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I have a problem with this statement: "The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation." More specifically, the sources used do not provide evidence that there is a majority of scientists in agreement.
The first source (editorial news article) ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/04/AR2007020400953.html) writes: "a document drafted by hundreds of scientists representing 113 governments [supports the theory of global warming]".
The second source (editorial news article) ( http://www.csm.ornl.gov/PR/NS-10-25-03.html) writes: "American and international researchers have reached a consensus on the role of industrialization in climate change, though consensus doesn't equal unanimity." and
"There's broad agreement that the burning of fossil fuel and deforestation are causes," Tom Wilbanks, a senior researcher in ORNL's Environmental Services Division.
The third source ( http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html) writes: "Most of the literate world today regards "global warming" as both real and dangerous."
"Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far)." and
"The petition [in support of global warming] was eventually signed by 700 scientists including a great many members of the National Academy of Sciences and Nobel laureates. Only about three or four of the signers, however, had any involvement in climatology." and
"One might think that such growing skepticism would have some influence on public debate, but the insistence on "scientific unanimity" continues unabated." and
"Why, one might wonder, is there such insistence on scientific unanimity on the warming issue? After all, unanimity in science is virtually nonexistent on far less complex matters. Unanimity on an issue as uncertain as "global warming" would be surprising and suspicious. Moreover, why are the opinions of scientists sought regardless of their field of expertise? Biologists and physicians are rarely asked to endorse some theory in high energy physics. Apparently, when one comes to "global warming," any scientist's agreement will do." and on, and on.
The first source does not state a "majority" and only talks about some scientists (not "climate" scientists) agreeing, the second source says there is a consensus, but with absolutely no evidence (and again does not reference "climate" scientists at all), the third source (amusingly) actually refutes the idea that a majority of "climate" scientists (and, in fact, scientists in general) support global warming. The first sentence in the third source says "literate world [agrees]" and the article actually discusses the mislead public perception (literate world being the public). The rest of the article states that most of the "scientific consensus" is politically created and there is no such consensus from climatologists.
I think the evidence I provide above warrants an immediate deletion of the statement: "The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation." It is political propaganda, unsupported, and (in my opinion) disgusting. While I'm not very familiar with wikipedia guidelines, I don't think wikipedia would accept propaganda
Conclusion: The lack of evidence to support that statement makes it inappropriate for wikipedia and I will delete it shortly (pending arguments).
Side note: The third source does provide very valuable insight into the politics behind global warming and should be read by anyone writing this wikipedia article and anyone interested in a good and informative (if somewhat long) read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.241.11 ( talk) 15:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Brian, we wouldn't, because there aren't any peer-reviewed scientific journals that support creationism (unless you count "Creation" magazine, which doesn't claim to be a scientific journal). I would be interested in any case to read peer-reviewed articles which contradict the theory that increased greenhouse gases are leading to climate change, because I have yet to find any. As you say, such an article wouldn't necessarily mean that climate change is not human-made or not occurring, but it is very irritating to constantly hear people say that there is a debate in the scientific community without being able to provide any papers which demonstrate a debate in the scientific community. The idea that there is a debate in the scientific community about the existence of anthropogenic climate change is leading to massive delays in addressing the issue (for example, there are many Australian parliamentarians who claim that such a debate exists). That is why it is of such critical importance and why it is so irritating to have people claim there is a debate without providing any sources to back up their claim. -- Sumthingweird ( talk) 02:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) can we stop arguing about comment removal please? This talk is clogged up enough as it is. C, if I read your original comments right, you wnat to disagree about "majority" of scientists. You can't do that with one or two anecdotal examples. Rosa Compagnucci is a very minor figure, and is WG II at that. Itoh is minor. Lindzen isn't, but he is the one outstanding example available for you, so doesn't really help. Please don't fall for the "senate minority" nonsense William M. Connolley ( talk) 10:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
"Several skeptical scientists—Fred Singer, Fred Seitz and Patrick Michaels—have been linked to organizations funded by ExxonMobil and Philip Morris for the purpose of promoting global warming skepticism (see section: Risks of passive smoking)."
This statement appears to be unsourced and reference 255 should be corrected or the corresponding statement should be removed. Thanks. 138.67.4.49 ( talk) 00:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
The bias is mostly well concealed, but if the article was written with the same amount of bias for the skeptic side, the article would be completely revised in a second. The Enlightened Democrat ( talk) 04:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I do understand the article is well-sourced and it survived too AfDs, but the article title seems a bit POV to me and it furthers the cause of global warming denial. "Controversy" is a POV term in the title of the article. Should we move it to a more neutral title like Non-mainstream view on global warming? Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 15:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
My mom with a bachelors' in chemistry from the fifties was spouting party rhetoric claiming scientists were fudging their data and politicians were listening to them. I told her the science would work itself out and it's really two issues, the second one being that if you're not a scientist, the average American and their elected officials aren't capable of the critical thinking that would identify which if any scientists are falsely reporting their findings. I get the impression from this article that nobody is disputing the data reports, but mostly the conclusions drawn from them. However, if there are disputes about whether data is being accurately reported, it ought to be indicated in the article.
