Talk:Climate change/Archive 61

Semi please
The recent prot/unprot seems to have got rid of the semi. Can we have it back, please William M. Connolley (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * please? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weird, i see the semi in there if i edit the article, why would it not be working? mark nutley (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe you need to restart your browser to see the difference. When I fire up a different browser I'm able to edit the article as an IP. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. Almost missed the request despite the capital letters. Prolog (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm still trying to figure out how to program the tag in edit summaries. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits by TK
I feel that many of these edits are not improving the article - indeed, instead of becoming "easier to read", it becomes imprecise and ambiguous. And the replacement of clear dates and references ("a recent report", "sometime in the next 90 years") violate MOS. Please slow down and find substantial consensus for substantial changes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I was thinking the same thing. Next 90 years is not as good as "by the year 2100". Thanks for the feedback :)Torontokid2006 (talk) 10:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree that I'm making "substantial change" as you call it. I am simply taking the level of vocabulary down a notch so it's easier to read for all people. Not everyone can read at a university level. Honestly, when I first saw this page I thought it pretty hard to understand and I have several degrees. :/ ... Again I must explain that my edits intend on making this article more accessible not less precise. Take notice that I've simply replaced all the scientific/hard words with easier to comprehend words. I think it's a lot easier to read now. Thanks for your concern.Torontokid2006 (talk) 10:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. global warming is where we try to keep things on a very simple language level. But "increase in the average level of temperature" is well within the level of language we expect people to understand. And you replaced e.g. "increase in surface temperature", which has a well-defined meaning, with "world's surface warmed", which does not and is quite probably wrong (e.g. the surface of glaciers is never above 0 centigrade, even if the air above it is). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The change from "scientific consensus", marked as "easier to read" diff, was also clearly problematic. Due to these concerns, and the fact it made the article harder to read, I have reversed the dumbing down. Verbal chat  11:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Making the article easier to read is good. Unfortunately the rewriting has tended to make the material too vague, and has even introduced factual errors. We ought to be able to make the article easier to read while maintaining accuracy and clarity. This is easier to by making incremental changes (say, one subsection at a time) rather than large rewrites. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. TK is over enthusiastic. The oil industry stuff has to go, too. It is far far too big, and inappropriate, and there is no obvious reason why it should go at the start of the "oinion" section anyway William M. Connolley (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was right for you folks to revert my changes. I think you could have just made my changes better-that is the purpose of this project to make articles BETTER. I will probably undo your reverts but I do appreciate your feedback, Boris. I think you are correct that some of my changes led to errors which I will not do again. Torontokid2006 (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * William, why does the oil industry stuff have to go? There is not much mention of the oil industry in this article and they are a major player in discussions regarding global warming. Some edits should be made with maybe some of the wording but it brings a new perspective that deserves to be mentioned. It should stay.Ajoe6pack (talk) 01:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * William, I completely disagree. There is no reason why such critical information (oil funding) should be left out. Torontokid2006 (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * While I accept that many Americans hold irrational views (9/11 was an inside job and the moon landing was faked), the global warming conspiracy theory is the only one that has substantial corporate sponsorship. TFD (talk) 04:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If people insist on saying that oil companys have given donations to groups then it follows that we should also say how much taxpayers cash is spent on AGW propaganda on a yearly basis. And how much taxpayers cash is given to research AGW. That sounds like a reasonable balance to me, what do you guys think? mark nutley (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the balance comes from explaining why public perception (and policy) is muddled and misleading. Nonetheless, if you have neutral RS(s) about taxpayer funded propaganda then please provide links. - PrBeacon (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

TK, if you keep trying to force your rewrite without establishing consensus I will ask for probation sanctions to be imposed on you. Verbal chat  19:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent talkpage and editing behaviours
Recently these two editors have created a series of new sections on this talk page to make it appear as if the 3rd paragraph of the lead has not been discussed.

Here is the paragraph:

''There is no longer any scholarly debate in regards to the legitmacy of human-caused global warming. The scientific consensus states that this phenomenon is real and happening today.[6][7] Nevertheless, political and public debate continues. Some oil companies have spent more than $70 million dollars funding public relations campaigns[8][9] and deeply flawed research studies[10] intended to discredit the global scientific consensus.[11]''

Instead of continuing the discussion on more recent sections or trying to come to consensus with other editors their strategy has been to simply create new sections and find consensus among themselves which serves to dismiss and ignore important and lengthy discussions from the community. They have used this strategy to make broad reverts and remove critical information.

1) why are you two acting in such an uncooperative way?

2) what do other editors think of this behaviour? Is it acceptable or contrary to the letter and spirit of wiki policies? Torontokid2006 (talk) 07:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me say one thing: If WMC and MN agree, it's time to get into the skate business, because hell just froze over. Please also read WP:TLDR - some of your comments above could stand some tightening. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes Stephan, it is a little weird is it not :) TK that is not what has happened here, the only section i started up was when i pov tagged the article, WMC has not started up a section has he? mark nutley (talk) 08:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually it's not that weird at all. William's views are middle of the road, mainstream. There's plenty of room to the "left" of him. Guettarda (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, can I offer TK my std.advice: if you can't spell my name, use WMC it is much easier. Second, I think that your true problem is that you don't have consensus for your edits. As to new sections: yes that is a problem. We'll just have to live with it. In the one just above, about "some oil companies" I've explained extensively why I think that sentence was bad, and why I removed it. If you read that section (have you? You haven't replied) you'll find a lot of other people agreeing with me. So far I see me, MN, SBHB, AW, AR and CI (apologies if I've missed anyone) who don't like your version (I'm not saying they all have perfect agreement a bout what to replace it with, though I think all are leaning towards total removal). I see you liking your version - who else are you saying supports your version? I think all the people I've initialled, plus K and G, are happier with the current The overwhelming scientific consensus is that human-made global warming is real than your no scholarly debate (most of us because "overwhelming" is good enough and "no debate" just sounds bad; MN I'm sure would prefer something more skeptical but certainly doesn't want your version.

So: the problem is that you, TK, are trying to edit against consensus in (slightly unusually, we're used to the other way round) the "warmist" direction. And you're also trying to put too much politics in an article that is mostly about science (you want politics of global warming, which is a bit rubbish and could do with help). You need to recognise that, and stop. William M. Connolley (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As an IP I don't count for much but I would add myself to the list. TK, you're risking coming across as a crusader. You also have a habit of reverting to the TK version while making lots of accusations of vandalism, POV, and breaking the "spirit" of Wikipedia, which makes calm discussion difficult and leads to the creation of some of these unnecessary sections you've objected to. I don't believe there's consensus for most of your edits and in some cases there's pretty clear consensus against. You've been WP:bold but now it's time to slow down and justify each edit. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * William - too long, didn't read. Torontokid2006 (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please don't try to be deliberately offensive - you aren't very good at it. But let me give you the short version, since you have attention deficient troubles : "I think all the people I've initialled, plus K and G, are happier with the current The overwhelming scientific consensus is that human-made global warming is real than your no scholarly debate" William M. Connolley (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * William please apologize for your personal attacks "don't try to be deliberately offensive" and "you have attention deficient troubles". These comments are hurtful and definitely not what wikipedia is about. Torontokid2006 (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

''[...] Instead of continuing the discussion on more recent sections or trying to come to consensus with other editors their strategy has been to simply create new sections and find consensus among themselves which serves to dismiss and ignore important and lengthy discussions from the community. They have used this strategy to make broad reverts and remove critical information.''

''[...] what do other editors think of this behaviour? Is it acceptable or contrary to the letter and spirit of wiki policies?'' – Torontokid2006

I think that it is important to judge your changes over a reasonable timespan. If your additions had been in the article for several months or years, then perhaps removal of them might have needed to take place more slowly. The fact that they had lasted so long would have indicated that many editors and readers had accepted them as being reasonable. However, your changes have only been around for several weeks. In my opinion, it therefore requires greater effort on your part to convince other editors of the merit of your additions. Editors like myself require time to review any changes. It is not reasonable to expect consensus to be reached in such a short period of time.

As a final point, my impression is that you are pursuing a particular agenda of advocating a particular interpretation of the politics of climate change. I think that this attitude is not in keeping in the way authoritative and objective assessments of climate change policy choose to frame this issue, e.g., the IPCC reports. It is also insensitive to the fact that the article should reflect a broad range of international viewpoints. There should be no attempt to implicitly advocate a particular agenda. In your case, this has clearly been to criticize oil companies and other interest groups for their activities. Enescot (talk) 10:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * @Enescot - thanks for your thoughtful comment. I am new to this and I am learning a lot. Many editors have been very gracious with me and have tried to guide me in the right direction. Anyway just to reply to your comment you are correct I am operating from an agenda:the agenda that we should not be afraid to expose any truths even if they are extremely ugly ones. The fact that oil companies have spent almost 100 million dollars funding groups that deny climate science and disseminate misleading facts (less CO2 might hurt our health) is a very ugly truth. But it is a truth nonetheless and a very important one. I don't think the mention of this fact is in itself a "framing of an issue". It is simply exposure of critical information! People can interpret this fact however they'd like. My question to everyone is: why are we trying to sweep this under the rug when there is an appropriate place for it in this article under the section known as "views" Torontokid2006 (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because something is true doesn't mean it belongs in this article. See-also WP:TRUTH William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not only true, it is verifiable which is the crux of inclusion. see WP:Verify Torontokid2006 (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, verifiability isn't the crux of inclusion, it is simply one of several requirements. For policy on what form the lead should take see WP:LEAD. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto 188.221.105.68: there is WP:WEIGHT to deal with. Our job at Wikipedia is not to do investigative journalism. We do not expose truths (and conversely, we do not hide them). We try to organize and categorize knowledge.
 * The question at hand is: how important were these campaigns in the overall scheme of global warming? That is a very hard question to answer. The activities of energy companies don't seem to have done much of anything to alter the state of the science. However, they are extremely important, and in many was scandalous, as corporate policy decisions.
 * As a general note: I don't frequent this talk page because it is generally an ugly place. Asking whey editors are "trying to sweep this under the rug" implies that everyone who doesn't agree with Torontokid2006 is somehow in a conspairacy to hide things. [Though this seems to be a trend of late, see my talk.] My point is that these kinds of statements are not helpful to a productive and harmonious editing environment, so I would appreciate if some WP:AGF were applied in this situation. Likewise, it is extremely bad form (and in fact, in breach of talk page guidelines) to go after particular editors on an article talk page! Please do not do this either.
 * I understand that this is a very high-profile page and that it is therefore desirable to put information here so that others may read. But we have to first come to a consensus about the scope of the topic and the proper weight to give to its individual components. The consensus that this article should be based primarily on the science, but have some additional info on the broader impacts, has been established for years and years of its featured article status. Proposing a change to that would require quite a to-do, including polite conversation among all (many of the editors here are quite expert), mutual respect, and a full examination of the topic. Awickert (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the comments. As most of you are more experienced than me, I take many lessons from your examples. I only "pointed out other editors" because the same was done towards me (not that that made me bitter or upset, I just thought it was normal). When I said "sweeping under the rug" I never implied that this was a conspiracy. I just meant that SOME people wanted to delete oil industry facts instantaneously without discussion. Discussion is happening now, AFTER deletion. I don't want to be misunderstood or have someone put words in my mouth. Either way we know oil companies have spent over $75 million on climate denial. It is up to the wiki community whether or not this is important. It shouldn't be dismissed right away (swept under the rug). Torontokid2006 (talk) 02:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK. Thanks for the clarification. Well, I've put in my 2 cents, so I won't crowd out the discussion any more... Awickert (talk) 05:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

