Talk:Climate change/Archive 33

divorces and global warming
The source examining the contribution to global warming of increased consumption resulting from changes in lifestyle following divorce is interesting but certainly doesn't belong in the lead of the article. I can't really see a subsection where that level of detail fits well either. Perhaps this new information would be best limited to the Attribution of recent climate change sub article?Zebulin (talk) 10:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It might warrant a sentence at world energy resources and consumption and divorce. ~ UBeR (talk) 11:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's a very indirect connection to global warming. It also is somewhat misleading - it's not divorce directly, but living in smaller units. Divorcees moving in with lovers are no problem ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Urban Heat Island effect
User:PatronSaintOfEntropy added a significant paragraph on work by McKitrick and Michaels that argues measured global warming is actually mostly an artifact of temperature stations being in cities, which, by the well known urban heat island effect, are warmer than natural and agricultural land. I reverted this change because the user already put McKitrick and Michaels in Instrumental temperature record, specifically in the uncertainties section. However, the paragraph in the detailed article is less detailed than the recently added paragraph in this general article. PatronSaintOfEntropy, please feel free to expand the coverage of this issue in the more specific article. However, the work of two people, rebutted by many others, is not important or significant enough to be in the main article, or at least does not deserve its own paragraph. Please suggest new wording here on the talk page. Enuja (talk) 04:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no dispute that measured warming is highly correlated with socioeconomic indicators. The IPCC team admitted as much in their review comments. The final text in the IPCC AR4 reads as follows:


 * McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and De Laat and Maurellis (2006) attempted to demonstrate that geographical patterns of warming trends over land are strongly correlated with geographical patterns of industrial and socioeconomic development, implying that urbanisation and related land surface changes have caused much of the observed warming. However, the locations of greatest socioeconomic development are also those that have been most warmed by atmospheric circulation changes (Sections 3.2.2.7 and 3.6.4), which exhibit large-scale coherence. Hence, the correlation of warming with industrial and socioeconomic development ceases to be statistically significant.


 * IPCC provides no references to backup their assertion that "the locations of greatest socioeconomic development are also those that have been most warmed by atmospheric circulation changes". To my knowledge there is no peer reviewed literature that agrees with this assertion, and two peer reviewed papers that disagree with it.


 * How are we to deal with a situation where three peer reviewed papers from two groups say one thing, and the IPCC section authors say something else? My solution was a paragraph that provides both points of view, quoting directly from each.


 * Quite frankly, the IPCC version is significantly less credible. The unchallenged fact is that there is a correlation between socioeconomic development and measured temperature increase. Explanation #1: Socioeconomic development causes measured temperature to increase. Explanation #2: Socioeconomic development coincidentally occurs in locations "most warmed by atmospheric circulation changes". Without a single peer reviewed paper supporting Explanation #2, how does it even make it into the article?


 * Considering all of this, the current text: "This measured temperature increase is not significantly affected by the urban heat island effect." is either flatly wrong or POV. I'm restoring my neutral version.PatronSaintOfEntropy (talk) 08:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "two peer reviewed papers that disagree with it". You claim two peer review articles which consider that the urban heat island effect might be due to "the locations of greatest socioeconomic development are also those that have been most warmed by atmospheric circulation changes" find it isn't true? Please say which (obviously ones which don't consider it obviously don't count). --BozMo talk 14:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The IPCC process included not only peer review but politician review as well.  Sagredo Discussione? 18:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * BozMo: The De Laat papers specifically address this :
 * "We confirm the presence of a temperature change–industrialization correlation by analyzing the data with an additional statistical method and further confirm the absence of the above correlation in climate model simulations of enhanced GHG warming."


 * That said, you are asking De Laat to prove a negative, an unreasonable request. The IPCC says that coincidentally socioeconomic development occurs in locations most warmed by atmospheric circulation changes. On its face this is a bold and improbable claim. Shouldn't there be at least one peer reviewed paper supporting such an assertion? In the absence of scientific support, the IPCC report can not be taken as the gospel truth. Although 1500 scientists participated in the process, several of those scientists have directly rejected this assertion, and the vast majority of those scientists have never even considered it. PatronSaintOfEntropy (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * How do you know they never considered it? Are you telepathic?  Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I prefer academic research to telepathy. A great deal has been written about the IPCC review process. Here is a link to a review of the process that happens to mention McKitrick and Michaels on its first page. There are many other reviews of the process. To my knowledge none have come even remotely close to suggesting that any passage of the AR4 has been considered by a majority of reviewers.PatronSaintOfEntropy (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links to SPPI, which is widely recognized as a well-vetted and unbiased source. I note you said "considered" rather than "submitted formal comments on the draft." Many of us read -- that is, considered -- the drafts of other chapters without making formal comments. Hence the need for telepathy. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, not everyone will realize that you were being sarcastic with your "well-vetted and unbiased source" comment. I, myself, had to follow the link to see if there was a second Science and Public Policy Institute that I was unaware of. Ben Hocking (talk 20:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to hear that you personally considered the statement: "the locations of greatest socioeconomic development are also those that have been most warmed by atmospheric circulation changes". What peer reviewed research did you believe supported this statement. (I'm being serious. I fully expect that if I ask the question 100 times I will be given a reference to look at by somebody who agrees with this statement. I don't expect this paper to be as thorough as the latest McKitrick and Michaels, but I am open to having my expectations proved wrong).


 * As far as the process is concerned, I've read at least a half dozen descriptions of it (not all by skeptics), all of which are consistent with the notion that a small group of contributors is disproportionately responsible for each section. Since you have participated in the process, let me ask you the following question point blank: Do you believe that a majority of the 1500 scientists have considered most of the passages in the text? I thought that it was relatively non-controversial that this is not the casePatronSaintOfEntropy (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no basis to know one way or the other. I read "my" chapter (11) and some others. If you want to know what other participants read, you'll have to ask them. Or you're free to assume whatever you like, in the absence of hard evidence to the contrary. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Urban Heat Island Effect Temperature Data contamination? http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/research/faqs/heatisland_current.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=43&langswitch_lang=sp http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7015/abs/432290a.html http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/population/article2abstract.pdf http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/research/faqs/heatisland_current.html

And how about "cool" farms? http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn12482-cool-farms-mask-the-extent-of-global-warming.html http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-198.pdf I suspect that the land area cooled by irrigation is a wee bit larger than the area affected by UHIE. Urban Heat Island Effect Temperature Data contamination is WP:FRINGE    Sagredo Discussione? 23:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no question that UHI biases temperature readings. As your source says "Other, perhaps more subtle influences (e.g., urbanization) are addressed either actively in the data processing stage". I personally am only familiar with the GISS adjustments, but they clearly recognize the potential for bias in urban areas and attempt to adjust for this algorithmically.


 * The question is whether or not these adjustments are adequate. McKitrick has clearly demonstrated otherwise. Here is a background piece which helps explain why most of your other cited papers do not demonstrate otherwise: PatronSaintOfEntropy (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have now asked a substantially similar question to seven people who claimed to be among the 1500 (only one of them clearly anti-consensus). All seven have said something substantially similar. Between that and the various descriptions of the process (both pro-consensus and skeptical), I feel very confident in my assumption.


 * That said, I shouldn't have raised the issue. Sagredo originally claimed that 1500 scientists supported the IPCC UHI conclusions in an edit to the UHI page which I reverted around the time of my original comment. You never made such a claim, but I inadvertently conflated the two of you.PatronSaintOfEntropy (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact remains that the page still says that "This measured temperature increase is not significantly affected by the urban heat island effect." The problems with this are two fold:

1. The paragraph reads more cleanly without this sentence. The sentence rebuts a claim which is not made on the page. 2. The sentence presents as fact a conclusion which is powerfully contradicted by the latest research.