A conroversy in the style of Jaimaster and friends is disgusting -and nothing about reality - The Storch and Stehr source i edited
I'd like to see a better reason for an revert than "off-topic" - and i doubt a revert will erase the fact that as well in GB or the USA, not to speak of China conclusions e.g. based on the Stern report wont get much into real policy. Storchs remark about global warming being real and to be acceopted is already state of the art while being controversial as well.
My problem with this section, esp. the part currently in dispute, is that it's not about the article, currently defined as "The global warming controversy is a dispute regarding the nature, causes, and consequences of global warming." It's a different controversy about how to react to warming that has little to do with the scientific basis of climate change. I suppose we could broaden the article to "Global Warming Controversies" or start a new article. I don't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian A Schmidt ( talk • contribs) 22:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
PS.: In the meantime, Storchs points were mentioned and repeated on different conferences and public discussions, e.g. at Hygienemuseum Dresden. Yes, its an ongoing controversy and you still miss real life her. -- Polentario ( talk) 00:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, per my suggestion last week, I've deleted the Precautionary Principle section as outside the scope of the rest of the article. If there's another article that covers adaptation v. mitigation responses to climate change, that would appropriate for inclusion in the See Also section, I think. We'll see what people think of this change. Brian A Schmidt ( talk) 21:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The section 2.4.2 Surface station siting and adjustments
There is also a argument that the changes in the white paint used from old fashioned white wash to latext paint causes a difference in UV absorption. This article http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/05/rising_surface_temperatures_ba.html covers the topic. This page http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/14/a-typical-day-in-the-stevenson-screen-paint-test/ shows the exact experimental data.
This link http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/05/bad_paint_job_rising_surface_t.html is exceptionally clear cut on the issue with a well done and simple experiment.
The argument is that the change in paint could account for the entire rise in observed temperature in the 20th century.
-- Rkeene0517 ( talk) 20:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The more general argument is that the airport based weather measurement system was designed to keep airplanes from crashing in bad weather, not measuring 1 degree C rise over a century. The measurement system is fundamentally flawed. -- Rkeene0517 ( talk) 20:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I recently repaired a Union of Concerned Scientists link. The reference is basically just a fluffy marketing summary of a real paper and, as such, is an extremely poor reference. However, I noticed that it also says
Projections indicate that demand for food in Asia will exceed the supply by 2010.
In trying to explain why the link is dead, the fact that it is fluff and the fact that it incorrectly predicts global starvation in 2010 seem to be important. The second part is particularly important because these people are also predicting CO2 based Global Warming.
At any rate, BozMo decided to remove my comments explaining why the link is dead as POV/synthesis from reference. I, of course, think that my comments are fair and balanced, so I have placed this here for comment. Q Science ( talk) 01:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
According to this report, three of five scientists in a government science panel have rejected the hypothesis that late 20th century warming was predominantly caused by man. [33] The news article translates into English large passages from the original Japanese version. At this point, I do not have any specific suggestion on changes to improve the article. But it seems to me editors need to be aware of this information because it may affect the article in several places. RonCram ( talk) 05:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia at its worst. The Register merely published some English translations of a Japanese report, they have absolutely nothing to with the content of the report. The researchers also conclude that global warming and the halting of the temperature rise are related to solar activity, a notion previously dismissed by the IPCC:
"The hypothesis that the majority of global warming can be ascribed to the Greenhouse Effect is mistaken." the report’s introduction states.
Kanya Kusano, Program Director and Group Leader for the Earth Simulator at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science & Technology (JAMSTEC) reiterates this point: "[The IPCC's] conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a continuous, monotonic increase, should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis,"
Shunichi Akasofu, head of the International Arctic Research Center in Alaska, cites historical data to challenge the claim that very recent temperatures represent an anomaly: "We should be cautious, IPCC’s theory that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with CO2 is nothing but a hypothesis. " "Before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for truth… The opinion that great disaster will really happen must be broken." Akasofu concludes.
While it may be that some kind of global warming may be occurring, it certainly has not been proven and at this point it may be impossible to prove. The type of absurd environmental fascism blatantly evident on Wikipedia reeks of profound misunderstanding of not only science of complex systems and computer models, but corrupt nature of the politics and funding of science. In short, you do not what you are talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.46.214.106 ( talk) 20:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I have run across this paper which suggests an alternate theory: Michal Kravcik, Jan Hronsky, Jaroslav Tesliar, Robert Zvara The New Theory of The Global Warming 2002-01-26 Their cause is not CO2 in the atmosphere, but systematic world-wide deforestation. Is there any merit in including it under alternate hypothesis?
