Talk:Climate change/Archive 44

Tangents
Does anyone else think that the article has accumulated more tangentially-relevant details than are appropriate for a "big picture" overview article? We don't need to include everything here; that's why we have links to related articles. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. This article is absolutely baffling for the nonspecialist. It has presumably been bogged down with scientific detail to appease and impress the "doubters." Would an article on global warming really look like this in any other general encyclopedia? Oh, and I just that wikipedia considers this to be one of their best articles. Wow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.21.97 (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's hard to find the most important parts. Looking at it as a layman, the subsection on methane in the Greenhouse effect section seemed to raise more problems than it solved. One part (Thawing permafrost) was based on very recent research in a press release and newspaper reports (misspelt as "The Independant"), another (Clathrate gun hypothesis) didn't say what the probability of the process is. One help to the lay reader would be to put the rough figures (with verbal qualification) in the introduction and the numerically qualified ones in the article, rather than the other way round. N p holmes (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Um. I think I agree. Ive taken those two sections out (who put them in?). Is more pruning required? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

More on readability: I've evaluated the introduction using several measures of readability. The Gunning fog index works out to 18, and the Flesch-Kincaid grade level is 15. These scores are comparable to scores for the Harvard Law Review, and are atrocious for writing that is supposed to be broadly accessible. Only about one in three U.S. adults are comfortable reading at this level. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It could be worse; see linear regression for example. How far should the article be dumbed down? Who sets the standard? ~Amatulić (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Writing clearly is not at all the same thing as "dumbing down." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

New article
Perhaps as a source. I don't have time to add it and incorporate. — BQZip01 — talk 05:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Better not. Opinion pieces aren't a good source even when they're not in a rag like the Telegraph. N p holmes (talk) 07:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Also see the previous section. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I responded there. However, the source might be usable, for what it is, notable opinion. We err when we focus solely on peer-reviewed scientific sources. They are best for science. But an encyclopedia article on a general topic should not solely be about science, when there is political controversy over the topic -- even if there is little serious scientific controversy. Rather, the error of the Telegraph article is a common one, and presenting it in the light of that could be, possibly, quite informative to the general reader. How to do it is another matter; specifically how to do it without falling into original research. Here is what I might say if there were no restriction on OR:


 * Some writers have criticized global warming on the basis of contrary anecdotal evidence, such as cooling trends or cooler periods in some places. Global warming, however, has to do with long term trends, and isn't contradicted by even isolated record low temperatures in some places, nor by short-term cooling trends overall, perhaps caused by solar variation or other effects.


 * The Telegraph article would be cited for the comment about "some writers." Now, I just wrote this off the top of my head. If there is a source for what I wrote, instead of merely my own opinion, sound or otherwise, we could use the Telegraph article as source for the criticism. That's my point here. The problem with simply putting the Telegraph article claims in the article, without the balance is ... the balance.


 * It seems that most informed editors here, among "global warming critics," have abandoned claims that there is no global warming, but rather focus on the doubts -- which still exist, to some degree -- about causes and long-term projections. They still exist, that is, but are very much minority opinion among scientists in the field. The IPCC reports, however, estimating 90%-95% confidence in an anthropogenic cause for "most" of the recent global warming, do not specify it more than that, as I recall. I.e., they leave a lot of wiggle room. There may be other causes, for example. Natural effects *might* reverse the overall trend, for a time. And wishes might be horses. --Abd (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not in favor of including information from newspapers that are not backed up by peer reviewed publications in this article. A reader of wikipedia should be able to read about the scientific perspective on global warming without being subjected to misleading propaganda, even if that's later rebutted in the article, because then you create the false impression of a real scientific controversy, the reality is that you have a few non peer reviewd comments versus thousands of rigorously peer reviewed articles.


 * Now, some of the criticisms of the science is notable enough to deserve its own wikipedia article. So, we have the global warming controversy article which reports on the criticism. This is then regardless of the scientific merits of the criticisms, what matters is notability. But each article should have its own scope.