What consensus?
RE this edit by Torontokid2006 with the edit summary ''Kenosis - Please see the talkpage section: "RfC how should opposition to the theory of global warming be described?" a consensus had been reached by RfC!'': I don't see much consensus for anything here at the present, and certainly not for poor writing (see the content). Looking at the supposed "RfC" in the brief section above on this talk page, and at the sections that follow leading up to here, it looks to me like there's not consensus for using Oreskes' study as a basis to prominently and absolutely state in the article lead that there's no longer any scholarly debate about the reality of anthropogenic global warming. The fact is that the remaining scholarly debate is at the margins--an extreme position --but it's simply not quite true at this particular time that there's no longer any scholarly debate. As a matter of fact, we've needed to deal with some of that scholarly debate very recently right here in this article with respect to Nicola Scafetta's very debatable published work which implies that other factors could account for most or even all of observed warming in the 20th Century. And of course there's the ongoing advocacy positions of Fred Seitz, Fred Singer and Bill Nierenberg, and other occasional scientists and academics who take a contra position to the scientific mainstream. Then of course there's the pseudoscientific approaches taken by Christopher Monckton and others similiarly disposed. ..... What Orekes' study serves to do is to help document the strength of the scientific consensus. That consensus, is reasonably characterized as "overwhelming", as expressed by the Union of Concerned Scientists in the footnote. It doesn't quite [yet] rise to the level of "unequivocal" or "no longer any scholarly debate". ..... Also, it's not even necessarily correct to single out certain oil companies as funding the denial, as was done both in the third paragraph of the lead and in the new subsection on the oil companies' reaction. And that subsection, frankly, is also poorly written. At the moment the article has gone from FA-quality to a bit of a mess in several key places including that third paragraph of the lead I was just talking about. Whatever we collectively write in this article should be reasonably stable, sustainable, well written and not reliant on one academic (in this case Oreskes) to make major points in the lead. There are serious problems with the new subsection on the Oil companies' response, overly reliant on Oreskes' published work while also neglecting the heavy influence of other heavily funded "business interests" and conservative/free-market-type think tanks. ... Kenosis (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Was`nt Oreskes`s study flawed and shown to be? I agree that for the article to say there is no more debate is madness, of course there is still debate, and the entire oil section should be removed it is pure pov pushing, see my above comments regarding this mark nutley (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't. The manuscript attacking it was never published (iirc) and was itself deeply flawed. Guettarda (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)No. Oreskes study was attacked by Benny Peiser, who, however, had to backtrack further and further. There is no substantial criticism of Oreskes left, although I don't doubt that things will look different in right-wing conspiracy blogs. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall monckton and Schulte also rebutted her paper, so do you two also agree that there is no further debate over AGW? mark nutley (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a question that is not well-defined. There is no substantive scientific debate over the existence and basic mechanisms of AGW. There is plenty of debate about the details. There also is a lot of noise (e.g. Monckton, Ball). Schulte has been rejected as nonsense even by E&E, IIRC. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you i had not known that about Schulte. But do you think "no longer any scholarly debate". is an accurate statement? Do you believe there is no further debate in science over this theory? mark nutley (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Over the basic idea, no, there isn't, and there hasn't been for years. Guettarda (talk) 14:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read my statement in full. "No substantive scientific debate over the existence and basic mechanisms" - i.e. it is warming and anthropogenic greenhouse gases are the major cause. There is plenty of debate and research about the details, from better paleo reconstructions to better climate models, the effect of other anthropogenic agents, and effects. The climate sensitivity, for example is estimated as 1.5-4.5 degrees celsius - that's a factor of 3, and there are several papers arguing for values outside that range. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * To say there is no scientific debate over this is ridiculous given the Royal Society has 43 fellows saying otherwise. As soon s the protection expires i will tag that sentence again as it is pure pov pushing mark nutley (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you think those 43 fellows said and where did you get that information? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Debate among scientists" ≠ "scientific debate". We've all seen this in the "tobacco strategy". Scientific debate takes place in the peer-reviewed literature, not on the editorial pages of conservative newspapers. Guettarda (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is all beside the point, of course. Find a peer-reviewed source that says that there is a debate. If one exists, we'll figure out how to incorporate it. Note that talk pages are for improving articles, not getting into endless debates about the subject matter. Guettarda (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not besides the point to say there is still discussion about this, it is fact. I do not need peer reviewed sources to say that, and which peer review should i use? the one which was redefined? Singer and Avery have released papers refuting AGW as have plenty of others, to say the debate is over is bull. mark nutley (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Singer and Avery? What paper is that? I can't find anything coauthored by them in Web of Science. Guettarda (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I like to see a stronger statement. It is not simply that there is virtually no debate. When very rarely a sceptical paper questioning the fundamentals somehow gets published, you get a debate about the competence of the authors, the editorial processes leading to the acceptance of the paper etc. If there are any peer reviewed reactions, these will be comments on the paper discussing where the authors went wrong with basic physics. Count Iblis (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nicola Scafetta new paper refuting AGW so there you go, there is still debate is science over the modern warming, the sentence has to go mark nutley (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the sentence doesn't "have to go", since it is supported by reliable sources. As for the Scafetta paper - I only have access to the abstract. So what does he say about the state of the debate? As for "refuting AGW"...the abstract actually mentions "warming observed since 1970", so I don't think you can say the paper "refutes global warming". As for the statement that at least 60% of the global warming observed...has been induced by the combined effect of the above natural climate oscillations - that doesn't sound to me like he's saying that "humans cannot influence global climate". You can't say that a discussion about how much humans are affecting global climate is the same as debating whether they are doing so. Guettarda (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We should replace the wording about "debate" with a statement that consensus exists. A statement of consensus can be cited to multiple sources of very high quality (e.g., national science academies) whereas "debate" is much fuzzier. By the standards of some -- that there is at least one scientist, somewhere, who argues the point -- there is "debate" over whether HIV causes AIDS, whether evolution occurs, whether the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and so on. So let's stick with the term that is attested in multiple high-quality sources. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So now it's about semantics? Boris although your argument is very intelligently stated I disagree that one scientist disagreeing with a consensus constitutes "debate". Moreover, there isn't any peer-reviewed articles that are dissenting from the consensus. Here are the definitions for debate from dictionary.com []. I did not selectively pick them so don't worry! Check for yourself if you'd like.


 * dictionary.com
 * noun
 * 1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.
 * 2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.
 * 3. deliberation; consideration.
 * 4. Archaic. strife; contention.
 * –verb (used without object)
 * 5. to engage in argument or discussion, as in a legislative or public assembly: When we left, the men were still debating.
 * 6. to participate in a formal debate.
 * 7. to deliberate; consider: I debated with myself whether to tell them the truth or not.
 * 8. Obsolete. to fight; quarrel.
 * –verb (used with object)
 * 9. to argue or discuss (a question, issue, or the like), as in a legislative or public assembly: They debated the matter of free will.
 * 10. to dispute or disagree about: The homeowners debated the value of a road on the island.
 * 11. to engage in formal argumentation or disputation with (another person, group, etc.): Jones will debate Smith. Harvard will debate Princeton.
 * 12. to deliberate upon; consider: He debated his decision in the matter.
 * 13. Archaic. to contend for or over.


 * Notice that the words "formal". "discussion" and '"deliberate" appear more than any other word. I feel that the word relates to formal deliberation or discussion which is NOT happening if there is a scientific consensus. Therefore scientific consensus and no debate hold equal value. What bothers me a bit is that we've already had this discussion. Can we please post in the correct sections or stick to the point?Torontokid2006 (talk) 06:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Did someone mention Monckton? Last time I checked he wasn't much of an expert on climate science, much less a peer-reviewed published scholar. His opinions and words hold about as much clout as mine do. Torontokid2006 (talk) 06:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * After reading much of this discussion page, as this has come up repeatedly, I don't understand why this statement is flagged- "The overwhelming scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is occurring"? It seems the consensus is that this statement is fine.  Does there need to be a third source here?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by R.wengronowitz (talk • contribs) 06:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

POV Tag
I have tagged this article due to the following sentences which are neither NPOV or correct.
 * There is no longer any scholarly debate in regards to the legitmacy of human-caused global warming This is blatantly false and as such should be removed.
 * Some oil companies have spent more than $70 million dollars funding public relations campaigns this is undue in the lead, taxpayers pay far more in AGW research than oil companys do.
 * and deeply flawed research studies This is pure pov pushing and should also be removed mark nutley (talk) 11:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Since those are factually correct statements I remove the tag since you cannot get more NPOV than telling the facts.---  Nomen Nescio  Gnothi seauton  contributions  11:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Addendum: if you can supply RS stating there currently is an ongoing scientific debate I immediately will remove those statements myself!---  Nomen Nescio  Gnothi seauton  contributions  11:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No they are not, and to remove a pov tag before even discussing it on the talk page is a breach of WP guidlines. The tags says, do not remove until a consensus is reached on the talk page, please self revert now or i`ll do it for you mark nutley (talk) 11:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have restored the pov tag per Do not remove it again until a consensus on the points i have raised has been reached. And do not call me a denier it is rude. mark nutley (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Did not call you a denialist, merely described the arguments you offered. Second, tagging a NPOV article as POV might cause you to read WP:POINT.---  Nomen Nescio  Gnothi seauton  contributions  11:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Either discuss the points raised or do not bother to comment at all. mark nutley (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As you are aware I offered some reading material for you to update you knowledge on this topic. Giving you some time to read it.---  Nomen Nescio  Gnothi seauton  contributions  11:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My knowledge of the topic is fine, no time is required mark nutley (talk) 11:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact you have not noticed the Scientific opinion on climate change proves you have some reading to do. :) Cheers.---  Nomen Nescio  Gnothi seauton  contributions  12:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming If there is no debate then why does this list exist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs)
 * From the article you link to For the purpose of this list, a scientist is defined as a person who published at least one peer-reviewed article during their lifetime in the broadly-construed area of natural sciences. There is no requirement to have published in recent years or in a field relevant to the climate. There is no requirement that their views contrary to the global warming mainstream need to have been published in peer-reviewed literature, and the majority have not. If you do not see anything wrong in this description you definitely need to update your knowledge, specifically you may want to acquaint yourself with scientific method and peer review.---  Nomen Nescio  Gnothi seauton  contributions  12:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I know what the scientific method is, and it is something AGW proponents do not follow, the refusal to release date and methodology for instance, your continuing jibes are pointless so give them up. There are plenty of scientists who oppose the theory of AGW and publish papers saying this. There are books also refuting the AGW theory. To say there is no further debate over it is a lie and pov pushing. Your failure to actually talk about the points i have raised shows you are more interested in trying to belittle me. Comment on content not editor. mark nutley (talk) 12:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Some reading material countering denialism. ---  Nomen Nescio  Gnothi seauton  contributions  11:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Mark, with regards to the first point, it is very well sourced. We can't delete a reliably sourced, notable viewpoint just because you don't like it. As I said, if you have good sources that say otherwise, then we need to find a way to work the alternative point of view into the article. You say there is a paper by Singer and Avery that says otherwise, but you have not replied to a request for a references to that paper. You claimed that Scafetta said otherwise. I asked you to specify what Scafetta says about the debate. You have not replied to that either. You made a claim. I asked you to back it up. Instead of supporting your claim, you simply upped the ante with POV tags. "If the facts aren't on your side, pound the table" isn't acceptable. Guettarda (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think McN's first point is not faulty, but the other two are quite reasonable. I don't think this is part of the clearly unreliable ExxonSecrets pushing on other GW articles, but information on the amount of funding of "research" (and organizations) by oil companies is clearly UNDUE without at least indicating the total amount of funding.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was trying to deal with these points one at a time. Can you explain why a reliably sourced (and at least mostly accurate) statement "should be removed"? Guettarda (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless McN can provide reliable sources for his point of view, his point 1 fails. There is significant scholarly debate as to how much of the global warming is anthropogenic (recent estimates I've seen range from 50% to 300%), but no significant debate as to whether anthropogenic effects are, at least, a significant component in global warming.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

A POV tag is not an "I don't like it because I think the article is POV-tag". The POV tag is meant to let the article get the attention of readers/editors so that you can get more discussions to resolve some POV dispute. But in this case there is quite a strong consensus among the editors that there is no POV problem to be addressed. This is not like an article about some Palestine/Israel related conflict where you can have radically different views among the editors on many different points. Then both sides would want to have a POV-tag as both sides have some points to argue about and would welcome views of other editors on resolving these matters.