"These criticisms have been described as "failed" by William Connolley." Is a reference to blog posts by someone who is famous because of wikipedia. Doesn't that violate some sort of credible source or relevance rule? 216.255.104.61 ( talk) 15:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
In Print: [35]
Preprint: [36] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.136.47.95 ( talk) 21:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, if the paper has been published in a peer-reviewed journal then it should definitely be included. However, the International Journal of Modern Physics has it listed as a "Review Paper" [38]. I'm not sure what that means. Does that mean it's in the process of being peer-reviewed? If that's the case, then we should wait for the outcome before including it.-- CurtisSwain ( talk) 01:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't really addressing the issue from the POV of wiki rules, but from the POV of Truth. G&T is trash; if you read the blog I pointed to you'll find its numerous flaws. I'm interested in Truth. As for You are constantly asking for peer-reviewed references from "the other side" - I think you'll find you are wrong William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Who wants to do the honors at WP:AN3? (I have two project reports to write today.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 13:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
This article, Global warming controversy has been identified as too long at 154 kb, which under WP:SIZE is over 54 kb above the limit. It receives on average 750 hits per day [39] as to Global warming which osculates from 10K to 20K hits a day. [40] We can therefore safely edit this article directly without concern over creating a major disruption. Sandbox editing may not be necessary, however if we choose do to do so, it should not be a challenge. I will log all content moved, removed, or changed in this thread; and will accompany each edit with the necessary rationale and potential alternatives for such actions. All previous threads of discussions have been archived with the exception of "A new global warming theory?", which appears to be ongoing. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 08:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
“ | Human emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) lead to depletion of the ozone layer in the atmosphere and intensify ozone holes over the Antarctic. This concept was politically controversial in the 1990s but was broadly accepted in the scientific community (e.g., by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and other national academies); Paul Crutzen, Mario Molina, and F. Sherwood Rowland were awarded the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for discovering the chemical mechanism that links CFCs to ozone depletion. The Montreal Protocol was negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations and is widely seen as a model for the Kyoto Protocol. The scientific basis of ozone depletion has been disputed by some global warming skeptics and related institutions, including Sallie Baliunas, [12] Patrick Michaels, [13] Kary Mullis, [14] [14] Steven Milloy, [15] [16] Fred Singer, [17] [18] and Frederick Seitz. [19] | ” |
“ | By the early 1980s, [20] concerns began to arise regarding the health risks of passive smoking and whether policy responses such as smoking bans are appropriate. Medical, governmental, and UN organizations such as the United States Surgeon General, [21] the United States Environmental Protection Agency, [22] and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization [23] have concluded that the scientific evidence shows that passive smoking is harmful. The risks of passive smoking were disputed by some global warming skeptics and related institutions, including Richard Lindzen, [24] [25] Steven Milloy, [26] Fred Singer (1994), [27] Fred Seitz, [28] Michael Crichton, [29] Michael Fumento in 1997 [30] [31] the Cooler Heads Coalition (Consumer Alert) [32] [33] and the Institute of Public Affairs. [34] [35] According to the Union of Concerned Scientists [36] [37] criticism of the scientific consensus on smoking and on global warming was embodied in The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, a lobby group [38] [39] directed by Milloy and established with support from Philip Morris and subsequently from ExxonMobil. Science advisors to TASSC included Fred Singer, Fred Seitz and Patrick Michaels. [36] [40] TASSC originally campaigned against restrictions on passive smoking, and later on global warming. |
” |
For the last action enumerated, the concept of classifying "those who agree" and "those who disagree" are inherenty non-neutral and lacks argumenative maturity; many groups rather than polarizing their position attempt to qualify theirs. In this system where we separate the "sides", we inherently favor of opponents as: groups either have to identify with the proponent's claims or—if they so choose to qualify their assertions—automatically become classified as opponents. Our purpose is to remain as uninvolved observers, not active participants or mediators, we cannot use this system.
One article, Consensus on climate change controversy, has been spun off and the scope of the section raise to possible includ three articles, although the thir article "Climate change denial" can be cut. I've used an express summery section, which takes the first paragraph of its containing sections. We may have to at a later time copyedit the main article so that we can use a lead flow systyem. ChyranandChloe ( talk) 01:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
“ | ” |
- Related to debates
- A Public Debate on the Science of Global Warming: Dr. James E. Hansen and Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, November 20, 1998.