I think the best solution is to remove any discussion of uncertainties in the instrumental temperature record from this page, and include them in the appropriate section of [Instrumental Temperature Record].PatronSaintOfEntropy (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why this article still cites the 2001 IPCC, because the 2007 IPCC also addresses this issue (and I think is being discussed above), and it would probably be a better citation to use in the article. I'm confused that PatronSaintOfEntropy is looking for peer reviewed publications that address the effect of Urban Heat Islands on global temperature trends while citing the IPCC, because Working group I, section 3.2.2.2 of the 2007 IPPC  talks about the possible effect of urban heat islands on the global warming trend.  The section cites 9 sources (7 from 2003 and more recently), including David E. Parker's 2006 paper in the Journal of Climate "A Demonstration that Climate Change is not Urban" to argue that the urban heat island effect is not biasing the overall global warming trends.  edited to add Note: the Nature link added above by Sagredo is Parker's 2004 paper on the same issue as the 2006 paper I mentioned, and the NOAA link is the absract to Peterson, 2003, also cited in the IPCC report. Enuja  (talk) 01:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * About the IPCC quote "However, the locations of greatest socioeconomic development are also those that have been most warmed by atmospheric circulation changes (Sections 3.2.2.7 and 3.6.4), which exhibit large-scale coherence. Hence, the correlation of warming with industrial and socioeconomic development ceases to be statistically significant."  Of course this quote doesn't cite sources; we are expected to read the sections about atmospheric circulation to see those sources.
 * The lack of a significant urban heat island effect on the observed global warming trend is an important thing to include in this article, because it is something that climate change skeptics, and really any thinking person who knows that many weather stations are in cities and that cities are warm, will immediately think of. You're welcome to edit it to flow more smoothly.  Enuja  (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Uncited "Few"
Sigh, we have been over this before. The word "few" without a cite = original research. It seems this 1RR was instituted as a way for the OWNers of this page to keep the page fixed on their version permanently even though I do not see any consensus on this version at all. Why has the above promised discussion on the merits of each version never happened? Is it because it would be pointless because the people who like things the way they are are all admins now who institute arbitrary revert policies, block, and revert to their OWN version? Frankly I'm very troubled by the amount of administrative powers that control the content of this article. With this 1RR the article will effectively never change or improve. --Tjsynkral 15:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * AFAIK the 1RR only applies to a small phrase, not the whole article--BozMo talk 17:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The 1RR rule has no influence whatsoever on the article. If you can revert x times then everyone else can revert x times too. So, we can shorten the duration of revert wars by a factor 3 without changing the outcome by observing the 1RR rule. Count Iblis 17:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess when you look at it that way, it's really just as much of a flaw with 3RR. The article's content should be judged by what's correct, not by who reverts the most. I believe ANY change will be reverted to the current version by the people in question no matter how large an improvement. The OWNers watch the article constantly and revert immediately upon any change to this sentence. It's not even open to debate as far as they're concerned. We've demonstrated in the past that "few" without a cite is unacceptable, yet the citation was reverted out. --Tjsynkral 18:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Tedious complaints over ownership are commonplace from people who simply dislike the content. Helpful imporvements are readily accepted. Changing few to some was deliberately provocative. You may have *asserted* that few-sans-cite is unacceptable but not *demonstrated*. This has been gone over endlessly William M. Connolley 19:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I see changing "few" to "some" as an improvement, since "few" is unsubstantiated and "some" is neutral. I'm sure I could find a better way to be deliberately provocative, such as changing it to "many" or "most". Whatever happened to AGF? Doesn't that apply to administrators as well?


 * Also, I don't know how I can demonstrate the problem with "few" having no citation any better than pointing to the policy of WP:OR. There is clearly a dispute over this claim so a citation must be brought in. --Tjsynkral 20:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm misinterpreting Tjsynkral's argument, but I thought he was saying that he wanted to add a citation and not to change it from few to some. Am I missing something? Ben Hocking (talk 19:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * He wants to use "some" and/or use the deprecated AMQUA. ~ UBeR 23:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

First issue that should be addressed should be to change "disagree" for "have voiced disagreement". At least we would not be presuming of the opinion of thousands of still-silent-to-this-day scientists. Then "a few" could be argued over. --Childhood&#39;s End 19:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Both sources considered for this sentence (AMQUA and Nature) do not restrict themselves to outspoken criticism. --Stephan Schulz 20:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I dont see sources for this sentence (?) and if there are, why not reflect this in the article? --Childhood&#39;s End 20:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I added in a source for "Few" that was used previously, and WMC revert-removed it. --Tjsynkral 20:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What was the excuse for removing the source? I have to admit that it seems odd to have a 1rr rule specifically protecting an unsourced statement.  In the absence of the source "some" does seem like a more neutral term than "few".Zebulin 01:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the new meaning of "few". It can now apparently refer to several dozen, as you will see if you click on "individual scientists. rossnixon 01:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for demonstrating your language skills. Of course, this know-nothing seems to have used the phrase somewhat earlier while talking about thousands. But maybe he was inspired by this barely known poet who put it into the mouth of some Heinrich when referring to his small group of bandits as "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers"? Well, I have a go gazing at the few stars visible from Earth tonight and then remove the few grains of sand that got into my shoes.  --Stephan Schulz 08:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * How about something along the lines of "few reported" or "few have been reported"? (-- SEWilco (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC))

How about we just don't describe it and point to the list and let the gentle reader count them if they so choose. Few, some, gaggle, googol. The petty bickering and POV pushing from all sides is pathetic. --DHeyward (talk) 06:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I gues I should congratulate you in including yourself as part of all sides. The article has to stand as true&balance without the link (as for sentences with brackets) so I think we had better leave it as it has been (with wide support) without your particular intervention. Please don't use expletives in edit summaries by the way. --BozMo talk 08:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem so wide to me. Also, Wikipedia isn't censored. ~ UBeR (talk) 08:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You may be right. Do you agree marginal majority? Anyway I don't think people coming in from the cold with a blatant not consensus edit war change and saying "please don't edit war" should be taken too seriously. You, UBeR, I take increasingly seriously. But then I did revert to your latest version. --BozMo talk 10:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored, in the sense that profanity is permitted within articles when appropriate. But not in talk or edit comments. W-i-n-c is not relevant to this issue William M. Connolley (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And where do you get the interpretation from? Profanity in it of itself is not incivil. Speech is indeed limited when it interferes with creating an encyclopedia, but I do not see that here. ~ UBeR (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

"These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries; however, individual scientists disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC."

i saw the above wording had been introduced (and immediately reverted) and it seems to be a better solution than the ones proposed in the zillion pages of talk. Maybe we should simply adopt this new wording? What could be more neutral less ambiguous and less vulnerable to accusations of OR than phrasing it in this way? It certainly seems less assailable than "a few" or even "some" and does not require further citation.Zebulin (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * But it doesn't mean the same thing. There could be a million individual scientists, but there aren't. johnpseudo 12:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And why is providing unsourced qualifiers better than leaving it neutrally vague? If we must use "few" let's just source it.  If we don't have a source handy let's leave the vague wording and there will be a fine incentive to dig up an authoritative source that declares that "a few" (whatever that means) scientists disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC.  Reading through the (appallingly long) discussion on this phrasing seems to reveal a rather unencylopedic and frankly OR approach to this wording controversy.  Why not source or leave vague?Zebulin (talk) 12:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Instead of me repeating the answers that have been repeated again and again - try reading the talk page and archives. I'm btw. not a proponent for leaving it unsourced - we have good sources for it - but apparently consensus was that it wasn't necessary. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Precisely what I found so striking about the archives was the apparent total absence of consensus on this phrasing. Furthermore, the sources do not appear to have ever been placed into the article.  Doing so could easily provide the basis for a true consensus.  Sourcing has an excellent record in that regard.Zebulin (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The phrasing (a few) has had consensus (and been present) for at least as long as i've been editing wikipedia (iirc) - it has been sourced earlier, but a recent consensus removed the sourcing as unnecessary. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A source should be added. Why not? - Merzbow (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Kim if you would look through the talk archives you would see that the reason the following sourcing:

"cite journal|author= American Quaternary Association| date = 2006-09-05 | url= http://www.agu.org/fora/eos/pdfs/2006EO360008.pdf |title = Petroleum Geologists‘ Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate | journal = Eos | volume = 87 | number = 3 | pages = 364 | format = PDF | quote = Few credible scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise in global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution."


 * was removed was that the wording from the source "Few credible scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise in global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution." is dramatically different from the context it was being applied to. The phrase in question in the article does not refer to how many scientists doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise in global temperatures since the industrial revolution rather it says that individual scientists "disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC".  One would expect a wide discrepancy between the numbers of scientists in those two contexts because those are really two different doubts one considerably more extreme than the other.  What would be best to have is a look at those other good sources you've mentioned and use one that applies to the number of scientists that disagree with (or doubt) some of the main conclusions of the IPCC.  Reinstating such a source would likely be a slam dunk to stability far more effective than a clunky and frankly unjustified 1rr rule could ever be.Zebulin (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We have an excellent documentation in the article linked. And frankly i doubt that anything would make a "slam dunk" on this one - for instance you are not likely to influence the people who insert "many", "a growing number" and so on - because they will claim that (for instance) Inhofe's blog is more (or just as) reliable . --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

How about the "a small minority of scientists" as suggested (way) above? Personally, "few" works for me, because, to me, "few" is always relative and when you CAN make a reasonably complete list of scientists who agree with you, that means that not too many people agree with you. However, if we stick with "few" I don't think this argument is ever going to end, as people will follow the link to the list of climate change dissenters, see that it's a lot of names, and the edit war and complete single-minded discussion on this page about one word will continue unabated forever. Enuja (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "There are" is more favorable. I think Dr. Arritt even said that could work. ~ UBeR (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This argument will continue on and off for eternity (or as long as Wikipedia lasts), whether we use few/some/small minority/many/incremental/2.7128/plurality/some vague number/gaggle/preponderance/42/majority/swarm/platoon or whatever. I, for one, think it's a waste of time; while "there are" works for me, as a practical matter we probably should stick to the consensus that has held for some months. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The consensus has never held as far as can be seen from the archives or revision history. When the phrase was not changing it was protected in some manner.  Great care in maintaining rigorous encylopedic neutrality and standards is of great importance because it helps safeguard the credibility of the article (sourcing in general is always good for this) and because it promotes stability by defusing at least some accusations of POV entrenching.  I think the obvious best solution is a citation that offers some qualifer on the number of scientists who have voiced disagreement with one or more of the main conclusions of the IPCCZebulin (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that this sentence has been here for so long, more than indicates consensus. That it has often been the focus of revert-wars or random pass-by editors, indicates that this is a subject that has some heated opinions. Would this sentence do it for you? "However, the overwhelming majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main points, even if there is still some uncertainty about particular aspects, such as how the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will change in the future." (p.3, misleading arguments 2.) - few is after all just the reverse of an "overwhelming majority". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that this sentence has been here for so long is nothing more than the result of incessant reverting by a bunch of people who apparently have no respect for these dissenting scientists' opinions, who revert to the uncited "few" version immediately upon ANY change to it. The stability of the article can be attributed to there being more of these type of people watching than people committed to making the encyclopedia better verifiable and factually accurate. --Tjsynkral (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * any sourced qualification even one using "overwhelming majority" would be superior, yes.
 * Mr. Petersen, you and I both know that's not how consensus works. Just look at the flow chart. It explains it pretty well. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