In this case, the issue is very narrow: Whether or not or not we can say that discussions in the scientific literature about the fundamentals (climate change is caused by CO2 emissions) still take place and what to write about that. Count Iblis (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree in regard the oil companies section. That's one factoid used by a reliable source in a clearly misleading manner.  I would certainly accept tagging only the oil company statement and _quoting_ "deeply flawed", among McN's specific complaints.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I would support moving that part to the sub article on global warming controversy and putting a POV tag on a section of that article. This article should primarily be about the science and those sub articles were created so that the notable polemics that exist in the real world (and thus deserve a wiki-article on that) can also be included in wikipedia without having severe POV disputes here. Count Iblis (talk) 14:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Tags do not belong. TFD (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I've removed the oil company section from the lede, and POV-tagged the section. I tend to agree that the tag doesn't belong, but neither does the section.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually this sentence is not sourced at all There is no longer any scholarly debate in regards to the legitmacy of human-caused global warming. it is just thrown in there. The two sources used for the end of the statement refer to the "consensus" not if there is continuing debate, and the union of concerned scientists is an adcovacy group and should not be used to support statements of fact mark nutley (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted to the pre-TK pre-POV tagged version, which was stable for some time. I don't see any consensus to change to the new version. I don't think that There is no longer any scholarly debate in regards to the legitmacy of human-caused global warming is blatantly false, but I don't think it is clearly true either; it is also unnecessary William M. Connolley (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Since this is so talked about: I don't really like absence of scientific debate as an idea. The scienitific literature is full of people "debating" the details of global warming. There is very very little work that actively disputes the contention that humans are responsible for most of the warming; but that is perfectly well covered by the existing The overwhelming scientific consensus is that human-made global warming is real. I see no reason why we need the oil companies section, in the lede or at all. It should be in politics of global warming William M. Connolley (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree WMC, it is amusing to see you accused of censorship and denial :) But what of the deeply flawed research studies sentence? That is pure pov pushing and there is no way that one ref can cover all papers which try to refute AGW mark nutley (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This entire section is against the letter and spirit of wikipedia. Many editors have already thoroughly discussed the 3rd paragraph in the above sections of this talkpage. But, William and Mark consistently start new sections to make it look as if these are new topics when there are not. There actions serve to ignore and dismiss previous discussion and consensus therefore disrupting this article. I will be reporting you both when I get back home. Torontokid2006 (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * TK: you've recently used your inexperience as an excuse for breaking 3RR. So, a consequence of that is that you should not be lecturing people about the spirit of wiki who have been around rather longer than you. I'm not sure what you mean by "the third para": if you mean, the oil companies bit in the lede, yes it has indeed been discussed and there is general consensus that it doesn't belong. If you mean There is no longer any scholarly debate then I see no consensus for its inclusion, and quite a few editors speaking out against it. In the case of a heavily edited article like GW, the spirit of wiki is to discussn controversial changes and get agreement first. WP:BRD is all very well - there is nothing wrong with WP:BOLD - but if you get reverted, you need to drop back to discuss William M. Connolley (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Some oil companies
OK, continuing with another of MN's concerns, I too am not happy with:


 * Some oil companies have funded public relations campaigns and deeply flawed research studies intended to discredit the global scientific consensus. 

First, I don't think there is anything special about oil; the coal companies have been bad too. But even correcting it to "fossil fuel" companies I'm not sure it belongs in the lede (I presume it is another recent TK addition, but haven't checked).

deeply flawed research studies - well, yes Soon and Baliunas was indeed junk, and is now discarded (not formally; it is just that no-one believes it; alas it is controversial so has lots of cites, but all/most of the "this is trash" type cites). Again I doubt this is a point that MN and I will agree on, but never mind, lets not turn this into a discussion of S+B. Perhaps better, lets look at it as a sentence not supported by the refs: thecrimson study is about *one* paper; there is thus no justification from the ref for the plural "studies" in the text.

Supporting the does-not-belong are the references, which are weak. The thecrimson article is about a grant for $53k - this is such small beer for a place in the GW lede. The first Grauniad one is not their own reporting, but ref's a Greenpease report, which claims "Koch industries is playing a quiet but dominant role in the global warming debate". I'm not really convinced I believe that (disclaimer: I give Greenpeace money, but that doesn't mean I believe everything they say). The second is better but still not really convincing (yes they were offering $10k, in a certain sense, but there isn't much evidence that it got spent).

I'm not convinced the sentence belongs at all; this is true even though I agree that there is a PR campaign (which I suspect MN does not). I've attempted a compromise edit (which is also probably a revert, even if not by the debased standards of Cl Ch; if I need to, my justification is that it is part of the previous edit, which the intervening anon vandalism does not affect). That removes the bit about funding deeply flawed research (I think that there is little evidence for funding research, certainly in comparison to the funding of PR, which is far larger) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * User:WMC & User:CI make some good points but I disagree on a major one: this article is about all aspects of GW not just the science -- the subarticles listed in various sections are still technically a part of this article -- so it is appropriate to mention politics in the lead & not just push it off into a subarticle. That said, the current version of para3 seems fine to me: "The overwhelming scientific consensus is that human-made global warming is real.[6][7] Nevertheless, political and public debate continues. Some fossil fuel companies have funded public relations campaigns intended to discredit the global scientific consensus.[8][9][10]". For the record, I don't think there is or was a consensus about removing the oil company info from the lead, and it seems from current & recent discussion that one or two editors here don't understand the concept of consensus -- its not the same as unanimity. - PrBeacon (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am more than happy with WMC`s recent edit, it is far more NPOV and accurate than the previous version but would be happier still if the entire oil section was removed as it is most certainly undue for the lede and tbh belongs in global warming controversy mark nutley (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't like it either, but some people (e.g., Lar, LHvU) think the article should deal mainly with the political stuff. So although I don't think the material belongs perhaps we should leave a brief statement in there as a compromise with those who want more emphasis on politics. If we take it out someone else is going to have to argue the point with the politically-minded folk because I'm tired of it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm with Mark N., William C., And Short B.H.B.: don't think the oil stuff is relevant to this. I don't think that a WP article should take jabs at specific things in its lede. I also think that the article should be about the science, though stubby sections with links to main articles on the politics are acceptable IMO. Awickert (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say there is a consensus here for the removal of the oil thing, only one editor seems to think it belongs, thoughts? mark nutley (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Only one? I can't tell if you're willfully ignoring other recent discussion or what, but it's pretty clear that at least 3 of us have argued for its inclusion or some reference to corporate spin on GW. More if we count older discussion, which we should. And now I see that the compromise WMC posted has been reverted by User:Arthur Rubin. - PrBeacon (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok then 3 seem to want it in and 6 want it out, now given it is undue to have that in the lede and it really belongs in either politics or controversy why do you feel it belongs in what is essentialy a science article? mark nutley (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 3 want it out? please look at recent discussion above. I obviously want it inTorontokid2006 (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well i just looked through the sections above and i see three editors and one probable sock who say to keep this junk in. Short Brigade Harvester Boris, Kim D. Petersen, Kauffner, Dikstr, Stephan Schulz, William M. Connolley, 188.221.105.68, Enescot, Arthur Rubin, Kenosis. I think that`s the lot. With me of course that makes 11 who say it should go. And i believe Count Ibilis also said it belongs in GW Controversy. That is most certainly a consensus for it`s removal mark nutley (talk) 19:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I will have to double check that claim later but could you please include the names of the supporters? Torontokid2006 (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is also important to note that consensus doesn't mean who has the most votes. Torontokid2006 (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

No problems, here are those who say it should go. If your name is here in error please remove it :)
 * Short Brigade Harvester Boris
 * Kim D. Petersen
 * Kauffner
 * Dikstr
 * Stephan Schulz
 * William M. Connolley
 * 188.221.105.68
 * Enescot
 * Arthur Rubin
 * Kenosis
 * Awickert
 * Mark Nutley
 * Count Ibilis (I think)
 * Verbel

Those who want it in that i can see If your name is here in error please remove it :)
 * Torontokid2006
 * TFD
 * PrBeacon
 * Ajoe6pack (probable sock)


 * I think that makes 14 for removal and 3 for inclusion, consensus is for removal i believe mark nutley (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You forgot Nomen Nescio, Count Ibilis (was actually a supporter), Ajoe6pack (is not a sock! you do not have authority to say this), Guettarda (highly probable supporter), Dave Souza (probable supporter), I don't think Stephan weighed in on this.


 * The new count would then be 12 vs 8. Again, consensus isn't about votes. It's about reason and logic. The supporting side seemed to have more logical weight on their side whereas the removal side has more volume/noise. Torontokid2006 (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Your count is off; MN's is closer (for example, ajoe6pack has precisely one edit ). But as you say - what really counts is the quality of the arguments. Reasonned argument has been presented in this section as to why your edits are bad. You have answered none of the points raised. Please do so, or provide diffs of the sections that do answer those points. While I'm here: can you see how unintentionally ironic edit summaries like Undid revision 366420321 by Verbal (talk) Please do not edit war.  are? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * @TK To help you out i have added two dif`s against the names you think are not for removal. Joe6pack is probably a sock, one edit to make an !vote and thrown away if he does not return then his !vote does not even count mark nutley (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your characterization of consensus is based upon a false premise. This article is about all aspects of global warming, not just the science. - PrBeacon (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The term "scholarly debate" has no precise meaning and should be deleted. TomHelms (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Rv: why
I reverted a few minor terminological changes since I didn't like them. I think we've been through the "is a phrase that" stuff before: it just isn't needed. Biosphere is also unneeded; and air is as good as atmosphere William M. Connolley (talk) 07:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Biosphere" is also wrong, as it can include both deep oceans, which are affected much later, and the deep hot biosphere (now that's a surprising redirect...), which will not be affected by any plausible degree of global warming. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the "UN" part was fitting. Torontokid2006 (talk) 07:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW I think if this is accurate then it is helpful. However, although two UN bodies founded the IPCC, the exact nature of its governance is unclear to me, is it owned by the UN? Is IPCC Quasi-Autonomous or could the UN in theory instruct the IPCC to reach particular conclusions? Someone who actually understands this might be able to explain if "UN's" is in fact technically correct? --BozMo talk 10:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "could the UN in theory instruct the IPCC to reach particular conclusions?" Of course not. There is a wealth of information at their website: Se items under section organization. Apis  (talk ) 17:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The IPCC has no effective control over the scientists who participate. It doesn't even pay them for their work. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am still a bit confused by this. It is an "intergovernment organisation" according to your link which rather implies it has a membership consisting of countries. Ok, in any case not a UN body then despite its foundation but presumably someone decides which scientists are involved? Is that the countries chosing who represents them, or is it a self perpetuating election by existing scientists? --BozMo talk 20:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You nominate someone (or nominate yourself) to the organization responsible for choosing the scientists from your country. Each country then chooses its participants from the pool of nominees. The current round of nomination and selection for AR5 is in process; see e.g., here and links therein for the U.S. version. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not know that, thanks. That does open the possibility for political influence then, or at least political selection toward people with particular sets of views. Which is not a huge shock or a big deal but not entirely nothing either. Perhaps an analogy with the appointment of the judiciary will help my reflection but the process will not follow a US type process in most of the world. --BozMo talk 21:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's a possibility of political influence. The constitution of authorship for AR4 took place ca. 2003-4 as I recall. Thus the report's firmer wording on the likelihood of anthropogenic climate change may well have been influenced by all those wild-eyed enviros appointed by the Bush administration. ;-) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk)
 * You might like http://mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG.pdf William M. Connolley (talk) 11:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The IPCC brings together scientists to produce reports on the global state of knowledge on climate change. Since this knowledge is published in academic journals, it would be fairly obvious if the IPCC misstated it.  TFD (talk) 07:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Section on Climategate Controversy missing
I was searching this article for information on "Climategate", and was shocked there was no mention. Should this be added? BryantLee (talk) 06:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Strike comment by serial puppeteer. -Atmoz (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No because this article is about global warming. TFD (talk) 06:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But Climatgate is directly related to the debate on global warming. BryantLee (talk) 06:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Strike comment by serial puppeteer. -Atmoz (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This article is not about the "debate on global warming". TFD (talk) 07:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You want the article Climatic Research Unit email controversy (to which "Climategate" redirects). That article is also listed at Global warming controversy (in the See also section); someone could probably make a good case for it to be summarized in the body text there (and here). - PrBeacon (talk) 07:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Projections
Intro

Current revision:

Climate model projections indicate that the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the 21st century.[2] The uncertainty in this estimate arises from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations  and the use of differing estimates of future greenhouse gas emissions.