- Debate on March 15, 2007 sponsored by Intelligence Squared involving Richard Lindzen, Philip Stott, Michael Crichton, Gavin Schmidt, Brenda Ekwurzel, and Richard C. J. Somerville
- Blue Planet in Green Shackles:What Is Endangered: Climate or Freedom, by Václav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, first published 2007
- Related to the hockey stick graph
- ClimateAudit: statistical criticism of "hockey stick" climate history reconstructions
- False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al. (1998) reconstruction: Contains links to several sources disputing the McIntyre and McKitrick critique of Michael E. Mann's famous graph.
- Climate-specialized media
- New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (Considers global warming a "hoax")
- Friends of Science: Providing Insight into Climate Science (Skeptical of human-caused warming)
- National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration article, September 2006 Global temperatures 4th warmest on record/local U.S. temperatures 0.7 °F (−17.4 °C) below 20th century average.
- Other media
- Climate change: A guide for the perplexed from New Scientist
- CO2 or Solar? A discussion about the evidence for anthropogenic warming and the possible role of solar activity increase.
- CO2 Science Catalogs peer reviewed papers on Medieval Warm Period and other Global warming issues.
- Climate scepticism: The top 10, a list from the BBC of the top reasons why climate sceptics dispute the evidence that human activities such as industrial emissions of greenhouse gases and deforestation are bringing potentially dangerous changes to the Earth's climate.
- The Greenhouse Conspiracy: British television documentary aired in 1990, noting the lack of concrete evidence for global warming in 1990.
- MU Professor Refutes National Television Ads Downplaying Global Warming Engineering Professor Curt Davis says CEI TV Spots are Misrepresenting His Research.
- The Denial Machine: Information about a documentary arguing that the fossil fuel industry kept the global warming debate alive long after the science had been settled.
- Global Warming or Global Governance? (Google video) - the other side of the global warming story
- Kyoto protocol based on flawed statistics by Marcel Croc, translation by Angela den Tex, Natuurwetenschap & Techniek, February, 2005.
I strongly object to removing the section on Ordovician CO2 and temperatures as "irrelevant and not notable". The CO2 concentration was 14 times today's value, but the temperature was only 2°C warmer than today. If true, this would completely discredit the global warming theory. The usual explanation that the Sun was about 4% dimmer should also be included even though it produces only about a 4°C change. In addition, because some of this information has been in the article since before January 2008, it should not be deleted without discussion. (I actually prefer the older version.) Q Science ( talk) 04:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
The Ordovician period was about 450 million years ago. The climate during that time wasn't just affected by CO2 but by other very, very major influences. In just one example, the land masses were in a completely different place from where they are now; see e.g., here. There would have been no Gulf Stream (because there was no western boundary as at present), a dramatically different thermohaline circulation, and the like. Another example, solar luminosity also was about 4-5% less than present. And so on. The study of Ordovician climate, while interesting in an academic sense, has no direct parallels to present climate. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 14:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
This text is to be found under the section "funding for partisans" and links to the section "risks of passive smoking" in this very article. However, no such section exists and the text (and link) should either be removed or edited to link to the article on the passive smoking debate. Since it seems to only be there to provide another example of partisan funding, it should either be removed or, at least, reworded to note that it is only suggesting such an example. I can't edit this myself as I'm not a Wikipedia member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.154.200 ( talk) 16:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The statement by John Gardner in 1957 is not relevant to this article. It should be removed. Q Science ( talk) 20:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Deletion of the post below was the subject of a request for third party comment;
There should also be more exposition of the defective science used to claim man made global warming effects such as the false claim of global temperature sensitivity to albedo variations and the assumption that the Earth radiates like a black body. This assumption is based on the confusion reflection with absorption/emission, unsound science of the type used by advocates of perpetual motion, amusing but wrong.-- Damorbel ( talk) 19:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
In my view, it should be obvious that the above makes no constructive contribution to discussion on this article. It offers no concrete suggestions as to
WP:RS which might be included in the article. It risks inflaming discussion and making the talk-page a less enjoyable and productive environment for all editors.
Note that I do not intend this to imply that any particular view on Global Warming is off-topic, only that discussion should be restricted to material which makes a constructive contribution to the article.
The only fault I find with the initial deletion is that the editor making it offered no explanation of the decision to delete. But even that should not be strictly necessary for those editors familiar with the
WP:TALK guidelines, especially given the obviously problematic nature of the post concerned.