"These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. While individual scientists disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC the overwhelming majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main points, even if there is still some uncertainty about particular aspects, such as how the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will change in the future." followed by the http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630 reference. It's longer but not cludgy and decisively settles the issue with sources.Zebulin (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively we could from the same source use:

"These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC the overwhelming majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main points. "Zebulin (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good except for the last phrase, "the overwhelming majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main points". That is a circular reinforcement. Of course they agree. They are the ones making the points! rossnixon 02:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That would only be a valid objection if we had already clarified that nearly all scientists who work on climate change had input into either the main points of the IPCC or at least had input into the endorsements of 30+ societies and academies. As it is we have a sentence that declares that at least 30 scientific societies and acadamies of science have endorsed the conclusions of the IPCC followed by one that says that individual scientists have disagreed with some of those conclusions while the overwhleming majority agree on the IPCCs main points.  That's not really circular referencing at all.Zebulin (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Zebulin, your language won't work not only because it's too wordy and complicated for the lead but because it's a copyright violation. You can't use the wordings from outside sources (unless they are public domain).  You can quote the source, or you can paraphrase it, but you can't use their words.  I think Kim D. Petersen was simply suggesting that as a source to cite for the current wording.  Enuja  (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion is to not use disagreement with the IPCC as a benchmark. It may not be a good suggestion since the IPCC is well known, but it is a suggestion nontheless. Brusegadi (talk) 03:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow! all this argument about one word. Might I suggest the addition of another word to qualify it?  How about comparatively or relatively, as in "comparatively few" or "relatively few".  When compared to the great majority of climate scientists which accept AGW the skeptics are few, but that doesn't necessarily mean that there are literally only three or four. 63.196.193.204 (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Instead of endlessly warring over this one word, how about we focus our efforts on improving the article itself? More time and energy has been spent butting heads over this one word in this article than most articles on this website see for the duration of their existence. How important is this, really? Unless someone finds a reliable and relevant source supporting any form of descriptor, there really isn't a case for any change from what is the present status quo (a few). The time would be better spent trying to research and improve upon these two articles instead, at least in my opinion. ~ S0CO ( talk 06:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right Jc-S0CO, lets stop focusing on the word. And an easy way to do that is to get rid of it. That will also save us a lot of time arguing over the source, because there wouldn't need to be one. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

"These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC the vast majority of scientists working on climate change are in agreement with them. "

reworded enough to meet those objections without giving wiggle room to claim the source doesn't support that wording. As to those who say this is not worthy of our time it makes no difference that it is unworthy of our time. The problem doesn't go away by wishing it away as the archives have shown. The approach for a while now seems to have been to keep reverting to the same version in the hopes that it will stop being brought up and resorting to bizarre one sentence 1rr rules to protect it. It's even leading to the article getting protected from edits in general. Let's just solve the damn thing. "a few" is called original research, leaving it off gives the wrong impression. fine let's reword it as I've been trying to do and give it a source. The best way to get rid of a distraction like this is to just defuse it not complain about it or wish it away. In any event what with the revert wars constantly leading the article to be protected from edits improving it is not really possible while these recurring revert war triggers are left unresolved.Zebulin (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We can't "solve the damn thing" though of course I wish we could. It will be an ongoing point of contention no matter what we do. Sure, let's settle on something now, but in a couple of months we'll be back here again. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We can write a wiki article on this issue, it is a notable dispute. :)  Count Iblis (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

"Some" carries no POV; it is a vague word that leaves it to the reader to decide if it's object is actually many or few or negligible. Some editors have historically insisted to have "few" because it carries their POV. How can Kim say that there is a consensus for "few" despite these numerous discussions, I dont know (perhaps looked at how Oreskes worked, i.e. ignore the dissidents), but the fact that the word "few" has been here for long is not indicative of anything, and certainly not proof that there are not many editors who have tried to have it changed scores of times. I am of those who think that "some" is NPOV since it would simply lead to the list without giving an opinion, which list then should strike readers of how "few" the dissidents are if that's the case. --Childhood&#39;s End (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What about this study? Does this not directly focus on scientist agreement with the IPCC? Here is your source that at the very least makes it clear that a significant number of scientists disagree with some of the IPCC's conclusions. Zoomwsu (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Apart from the obvious problems (self-selection, no peer review), that study says that 100% of the polled scientists agree that there is real warming and 97% (well, I compute 97.86%, but let's not quibble) agree that CO2 is a significant contribution, i.e. they agree with the core points of the IPCC, even if they disagree about details. It also shows the IPCC squat in the middle of responses. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the removal of either "some" or "few" but I think it is Undue weight to use an organization that is biased on the issue as a source of "fact" over how many (Overwhelming Majority) are on one side or the other without attribution. In other words, it should say "According to X 'an overwhelming majority' agree with it in general". That way the OPINION that is expressed is attributed. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In the absence of any source disputing the statement there is no grounds for saying there is an "issue".Zebulin (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * But there are sources that say that there is overwhelming pressure to conform to the "majority" view. Shall we add that to the article also?--Blue Tie (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "An organization that is biased"? Holy smokes, this is the Royal Society we're quoting here (the equivalent of the U.S National Academy of Sciences).  One has to ask, is there any source that you would consider unbiased? Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not quarrel with the current sentence. I don't think it's flawless. In a perfect world, it would read, ". . . an overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change are in agreement with them, according to the Royal Society" (i.e. attribution). But I'm also realistic. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it would be interesting to write the whole article along the lines of "the Royal Society says X, but Rush Limbaugh says Y; the National Academy of Sciences says A, but global warming skeptic Penn Jillette says B." But I suspect someone might disagree. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's quite an argument, unless of course it's your own. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's not meant as an argument one way or the other, just an observation that it would be an interesting approach. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I was just confused. It would be interesting. You could always try that here, where I'm sure there will be much credence given to "authorities" on both sides. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"individual scientists have voiced disagreement"+"overwhelming majority agree" seems redundant. The sentence also seems a little awkward. Perhaps this: "An overwhelming majority, but not 100% of scientists agree on the main conclusions of the IPCC.  -  Sagredo Discussione? 03:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a good proposal but if you find that the existing sentence "seems redudant" you must see how your proposed version is likewise "redundant" in the same way. Neither version is in fact redundant.  Both the existing version and your proposed version attempt to allow the inclusion of the dissenters list without using an OR quantification or leaving it vague.  The sentence is only important in as much as it was leading to edit wars and other headaches.  I'd only want to mess with it in a way that clearly made it more bulletproof with negligible impact on the quality of the article.Zebulin (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Cited "few". On this page you there is a list of over 19,000 scientists that disagree with man made global warming being fact. http://www.oism.org/pproject/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by UoLMephesto (talk • contribs) 23:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Extraterrestrial warming
I'm not a scientist or science writer but I am very interested in this topic and have read a lot about it. I understand the arguments made about the degree to which solar radiation cycles and solar flare activity can affect the temperature of the atmosphere, as well as the concepts of global dimming and how greenhouse gases/particulate matter may be mitigating warming. I've seen the charts of solar irradiation used by proponents of anthropogenic global warming and the conclusion that the effect from solar cycles is small. However, if the ice caps on Mars and other planets are subliming at rates similar to ours, and if the temperatures on these planets are, as well, rising concurrently, isn't that some powerful evidence against anthropogenic global warming. I saw mention of Jupiter and Pluto on the FAQ's page, but nothing about the one planet we know the most about ... Mars. Why is none of this mentioned in the Wikipedia article (the warming/subliming on other planets)? It seems to be a major piece of the puzzle. I'd love it if some knowledgeable people could tell me if my premise is altogether wrong, wether its insignificant due to planetary differences (distance from sun, atmosphere or lack thereof, etc.), or wether we just don't know due to the limited, only recently-collected data we have for these planets. After all, I tend to be skeptical in general, and one of my skepticisms about global warming is the constuction of ancient temperature estimates using ice cores and other means. Therefore, I certainly can't turn around and deny global warming based on insufficient data. But now I'm digressing and introducing other topics for discussion. Let's stick to Mars, our closest neighbour (no offense to the Moon). Someone please enlighten me as to why the current subliming of Mars' polar caps doesn't poke a hole (even if its a tiny little ozone hole) in the theory of anthropogenic global warming.Clioworship (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello. Thanks for discussing your curiosities. I suggest you take a visit to one of the articles here that I've started, extraterrestrial atmospheres. The reason we don't discuss them here is because they really have nothing to do with the global warming here on Earth. I don't know where you've read that whatever melting that is occurring on Mars is occurring at a similar rate here on Earth, but I can tell you that the mechanism involved are quite different. The issue with Mars is probably dust storms that occur on a near-global scale. Other mechanism also play role in the warming observed on other planets, like Pluto, and maybe Mercury and Jupiter--but there is no common cause on the whole. ~ UBeR (talk) 03:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Clioworship: please also see Climate of Mars - if you've been reading Abdusamatov, please realize that his work is not accepted by the scientific community, and violates some fundamental physics besides. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You both fail (intentionally?) to address his obvious point. If Mars is experiencing similar temperature increases, in paralell to that happening on Earth (and it is), then the simplest explanation would be that they are caused by the same thing. Instead of answering his point you simply ignore it completely. Occam's razor is used frequently above in defence of the anthropogenic theory of global warming, so it would seem equally apt to use it in this case. - Powersam —Preceding unsigned comment added by PowerSam (talk • contribs) 02:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Editors using occams razor is original research which is forbidden in wikipedia. We shouldn't be addressing his points we should be addressing their suitability for the article.  Is there a source that states that occams razor suggests a warming on mars and a warming on earth probably have the same cause?  If not then there is no point to be addressed by us here.Zebulin (talk) 03:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * To the contrary; I directly addressed his concern. First of all, who is to say the temperature increase is similar? I would like to see some reliable sources regarding that. Second, just because two things happen at the same time doesn't mean the same thing is causing it. It's simple logic quite frankly. ~ UBeR (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting argument - so you admit that just becuase temperatures go up and carbon goes up that doesn't neccessarily mean they are related... hmmmm... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.219.214.25 (talk) 06:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it doesn't. The argument isn't based on wiggle-matching in curves, but instead on the radiative properties of carbon dioxide. This is old news; see e.g., Svante Arrhenius. Raymond Arritt (talk) 07:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, as I said, simple logic. ;-) ~ UBeR (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