The current revision does not specify a baseline for temperature rise. Specifying the baseline is essential, otherwise the temperature increase has no meaning. Also, it implied that the temperature projections are a "likely" range, which isn't entirely true. They are a "likely" range for the six SRES emission scenarios used. The scenarios are intended to represent a range of possible futures, but I don't think the IPCC describes them as a "likely" range of future emissions.

Another criticism is that the second sentence suggests that the physical science uncertainty is only due to the climate sensitivity. My impression is that other uncertainties are also important, such as natural climate variability, the role of carbon sinks, and other uncertainties surrounding climate models. I don't think that it's correct to lump together all physical science uncertainties as being due to the climate sensitivity.

Suggested revision:

''Climate models were used in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report to project the average rise in global average temperature for the 2090-2099 period, relative to the average temperature over the 1980-1999 period. Across a range of different emission scenarios, models showed a likely increase in global average temperature of 1.1 to 6.4 deg C. The range of 1.1 to 6.4 deg C is due to scientific uncertainties and uncertainties surrounding future emission levels of greenhouse gases.''


 * Don't like; it is always hard to parse "average rise in global average temperature for the 2090-2099 period" because you naturally read it as the rise from 2090 to 2099. For the time period, "over the 21st century" is fine. Also don't like Climate models were used in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report to  - no reason to tie this to AR4.
 * such as natural climate variability - not very important over the century timescale. due to scientific uncertainties - don't like, too vague. You *can* lump all the climate-physical bits into the cl sens - that is what it is for. GHG concs depend on sources and sinks, so could replace and uncertainties surrounding future emission levels of greenhouse gases with and uncertainties surrounding future levels of greenhouse gases maybe. That hides the source/sink question, but that can be done in detail later William M. Connolley (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Greenhouse gas section

Current revision:

''CO2 concentrations are continuing to rise due to burning of fossil fuels and land-use change. The future rate of rise will depend on uncertain economic, sociological, technological, and natural developments. Accordingly, the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios gives a wide range of future CO2 scenarios, ranging from 541 to 970 ppm by the year 2100 (an increase by 90-250% since 1750).[42] Fossil fuel reserves are sufficient to reach these levels and continue emissions past 2100 if coal, tar sands or methane clathrates are extensively exploited.''

Suggested revision:

''CO2 concentrations are continuing to rise due to burning of fossil fuels and land-use change. The future rate of rise will depend on uncertain economic, sociological, technological, and natural developments. Using a range of possible emission scenarios (the six IPCC SRES "marker" scenarios), climate models suggest that by 2100, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide could range between 541 and 970 ppm. This is an increase of 90 to 250% above the concentration in the year 1750. Fossil fuel reserves are sufficient to reach these levels and continue emissions past 2100 if coal, tar sands or methane clathrates are extensively exploited.''

This is a minor revision. I've corrected a misuse of the SRES scenarios, which are emission scenarios, and not concentration scenarios. The two are different since you can only get concentrations from emissions by using a climate model. Another minor error is that only six of the SRES scenarios were used in making this projection of concentrations. The current revision gives the impression that all forty of the SRES scenarios were used.

I've also changed the wording to give a greater impression of uncertainty, i.e., by using the word "could." You could also mention that the true range might be larger, as is indicated in the TAR Synthesis report, but I thought that this was probably unnecessary. Enescot (talk) 05:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Not entirely sure about the revisions as they are a bit hard to read for a layperson. I must say I don't think the word "scientific uncertainty" is the best choice as it is too broad. Could you find better words to describe the ranges? Torontokid2006 (talk) 06:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * climate models suggest that by 2100, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide could range between 541 and 970 ppm - this is wrong. Future atmos CO2 conc projections don't (on the whole) come from GCMs. Unless they have advanced a lot while I've not been watching. There are a *few* GCMs with carbon cycle models, but they aren't common (fig 10.1 is misleading in this respect I think). I admit I'm not fully sure how SRES are converted into conc - probably by assuming 50% airborne fraction or somesuch. If that *is* how people do it, then sourcing the concs to SRES isn't too unreasonable. AR4 says: The future projections discussed in this chapter are based upon the standard A2, A1B and B2 SRES scenarios (Nakićenović and Swart, 2000). The emissions of CO2, methane (CH4) and SO2, the concentrations of CO2, CH4 and nitrous oxide (N2O) and the total radiative forcing for the SRES scenarios are illustrated in Figure 10.26 and summarised for the A1B scenario in Figure 10.1. The models have been integrated to year 2100 using the projected concentrations of LLGHGs and emissions of SO2 specified by the A1B, B1 and A2 emissions scenarios. which sounds like they too are conflating the two. is the same. A casual read of that rather suggests that SRES *is* providing the concentrations as well as the emissions. William M. Connolley (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Torontokid2006

How about this?

''The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report contains estimates of how much global warming could happen by the end of the 21st century. Estimates range between 1.1 to 6.4 deg C of warming. This rise is relative to the average temperature at the end of the 20th century. This range of possible temperature increases is partly due to uncertainties over how the climate system will respond to increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. The range is also due to uncertainties over how emissions of greenhouse gases will change in the future.''

On the second part, how about this?

''CO2 emissions are continuing to rise due to burning of fossil fuels and land-use change. Estimates of changes in future emission levels of greenhouse gases have been made, and are called "emission scenarios." In some scenarios, greenhouse gases continue to rise over the century, while in others, emissions are reduced. The future rate of emissions will depend on uncertain economic, sociological, technological, and natural developments.''

''Emission scenarios have been used to produce estimates of how atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will change in the future. Using a range of possible emission scenarios (the six IPCC SRES "marker" scenarios), models suggest that by 2100, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide could range between 541 and 970 ppm. This is an increase of 90 to 250% above the concentration in the year 1750. Fossil fuel reserves are sufficient to reach these levels and continue emissions past 2100 if coal, tar sands or methane clathrates are extensively exploited.''

Reply to William M. Connolley

My terminology must be incorrect in using the word "climate models". The Synthesis report refers to this part of the TAR Working Group I report, which describes how the concentration estimates were made:

''Two simplified, fast models (ISAM and Bern-CC) were used to project future CO2 concentrations under IS92a and six SRES scenarios, and to project future emissions under five CO2 stabilisation scenarios. Both models represent ocean and terrestrial climate feedbacks, in a way consistent with process-based models, and allow for uncertainties in climate sensitivity and in ocean and terrestrial responses to CO2 and climate.''
 * The reference case projections (which include climate feedbacks) of both models under IS92a are, by coincidence, close to those made in the SAR (which neglected feedbacks).
 * The SRES scenarios lead to divergent CO2 concentration trajectories. Among the six emissions scenarios considered, the projected range of CO2 concentrations at the end of the century is 550 to 970 ppm (ISAM model) or 540 to 960 ppm (Bern-CC model).
 * Variations in climate sensitivity and ocean and terrestrial model responses add at least -10 to +30% uncertainty to these values, and to the emissions implied by the stabilisation scenarios.
 * The net effect of land and ocean climate feedbacks is always to increase projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations. This is equivalent to reducing the allowable emissions for stabilisation at any one CO2 concentration.
 * New studies with general circulation models including interactive land and ocean carbon cycle components also indicate that climate feedbacks have the potential to increase atmospheric CO2 but with large uncertainty about the magnitude of the terrestrial biosphere feedback.

I could remove reference to "climate models" and say that these are "models":

Using a range of possible emission scenarios (the six IPCC SRES "marker" scenarios), models suggest that by 2100, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide could range between 541 and 970 ppm. Enescot (talk) 10:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That would be OK; the could be considered "climate models" but in this context, CM's will naturally mean a thing, which these aren't. So just "models" is better William M. Connolley (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Second reply

''Don't like; it is always hard to parse "average rise in global average temperature for the 2090-2099 period" because you naturally read it as the rise from 2090 to 2099. For the time period, "over the 21st century" is fine. Also don't like "Climate models were used in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report" to - no reason to tie this to AR4.'' ''"such as natural climate variability" - not very important over the century timescale. "due to scientific uncertainties" - don't like, too vague. You *can* lump all the climate-physical bits into the cl sens - that is what it is for. GHG concs depend on sources and sinks, so could replace "and uncertainties surrounding future emission levels of greenhouse gases" with "and uncertainties surrounding future levels of greenhouse gases maybe." That hides the source/sink question, but that can be done in detail later William M. Connolley (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)''

I agree that the 21st century would be acceptable. I don't agree that the projections should not be tied to AR4. The projections specifically relate to the AR4 emission scenarios and the climate models that were used in making these projections.

''"such as natural climate variability" - not very important over the century timescale. "due to scientific uncertainties" - don't like, too vague. You *can* lump all the climate-physical bits into the cl sens - that is what it is for.'' - WMC

The point about me omitting climate sensitivity is also to do with clarity. The existing revision goes:

Climate model projections summarized in the latest IPCC report indicate that the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the 21st century.[2] The uncertainty in this estimate arises from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations  and the use of differing estimates of future greenhouse gas emissions.

I do not like the second sentence. Saying that "The uncertainty in this estimate arises from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations" is too complex. The sentence as a whole is cumbersome.

Where in AR4 does it say that climate sensitivity is adequate in explaining differences in model results? What about naturally-induced climatic changes, such as volcano eruptions? Obviously these cannot be included in projections, but they are a source of uncertainty.

I am also unhappy with the unnecessary separation of models from projections. Uncertainty in projections should be treated from a broad perspective. It should not be attributed as being due to "using" climate models. Rather, the uncertainty within and "outside" of the models, like the climate sensitivity or other external factors, should be talked about. The whole purpose of having scientists is for them to explain why the uncertainty is there. To say that uncertainty is due to the use of a particular model is not helpful.

Overall, I do not agree with the current explanation of climate sensitivity that is in the introduction. I think that it is confusing for the average reader.

I accept your criticism about the vagueness of my suggestion. However, I think that attributing uncertainty to science is more understandable to the average reader than attributing it to the climate sensitivity. If you are to mention the climate sensitivity, the term must be defined. My suggestion to Torontokid was:

''The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report contains estimates of how much global warming could happen by the end of the 21st century. Estimates range between 1.1 to 6.4 deg C of warming. This rise is relative to the average temperature at the end of the 20th century. This range of possible temperature increases is partly due to uncertainties over how the climate system will respond to increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. The range is also due to uncertainties over how emissions of greenhouse gases will change in the future.''

The sentence:

This range of possible temperature increases is partly due to uncertainties over how the climate system will respond to increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.

Is based on this bit of AR4. If you want to mention climate sensitivity instead, the paragraph would go:

''This range of possible temperature increases is partly due to uncertainties over the climate sensitivity. The climate sensitivity is...''

I don't know how to define climate sensitivity. The IPCC goes with:

''Climate sensitivity In IPCC reports, equilibrium climate sensitivity refers to the equilibrium change in the annual mean global surface temperature following a doubling of the atmospheric equivalent carbon dioxide concentration. Due to computational constraints, the equilibrium climate sensitivity in a climate model is usually estimated by running an atmospheric general circulation model coupled to a mixed-layer ocean model, because equilibrium climate sensitivity is largely determined by atmospheric processes. Efficient models can be run to equilibrium with a dynamic ocean.''

''The effective climate sensitivity is a related measure that circumvents the requirement of equilibrium. It is evaluated from model output for evolving non-equilibrium conditions. It is a measure of the strengths of the climate feedbacks at a particular time and may vary with forcing history and climate state. The climate sensitivity parameter (units: °C (W m–2)–1) refers to the equilibrium change in the annual mean global surface temperature following a unit change in radiative forcing.''

Which of these definitions would be appropriate? Enescot (talk) 09:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes
This article is one of a number (about 100) selected for the early stage of the trial of the Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Pending changes/Queue  are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC).