 * In exceptional cases, you can imagine reporting about non peer reviewed criticism in scientific articles, e.g. in case of scientific fraud. In most cases, however, the top scientific journals have been quick to act, so in practice, you can simply cite some editorial in the science journals itself reporting on retracted articles. Count Iblis (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps. I did not address the issue of the most appropriate article for usage of the source. The balance issue exists to some degree no matter where the source is used. It can sometimes be a problem, this is one reason why forking content is somewhat disapproved (but I agree it is necessary). I.e., there may be claims raised by political critics on a scientific issue where there isn't balancing opinion defending the scientific consensus, and even if it is easy to synthesize such, as I tried to do above, that's OR. No matter how obvious it may be. The outrageousness of the Telegraph article is that it treats climate variation, which by definition includes up and down temperature shifts, as if it were proof that global warming is a myth. I haven't, myself, done the research to find out if there is RS or notable opinion countering this, specifically.
 * What we might be able to do is to note the up and down variations in the temperature record as reported by the IPCC. "However, the temperature record used by the IPCC to show global warming includes local cooling, such as the ...." Global warming, as commonly used, refers to an overall warming since ...." --Abd (talk) 15:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The Telegraph article is published as an opinion piece. It has no value as a source at all. It also has no argument at all, if you read it carefully. About the only thing you can take from it was that there was a mixup with the temperature data (an undisputed fact). All the rest is a mixture of ad-hominems, insinuation, and guilt by association. Just ignore it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, Stephan. Your point? I would not take the "only thing" you'd allow from it. It's not a reliable source for that. It's a reliable source only for opinion, and opinions include "ad-hominems, insinuation, and guilt by association." I'm not convinced that the mixup itself belongs in this article at all, either. Your advice to "just ignore it" is uncollaborative and uncivil. If you don't want to respond to what an editor asks in Talk, don't. I.e., take your own advice. I have not and probably don't intend to support sourcing anything in the article from the Telegraph piece, as you'd expect if you can read what I wrote above. However, putting a mention of the Telegraph article in the FAQ might be appropriate. It looks like we got two editors in a short time asking about that article. We'll probably get more in the future. --Abd (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Stephans point was the obvious one: that your source has no value as a source at all. I agree with him. Your assertion that Your advice to "just ignore it" is uncollaborative and uncivil. is incorrect. You are in danger as being seen as a source of noise and no more. Don't go that way William M. Connolley (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think this issue is important enough to go in the article, but it is an example of the establishment screwing it up and the skeptics getting it right -- although the establishment must get at least 100 times more funding. The source shouldn't be an issue. The Telegraph is RS. There are a lot of sources used in the article that aren't peer reviewed. Kauffner (talk) 05:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of changes to Talk FAQ
User:Stephan Schulz simply and baldly reverted my additions to Talk:Global warming/FAQ. That FAQ should be a consensus document; it cannot state as fact what we do not agree upon (excepting vandals and clearly disruptive editors). Otherwise it cannot serve its legitimate purpose of preventing repetitive and useless debate; it should avoid useless debate by confining debate to what is missing from it. If there are errors in what I added, either fix them or set them off or add cn tags or follow some other collaborative path. Otherwise it would seem you are trying to own the FAQ, not to mention the article. I'm not going to immediately revert, I'm going to wait and see what other editors say and do. But there have been editors who have long contributed to a poisonous atmosphere here, and it is about time that the community confronts it. Without that, this article will continue to be a battleground, instead of a representation of clear editorial consensus, and it will need constant defense against vandals and "POV pushers." A little effort toward generating a document that justifies how the article is, that explains our consensus, and invites orderly modification toward wider consensus, will save much later effort, senseless edit wars, and pushing of block buttons.--Abd (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your edits where A) editorializing ("Our articles should not present as fact conclusions...") B) stating a POV ("There is a problem with scientific consensus in areas...") and finally C) blatantly confused, and wrong (whole second massive text block). You where bold - you got reverted (see WP:BRD). Perhaps you should try gaining consensus, before actually making large scale changes? If you revert - then i'll revert, which i would have done if Stephan hadn't. That has nothing to do with "owning", and everything to do with a complete disagreement about your edit. FAQ's should be short, precise and point to relevant resources - neither of which your edit achieved. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Talk pages are for discussion of improvements to the article, which includes discussion of our process. That FAQ is a Talk page. Sure, I can create a separate one. Perhaps I will. Perhaps what we need isn't a FAQ. It doesn't, however, answer enough "Frequently Asked Questions," except to give a POV of a certain group of editors, excluding those of others, and pretty clearly not going to satisfy those who have questions, but just to allow certain editors to imagine they've sealed a topic. This is outside the function of talk space. Now, where do I gain consensus first? Here? There is no Talk page for the FAQ. I did not make "large scale changes." I added material that addressed a question asked here, and Stephan took it out without any apparent attempt to incorporate anything legitimate from it, to boil it down, or to otherwise improve it. Obviously, he reacted to it as totally illegitimate, "crap." So, apparently, do you, Kim. So ... see you around. Funny how the same faces show up, making the same arguments, squatting on these articles, over and over, against ever-changing editors questioning the status quo. And, please keep in mind: I'm not a "global warming critic." I think it's happening and I think it is a serious problem. --Abd (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Stephan. If you want to gain consensus for change there, perhaps you should discuss the substance, rather than the same tired old stuff about same faces show up William M. Connolley (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the place to discuss changes to the FAQ, so let's discuss them. Most of what Adb added was a personal essay that I agree is out of place in an FAQ. I do think that it's a good criticism that the first point is missing important information. The FAQ currently says that there is a consensus, but not what the consensus is. I've noticed here and elsewhere that people are often objecting to a perceived claim that there is a scientific consensus that global warming will kill us all. This is addressed further down in the FAQ, but quickly describing the IPCC 4 position is probably a good addition to the first FAQ point. Below is my suggested language: please edit and discuss it here before putting it on the FAQ subpage. - Enuja (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there really a scientific consensus on global warming?
 * Yes. The IPCC position has been derived using a consensus process. The 4th IPCC report says that increases in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere will cause a future increase in global temperature and that it is 90% likely that measurements of recent increases in global temperature are due to human effects.  This has been recognized by the academies of science of all the industrialized countries and reinforced by independent analysis of the scientific literature, see Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change.