Regards,
Muzhogg (
talk)
23:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Please don't derail this talk page section, as the other two have been. Leave the debates of the strength of the consensus/Al Gore/"denialism" to the sections above (ideally, this wouldn't be on this talk page at all but let's be realistic). The question remains unanswered: the latest polls under the "public opinion" section of this article are from 2007, and show radically different results than newer polls like this one. Does anyone object to that section being updated and overhauled? Oren0 ( talk) 06:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello all. I wonder if someone could add Fred Singer to the "Changing Positions of Skeptics" section. In the article Unstoppable disinformation every 15 minutes from Fred Singer are links to his previous firm denials of any global warming. He reversed this view just a few years later by stating that global warming is "unstoppable" - but it's caused by the sun (and there's nothing we can do about it so don't even try). Actually he's made many comments that seem to vacillate back and forth, no, yes, no, yes which you can see here. I think this is a classic case of the changing position of a rather prominent skeptic. 63.196.193.251 ( talk) 06:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
This contribution was removed "If confirmed, this effect might reduce the positive "amplifying" feedback assumed in climate model" with the justification "climate models make no such assumption" Exactly the point made, thus far a valid point.-- Damorbel ( talk) 06:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems the tide is turning in favor of the "denialists" because of recent public opinion polls. It seems global warming and the environment are at the very bottom of polls where people are asked what they most care about. Out of 20, it is 20. It also seems more scientists are coming out every day to challenge the "consensus" of man-made Global Warming. Also, I believe over half of the US is against the idea now. This article should include recent polling data, seeing as there have been some very recent shifts. PokeHomsar ( talk) 15:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
That should suffice for now. PokeHomsar ( talk) 16:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2009/01/global-warming-polls-dead-last.html
Here you go. PokeHomsar ( talk) 16:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
You don't seem to get it, do you? Politicians, in this economy, will see no reason to meddle with it while there are more pressing situations. And when the world is showing a significant cooling trend starting, Al Gore is out of work. PokeHomsar ( talk) 17:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that we can agree that global temperatures change. There is just no agreement on what causes it, what to do about it, and what will happen if we do nothing. That's the problem. The earth is warming/cooling, but we don't know why, what to do about it, and what would happen if we did nothing. PokeHomsar ( talk) 17:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Al Gore vs. scientists. Try that. His predictions are apocalyptic vs. the "likely" effects, which is my whole point. This whole debate has left the realm of science and fallen into the realm of politics. This is what happened to evolution, abortion, bat corking, and several other things. Facts just don't matter anymore. This whole international debate has become a shouting match. PokeHomsar ( talk) 17:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Raul654, the fact of the matter is, the debate continues whether you like it or not. When I said the tide was turning is that more and more scientists are questioning the "consensus." And there's no clear evidence that we're causing any of the problems. When we were burning crazy amounts of coal during the 30s, 40s, and 50s, the global temperature went down. And you also seem to forget that the scientists in the 70s were warning about the "consensus" they had reached on global cooling. Many of them were warning we'd be in the next Ice Age by the year 2000. You see my point? PokeHomsar ( talk) 18:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
It turns out that Obama and the EPA suppressed memos that contradicted Obama's position on cap-and-trade. It showed that the Earth will cool until 2030 and that CO2 is not a pollutant. It was a 98 page report... Want links? Although, it seems not a single media operation except for Glenn Beck is covering it... PokeHomsar ( talk) 13:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The man who wrote the report showed the graphs for the report on Glenn Beck this afternoon. I'll try to get the clip later... PokeHomsar ( talk) 02:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Alan Carlin went on Fox and Friends this morning... This link has a transcript of the relevant conversation:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/sam-theodosopoulos/2009/06/30/meet-alan-carlin-epa-s-inconvenient-voice PokeHomsar ( talk) 03:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a "teach the controversy" diversion, and the posters here are too cautious to call you out on your ideologically driven postings. I counted 83 pages, by the way. Did you even bother to read the crap that you reference? For those 83 pages, only 3 pages of references? I have more references for a ten page journal article, let alone something submitted for the use of the EPA. I suppose that can be explained by the fact that the author was an economist, rather than a scientist. Would you suggest that bad work is suppressed, or just deemed unfit? Ninahexan ( talk) 03:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Considering it is a report and not an article for a paper and, thus, has less quotes of people (where most of your references are of) and more scholarly papers quoted. A scholarly quote and analysis can span several pages. Also, the graphs in the report speak for themselves. That's the real meat of the memo. PokeHomsar ( talk) 14:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? The graphs that show global temperatures going down until 2030 don't speak for themselves for anyone with an ounce of common sense? PokeHomsar ( talk) 16:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Or you suffer from it for not wanting to even accept the possibility that this memo speaks the truth. PokeHomsar ( talk) 02:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I suggest claims to know/see/read "the truth" have little place in this Wiki article. This memo is widely reported [48], that the EPA took action indicating that they wanted to avoid public discussion is clear to all. Boris, this "truth "is your own and as such must be respected but it has no place in Wikipedia, the policy is very clear [49].