 * Hi Rich, I'm new. What is this in layman's terms? Torontokid2006 (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Torontokid, have a look at Help:Pending changes; I've been here ages and I first heard about this via Twitter, not here! My question is, I've seen some strange activity in the History page, but are we meant to be able to see anything different on the actual page yet? If so, I missed it. --Nigelj (talk) 09:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah! Stuff has appeared! --Nigelj (talk) 09:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Note B
Apparently got lost somewhere. "The 2001 joint statement was signed by the national academies of science of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, the People's Republic of China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the UK. The 2005 statement added Japan, Russia, and the U.S. The 2007 statement added Mexico and South Africa. The Network of African Science Academies, and the Polish Academy of Sciences have issued separate statements. Professional scientific societies include American Astronomical Society, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, American Quaternary Association, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, European Academy of Sciences and Arts, European Geosciences Union, European Science Foundation, Geological Society of America, Geological Society of Australia, Geological Society of London-Stratigraphy Commission, InterAcademy Council, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, International Union for Quaternary Research, National Association of Geoscience Teachers, National Research Council (US), Royal Meteorological Society, and World Meteorological Organization." I don't know where it was originally, or if it's even needed anymore. -Atmoz (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This would seem to fit in the "Views" section since the lead paragraph states briefly that there is scientific consensus. Torontokid2006 (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * @TK: You've missed the point: it is too long to be worth that many words: it was a footnote. @A: I'm not sure it is very useful though: you can just click the statement to find who wrote it William M. Connolley (talk) 10:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

SVG versus PNG plot
Atmoz -- what do you prefer about File:Instrumental Temperature Record.png versus the File:Instrumental Temperature Record (NASA).svg? The SVG version has lots of advantages, as described in WP:SVG and Category:Graph_images_that_should_be_in_SVG_format, and if you have aesthetic suggestions I'd be happy to try to incorporate them. -- Autopilot (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Instrumental Temperature Record (NASA).svgInstrumental Temperature Record.png


 * The PNG is much better to read, since the fonts and line width are more appropriate for the image size. The zero line is essentially an arbitrary choice - please don't make it the heaviest element in in the plot. I also find the horizontal/vertical grid helpful, too. The PNG has the 5 year temperature curve smoothed, not just averaged, which, I think, is a better representation of physical reality. Have you tried "smooth csplines" or something similar? I also like the colours better - I know gnuplot can be made to select other colours, but I was always to lazy to figure out how. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The fontsize and line weights depend on the intended display size of the image: as a thumbnail, I agree that the larger fonts and heavier lines are much easier to read at the reduced size, but it appears very "cartoony" when displayed full size. If the only expected size is as a thumbnail that is fine.  The heavy zero line appears to be an artifact of mediawiki's rendering since it isn't as heavy in the original file; I'll reduce the weight.  I'll also try to smooth the 5 year data, which is already pretty smoothed.  -- Autopilot (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, the topic has come up over and over again - see and maybe read some of the more appropriate hits. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with A / Stephan. I've reverted to the old plot on Climate pattern William M. Connolley (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow -- there certainly has been loads of discussion on the formatting of the chart in the archives. I don't have an opinion on the various smoothing algorithms, start and end points, etc; my goal was to just replace the existing one (for which there seems to be a rough consensus) with an equivilant SVG image as part of replacing bitmap graphs with vector versions. I've incorporated Stephan's comments regarding the zero axis weight and colors, as well as reduced the default resolution so that the fonts are much larger when viewed as a thumbnail. (You might need to do a cache purge to get the updated thumbnail above) -- Autopilot (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like mediawiki is not doing any anti-aliasing when it resizes SVG images. This is definitely making the fonts look horrible when reduced to fit in the 220 pixel width, even when the size is an even multiple of 220. That definitely caues readability issues in the thumbnail representation.  -- Autopilot (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia editors tends to be horribly conservative when it comes to minor things like this. In general I would prefer SVG, however, since mediawiki is doing such a poor job at converting to PNG (as pointed out) and the support for SVG isn't that great in browsers yet, perhaps it's better to stick with PNG for now. Not something I feel strongly about though. Apis (talk ) 22:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Given two identical plot, one svg and the other png, I actually prefer using svg. (Although with the issues pointed out by Apis, I don't know...) However, these two are not identical. In my opinion, the png image simply "looks better". Very quantitative, I know. I really like the grayed background in the png. It gives a more professional appearance. Also, the svg fonts are all way to small, even at 500px. -Atmoz (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Introduction - Observed temperature increase
The wording of the final sentence in the first paragraph seems to be somewhat more definitive than that of the supporting reference. Would it be advisable to adopt language more closely resembling that used in the cited NAS literature? The exact quotes from the NAS document that I believe are being referenced are “Most scientists agree that the warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere” and/or “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” Missionamp (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what we do? Its a different wording - but it says exactly the same: Most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century was caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, which results from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.[3].
 * Is there something that i haven't noticed, or which is out of sync? Its expanded somewhat by the fossil fuel burning and deforestation - but those are the (significantly) major contributors. My preference would be to use anthropogenic as little as possible, since it isn't a common word (and lots of people get it wrong [anthropomorphic, etc]) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I’m not particularly concerned about using “anthropogenic” versus “man-made.” You’re absolutely correct that the latter is more common.  My question has to do with the fact that both of the statements from NAS contain a modifier (i.e., “primarily by human activities” and “is very likely due”) whereas the sentence in the introduction omits this aspect.  By adding something along those lines back into the statement, it would still convey the strong message intended by the National Academies, and would be truer to the original source. Missionamp (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why should we prioritise NAS? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think there was some discussion earlier, where it was decided not to do so. Iirc, the reason is that "most likely" refers to >90% probability which is rather certain, and since would need to be qualified if included (its a quantitative statement after all), which detracts from the simplicity of the lede. I don't really have anything against adding the "most likely" to it (with the quantifier in a footnote ). As for the primarily - its simply an extraneous word here, when we are adding both fossil fuels and land use-change (which it btw. should be instead of deforestation). The IPCC statement is:
 * Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.
 * --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The statement in the article is easily justified in all respects by a very large number of peer-reviewed and other references. But, by WP:LEADCITE, we don't need to list all the potential references after every sentence, sub-clause and word in the lead, as they are given all due weight throughout the article. This challenge seems groundless when taken in the context of the whole article and subject area. --Nigelj (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Global Warming is a Proven Hoax - Where is the NPOV Tag ??
The article is written in a way as if global warming has already been established as fact. This needs to be changed if Wikipedia is to be considered legitimate. This is not NPOV; more criticism should be made available on the main page.

There is more evidence to show global warming is a naturally occurring cycle, and sources which claim otherwise are simply not reliable. The IPCC is not made up of scientists at all, and has actually been discredited and proven to be a fraud. Data released by the IPCC and Al Gore is not WP:RS. The main article should be changed to better reflect the facts, or a NPOV tag added.

Removing the opposition is an act of censorship. The FACT is that the debate about global warming still continues, and since that debate has not yet been concluded, global warming cannot yet be considered an established fact either, but in actuality is nothing more than a grand rumour.

Pictures of graphs and computer models do not reflect what has happened in reality, and yet pictures are treated like WP:RS in the main article. The globe has in fact been cooling over the past ten years, yet this is not even acknowledged.

Now, I don't have an account so I can't add the NPOV tag, but after reading through the talk page, it seems like it was already there but has since been inappropriately removed by an act of vandalism. The NPOV tag needs to be reapplied. 174.89.52.142 (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You're funny. Say something else. Wikispan (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What a constructive comment there, Wikispan. Thank you so much. /sarcasm 174.89.52.142 (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your incorrect IP guy. The planet has warmed, it has in the past and will again in the future, so global warming is not a hoax. AGW on the other hand is an unproven theory, but i`ll let you argue the merits of that :) mark nutley (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No theory in science can ever be proved. TFD (talk) 20:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? Like splitting the atom you mean? Or flight? or a hundred other things? mark nutley (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Those aren't "theories" in a scientific sense. Wikipedia's explanation Theory is ok-ish, but not great. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well not any more no, that was kinda the point :) A theory remains a theory until proven by direct observation and experiments which can be replicated by others based on the data and methodology of the person who comes up with the theory mark nutley (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark, read the link provided by Boris. A scientific theory is never proven. And, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a "direct observation". Have you ever heard about Einstein's Theory of Relativity? Or maybe Newton's law of universal gravitation that is part of his theory of gravity (and a law) despite being false... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, a theory remains a theory until it is disproven/replaced by a better theory. And yes, the mechanism of flight, like the mechanism of gravity, or evolution, or global warming, remains a theory. All it takes to fly is to throw yourself at the ground, and miss. Guettarda (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you a hitchhikers guide to the galaxy fan Guettarda? I love those books :) mark nutley (talk) 21:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You are talking about technology, not science. Notably the people who split the atom disproved the Newtonian theories of physics that had been used in designing aeroplanes.  TFD (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Need to reference and highlight Controversies section in header
The issues discussed in the Controversies section relate significantly to attempts to implement legislation in an attempt to control global warming (which in reality is unnecessary since 70% + of surface heat retention is from water vapor and it appears that humans are responsible for less than 5% of the CO2 in the atmosphere).

These issues will likely affect future attempts at any legislation, so requires particular highlight in the opener.

Also as an unrelated side note: CO2 is responsible for 26% max heat retention, increasing CO2 beyond a certain level will reduce warming due to the specific heat capacity of the atmosphere. There is no possibility that 100% of this CO2 is the result of human activity. I would put it at less than 5%, the recent increases being due to the carbon cycle. As such it seems absurd to tax ourselves and give our money away to satisfy the concerns expressed by some. 120.20.93.176 (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * humans are responsible for less than 5% of the CO2 in the atmosphere - not even the "skeptics" believe that William M. Connolley (talk) 09:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Isn't this one of the topics where anonymous contributors are banned from editing? You *know* those guys are paid stooges. Nobody is that dumb...I hope. Bob Calder 19:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by B calder (talk • contribs)

Recent removal of subsection "Oil Industry Reaction"
Editors, if you have time, please weigh in about whether or not this recently removed subsection should be included in this article. I am arguing for its inclusion simply because we already have "public opinion" and "politics". We are missing the "private" or "corporate reaction" to the science. I think a compromise would be naming the subsection "corporate (or private) reaction" if "oil industry reaction" seems too narrow. The removal occurs below line 346. Torontokid2006 (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It should remain removed for the good reasons given. (Also, please see the note above about sanctions and your "simplifying" edits) Verbal chat  19:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually no discussion was given in regards to the subsection's removal. Torontokid2006 (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See above. Verbal chat  20:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