80%
Okay, sorry, I see the "80% of the world" is a direct quote. Personally though I would change "citing" to "claiming" since the basis for 80% of the world is not given and is not clear, also I am not sure if exempt is technically correct (I imagine he is referring to developing nations?). Other views? --BozMo talk 22:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally assume he's talking about exempt nations, i.e. non-Annex I and II nations under the UNFCCC (which is somewhere close to 79.59% of the world's nations according to my own calculations). "Claim" would be fine though. ~ UBeR (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Percentage of countries? Ah, I see. I thought it was of the world's population being claimed. If San Marino has the same weight as Germany in the calculation I can see how you'd get to 80%. --BozMo talk 14:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I suspect that 80% of world's nations, including China, India and most of Africa if not all, must account for close to 80% of the world's population. Anyone has an approximate count? --Childhood&#39;s End (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Pretty close. In 2006, the populations of Africa, Asia, and Latin America accounted for roughly 82% of the world's population. (Numbers from here.) ~ UBeR (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. So there was no problem with the White House text. --Childhood&#39;s End (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course there is a problem. In terms of consumption most of those just cited account to very little pies.  Its a figure to impress those who think very little, or to be diplomatic given that the only exempt countries that really matter are India and China. Brusegadi (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Kangaroo stomach bacteria
Should a mention of this new scientific development be mentioned in the section about mitigation? It seems to be widely reported   --Childhood&#39;s End (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Mitigation of global warming. ~ UBeR (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, this is not particularly significant in any case. Mitigating methane production from cattle is a very hot topic of research at the moment. Until and unless something actually shows success then I don't think it can be considered a major development Nil Einne (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It might deserve a place in Mitigation of global warming.Zebulin (talk) 00:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Mitigation
I made an edit that was non-controversial in my opinion, and gave my explanation in my edit summary. I removed non-mitigation related material from the mitigation section of this article. There are various policies and guidelines that would support me doing so, including WP:SUMMARY, which reads, "The top or survey article should have general summary information and the more detailed summaries of each subtopic should be in daughter articles and in articles on specific subjects." Ignoring that though, it would simply be prudent to be reasonable. We all love the IPCC and they do great work, but lets not go overboard; we have be to realistic and reasonable. That material belongs in their individual articles. If someone wants to read up on the IPCC, they may so, because we link to them throughout the article. The information has absolutely nothing to do with adaption or mitigation. I even think it was a compromise to not delete the whole bottom paragraph because it gives very little context, substance, or meaning to the article or the topic. It sticks out like a sore thumb in that section. I'll see if I can improve that [Edit: I've modified the mitigation & adaption section so as to discuss mitigation rather than the IPCC itself, which I think is more appropriate for the section.] ~ UBeR (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that sentence belongs in there. so far one other editor has agreed on retaining it, and no others have expressed that they want to delete it. so far the consensus is for retaining the sentence, unless others weigh in. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * To the contrary. If most editors disagreed with talking about global warming mitigation instead of the IPCC itself in the mitigation section, they would have reverted me. (Notice the similarities between what I said and portion of WP:CON that I reiterated for you.) Again, as Mr. Petersen pointed out to you, lets keep this article about the science, not the trivia. Thanks. ~ UBeR (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I hate when people imply that editors have to "weigh in" about something about which they've said nothing to avoid having their implicit stamp of approval placed on one side or another. When I saw that the information on the nobel prize award was removed I stopped to look at the situation before and after the edit and decided that there was no cause to revert the edit.  When I saw uber had succinctly made the case again here in the discussion page for removing that information I again saw no reason to spam the discussion page restating the obvious.  But now I see that someone would like to ascribe to the silence of all other editors an endorsement for returning the removed content to the article.  Does this mean that we would have to develop a "voting" system in wikipedia where everybody has to explicitly "vote" for a view point even when it has already been expressed?  All that silence means in wikipedia is that the editors who have refrained from comment don't think there is something new and worthwhile to add on the issue.Zebulin (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Our policy on consensus explicitly states that, if people don't edit something, that's a way of expressing agreement. I saw User:Sm8900's edit, thought it didn't make sense, but couldn't figure out exactly how or why.  I also thought that User:UBeR's edit and explanation made sense.  Enuja  (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That can work in simple cases but the message obviously gets mixed if an edit war develops and people refrain from getting involved in it. Who is to say which edit they favour?Zebulin (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's true. I simply wanted to "weigh in" as Sm8900 requested, so I guess I should apologize for the gratuitous link to WP:CONSENSUS  ;-)  Enuja  (talk) 04:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to point out that one editor's opinion is as good as another's. If one editor puts something in, and another takes something out, there is of course nothing wrong with that; however, it simply means that one editor has one view of this item, and another editor has a different view. I fail to see what is wrong with going to the talk page and requesting some simple feedback from other editors, just to get a sense of where people are on this. I am happy to abide by the consensus here. I never said that silence implied any agreement whatsoever with me; however, by the same token, I wasn't sure what the general opinion might be on Uber's edits either. In answer to your comment that if people disagreed, they would have reverted him, I wasn't assuming there was a strong opinion here, whether for my edits or anyone else's; I simply wanted to get some general input.


 * I appreciate the input of everyone who replied here, as well as Uber's efforts. I hope this discussion process can be viewed as something positive, and an editor need not be viewed as contentious simply for requesting discussion. I do understand your general concerns though. Thanks again for your input. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Northwest Passage
User:Samsee added a phrase to the lead with a link to a september ABC news article about the future opening of the northwest passage. I shortened the addition to the lead to two words ("trade routes", in parallel structure that means "changes in trade routes"). I also added a slightly longer phrase in the section Attributed and expected effects, and put the reference there. Samsee, please try to put your references in footnotes (instructions), and put more than just the url's name in the footnote. One easy way to do that is to use citation templates. - Enuja  (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Update Please
I find that much of the visual representations have not been updated in a long time, one is still from 2004. I think we can get these up to date from the same sources. UoLMephesto (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Should "cloud seeding" be disambiguated?
According to cloud seeding, cloud seeding is a human activity, whereas global warming presents "cloud seeding via galactic cosmic rays" as a natural phenomenon. If both articles are correct about these expressions, should "cloud seeding" be disambiguated? -- Wavelength (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

NASA Study Debunks Part of Global Warming
NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalej78 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia: An Embarrassment to Science
This is what will embarrass WIkipedia in the future- quotes like this: " the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change are in agreement with them"

This Wikipedia article is politically driven, rather than scientifically driven. "We have a split here. Official science driven by politics, money and power, goes in one direction. Unofficial science, which is more determined by what is actually happening with the [climate] data, has now started to move off in a different direction" away from fears of a man-made climate crisis, Evans explained.

"The two are splitting. This is always a dangerous time for science and a dangerous time for politics. Historically science always wins these battles but there can be a lot of causalities and a lot of time in between," from a team of scientists at the recent UN conference. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=c9554887-802a-23ad-4303-68f67ebd151c

Wikipedia, by literally treating global warming skepticism as "junk science" is setting itself up for a major embarrassment in the future.