-- Damorbel ( talk) 06:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
"Boris is plenty reliable" the evidence for this seems to be his statement "I was quite willing to accept that the memo was truthful -- before I had read it" which is fine but it is a POV completely unsupported thus quite out of the NPOV Wiki requirement. There is nothing else that supports your assertion, something better please.-- Damorbel ( talk) 09:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
And what precisely does Gavin Schmidt (nice guy) have to say on the matter? Its no good just giving a name, this is just obfuscation and time wasting. -- Damorbel ( talk) 12:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
How do we know that "Boris is a WP:RS"? To quote WP:RS "This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians". At the very least Boris should not be anonymous, surely this a complete contradiction of " Wikipedia:Reliable sources". Where is the verifiability of Boris's "Truth". I would very much like to check Boris's assertions but i don't have the means to do this, do you?. As it says in verifiability "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation"; I would like to see verifiability from Boris, without it time and space are wasted. -- Damorbel ( talk) 12:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
"Boris is an RS." Where is this in " Wikipedia:Reliable sources"? I can't find anything in here Wikipedia:Reliable source examples either. In the light of this guidance I cannot take statements like "I've never claimed that you know it" as a positive contribution; I think you need to do better. -- Damorbel ( talk) 13:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Rule 5, Stephan. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 13:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
What is "Rule 5" Boris, does it have anything to do with Wikipedia? Do you have a Wikipedia:Reliable sources for it.-- Damorbel ( talk) 15:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The public opinion section seems pretty outdated. Is there a reason the latest data we have there is from 2007, when new polls like this one are being conducted on a regular basis? Oren0 ( talk) 04:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the NASA report released on June 5, 2009, kills the man-made global warming debate... PokeHomsar ( talk) 15:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that we can not find credible lists to support the sceptics view, and those lists that do exist do more harm for the position because they contain such inaccuracies (I believe one list had people asking to be taken off of it, and the makers of the list refused because they wanted to increse their numbers). rather than trolling this board Back from Beyond (you tried that on the AA board as well) would you care to bring in some WP:RS To back up your claim. Coffeepusher ( talk) 19:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
As of today, we have 307 confirmed sock puppets of User: Scibaby, 120 suspected socks, several that no-one categorized, several that are pending investigations, and probably a number of sleepers. As we all know that it is completely valid to generalize from a sample size of one, we can safely assume that astroturfing makes the opposition to the mainstream opinion on global warming appear to be about 500 times larger than it actually is. Where do we put this gem of information? ;-) -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 06:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I have only read a fraction of this page so far (down to greenhouse gases), and the large majority of paragraphs I read up to this point seem to primarily be concerned with disproving the "deniers"' arguments, rather than factually showing the issues from both sides.
Segments and sentences like
are left standing all over the place without any juxtaposition to anything from those supporting hoax-claim.
Frankly, no matter which side of this you support, this page looks like a giant page of anti-hoax PR, written by global warming supporters to discredit hoax supporters through the power of Wikipedia's credibility. (Clearly violating
NPOV in the process.)
imo, this page needs massive improvement to be in compliance with Wikipedia's statutes.
And just to make this clear, in expectation of the inevitable global warming support trolls who will come with excuses that that is due to the overwhelming evidence of global warming, yadda yadda bla bla: What I am talking about is independent from what which side believes is scientific fact. Even if one side clearly had all the facts on their side, that is no excuse to have a page about a controversy clearly biased towards one side of said controversy.
Besides, especially if you think that the scientific evidence for global warming is overwhelming, you should have no reason to fear facing what they say.
80.171.27.69 (
talk)
13:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
P.S.: Examples were chosen at random and have no particular rating as being the "worst", "best" or "outstanding" examples.