@TK: just above, there is a section of you complaining about people starting new sections. Just above that is a section on this very subject. Please take your own advice William M. Connolley (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * @Verbal - actually the above section refers to the 3rd paragraph in the lead, not the subsection in question.Torontokid2006 (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that this article should reflect the state of the science as given in IPCC reports and influential peer-reviewed papers. These kinds of information are of general educational use to Wikipedia readers. What this article should not be is overtly involved in the politics of GW. Global warming is an observed physical phenomenon, and scientists have worked to answer many of the "hows" and "whys". The politics come after this, as a reaction to the phenomenon and the fact that scientists have learned that it is due to human emission of greenhouse gases. So to the specific question: the oil stuff should go in one of the politics of GW pages, and not be here, and certainly not be so prominent as to be mentioned in the lede. Awickert (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Like it or not, the politics/controversies of GW are inextricably linked to the overall issue -- this is not just an article on the science of Global Warming. Judging from ongoing discussion though, it seems like several folks want the article scrubbed clean of such lowly (ie, non-scientific) concerns. . - PrBeacon (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * My point is that political ramifications logically follow the scientific observations and models. As it is, the science takes up enough room to fill this article. I'm happy to have blurbs with "main" links to political articles here (and think that it is good to have these, in fact), but the bottom line is that GW is an observable, so it seems best to have the main article about GW be about GW, and the subsidaries be about its broader effects. Awickert (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What PrBeacon says is true. Although this article deals mainly with the science it is obvious that it also serves as an overall summary of everything global warming. The "views" section makes this 1000% clear. Torontokid2006 (talk) 03:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems we all agree. Sorry that my first post didn't mention the politics at all, it was an expansion of a previous one of mine (above), but I neglected to move all of the info down. Awickert (talk) 05:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that's not clear. If you continue to think that this Global warming main article should primarily be about the science, then we don't agree. - PrBeacon (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, its a long standing consensus that this article should deal primarily with the science and information about politics/controveries should only be breif sections directing people to the articles that do deal with that. Information on the 'oil industry reaction' definitely does not need a section of its own on this page.  Also, there is a section called 'other opinions' where reactions of oil companies are already mentioned.  You could just add in some extra information there anyway.  Hitthat (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that some sources make a compelling argument that politics often comes before science in the AGW debate because science is, to a large extent, funded by government and private institutions who may have a stake in what particular aspects of climate change are researched and what conclusions are drawn. That being said, I don't really know at the moment how to reflect that in a way that doesn't disrupt the current fairly decent flow of this article.  The issue is definitely a lot more complex than just the energy industry's involvement.  I'm sure that many scientists would dispute the claim by some observers, such as Fred Singer, Ian Plimer, and Christopher Booker, that much of the AGW opinion is influenced by environmental and peace organizations who are looking for a new narrative to replace the anti-nuke movement which ended with the cold war. Cla68 (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we know where I stand on this: there would be no politics of GW without the science of GW. Plus what Hitthat said. I'll also add that it will take quite some convincing reasoning to change the status quo of the article. I have yet to be convinced by a reason to make the politics prominent, and even more so that the oil industry stuff can be given prominence without breaking WP:UNDUE. On the other hand, the IPCC reports provide a good source for both science and policy, and I think that this article reflects those well. But I'm going to step back and stop reiterating. Awickert (talk) 07:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've looked over the FAQ and some recent archives but I don't see a "long standing consensus that this article should deal primarily with the science" as Hithat says. I posed the question at POVN but in the past week it only received a reply from one editor who has already stated her opinion in these talkpages. It might be appropriate to poll current editors here and then summarize in the FAQ. Anyway, current public discourse seems to have shifted to using the term 'climate change,' despite what wikipedia says, so perhaps this part of the discussion is best moved there. (Though I note that that article seems even less encyclopedic overall than this one). - PrBeacon (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Try looking at the article content, which is the result of longstanding consensus William M. Connolley (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What Connolley says is true, I've been on this article and seen the various iterations of its discussion page.. This article has be debated over for a long time, and the conclusion is always that this article remains the article about the science of global warming. I think the mistakenly disparaging term is "Try looking at". However, I've witnessed much frustration on his part to explain to every newcomer what and why this article is. --Cflare (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Try replying without patronizing. - PrBeacon (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 3 bullets:
 * I don't think that William was trying to be patronizing. I think that he was just saying that the reason that the article has looked like its present form in the long term is because this is the consensus article.
 * Looks like from your post on the NPOV noticeboard that those folks also agree that it should cover primarily the science, as is the status quo here, and state that this is because this is an article on a scientific topic.
 * Climate change is the wrong place to discuss this, as that article doesn't have anything to do with modern global warming. Yes, the titles could be changed, but I don't want to go there... seems like it would be a long slog and a waste of time.
 * Sorry, PR. It looks like the consensus is against you. However, I would encourage you to work on parts of this and other articles that relate to your interests in the policy side of global warming. Awickert (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And my point is that consensus from article content is unclear, and WMC could have said what he meant without getting snide about it (as he does occasionally, I notice) or requiring another editor to explain it. You say "those folks" over at POVN but only one outside editor weighed in (so far), since the first response is from an editor who's already stated her opinion here. Perhaps it's time for an RFC on what the scope of this article should be. By the way, past consensus is not enough reason to keep the status quo -- otherwise, nothing would ever be changed. - PrBeacon (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think an RfC will do anything except take up editors' time, because I'm very confident that the status quo here is what the WP community wants. But you are welcome to start one. Awickert (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would not oppose a concise, well written section on the "corporate response", so to speak, though remember that many corporate entities today have moved into advocacy of technology oriented towards CO2 reduction, including the rapidly growing "alternative energy" industry. This aspect of the response to global warming is not just limited to the oil industry, but also includes organized, well funded climate change denial by "industry advocates", the energy lobby, and also free market think tanks. To single out only the oil industry, while they're a major player in organized climate change denial, would miss the influence of other important well-funded private groups with a vested interest in denying AGW. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus from content is clear enough; there was no attempt to be snide. Longstanding articles end up defining themselves. Yes this is subject to change, but you need to recognise that the consensus exists. You don't seem to have been aware of that before. If you are now, then good William M. Connolley (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I 100% agree with Kenosis. A corporate response section would be fitting and it should include the positive steps many corporations have made while still mentioning the funding of denial lobby groups and think tanks. Torontokid2006 (talk) 07:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Business action on climate change --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Kenosis et al.: "green" and opposition to it are becoming important in business. Awickert (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh! Thanks Kim. Maybe we could make a very very brief summary of that article and post it under the "Views on GW" section and add a link to its page. Torontokid2006 (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really. The reason i was referring to it, was that it is an article which needs significant improvement, and which should be your focus instead of this one. In turn BAoCC should be summarized up into the various subarticles that summarize the political part (politics of ..., impacts of .., adaptation to ...., mitigation etc.) and these then in turn get summarized back here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Very good point Kim. I shall work on that article. Out of "newbie" curiosity is this a wiki policy? Does the sub-article NEED to be completed before any related information is placed in the main article (this one)? Or is this just a "suggested practice"? Torontokid2006 (talk) 08:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:SUMMARY gives guidance on the process of moving excessive detail into sub-articles, WP:WEIGHT policy determines the principle of how much detail, if any, should be given to minor aspects of a main topic. Other pages may also apply, suggestions welcome. . . dave souza, talk 08:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As always, thanks Dave. Torontokid2006 (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

New reference at the top
After much thought, I think it would serve the editors' best interests to place a reference link at the top of the page to an article that discusses the global debate over how much impact humans have in the climate, which would include skeptics POV because it would not be a scientific article. I find people placing debate on this article because there doesn't seem to be much attention on people that disagree with this theory. However, since it is a scientific article I find no reason to have disagreement on it, and I akin it to having arguments against the theory of relativity on that article. It just doesn't make sense to me; it's like having an argument implying the Watergate scandal didn't occur on Nixon's page. As much as they may disagree on the basis of principle, I think that MANY people viewing this article aren't looking for the scientific presentation, but are more concerned with the geo-political response to the theory. --Cflare (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

67.165.202.101 (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)It is not a disagreement on principle, it is a disagreement based on research that has been silenced. Many of the scientists who are named as the original founders of the theory have stated that the focus of their research was global warming that was not man made; and the small portion of man made warming was negligible and not statistically significant.

This small portion of the original research was then focused on by “scientists” paid by funding for this very purpose. If they discovered no relationship between man and global climate change, they have no jobs; so it was in their economic interest to continue to find “proof” that man made climate change is significant. If that isn’t a conflict of interest, I don’t know what is. The fact that NONE of these researched and verified facts are not allowed to be posted on this “user editable” encyclopedia is ridiculous. Be better than the left wing liberal media and show both sides of the argument, or have this article be about global climate change not due to man made warming; then have a separate section about the debate of man made effects.

For the previous user to compare debate to man made warming to a denial of the Watergate scandal is ludicrous. There is a substantial effort to silence the legitimate research being done to disprove man made global warming due to the large amount of tax dollars, and large amount of jobs created by the man made global warming hoax. The fact that Al Gore receives a Nobel Prize and his fiction “documentary” receives so much acclaim, while a great movie, “The Great Global Warming Swindle” has barely even been heard of is as ridiculous as the juxtaposition of this argument and the one that the Watergate scandal existed.


 * @ Cflare, the links you suggest are included in the third paragraph of the lead, "Nevertheless, political and public debate continues." The index also gives access to the section on  Views on global warming, and its subsections on  Politics, Public opinion and Other views. Since this is the main article, it would not be usual to have a hat line such as For non-scientific aspects, see Politics of global warming and global warming controversy. Perhaps something on those lines could be considered for those unused to the standard hierarchy of articles. . . dave souza, talk 10:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Political debate and population growth
Intro

''The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is occurring.[6][7][8][B]  Nevertheless, political and public debate continues. The Kyoto Protocol is...''

The second sentence is poor. It implies that debate continues regardless of the scientific consensus. This is not correct. Part of the debate may be about the science, but another part is due to determining what the appropriate policy response should be. Science does not prescribe an appropriate policy response. This is incorrectly implied in the current revision. My suggested revision is:

There are different political and public views on what should be done about global warming

Views on global warming

Many studies link population growth with emissions and the effect of climate change.[119][120]

I don't like this sentence. It is true that population growth is linked with emissions, but there are also other factors, such as economic consumption, technological change, energy efficiency, decarbonization of the economy etc. It is therefore biased to single out population growth. I suggest that the sentence is removed. It can be replaced with something from the IPCC report.

You can divide emissions correlation between observed trends and projected trends. With regard to observed trends, this bit from the IPCC report is appropriate:

GDP/capita and population growth were the main drivers of the increase in global emissions during the last three decades of the 20th century.

This can be rewritten and moved to the greenhouse gas section of the article:

''(i) Between the years 1970 and 2004, growth in gross domestic product and population were the main drivers of growth in CO2 emissions. (ii) CO2 emissions are continuing to rise due to the burning of fossil fuels and land-use change.[41][42] (iii) Estimates of changes in future emission levels of greenhouse gases have been made, and are called "emissions scenarios." (iv) The future level of emissions will depend on uncertain economic, sociological, technological, and natural developments.''

With regard to future emission trends, I think that sentence (iv) is already an adequate summary. Enescot (talk) 07:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there anyway you could be clearer. Every time you propose something on the talk page, I have to struggle to understand what you're proposing. Part of that is you seem to propose changes in multiple section in one post. Keep things simple (for us stupid people). Also, line breaks are not currency: more is not better.
 * In this case, "intro"-disagree. Your version adds unnecessary words without adding any new information. "views on gw"- Kill it. Refs a book and a news article. -Atmoz (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No matter what you believe about the climate, the anti-growth policies promoted by the environmentalists only undermine our ability to deal with its, as Freeman Dyson has argued in detail. Growth and technological advances leave us better prepared for whatever the future might bring. Dyson's favorite example is the genetic engineering could allows us to create trees that absorb more CO2. Kauffner (talk) 02:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

"Misleading Phrases"
I think it would be fine to say "there is no substantial debate among scientists" or "there is no serious debate among scientists" or "there is no debate among climate scientists" or a thousand other formulations, but to say "there is no debate" as several editors are currently trying to insist we should do in the lead is really inappropriate, especially given that the source used to insert it does not support this statement. The source says that the impression that there is "substantive disagreement" is wrong, and that the impression that there is "disagreement among climate scientists" is wrong. This cannot be used to support a claim that there is no debate in the scientific community at all. All it takes is a single bona-fide scientist (in any discipline) to hold a contrary position, and the statement that "there is no debate among scientists" is false. We know that there is at least one.

Attempting to insert this clearly overstated, clearly incorrect phrase actually reduces the credibility of the article and plays up to those who imagine Wikipedia is controlled by a hotbed of far-left environmentalists ;) Oh, and avoiding WP:FRINGE problems doesn't permit us to oversimplify to the extent of falsehood.