The authors of this article know nothing of science. They only know their own personal religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk • contribs)


 * Using a politician's blog to decry "political science" - this is really hilarious. If we could use Inhofe's spin to turn a turbine, fossil fuels would become obsolete overnight... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia won't be embarrassed. It reports what is "verifiable", not what is "true". It is only the "scientists/politicians" who push the climate change hoax who will be embarrassed is a few years time. rossnixon 01:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Speaking as a scientist, I say that the few remaining skeptics of global warming will be convinced when the north polar sea ice vanishes in a decade or so. Speaking as a Wikipedia editor, I observe that ArbCom has determined that Wikipedia will reflect the scientific consensus - and that includes the scientific consensus on climate change.  This really isn't about the article, though, is it?  End the thread. Michaelbusch (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "I say that the few remaining skeptics of global warming will be convinced when the north polar sea ice vanishes in a decade or so." Willing to take bets? ;-) ~ UBeR (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh! I certainly won't. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Me neither. It'll all be the fault of the sun, or mysterious "natural variations," or whatever you like. Any explanation will do, as long as it's not a certain nameless phenomenon that is consistent both with observations and with the principles of radiative transfer and atmospheric thermodynamics. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[moved interjection to the end--Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)]


 * Looking back at the past I have to say that the phrase "the overwhelming majority of scientists working on are in agreement with " would not appear to be embarrassing had it been applied to a contemporary article dealing with any other topic in which scientific conclusions had broader implications whether it had been theories of natural selection, recognition of anthropogenic species extinction, or adverse effects of pollution. No matter how the future plays out I don't see how that phrase would somehow become an embarrassment.Zebulin (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

People! What is wrong with you? It is not a scientific journal. It is a merely a resource to get background information on a topic. If you are attempting to glean in-depth information from this website, then you are frankly PATHETIC. It is astounding how accurate Wikipedia is, considering the vast amount of information cataloged. So if it gets one or two facts wrong, this is understandable. So stop whining, suck it up, fix the mistake, and MOVE ON. Don't waste your time writing complaints on the discussion board. --143.195.150.44 (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't a "discussion board." Usenet is three doors down the hall. HTH. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * (Well fed troll returns to den for the night satisfied) --BozMo talk 08:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't suspect skeptics will be convinced based on polar see ice anytime soon. Polar sea ice levels INCREASED from 14.5 million square kilometers in 2006 to 14.7 million square kilometers in 2007 according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Atmospheric carbon dioxode would be expected to grow 1.65 PPM (NOAA recent averages) in 2007. Sea ice up AND Carbon dioxide both up, now that is an inconvenient truth! How does FACTUAL sea ice level data reconcile with the unsupported assertion on the main page that the Global Warming definition includes rising ocean temperatures? Antartic sea ice data is as flat as a pancake, but maybe we should ask the opinion of the global warming tourists who's ship (MV Explorer - owned by friend of AlGore) recently sunk (and they nearly froze to death) due to hitting an antartic sea iceberg? (WikiDine (talk) 11:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC))
 * In the future, please don't inject your comments in the middle of an unrelated discussion. You cannot determine trends from a single season worth of data. From the very press release of NSIDC that announced the 14.7 million number: "This year's low wintertime extent is another milestone in a strong downward trend. We're still seeing near-record lows and higher-than-normal temperatures. We expect the downward trend to continue in future years." That statement was made before this summers season, which brought an absolute record low in arctic sea ice.. And I would very much like to see a source for Gore's alleged ownership of MV Explorer, although this would be rather off-topic for this article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

So how many qualified scientists does it take for Wikipedia to stop its political slant on this topic and start reporting it as a controversial topic? Here is a reference to an open letter signed by 100 eminent scientists who state that humans are having no effect on global warming: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002 Is 100 eminent scientists a large enough group to have any impact on the politics of this issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.124.129.34 (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Check the discussion here. In short, several of the signatories are not scientists at all, very few are either eminent or climate scientists, and at least one is plain nuts. Most of the list is recycled, anyways. Ball does not become more competent if he repeats the same nonsense a hundred times. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

At one time "the overwhelming majority of scientists" thought the earth was flat too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.124.129.34 (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Talk:Global_warming/FAQ.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The lesson learned from this discussion is that it is vital to always check your sources. If "blog" appears in the URL, then its credibility is suspect to begin with. That's really all I have to say on this topic, as I don't see anything constructive coming out of it. But for future reference to my fellow skeptics, please, this is a scientific subject, and as such it is best to avoid political outlets for information on the topic. ~ S0CO ( talk 21:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

look at these:
Ice age, climate can change without human activity, and Western Interior Seaway which shows that oceans have risin in the past.

Maybe you would also like to look at:

deforestation

water and soil pollution

poverty

habitat destruction

Im sure they are all interlinked. T.Neo (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We can't help you if you don't have any suggestions for the article. This isn't a forum. ~ UBeR (talk) 09:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll add them to the see also section. T.Neo (talk) 09:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, everything is "somehow" connected. We cannot have one article on the sum of human knowledge, though. Yes, climate can change without human activity. People die without being murdered - that does not mean that we should ignore the concrete blocks tied to the feet of a corpse found in New York harbor. The Western Interior Seaway went away about 65 million years ago. At that time, climate was a lot hotter than today. But anyways, its end was not due to sinking sea levels, but due to continental uplift. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

What Im trying to say is that the climate doesnt stay the same and fluctuates. Back during the cretacious the polar caps didnt exist and sea levels were higher. During the last Ice Age there was more ice at the poles and the sea level was lower, exposing the sea floor between america and asia, creating a land brige that humans and mammoths traveled through to north america. The mass-mania total destruction version of global warming is not the real thing, Its a product of the curious human trait to want to have a huge disaster looming ahead (like Y2K). The media makes global warming the main huge problem but it is in fact one of a bunch of problems (look at habitat destruction, pollution, HIV/AIDS) that are facing mankind and the planet today. T.Neo (talk) 14:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You are mixing up several very different things. Yes, climate changes. But it changes in different ways over different time scales. In the Cretaceous, the continental layout was very different. Sea levels were much higher due to rifting (making for shallow new oceans). There was no Himalaya. The composition of the atmosphere was very different (a lot more of both O2 and CO2). Climate change over tens of millions of years is dominated by geological processes and feedbacks. Ice ages (like the current one) are triggered by a combination of geographical and orbital parameters. Glaciations in an ice age (we are currently in an interglacial period) are primarily triggered by orbital parameters. All these processes are very different from the current anthropogenic process that is caused by an increase in greenhouse gases. I don't know what you mean by the "mass-mania total destruction version of global warming". This article is a fair representation of the current scientific opinion on climate change. Have you read it? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

NewsMax: "New Study Explodes Human-Global Warming Story"
What are the thoughts on this article? How does it line up with the contents of this article? Chris M. (talk) 02:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * One study. Two studies.  Too few to merit weight. The mainstream is discussed.  Brusegadi (talk) 02:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * To complement Brusegadi above. The article in Newsmax is complete hogwash. I'm sorry but there is hardly a word in the article that describes the paper even remotely close to reality. You can find the preprint here. A nice example of why you shouldn't trust media on science issues such as this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * and yet this article cites such 'scientific' non-media outlets such as The Guardian (28), USAToday (97), AP (93), Reuters (90), and others I'm sure. You can't have your cake and eat it too.  If you call for no trust in media at least be consistent and call the above outlets "hogwash" also.  They ALL have their political and economic future to think of.  I just wish I could make some money selling carbon credits like Al Gore does!! Flesh Over Steel (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of your examples discuss the political reaction to climate change, not the science. For such topics, the general press is usually the best available source. As for the scientific points sourced to the popular press, it would be nice if we could find better sources. However, they have not been challenged so far, while the NewsMax article is crap (and the underlying study has a number of problems that have been exposed already). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I favor in general allowing some mention of some studies which appear in credible news sources. (I'm not saying this particular study necessarily meets that standard.) Doing so would only increase our credibility, as the few studies against global warming theories would make clear how many studies do favor it. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Complexity
Just a note about this edit. It is widely documented that the Earth's climate is a complex system, so I think it should be re-linked (see for instance, , . --Childhood&#39;s End (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Climate is a complex system. Who would have guessed? Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well William seemed to disagree it is, so instead of reverting his edit with no discussion, I chose to explain my view first. --Childhood&#39;s End (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The edit link suggests he disagreed with the choice to specifically reference turbulence and with the choice of the complexity article to link to. Perhaps there is a better choice of article for that kind of complexity?  Although, the article linked does in fact list climate as an example of that sort of complex system.Zebulin (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not desperately bothered (in fact I took the link to be something more specfic; it turns out to be so vague as to be near useless :-). Put it back in if you like William M. Connolley (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Climate models: physics-based?
Just as a matter of discussion in case an adjustment would be warranted, the sub-section about models states that "These models are based on physical principles of fluid dynamics, radiative transfer, and other processes". Is this fully demonstrable or should it be qualified? Can it be sourced and can someone point towards the physical principles of turbulent flows, water evaporation and such? --Childhood&#39;s End (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * AR4 Chapter 8 is as good a reference as any. It's an important point; I suspect many people think climate models work by fitting curves to past observations and extrapolating, or something like that. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggested additions to the Adaptation and mitigation section
Adaptation refers to efforts at adjusting to a warmer world. Mitigation refers to attempts to slow down or reverse the warming.