The suggestion seems (in a peculiarly Wikipedian way) to put to much stress on the process. When we talk about scholarly consensus, we want to know "What do the people who have a clue in this area agree about?". How the results were first produced isn't important. N p holmes (talk) 07:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't all this covered in the article itself? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is covered in the article, but I don't think that an ideal FAQ would be Q: Is there really a consensus on global warming? A: Read the article.
 * N p holmes, while it doesn't exactly address your complaint, I think it's possible that the following might read like a more appropriate answer:
 * Yes. The 4th IPCC report, which is designed to only include information about which there is a consensus, says that increases in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere will cause a future increase in global temperature and that it is 90% likely that measurements of recent increases in global temperature are due to human effects.  This has been recognized by the academies of science of all the industrialized countries and reinforced by independent analysis of the scientific literature, see Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change.
 * What do you (and other people) think? - Enuja (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think "Q: Is there really a consensus on global warming? A: Read the article. " is not that bad, though not quite correct unless "the article" points to scientific opinion on global warming. There are two questions mixed up here. One is "Is there a (scientific) consensus?", which has a clear and simple answer. The current version of the FAQ gives that answer, gives it fully, and gives it in a useful and constructive manner. The second question is "what is the consensus?" This answer is not simple at all. The main article essentially describes this consensus position. It's necessarily long because the consensus opinion is very nuanced. Further condensing it in the FAQ does not strike me as very useful. But if we decide to do so, we should do it in a manner that does not confuse the simple first question. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, anthropogenic Global warming is happening, but it's not the end of the world. In the very distant past, the Earth was about 10C warmer than it is now (Such as during the Jurassic). This is based on data from the PALEOMAP project that uses plate tectonic data to determine the latitudes at which certain fossils and sediments were formed. High temperatures accelerate the weathering of rocks, and affect what kinds of species can live at which latitudes, which can then be measured in sedimentary strata. Weathering of rocks also helps to sequester CO2 from the atmosphere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.165.140 (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This entire article is incredibly myopic (Dealing with only the last half-million years). It ought to address paleoclimatological data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.165.140 (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