I must say that I agree. The part about confirming scientists... it basically says that "All scientists agree and that people who try and find scientists who disagree are downright wrong". This article really could use a revamp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.181.234 ( talk) 04:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I came to this page looking for a neutral article on Global Warming but all I find is editors putting up counter arguments to global warming one after another and then knocking them down. It just seems to me that this article looks more like a persuasive essay than anything else. I myself am not a great supporter of this thesis. The more I read about the issue the more it seems to me that people are just going with the flow without bothering to look anything up on their own (commenting on the survey results of course). Hey, look! My TV says burning fossile fuels are making the climate warmer! Let's stop! Oh, wow! That car says its environmentally friendly! Let's buy it! I live in Canada, and personally, I would love for the climate here to get warmer. But from what I've seen in the past half a decade, my summers are getting shorter and cooler, and my winters are getting longer and even colder. It's nearing the end of August and we've only had barely 2 weeks of real summer here in Toronto! I even remember having to wear my fall jacket going out in July! Then yesterday, a freak storm spawned four tornadoes in Vaughan and Durham and people are blaming Global Warming again! Now, I'm not saying that I'm against the whole concept of Climate Change. I'm pretty sure something is happening to our climate. But when editing an article about Global Warming Controversy, please making take a more neutral stance on the subject. -- Jianyang55555 ( talk) 01:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
The paragraph stating that " no scientific body of national or international standing has issued a dissenting statement. " is out of date. As of Feb 2009, the Polish Academy of Science (a national Polish scientific body) issued a statement doubting the factual basis of anthropogenic global warming. I edited the paragraph to reflect this, including a link to a pdf of the translated document from the Polish Academy of Science, and this was reverted by some person who does not want this page to be correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffhall318 ( talk • contribs) 22:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
To redirect criticism of global warming to this article is wrong, global warming controversy and global warming criticism are not the same thing. The global warming criticism article should be a list of criticisms made by others of global warming perhaps with a list of counters by global warming scientists at the end. As it stands this is intended to discredit said claims, and is not written from a neutral position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.102.13 ( talk) 15:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
PDO should be mentioned since it is usually part of skeptical arguments against AGW being primary cause of recent warming. related to Nature paper about warming being on hold for 30 yrs or so, counterarguments about "weather" vs. "climate", short-term trends vs long-term trends, cherry picking to create trends, recent temp trends being flat or not, etc.
also the "Solar variation" section and subsequent headings are a bit disorganized. Perhaps divide into two sections?
1-"Alternative hypotheses" section that lists solar variation, natural causes (some geologist viewpoints), PDO, cosmic ray cloud nucleation, iris cloud effect, etc. that offers alternative theories to AGW ...
2-"AGW criticisms and debate" where the issue is primarily criticism about methodology or supporting evidence such as instrumental records (urban heat island), climate modeling, arctic/antarctic ice melt, ocean temps, sea level rise, temp predictions/forecasts, weather vs. climate debate, Vostok ice core samples CO2 800yr lag / CO2 sensitivity arguments/counters, aerosol cooling effect/sensitivity, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.81.68 ( talk) 23:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Please retain this notice for at least 2 weeks to allow interested parties time to see it. I feel that editors who are interested in Global Warming or Climate Change related articles may also be interested in participating in the following RfC: RfC: How should this page be disambiguated? -- GoRight ( talk) 05:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Would anyone care to include information on API's recently revealed "secret game plan" to whip up popular discontent against President Obama's climate change bill (borrowing from the success they perceive that rightwingers have had in whipping up manufactured rage against his health care reform)? API is funded by the usual suspects in Big Oil. [51] (PDF) More here [52] 4.246.206.237 ( talk) 14:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that organizing this page based on various issues and the position of both sides on each issue makes it virtually impossible for a non-scientist to comprehend the large picture differences between both sides.
I think that it would be much better if the page has only two sections listing *facts* in support of each point of view.
I'm rather skeptical that my proposition would be implemented; a desire for clarity could indeed be perceived as POV pushing. IMHO, the current obfuscated format of the page serves the viewpoint in support of global warming because public opinion is on that side already (which doesn't mean that such a position is based on scientific evidence.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.30.243 ( talk • contribs)
The article contains a lot of quoted text. Is there not a policy or guideline somewhere that recommends against that? -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 08:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
This article lacks a long term simulations on where we will be when fossil fuels run out and how our environmental dollars can best be spent. Does anyone doubt that humans we will consume all of our fossil fuels? Fossil fuels will run out, so where will our money best be spent over the next 100years? I believe this article strongly lacks this long term perspective and that it should be the heart of debates. In 100years, would we be better off spending money on preventing garbage, toxins and pharmaceuticals from accumulating in our environment than delaying the use of fossil fuels? Would serious famines be better avoided if we used up fossil fuels faster. This sounds counter intuitive but I believe long term modelling could prove this to be true. This issue is truly a long term issue, so please add a "100 year scenario" section to this article and do not pretend that fossil fuels will not be consumed. We really should be debating where our money should be spent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.191.34.146 ( talk) 13:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I am hoping that someone can find studies which add some perspective to this article about the tradeoffs on how we spend our environmental dollars. I think it is extremely naive for us to believe that the world will not use the majority of available fossil fuels. How can this be quantified in a study? Excellent question, but you can be sure that the huge windfall fossil fuel endowed countries enjoy will not be stopped. No one wants to address this question because it seems pathetic for environmentalist to acknowledge we are incapable of change. Therefore, we continue to present climate change models which defy human capabilities and thus spend our environmental dollars unwisely. Is this not a worthy skeptical viewpoint? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.191.34.146 ( talk) 12:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I find it ridiculous that this page has so very few people arguing on it.. I usually hang out at forums about LIFT (the aerodynamic kind) and find there are thousands of voices wanting to add something.. This article seems to be virtually dead.. How come?????????????
I find it strange..