Some (environmental groups) have gone so far as to suggest a quota on worldwide fossil fuel production, citing a direct link between fossil fuel production and CO2 emissions. references: http://sustento.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/climate-control.pdf http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/12/11/rigged/

China's per capita emissions remain at a fraction of the U.S. or other developed countries.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanPater (talk • contribs) 00:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. And China's population remains at approximately five times that of the United States, which makes their net output of greenhouse gases practically equal (some recent studies say China has overtaken the US in this regard). I might redirect your attention to this previous discussion. ~ S0CO ( talk 21:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that every country in the world, no matter what their population is, should have the same total emissions? AlanPater (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not at all, please do not take me out of context. I am simply reminding you that there are multiple ways to interpret the data, each with their own merits and disadvantages. ~ S0CO ( talk 04:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not a forum. The suggested change is not about whether you or I believe the per capita emissions are important or not. It is a large part of the international discussion, however, so I feel it belongs in the wikipedia article. AlanPater (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Who is posting to a forum here? If you would read the discussion that I directed you to, you would see that there is an agreed-upon reason why none of those images are present in the article. And if your per capita argument truly has nothing to do with your proposed changes, then why bring it up at all? ~ S0CO ( talk 04:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I think these figures are quite relevant for the global warming issue. I understand that there are different ways to count to the greenhouse gas emmissions. Therefore I suggest to add both images, per capita and per country, to the article. This way the reader can draw his own conclusions. -- Splette :) How's my driving? 14:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I see the reasoning to not display any images on this topic. I think the text, however, needs to mention that the G77 countries feel that per capita emissions are the important number. As the article now stands, only the rich countries feelings on this are stated. AlanPater (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Jc-S0CO, if you've read the discussion and the apparent consensus was that we'd use all three images or none, why did you take it upon yourself to add two of them? ~ UBeR (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone else had already added the per capita image, I added the second for balance. I would not object to removing them both, so long as it is all or nothing. ~ S0CO ( talk 19:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Although I agree that the third map (accumulated GHG emmisions) is very informative, too, I think the per-country and per-capita maps alone give a balanced view on the issue. Any more maps will lead to confusion. Removing the two maps is not a good option either. They are quite important to understand the debate over global warming and why e.g. the US argues on a per-country basis while China refers to the emissions per capita. -- Splette :) How's my driving? 21:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

As User:Jc-S0CO said, there is a reason these figures aren't presented. I and many others would argue such figures would be incomplete without also presenting a similar graphic of GHG per unit of economic production. Zoomwsu (talk) 06:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Remove phrase 'scientific consesus'
In light of the recent US Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works Report, can we rebalance this article:

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

Full report:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

Scientific consensus is no longer a point of fact —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaseFace (talk • contribs) 07:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The report is very strongly biased, as you'd expect. Its not a useful source for wiki William M. Connolley (talk) 14:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * William, to quote your exact words earlier today: "Thats as may be, but who produced this report is irrelevant. We're not using their authority to trust it; its merely a list of possible names William M. Connolley (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)" . It's a useful list of sources.   Vegasprof (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I don't hold out any hope of it being useful; maybe it is to you. The point is that the report itself can't be used as a RS for what its saying, though you are of course free to use the contents to prompt further research as you see fit William M. Connolley (talk) 00:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Why can't it be used as an RS? By what rule?  It's an official United States Goverment document. If it is not a reliable source, then either someone must exert judgement over which government documents are reliable sources, or else none of them are.  (Where does that leave the IPCC report?)  I'm sorry that you don't find it useful.  Why not?  I find it very useful, because I want to know the spectrum of expert opinion on this important subject, and it gives me lots of links.  Vegasprof (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While it might be "an official United States Government document" in a formal sense, it's also a partisan political statement, and has to be interpreted differently from something nonpartisan like census records. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The US Senate Committee should stick to politics. :( Count Iblis (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * They have :-) The problem is that they've fooled some people William M. Connolley (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Funny. Brusegadi (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * William, the above remark is quite puzzling. In what way did the Senate report "fool" people?  Did they fabricate the quotes?  Vegasprof (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There's the "over 400 prominent scientists" claim. Many on the list aren't scientists at all, and quite a few have had near zero scientific impact. And that's just in the report's first sentence... Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're going to toss around numbers of "real" scientists, I will point out that there has been some question as to how many of the "thousands of scientists" involved in the IPCC consensus process are actually scientists working in the area of climate change. If you're going to make ad hominem attacks on the opponents of global warming, it might be interesting to analyze the credentials of the scientists on both sides of the issue.  I wonder if anyone has actually done this analysis for both sides of the debate.  I think it's unlikely, given the partisan nature of the debate.  It's far more likely that each side of the debate assumes their "experts" are all wonderful and importantant scientists, while the other side's experts are obviously incompetent and bought off.Fredrik Coulter (talk) 03:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * For the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group I contributors are given here; Working Group II contributors are given here; and Working Group III contributors are given here. I will be interested to see your comparison of the publication records of those individuals versus the "400 prominent scientists." (BTW I don't think most of the latter are "bought off"; most really believe whet they're saying.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That was quick! Brusegadi (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming Non-Believers
I have no idea how the article should be updated for the following information. Any suggestions would be appreciated. However, 100 scientists are on record as strongly opposing the conclusions of the IPCC. I wouldn't consider this to be "only a few." They published an open letter to Ban Ki-Moon, available at http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002. Interestingly, there are also scientific claims made within this letter (such as the claim that there has been no global warming since 1998) that probably also need to be addressed in the article. I don't have the time or expertise to amend the article to include this information in a fair and balance manner, but if it's not included I'd argue that the article is misleading at best.Fredrik Coulter (talk) 03:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Nothing new. It's the usual suspects, with a few more retirees and nonscientists thrown in to get the number up to 100. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also be careful with the 1998 deal. It was an outlier so you will not see any hotter years for a while.  You are not supposed to look at single years, you have to look at trends.  When I see stupid errors like that is when I stop taking those 'letters' seriously, it is obviously PR. Brusegadi (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Typical. Write off the credentials of your opponents.  (Sorry, I'll turn my sarcasm off.)  Has there been an analysis comparing credentials of the thousands versus the hundreds?  I asked this above, and there has been no response in the five minutes that have passed since I posted the question.  On a different note, I just noticed that the wiki article is citing the IPCC summary reports rather than the full reports.  Given that there is at least some comments that the summary reports don't always match the full report's conclusions, shouldn't the full report's conclusions be cited rather than the (possibly biased) summary reports.  Assuming that the summary report is an accurate summarization of the full report, this shouldn't be that hard to do.  I don't feel like doing it, because I'm not a big fan of the consensus and don't want to spend my time supporting positions I disagree with, and because my wife says that I've got to pack for holiday travel NOW.Fredrik Coulter (talk) 03:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Given your interest in the topic I would encourage you to undertake such a project when you have the time. The results would be quite interesting. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've also heard the SPMs don't always match the full reports, but I've not seen anything that would give that claim merit. The SPM is fine for now. It's much easier to cite than the full report, and I'm sure our readers would rather read the SPM than the full report. For more technical or detailed portions, using the full report would be good--but I see no reason to replace the SPM with the full report at the time being. ~ UBeR (talk) 03:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

First sentence
While I know that we wish to keep this as short and sweet as we can, should it not somehow be said that the increase in temp is largely the fault of humankind? -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 07:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It would make the second paragraph, which I think is fine there, rather redundant. ~ UBeR (talk) 09:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Full protect
I think it rather unnecessary. I also doubt Sterculius is a brand new user. ~ UBeR (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how this was not called for. There was a revert war between several users. Discussion is required by the use of the keyboard, not the revert button. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 09:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks more like Sterculius and a random IP to me. ~ UBeR (talk) 09:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Need I say more? ~ UBeR (talk) 09:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks familiar... William M. Connolley (talk) 09:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Stern Review
We should put the Stern Review article's link to the global warming's blue table (under)  .--Tamás Kádár (talk) 10:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Intro
Regarding this edit, I think it's a little much for the intro. Obviously the stated increase in temperature is not the 100-year period since 2008, but rather 2005, and this should be noted there in the intro. But the increase since 2000 bit would probably fit better in the body, where the same IPCC findings should be stated.