So Miami and New Orleans will be underwater, but life will go on and negative feedback loops will kick in, as they have in the distant geological past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.165.140 (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I was tempted to remove these IP comments, but they express a common misconception about this article. If this article is claiming that global warming is "the end of the world," well, that would certainly not represent any scientific consensus! Global warming is expected to have consequences. Some of these are pretty drastic, and how vulnerable humanity is to drastic changes is something we don't know. Those "feedback loops" could be the extermination of these creatures causing all the stink, so to speak, having fouled their nest before they were ready to leave it. Care to experiment? This article is about "global warming." What's that? Is it any increase in global temperatures? This has been practically beaten to death in discussion here and in edits to the article. Global warming, our consensus is, apparently, refers to the recent period of warming, and if you want to read about generic warming, there are other articles which are properly referenced here. (I'm not looking at the present state of the article, this is a general comment.)
 * My point about the FAQ was that it wasn't adequate for the purpose of bringing new editors into our consensus and inviting them to expand it, instead of simply presenting them with a brick wall. That FAQ should be a living document that any editor can attempt to expand. It should continually represent our consensus on the thinking and agreements between us that are reflected in the article. In particular, it should present any argument we have rejected, sympathetically, but then with clarity as to why it's not accepted, and, ideally, why global warming critics, who are also experienced editors, among us, have not accepted it or insisted upon it. Otherwise, we'll have to explain these things over and over, and it's no surprise that this burns out editors, who then become impatient and uncivil with newcomers asking the same "dumb" question over and over. But that question is dumb only if it is not clearly answered, in a very accessible way, and if we assume good faith, which we must, we should first question how well we have explained all this, not the good faith, motives, character, or intelligence of the newcomer. That FAQ represents the opinions of a narrow slice of editors, it is not clearly a consensus document. It's currently inadequate, useful only for a narrow range of problems; and that my changes were reverted wholesale instead of, at least, trying to incorporate anything possibly useful from them, or with "specific" discussion focused on the content of my edits rather than on my "boldness," is symptomatic of the long-term problem here. That problem isn't irrelevant, and if we don't face it and deal with it, this article will continue to be a battleground, littered with a history of blocked editors. --Abd (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Ruddiman's work deserves more discussion
This article mentions Ruddiman's article in Scientific American (2005). It then goes on to say "Ruddiman's interpretation of the historical record, with respect to the methane data, has been disputed.", with a footnote that refers to an article that was published in 2004, a year before Ruddiman's article in Scientific American and his book. How can an article written a year BEFORE Ruddiman's work appeared throw his work into question? The whole way that Ruddiman's work is discussed is dismissive, as if it does not deserve further consideration. I have read Ruddiman's book Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum (2005), and I find it very convincing. I think that his work deserves more discussion in this article. Thomas.Hedden (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's always easy to be convincing if you can write a book with only one voice. But Ruddiman's article in SciAm and his book are only the popularization of earlier results published in the scientific press - e.g. this 2003 paper. Schmidt et al deals with the original results in the  peer-reviewed press, not the popularizations (which are valuable in themselves by raising the level of interest in the population, but do not contribute  to the actual state of the science). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)