The Global warming controversy is not an encyclopedia article, it is a blog, a clone of RealClimate dedicated to defending one hypothesis and attacking the credibility of all other hypotheses as "skeptical". In the article the word "skeptic" or "skeptical" appears 22 times, it is only used by those claiming that disagreement or controversy over the greenhouse hypothesis is fundamentally misguided, false or even corrupt, it has nothing to do with Scientific skepticism. Similarly the greenhouse hypothesis proponents defend their position by claiming that no informed person can disagree with them, they claim that there is a " consensus" (21 times) about the greenhouse theory. Needless to say this entirely against the principles of Wikipedia and a misuse of the word. The very existence of this article is proof that there is no consensus, so "skeptical" authors should be properly represented here. In the Global warming controversy article the word skeptic is a title awarded to people and organisations who do not accept the editors POV, this has nothing to do with Scientific skepticism and is completely at variance with the principles of Wikipedia. -- Damorbel ( talk) 10:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
"the term applied by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement.... etc., etc., etc." At least one link please, Boris! Or is this just your POV? -- Damorbel ( talk) 07:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Global warming theory declares that planet Earth is warmed 33K by gases such as H2O, CO2 etc from 255K to 288K, this comes by declaring the temperature of a planet to be dependent on its albedo Temperature relation between a planet and its starwhere it declare the albedo to be 0.367 giving Te = 248.567K. But there is not even any consensus which albedo to choose, examples has two for every planet. Perhaps the consensus is found here Albedo or here Hyper Physics. Much is made of the angle of reflection when distinguishing between geometric and bond albedo to calculate planetary temperatures, where does one find any physics based explanation as to why the reflectivity of an object in space affects its temperature in any way? (Yes I've read all the truly dumb ideas based on "energy balance" and "black body in the infrared" but only believers in perpetual motion accept these.)-- Damorbel ( talk) 18:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
What I wrote above is pure physics, nothing to do with POV. POV is the sort of consensus described in Boris' links above. Your failure to distinguish hard physics from opinion seems to indicate lack of expertise in the subject. When writing about physics 1/you must understand the matter thoroughly so that you are able to present the science correctly; which leads to 2/, your understanding will only be sufficient when you have verified the origins of the matter.
I notice that you concern yourself with Scientific opinion on climate change, why should this matter? The absence of the science presented by the august bodies mentioned in the link is painfully obvious, the controversy is all about this appalling deficiency.-- Damorbel ( talk) 22:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
OK people, I'm invoking Rule 5 here. This party is over. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 22:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Tell me about rule 5 Boris, is it just the same as rule 12? -- Damorbel ( talk) 07:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
As I thought , we have seen Boris' Rule 5 before. Anything further to say? Usually you trot out the none-existent Rule 5 when the argument is lost, this time it's the whole global warming scam that is lost. You must be quite worried, having to resort to "funny" rules when trying to cut discussion on the rubbish physics behind the Greenhouse effect. Do you recommend this kind of behaviour to other Wiki editors? -- Damorbel ( talk) 08:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Iblis! ROFLMAO? (Rolling on Floor Laughing My Ass Off?) Is this what you wanted to say?. Don't be shy, first let it all hang out then, when that's finished, give us the technical stuff, you know you can!-- Damorbel ( talk) 15:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted the following addition:
Controversies around carbon taxes (maybe even a worldwide carbon tax, but that strays into black helicopter land) are certainly a valid topic. But I've checked the sources, and they do not support the above text. Neither mentions sceptics, one is an opinion piece by a Chinese analyst who argues against US carbon tariffs, and the other is a factual description of a proposed carbon tax in France. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 20:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
crichton03aliens
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).autogenerated2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Add Category:Climate crisis 99.155.156.1 ( talk) 05:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article mention that only 36% of Americans believe that human activity is causing global warming? In the USA the idea that man is causing global warming is a minority view. Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/22/climate-change-us-pew-survey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.11.87 ( talk) 15:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
at Salon, originally from Der Spiegel [57] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.243.107 ( talk) 23:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't we mention Climate Gate, or is it too early yet? 84.72.61.221 ( talk) 02:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Apology for my last rather confusing edit summary "Tjbs". I had typed in "It isn't disputed that a small nunber of orgs dispute global warming", but when I committed this seems to have emerged a "Tjbs, perhaps some random keypresses gathered by the computer during my attempt to commit the edit. -- TS 20:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Reference to extensive comparisons of anthropogenic climate change with religious indoctrination would be interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.100.229.99 ( talk) 04:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
What about including this in external links:
Munk Debate on Climate Change with Elizabeth May, George Monbiot, Bjørn Lomborg, Lord Nigel Lawson, 01 December 2009, with debate video.
-- Pevos ( talk) 09:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)