The quote inside the ref should also go for multiple reasons. First, I think it's unnecessary. Second, and more importantly, is that every inline citation of the reference will have the quote, which would be rather out of context for some of the other information that uses the same reference. ~ UBeR (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Image to right of table of contents
Hi. I inserted an image to the right of the table of contents. See here. This was reverted, so now there's just blank space to the right of the table of contents. Maybe I did something wrong. Any advice? The image is completely self-explanatory, and is more dramatic than any other image in the article. No caption should be needed. And the size is necessary to make out the detail.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Its about something too specific to be placed in the intro. Thats the problem I see (it also did not look good, but maybe I am just used to how it looked before and I liked it :) ) Brusegadi (talk) 08:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The North Pole is on the verge of melting for the first time in human history. This photo is the most compelling proof that global warming is real and urgent.  When temperature rises, ice melts.  This melting is direct and visible proof of warming.  I agree that it doesn't look good (though probably not in the way you meant).  An actual photo of the melting Arctic is more powerful than a graph or other mathematical representation.  (P.S. I also miss the Yangtze River dolphin, as you say at your user page, Brusegadi.   :-))Ferrylodge (talk) 09:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Human history is a very short interval. There is evidence  that the Arctic Ocean was free of ice several times during the Pleistocene.  In fact, in the 1950s amd 1960s there were articles in Science that proposed that Pleistocence glaciations were triggered by melting of the polar ice cap.  I remember reading, at that time, that the polar ice cap was melting, and the Arctic Ocean would become ice-free fairly soon, at which time a new glaciation would start, eventually leading to the formation of a new polar ice cap, and then repeating the cycle.  You can look at the original articles by Donn and Ewing in Science Magazine. Vegasprof (talk) 15:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Vegasprof, regardless of how long the Arctic has had an icing, the image that I've tried to insert into this article shows that the icing is rapidly vanishing, which obviously and dramatically supports the notion of global warming. It is the most obvious and dramatic indicator of global warming, so what's the problem with including the image?

The question of how long the ice has existed is a side-issue. Anatomically modern humans have existed for about 130,000 years, and no one suggests that there has been any ice-free Arctic during that time span. Estimates of the age of Arctic ice range from 700,000 years (Worsley and Herman) to 4 million years (Clark). Those estimates are discussed, for example, in a thesis titled "The Sensitivity of the North Atlantic Arctic Climate System to Isostatic Elevation Changes, Freshwater and Solar Forcings" by Odd Helge Ottera (2003). In 1982, Clark rejected the theory of Worsley and Herman:


 * "Recently, a few coccoliths have been reported from late Pliocene and Pleistocene central Arctic sediment (Worsley and Herman, 1980). Although this is interpreted to indicate episodic ice-free conditions for the central Arctic, the occurrence of ice-rafted debris with the sparse coccoliths is more easily interpreted to represent transportation of coccoliths from ice-free continental seas marginal to the central Arctic. The sediment record as well as theoretical considerations make strong argument against alternating ice-covered and ice-free….The probable Middle Cenozoic development of an ice cover, accompanied by Antarctic ice development and a late shift of the Gulf Stream to its present position, were important events that led to the development of modern climates. The record suggests that altering the present ice cover would have profound effects on future climates."

See The Arctic Ocean and Post-Jurassic Paleoclimatology by David L. Clark, in Climate in Earth History: Studies in Geophysics (1982). Later, in 1997, Melnikov noted that, "There is no common opinion on the age of the arctic sea ice cover." See I. A. Melnokov, The Arctic Sea Ice Ecosystem (1997). No one suggests that the age is less than 700,000 years. And at the present rate, it will be gone within ten years.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My point is not about inclusion (you guys can battle that) I just think that, if included, it should not be in the intro, it should be further down in a relevant sub-section. The intro is reserved for the most general cause, which is raising temps (there are many ways to illustrate the effects of raising temps, one of them being the image you provided.)  Ciao,  Brusegadi (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Problems: 1) Is its size: It's too big. 2) Is its placement: not important for the intro 3) Yes, it needs a caption 4) Is its usefulness 5) The article already is probably above its image capacity. ~ UBeR (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * UBeR, do you think it's a mistake to mention the imminent disappearance of Arctic ice, in this article? I see that you have reverted this edit. My understanding is that disappearing Arctic ice is a separate issue from disappearing glaciers.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not UBeR but will add my inflation-adjusted US$0.02. Changes to Arctic sea ice should be mentioned in the article, but not in the lead, and not with a figure. In a topic as wide-ranging as this one we have to be especially careful about how much we stuff into the lead and how much detail we add, lest the article collapse under its own weight. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

(un)protected
I've blocked Sterculius for tendentious editing and also as probably yet another sock. With that done, I think most of the edit warring is gone and we can go back to semi-protection? I really don't think an important article like this should be protected just because of one, new, ill-disciplined editor William M. Connolley (talk) 09:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The Roman gods may smite you; be weary. ~ UBeR (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, as an uninvolved person, I wasn't really aware of whether there was really a content dispute, or whetehr the edits were plain POV, really. If you think it should be unprotected, then, fine, I was just filling a request at RFP. Forgive me for not delving deeper than I probably should have. If you think a block is required, go for it. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 10:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite weary, but its nearly Christmas :-). AD: no problem; S is now indef sock-blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Good job. It was an obvious sock. Brusegadi (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, all is well, then. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 07:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protect
Semi-protect does not seem to be on, though the icon is in the corner. ~ UBeR (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Turned semi-protect back on. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

External Link
I placed an external link to a wikiHow article on Global Warming Prevention and someone removed it. I recently noticed that it was removed from the article. I added it again this evening and found that User:BozMo removed it with the reasoning that it is not notable. Is this a joke? Since when do you need to have all your external links be notable? Yes, before starting a new article, you need to make sure your article is notable... Not an external link. I strongly support re-inserting this external link as it is very applicable to the topic, and very resourceful and informative. Ayudante (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a very good resource. We're not a repository of links. Sorry. ~ UBeR (talk) 07:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And to be fair the edit summary I gave also listed "very shallow" as part of the reason. We cannot be soft on poor links just because they are on Wikis. Neither notable nor of any quality leaves very few arguments to include it. --BozMo talk 13:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

added solar variation articles
added links about global warming happening on other planets in the solar variation article.obviously this is legit. manchurian candidate 15:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope, its wrong. Quite where you find the discussion to demonstrate it I'm not sure... Articles for deletion/Solar system warming 2 perhaps William M. Connolley (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Manchurian, see extraterrestrial atmospheres. ~ UBeR (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Too many socks
Changed to full protection for 48 hours. The last 48 has seen an average of one sock edit per hour. Unprotect if you think this not proper, but the sock problem needs to be addressed - on a wider basis. Should be some control on account creation. Vsmith (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ACB over the small IP range instead? Also commented on your talk page .  R. Baley (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Go for it, the attack is not limited to this atricle. Vsmith (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Checkuser says Obedium is coming in from various IPs across a /16. We'd probably get a lot of objections to blocking such a large range for any significant length of time (it's about 65,000 IP addresses). But it's been done before, so may as well try. It might be helpful if several of us chimed in to point out the necessity of the block. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Is contacting the ISP allowed/effective? R. Baley (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes/not usually. Let's ask User:Alison for ACB on the underlying IP range but with editing allowed. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It might be good to do it now. I would assume that the number of accounts created this time around is not high so it would not hurt as much. Brusegadi (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Protect is good at this quiet time of year, but shouldn't be allowed to continue just because of one child William M. Connolley (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not an admin and I'm sure you have a better idea of what should be done here than I would, but is it possible to only block accounts in that IP range which were created in, say, the last 24 hours and on? ~ S0CO ( talk 22:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that can be done. In any case he's using accounts that were created across a fairly broad stretch of time. They weren't all created on the same day. There are other details I'd rather not share per WP:BEANS. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Second Paragraph
This passage from the second paragraph: "These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries." should surely be referenced. The reference that appears at the end of the paragraph does not address either of these statements. For a featured article, that receives the amount of attention that this piece does, I believe the references provided are inadequate. Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 03:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. The source can be found later, a bit down in the body. It's reference #10, found here. I think there was an additional source with the science academies of some other nations, but I'm not sure where that went. ~ UBeR (talk) 03:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello. I'm sorry but, no, that is not a comprehensive source for those statements. The first statement is most closely supported by: "In May 2000, at the InterAcademy Panel (IAP) meeting in Tokyo, 63 academies of science from all parts of the world issued a statement on sustainability in which they noted that "global trends in climate change... are growing concerns" and pledged themselves to work for sustainability – meeting current human needs while preserving the environment and natural resources needed by future generations. It is now evident that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change. Business as usual is no longer a viable option."


 * To reduce 63 to 30 is bizarre, to say the least, and within that reference, the academies of science specify only that global trends are a growing concern. No mention of the cause of global warming is made at all.


 * As for the second statement, the reference provided mentions the following countries: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, UK. Missing from the G8 are: Russia, Japan and the U.S.


 * Furthermore, the final sentence of the second paragraph: "While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC, the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change are in agreement with them." is correctly referenced but that is simply the opinion of The Royal Society. No mention of any study is done other than the analysis of 928 papers - in which no information is offered regarding the methods of paper selection.


 * So, to conclude, the G8 countries were not all involved in crafting that previous source. No mention is made regarding the causes of global warming in relation to the 63 scientific socities. And only one major scientific body claims that the majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC. All this adds up to a VERY different second paragraph than what we have now.


 * I'm not sure if this has been discussed in the past, but I strongly believe that these statements should be removed, or at least toned down significantly, until they can be properly referenced . Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 09:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The lead section of this article is the result of a lot of past compromise. If you want to improve it, the best thing to do would probably be to suggest, here on the talk page, additional or new references along with new language.  It is less constructive to remove things than it is to improve them.  I think the current state of the lead is quite good, but, hey, this is wikipedia, so there is always room for improvement if someone wants to do the work. - Enuja  (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I have to say that, in this situation, I disagree with the sentiment "It is less constructive to remove things than it is to improve them." Perhaps I will consider what to replace the problem passages with, but obviously I believe that, in this situation, removing statements would be improving it - as I believe it's better to give no info than false info. And as for "I think the current state of the lead is quite good"... that's a little worrying, I must admit, considering the statements I highlighted are blatantly uncorroborated... especially when you consider your point that it took a great amount of time to end up on the current version. At the end of the day, the second paragraph is significantly misleading at the moment. Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 09:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In relation to this passage from the second paragraph: "These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC, the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change are in agreement with them [4]"


 * Here is a corroborated, factual replacement: The IPCC has been recognized "as the world's most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes" by the National Academies of Science from the following countries: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, Cuba, France, Germany, Guadeloupe, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, Suriname and the United Kingdom [1]. This includes a majority of the G8 countries - missing only Russia, Japan and The United States. While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC, the "overwhelming majority" of papers on climate change, published in refereed scientific journals, are in agreement with them [2].


 * References: [1], [2]. I'm less concerned with the prose than I am with providing unambiguous statements of corroborated fact. Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 10:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thinking about it more, it makes sense to reference the 'disagreement' statement as well. So, I offer this for consideration instead: The IPCC has been recognized "as the world's most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes" by the National Academies of Science from the following countries: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, Cuba, France, Germany, Guadeloupe, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, Suriname and the United Kingdom [1]. This includes a majority of the G8 countries - missing only Russia, Japan and The United States. While small groups of scientists have voiced disagreement with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC [2], the "overwhelming majority" of papers on climate change, published in refereed scientific journals, are in agreement with them [3].


 * References: [1], [2], [3]. I had to remove the word 'individual' as that reference clearly demonstrates that it isn't just individuals anymore. And you'll note that the word 'scientist' is used, rather than 'climatologist' - as the signatories to that letter aren't all climatologists. Again, I'm less concerned with the prose than I am with providing unambiguous statements of corroborated fact. Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 13:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) The lead section should be a summary of the article. There has recently been a fair amount of dispute about what citations in ideal lead sections should look like; the current consensus language in Lead section essentially says "cite when you need to." However, a lead section should be a summary, so it should contain concise and general language, instead of very specific and exact, and therefore somewhat dense to read, language. Your suggestion of listing countries whose academies of science have apparently agreed with a particular quotation is out of place in the lead section of this summary article. I just searched the United States Academy of Science website, and came up with this quote from a 2001 publication "The committee generally agrees with the assessment of human-caused climate change presented in the IPCC Working Group I (WGI) scientific report, but seeks here to articulate more clearly the level of confidence that can be ascribed to those assessments and the caveats that need to be attached to them. " Your language is misleading in suggesting that the US Academy of Science disagrees with the IPCC. The current language is broader, and encompasses the variety of strengths of endorsement of the IPCC from the difference academies. (I'm not citing my source, because I don't think it belongs in this article, as it's old, general, and the US academies' position in detail is totally out of place in this article.)

Putting a quotation around "overwhelming majority" looks like scare quotes, instead of like a direct quotation. A direct quotation is out of place in a lead section, anyway.

The "individual scientists" bit provides a link to the main article List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. I don't understand using your reference #2 to support "small groups of scientists" because it is an open letter signed by about 100 individual people. The letter does not claim to speak for a scientific society or group at all; it claims to speak for around 100 people. This explicitly verifies the idea that individual scientists disagree with the IPCC, so I don't understand why you are using it to change the language. Another source should be (and is) used to say that most climate scientists agree with the IPCC.

Maybe we do need new language and a new source to say what groups support the IPCC; I admit I haven't read the source, nor the huge amount of discussion on that phrase and source in the talk archives, nor have I been editing Scientific opinion on climate change, which does provide quotes from joint academy statements and sources for them. What we need is general, summary language that tells an interested reader that lots of climate scientists and lots of groups of scientists have explicitly endorsed the existence of global warming and the conclusions of the IPCC. - Enuja (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The verifiability policy advises that "material likely to be challenged and quotations should be cited". Considering how contentious this issue is, it makes perfect sense to me to reference statements made. Furthermore, there was already a reference provided - it was just incorrect. They can all be bunched up at the end if you prefer. My point here is that, considering the verifiability policy, references should be provided here. So I strongly disagree with you on this issue.


 * My listing of the countries was a correction from what was there previously. It stated that all the G8 countries have endorsed the IPCC's conclusions and then didn't provide a reference. I asked about this and was given another inadequate reference. If a significant statement isn't referenced, it should not appear. Period. The references that were present only made mention of the countries I listed in detail. It seems clear to me that the only options are: 1) Remove what we have now, as it's unreferenced opinion, 2) Use my [edited] suggested replacement, 3) Find proper references for what is present. What I wrote didn't mislead people into believing that the U.S. didn't support the IPCC, the reference provided did that (if such misleading occurred).


 * You think that putting a quotation around "overwhelming majority" looks like scare quotes. Well, to be honest, I think that's irrelevant. It's proper referencing procedure. Additionally, I notice that the choice of words to use there was a contentious issue. Putting direct quotes around it removes the need to debate it... as it shouldn't have been a debate in the first place. Again, I disagree that it's out of place in the lead section.


 * As for the "individual scientists" bit, here's my take: 100 people is a group. Using the word individual, by definition, suggests lone dissenters, isolated from everyone else. I agree, though, that you could make a case for not using reference [2] there and the individual/group thing could be debated as well. To be honest, this is a minor point to me as it's more semantics than anything else.


 * It seems quite clear to me: If you are unable to cite proper references, then it's just your own opinion and it does not belong here - especially considering how contentious this issue is with people. Whether or not you actually list the references is another issue, but, to me, that's a no brainer. Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * How about the 2007 Joint Academies statement, which is referenced in Scientific opinion on climate change?
 * Oh, and I carefully re-read the 2nd paragraph; it is currently very bloated with quotes, but I still support it, because I doubt a simple version that I would think would be clearest would last an hour on this very contentious issue. Enuja (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wonderful! What a great reference (and I grabbed the one from 2005 as well). Okay, so I would now like to suggest this instead: These basic conclusions have been endorsed by the National Academies of Science of 25 countries; including each of the G8+5 [1][2][3]. While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC, the "overwhelming majority" of papers on climate change, published in refereed scientific journals, are in agreement with them [4].


 * References: [1], [2], [3], [4]


 * I know you, personally, don't think we should have so many references in the lead but with this being such a contentious issue I think it is inappropriate to not provide as many references as possible. In the end, it's concise, comprehensive, correct and properly referenced. Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 20:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that G8+5 is interesting and relevant enough to go into the lead; G8 is a big deal, G8+5 is new. The new language you've substantiated with sources is limited to "National Academies of Science of 25 countries".   I do not understand why you've substituted papers on climate change for scientists; both can be verified, but if I remember correctly, the Royal Society paper only verifies the majority of scientists (which is a much tougher thing to find a citation for).  Because both can be verified; the question becomes which is most important.  The current grammar uses the overwhelming majority of scientists bit to put into proper context the fact that some individual scientists do disagree.   Also, I think we should wait at least a day for other contributors to find or remember what source verified the 30 academies bit.  While sources are good, there is no reason to cite the 2005 joint statement since the 2007 one is essentially an update of it.  - Enuja  (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This discussion has wandered away from the original point. The wording in question is "at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science." So, to the national academies we add the AMS, AGU, and so on. More at Scientific opinion on climate change. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say 'wandered', I'd say that it has evolved to be a more detailed discussion regarding the second paragraph. Regardless, I don't think dismissing the majority of the discussion is useful or appropriate, considering our progress. Some significant language in the article has been highlighted for correction and a replacement has been suggested. Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 09:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think G8+5 is useful because it's more specific - being new shouldn't be a negative. You remember correctly regarding the "majority of scientists" source but I believe that particular statement is misleading - my replacement is directly from the text also (it's their basis for the current statement that appears on the page) and it's much more specific and leaves no room for misinterpretation. If the current statement was to be kept, I believe it should be entirely in quotes - as the study didn't actually evaluate the majority of scientists working on climate change, it evaluated exactly what I stated. I disagree that the 2005 joint statement is redundant as the 2007 statement references the 2005 paper itself. And again, with something this contentious, the more integral references the better. Finally, people can always add in the 30 academies bit again later on, with proper references.


 * Once again, I believe that my replacement is concise, comprehensive, correct and properly referenced. I do not believe any of the points you raised discredit or remove any of those qualities from it. And if that's the case, I see no reason not to use it - surely that's the goal of all Wikipedia articles? Still, I have no problem waiting a few days to hear other peoples' thoughts on the matter. Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The only consensus on this (otherwise inconsequential) issue is that we don't want any edit warring arising from it to lock the article again. If changes can be identified that make it even more unassailable and if those changes can be aired here with no strong objections for a time (a day or two of consensus) then I recommend that we not be afraid to continually tweak the thing in that careful manner until the critics of the sentence no longer have any ammunition to use against it.Zebulin (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

DISCUSSION SECTION CLOSED. See 'Second Paragraph: Conclusion' below. Icanhasnawlidge (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)