Thparkth (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you please point us to the peer-reviewed academic journals where this alleged debate continues? TFD (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Debate" does not necessarily only occur in peer-reviewed academic journals. If a geologist and an astrophysicist get into an argument about it in a pub, that's still scientific debate, of a kind... if we mean to say "no scholarly debate", that's what we should say. Thparkth (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. There is ZERO debate that humans are contributing to changes in climate.
 * 2. There IS debate on how much humans contribute to changes in climate. The whole spectrum from LITTLE contribution to PRIMARY contribution to SOLE contribution has been represented in peer-reviewed articles.
 * 3. Very few skeptics believe that human activity has no impact. However, they are always painted as some redneck that denies that humans have any impact and that the world is flat. This is detrimental to science as a whole. Most major theories in physics are constantly debated and that field is easily tested. To suggest that the field of climatology has conclusive proof of anything when it does not even have a sufficient control group to conclusively test human contribution, is deceptive. There is no stable "Earth" without humans that we can observe. There is nothing close. All we can do is create a model of the climate of earth and suppose what would happen.
 * 4. Consensus has been wrong in the past. --Cflare (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Debate is over a point. There is no scholarly debate over whether we influence climate, ie. that there is an anthropogenic factor.... none what so ever. There is "some" debate over the relative proportion of anthro forcings vs. natural ones for climate (but the majority thinks anthro > natural for the last decades). There is serious debate over some impacts. etc etc. But on the one thing that the sentence actually addresses - there is no scholarly debate. In the words of one of the more well known critical voices, John Christy: "It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."  --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with everything you say here. The phrase you use, "no scholarly debate" is one I would support. There just needs to be a qualifier of some kind to make it less of an absolute. (There are absolutely no absolutes!) Thparkth (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The intro currently says that there is no "substantive" debate, but then explains that there is some social and political disagreement. I think that this is an accurate synopsis of the current state of the debate surrounding global warming.  The mass media, in general, still apparently continues to support the position that the science is "settled." Cla68 (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

What is it that there is no debate about? The "reality of anthropogenic climate change"? This sounds more like an article of faith than a proposition that is testable scientifically. If the issue if whether the earth is likely to warm, cool and stay about the same, there are certainly differing opinions. There is also debate about the "hockey stick" -- the idea that the climate in the last century is something unprecedented or at least out the ordinary. Kauffner (talk) 03:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Kauffner, we are well aware that there are individuals who oppose scientific consensus just as there are people who believe that Elvis is still alive. The issue is what credence the article should give to this type of theory.  NPOV dictates that it should be ignored.  TFD (talk) 03:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this discussion. It may be worthwhile to note some sources such as this: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE61N0TR.htm wherein it is noted "There is a lack of consensus" (by Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research). Vistle (talk) 04:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC) [user is blocked confirmed sockpuppet of scibaby --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)]


 * In the article, Trenberth said, "There is a lack of consensus on why global temperatures have not matched a peak set in 1998". He does not say there is a lack of consensus on global warming.  TFD (talk) 04:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * But what are the limits of "on global warming"? There are numerous questions of how much, manmade vs. natural, etc. that all constitute a debate. The phrase "no substantial debate among scientists" is incorrect. Vistle (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC) [user is blocked confirmed sockpuppet of scibaby --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)]


 * Can you please point us to the peer-reviewed academic journals where this alleged debate continues? TFD (talk) 05:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a straw man question. "Debate" obviously does not only occur in peer-reviewed journals, and thus you cannot claim "no debate" by looking only at peer-reviewed articles. You can make plenty of OTHER claims by looking at peer-reviewed journals, but "no debate among scientists" is not one of them. You could perhaps even say "No debate in climatology journals", but you certainly can't say "no debate" among scientists, as if the entirety of their lives are constrained to journal article writing. Some days they actually get out of the lab, you know... WavePart (talk) 08:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it is actually not a straw man question. Debate in science is done via the peer-reviewed literature, scientific conferences etc. It is not done outside of the "lab". And as stated below - there is no scholarly debate on whether we influence climate or not, and that is what the lede should reflect. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You conveniently threw conferences in with literature when the question only asked about the latter. --Dekker451 (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It's mildly amusing to think what would be a non-substantive debate. -Atmoz (talk) 05:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "According to our reconstruction, high temperatures - similar to those observed in the twentieth century before 1990 - occurred around AD 1000 to 1100, and minimum temperatures that are about 0.7K below the average of 1961-90 occurred around AD 1600. This large natural variability in the past suggests an important role of natural multicentennial variability that is likely to continue." Moberg, A., et al. 2005. Nature, Vol. 433, No. 7026, pp. 613-617, 10 February 2005. It is my understanding that the SUV had not yet been invented in the year 1000. Kauffner (talk) 05:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * JunkScience.com is not a peer-reviewed journal but a fringe science website. The article from NOAA that provides stats for temperatures does not provide any conclusion about global warming.  Please provide a peer-reviewed journal where there is a debate about global warming.  TFD (talk) 06:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I cut and pasted the quote from the abstract of the article, which is on the NOAA site. The article was originally published in Nature, perhaps the most famous peer-reviewed scientific journal. Kauffner (talk) 07:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * TFD, the quotation exists in the original Nature article, and thus should not be dismissed as "fringe". If the journal Nature is "fringe" we are in trouble... The full text requires the usual subscription/university access, but the quotation is available even in the publicly accessible abstract. WavePart (talk) 08:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * yes I would also be very interested in seeing this peer-reviewed debate on global warming that so many of you speak of. I feel like we're hunting for Big Foot! Exciting! Torontokid2006 (talk) 06:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * One of the debates on global warming: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/14/there-appears-to-be-something-fundamentally-wrong-with-the-way-temperature-and-carbon-are-linked-in-climate-models/ and the main article at: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n8/abs/ngeo578.html "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models" (Discussion of article in Nature Geoscience). Also, as mentioned above, see the Hockey Stick Controversy article to see the debates outlined there. It is not so much that we are hunting Big Foot as we are Camel Toe. Vistle (talk) 07:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC) [user is blocked confirmed sockpuppet of scibaby --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)]
 * Disregarding for a moment that one paper is rarely significant... This isn't good news. Since it would indicate that climate sensitivity in models are set too low, which correspondingly would mean that we have much more warming in store than what the current estimation is.


 * Finally: WP isn't a debate forum - This isn't the place to discuss global warming, in general, or what the scientific estimation is - that is something that we get from reliable secondary sources that take into account the full picture (as opposed to individual results) - such as the IPCC, US GCRP as well as the new NRC reports. And these are rather clear in their conclusions. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And these sources should be sourced accordingly by name in the text of the article. I agree that this is not the place to come to or assert conclusions. It is the place to document the conclusions others have come to, which is best done by properly noting specifically who has come to these conclusions, along with proper citation. WavePart (talk) 08:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So the consensus isn't in the peer reviewed literature after all, but only in an arbitrary chosen collection of official reports? In that case, I suggest changing, "There is no substantive debate amongst the scientific community as to whether or not human-made global warming is real," to "There is no substantive debate among official reports as to whether or not human-made global warming is real." Kauffner (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that these are "arbitrary chosen" and "isn't in the peer reviewed literature"? (hint: both are wrong). Assessment reports are peer-reviewed, and i mentioned all of them. Assessment reports do exactly what their name indicates: They assess the literature to determine where current knowledge is - they do not do original research - nor do they make up their conclusions, which stems entirely from the peer-reviewed literature. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, let's just go with IPCC. The first and second reports show a clear Medieval Warm Period. In the third one, it's sort of the there and sort of not. Only the fourth report shows a clear hockey stick. The version in the third report must represent a compromise between opposing factions. Even for AR4, the hockey stick graph doesn't match up with the proxies given in the report. This is "consensus" and "no debate"? Kauffner (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh? Your claim looks very inaccurate, and in what way does that discussion amount to any disagreement that human actions have contributed to global warming? The second review had enough evidence to persuade most countries that the Kyoto protocol was required, the third was the one that showed the famous "hockey stick", AR4 showed it differently but reaching the same conclusion about past temperatures. Your denialist web page (whodunnit?) is contradicted by more recent peer reviewed literature using more than tree ring proxies. . . dave souza, talk 10:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry? What does the MWP have to with whether there is a scholarly debate on humans influencing climate? And please don't answer that, since Wikipedia is not a debate forum. You will have to stay focused on the issue at hand, and not try to move the goalposts somewhere else. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Please provide a peer-reviewed journal where there is a debate about global warming. Torontokid2006 (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (Sorry for repeating myself, apparently replies part of the way up go unnoticed...) That's a straw man question. "Debate" obviously does not only occur in peer-reviewed journals, and thus you cannot claim "no debate" among a community by looking only at peer-reviewed articles. You can make plenty of OTHER claims by looking at peer-reviewed journals, but "no debate among scientists" is not one of them. You could perhaps even say "No debate in climatology journals", but you certainly can't say "no debate" among scientists, as if the entirety of their lives are constrained to journal article writing.  It's just a factually incorrect misrepresentation to state one thing as another in that manner.  WavePart (talk) 08:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but there is no scholarly debate at all about whether humans influence climate, there is debate on other issues within climate change, but for that particular one, there is none. Here of course there is the caveat that there (as in all fields) are some individuals who will dispute anything (see WP:FRINGE). This is not limited to the literature - it is simply "inconceivable" from a scientific point of view, to paraphrase Christy again, that we haven't influenced climate. -Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My objection there, which I still stand by 100%, and have repeated many times, is on the claim that there is no debate in the scientific community. Communities are made of people, and you cannot make sweeping claims about a body of people based on analysis of a body of literature.  That just fails the test of basic logic, which I would prefer if we could uphold here.  It would be like saying, "All members of American communities think people should be allowed to have guns" and citing the constitutional amendments as proof, and then arguing that it's a valid statement because the constitution is the supreme law.  It doesn't quite work that way.  WavePart (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no statement made about all of the community (at least not in any version i've seen). But if you want community responses, then see Scientific opinion on climate change, which cooks down to: No scientific body disputes anthropogenic influences to climate, and all major national and international scientific bodies support the current scientific assessment.
 * That there is no scholarly debate over whether humans are influencing climate is a simple and accurate statement, which reflects the literature as well as the direct statements from scientific bodies. We can't invent dissent.. Sorry. That would be promoting a WP:FRINGE viewpoint... and stating that there is debate about whether we influence climate is a very fringe viewpoint. Consensus is not unanimity (although it comes extremely close on this particular item of climate change)
 * You will have to provide evidence of debate if you are going to argue down this road - since otherwise you are trying to get us to prove a negative --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * So you are admitting that there is no proof? Then the claim should be taken out of the article. Does the Christy quote represent peer-reviewed research? Kauffner (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The inability to prove a negative is precisely why you don't write an article which goes out of its way to claim negatives are proven. We should simply write the things we CAN specifically document, for which there are plenty.  WavePart (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is documentable. Christy's statement is one of many that does so (and do take into account that Christy is one of the more well-known sceptics). The opinion of the community can be assessed by both assessment reports, but also by the statements from scientific bodies. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

So after all this interesting discussion, we still have one editor aggressively editing to keep the phrases "There is no debate amongst the scientific community" (instead of "There is no substantive debate") and "The scientific community agrees that..." (instead of "The scientific community largely agrees that...") in the article. I'm sure this is being done in good faith, but I'm not sure that it reflects a consensus from the discussion above. I would like to establish if there is a consensus for this wording, versus some (any) less absolute statement.

I know there are a thousand other issues that arise from this, but I'd like to have opinions specifically on whether we should say "there is no debate" and "the scientific community agrees" or whether these phrases should be qualified to make them lest absolute. Thparkth (talk) 10:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And I'll go first. I do not support the absolute statements. There is debate, although it is almost entirely not happening in peer-reviewed publications. So let's say "no scholarly debate" or "no debate in scientific journals" instead, since that's apparently what we mean. The scientific community is not 100% in agreement if there is even one dissenter, and there are quite a lot more than that. Let's say "the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that" or words to that effect. Thparkth (talk) 11:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No scholarly debate works well for me. But i have to say that i found the old lede both better and more clear on just about all accounts. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree x 100! It was a simple, neutral statement of fact. Thparkth (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * By that reasoning, as long as a single person expresses doubt on anything we must acknowledge that there is a debate. That provides a major concession to fringe theorists like flat-earthers.  TFD (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a note that Flat Earth does not contain a statement that "there is no debate about the shape of the Earth" but instead says "the hypothesis of the flat Earth has long been generally dismissed". Thparkth (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The article about the spherical earth theory however does not mention the ongoing debate that the earth may be flat. TFD (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The difference there is that the spherical Earth article doth not protest too much, and repeat over and over about how there's no debate anymore about the shape of the Earth. It simply states the history of the matter, because the people editing the spherical Earth article are not out to convince anyone of anything.  (And I might add, the spherical Earth article is stronger because of it.)  We need to also edit THIS article as if we are not out to convince anyone of anything.  As a matter of integrity, convincing is not the job of wikipedia.  That belongs elsewhere.  WavePart (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You have it the wrong way 'round. Flat earthers do not exist anymore and do not try to inject fringe theories into that article.  But there are plenty of people who try to inject fringe theories into numerous articles.  TFD (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * with all due respect WavePart your edits and reverts have only made the fringe views seems more legitimate. Don't feign the moral high ground by talking about "integrity" and "convincing" when you're efforts only water down the truth that there is no genuine scientific debate in regards to human-made global warming. When we talk about "debate" in the scientific sense we are talking about peer-reviewed studies, not casual discourse at the water cooler. You need to understand this DIFFERENCE.Torontokid2006 (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No they haven't. I encourage you to check carefully.  My edits have not supported ANY fringe theories.  What I HAVE done, is edit out over-reaction text which goes out of its way to try to counter minority theories that aren't even mentioned in the summary!  Attempting too hard to counter political debate in a summary where minority theories aren't even mentioned makes the article introduction sound like propaganda, and that's not what an encyclopedia should be or sound like.  The article doth protest too much.  WavePart (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you honestly want to leave out fringe views like you keep repeating, then write the article as if they don't exist. (Not as if you are trying to "beat" them somehow.)  WavePart (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This talk section has outlived itself. The "no debate" issue has been resolved. In regards to our topic about mentioning controversy and corporate involvement, I've created a new section for us. See ya there! Torontokid2006 (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This seems interesting:

From here: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/13/the-ipcc-consensus-on-climate-change-was-phoney-says-ipcc-insider/#ixzz0rONPXy3M The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony. “Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.” Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia—the university of Climategate fame—is the founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and one of the UK’s most prominent climate scientists. Among his many roles in the climate change establishment, Hulme was the IPCC’s co-ordinating Lead Author for its chapter on “Climate scenario development” for its Third Assessment Report and a contributing author of several other chapters. Hulme’s depiction of IPCC’s exaggeration of the number of scientists who backed its claim about man-made climate change can be found on pages 10 and 11 of his paper, found here: http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG%5B1%5D.pdf Ikilled007 (talk) 11:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You've been fooled. See . You need to learn not to trust newspapers, but especially not those like the NP William M. Connolley (talk) 12:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Uhhhhh, See the last link in my post? Yeah, it's to the paper you linked to, too. And on pages 10 and 11, it discusses the lack of consensus. What exactly is wrong? Ikilled007 (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I got the wrong link. You want, which points you to Hulme's statement William M. Connolley (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Continued Wikipedia reliance on newspaper accounts and blogs by "ignorant people with opinions" (as quoted above many many times) over accurate accounts using first party evidence makes Wikipedia look like a sandbox for juvenile egos. Here is some new documentation. Not that it will make a bit of difference to the "Make up your own mind" crowd. Note that denial is supported as being worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia because only three percent of the people that do it for a living think it is worthwhile. In my book, that's not noteworthy. Science 25 June 2010: Vol. 328. no. 5986, p. 1622 DOI: 10.1126/science.328.5986.1622-b taken from abstract: Full article: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/22/1003187107.abstract?sid=2ad23f2c-080f-4eb2-8723-fa2b1582e14e

User:b_calder Bob Calder 19:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I can point to a Wikipedia entry that lists scientists who disagree in some form with what is claimed to be the 'consensus' List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming PeterBFreeman (talk) 10:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But you need to read that page, which says: For the purpose of this list, a scientist is defined as a person who published at least one peer-reviewed article during their lifetime in the broadly construed area of natural sciences. There is no requirement to have published in recent decades or in a field relevant to climate. There also is no requirement for their views contrary to the global warming mainstream to have been published in the peer-reviewed literature, and most have not. So that page is of no real use wrt the discussion here. If you look at the articles talk page you'll find various attempts to improve it all stymied William M. Connolley (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

--K10wnsta (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How nice it is to return to this subject after several months to find nothing's changed. With activism still consuming like a cancer and the fetid corpse of objectivity remaining buried in a shallow grave, I cannot help but hang my head in shame as I bear witness once again to the mortal blows being dealt Wikipedia's already maligned credibility.
 * But I know remorse alone is of little consequence here. So I'll just leave a list of scientists, scholars, and peer-reviewed literature which defies the notion that there is 'no debate' on this matter and be on my way:
 * 166 well-qualified science and technology experts in the field of climate science who 'challenge supporters of the U.N. Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate'.
 * 29 science and technology experts in other related disciplines who concur with those above.
 * 750 peer-reviewed papers which contain arguments against humanity's influence on global warming.
 * Haven't we been through all this before? None of your lists convince; I'll look at the last because it is the most amusing. So, you're claiming 750 papers. But have you even read the list? Paers 1, 2 and 3 are essentially the same paper (trash in E&E, a *correction* to that paper, and a reply to a comment on that paper). So, we're looking at a highly padded list. Followed by a paper and its addendum (more padding), an unpublished paper; a paper, a reply, and an errata. And all this stuff is bottom-draw quality. You want http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2009/11/450-peer-reviewed-papers-to-support.html William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for fun, I looked through the list of "Science and Technology Experts well Qualified in climate Science". I'm sure they are all nice people, kind to dogs and their children, but qualified in climate science they are not. Habibullo I. Abdussamatov - fail. Göran Ahlgren - fail. J.R. Alexander -fail. Jock Allison, PhD, ONZM - unclear. And so it goes on. Hardly a convincing list of "well Qualified in climate Science" William M. Connolley (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Here I am adding debate. The first paragraph of the main article(titled, "Global Warming"), as of July 5, 2010 12:41 P.M. Eastern, contains the sentence: "The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is occurring." That is misleading. The sentence references 4 articles, all of which essentially say that "Local climates are subject to change." The article should be re-written and/or should contain the Neutrality/Disputed tag. Jsolebello (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)Joe E Solebello, Civilian, University of Rhode Island, Class of 2006
 * I'm puzzled by your characterisation of the refs supporting that statement. For example, the Joint Academies say However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring and they explicitly endorse the IPCC's work. By contrast, the word "local" doesn't occur at all. Did you read the statement carefully? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be better if you could choose who you debate with.76.106.186.17 (talk) 03:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)Joe E. Solebello

Here is an example, from the Joint Science Academy's statement: "the Earth’s surface warmed by approximately 0.6 centigrade degrees over the twentieth century." That statement implies that all of the Earth's surface warmed.

The easy, short-term solution is to re-name the article: "The Global Warming Scare." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.186.17 (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Existence of consensus: A says B about C formulation?
Sorry to jump in on an article I haven't worked on before, a friend and I were discussing the reliability, neutrality, etc. of Wikipedia. I do not like this sentence:


 * The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is occurring.[6][7][8][B]

I think it's pretty hard to find on an objective meaning for "scientific consensus." I'd prefer an "A says B about C," facts about opinions, formulation. In this case, I'd propose something like this:


 * Numerous national academies of science have made stated formally and officially that there is a scientific consensus that anthropogenic global warming is occurring.

OK? Dpbsmith (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You really need to do your due diligence and read through the archives. This sentence gets discussed time and again William M. Connolley (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * And? What's the justification for stating it flatly rather than "A said B about C?" Dpbsmith (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Many more national academies state it directly, too. See scientific opinion on global warming. Your sentence is actually original research, backed by your interpretation of primary sources (what is numerous? what is "formally and officially"?). But the national academy statements can serve as reliable secondary sources - not about themselves, but about the science. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the article scientific opinion on global warming as a response to my concerns. It's linked further down in this article. Would it be unreasonable to Wiki-link it from the phrase global warming in the sentence I cite? Dpbsmith (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I like it too; it seems quite reasonable to link it as you have William M. Connolley (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't quite understand. Could you detail what the opinion is, and who the holder of the opinion is? It appears to me that the opinion is "anthropogenic global warming is occurring," and the holder of that opinion is "The scientific consensus," and the source for that is BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, coupled with the fact that every national academy that has commented on it has said the same thing. Who was your friend, by the way? Hipocrite (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm parsing it as "The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is occurring." If the first reference were the only reference, then I'd word it as "Naomi Oreskes states that there is a scientific consensus" etc. To some extent, I take your point that a reference is an implicit "A says." I am not an edit warrior trying to chip away at global warming, I'm a fairly experienced Wikipedian trying to explain Wikipedia to others and thought the sentence was a bit off. I clicked on the references and didn't quite think they did it for me. As noted above, Scientific opinion on global warming is a beautifully detailed exposition of the "consensus" issue; if "scientific consensus" had been linked to Scientific opinion on global warming I'd have taken that as providing all necessary qualification and explanation. Of course if I'd actually bothered to read the whole article I'd have come across the link further down. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the "scientists" promoting man-made global warming theory have a vested interest (funding) in continuing what most objective (not funded to conduct research on climate or other global warming issues) scientists believe to be a highly flawed theory. The Earth has been warming for 18,000 years or so, and will likely continue to do so for a long time (although whatever triggers the start of a new glacial period could kick in). Global sea level has been rising throughout this warming period. The rate of global sea level rise has not shown a significant increase during the past 50 years. This lack of a significant increase in the rate of global mean sea level rise effectively DESTROYS the man-made global warming theory. It's time for the marxist, earth-worshiping "scientists" to find a new sow to suckle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.78.121.3 (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You might be more interested in our article Global warming controversy. You might also want to review, which is a Carlisle study of the military implications of global warming. Hipocrite (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Reference numbers seven and eight are broken.
Just an FYI 7&8 are down. Aaron Bowen (talk) 04:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ref 7 works for me. New URL for 8 found. -128.196.30.219 (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

editsemiprotected Please change:

To:

Thanks. -128.196.30.219 (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

✅ Hipocrite (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Definition error
'Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation'.

Eh, no it's not!!! 'Anthropogenic Global Warming' may (if proven) be considered for that definition. Global Warming is a process that predates the mid-20th century and also predates man. The problem with that opening sentence is it skillfully disquises 'AGW' as being Global Warming, as being what everyone is talking about. In doing so it also suggests a concensus amongst scientists that Anthropogenic Global Warming is Global Warming. The two processes are desparately different and should be discussed as such. Global Warming, Global Cooling is a natural process that has taken place since there was an atmosphere on this planet. Anthropogenic Global Warming is a disruptive, potential imbalance to the natural process that has (apparently) been taking effect since the mid-20th century. There is no evidence to suggest the outlandish claims made by exponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming are if-fact going to happen. They have used computer models to predict 'potential scenarios'. This is total hocum! No better than reading your stars in the paper. WE CANNOT PREDICT THE FUTURE!!! We can only GUESS!!! Surely the predictions that were made several years ago, that were due to be taking place now, but aren't, can be taken as a yard stick (if you will) to all future modelling. I am pretty certain we would then see results more akin to the results of proper science based on observation and empirical data which point to the fact that it's not going to be all that bad, after all a warm planet is far more desirable than a cold, cooling cooler planet (which I believe is now happening) and that has been suggested by someone in the IPCC that the 'cooling trend' will continue for another 30 years. Also, if your going to refer to Global Dimming, can you please suggest it's effects as Anthropogenic Global Cooling. If we are to be lead to believe that our pumping of greenhouse gases (this terminology needs a radical overhaul as well) into the atmosphere is resulting in the planet warming up, is it too much to suggest that the countering effects of atmospheric aerosols (placed there by man) that have potentially negated the effects of the warming be considered Anthropogenic Global Cooling? I can imagine to use such a term would infact confuse people too much; are we warming, are we cooling? And we can't have people getting confused now can we? Off-course not. Confusion suggests debate, as we all know the warmists out there in the MSM will not allow that.

Can you also please have this page released to editing? I am not a scientist and have no intention of offering an edit to such a piece. However, I am a tax payer and an inquisitive mind and do like to find out both sides of a discussion before siding with one camp or the other.

Thank you Killthegore (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The articles you want to read are climate change, which deals with climate change outside of the recent warming, and Global warming controversy which explains more fully the disputes that exist (though those disputes are covered in this article, in the various sections) Hipocrite (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also see the FAQ, newly introduced Q23. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The title should be changed
The title of this article should be changed to "Global Warming Theory", or, at least, we should use the word 'theory' in the first paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsolebello (talk • contribs) 18:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see FAQ question 8. --McSly (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely, you are joking. The top of this discussion page states: "This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them.." In other news, the Global Warming page could sure use my 10 edits. Jsolebello (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, "a scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. " (AAAS Evolution Resources). So I'm not sure I understand. Do you want to include a word in the first paragraph that completely contradict your own argument ? --McSly (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is the article that is under dispute, not global warming. TFD (talk) 23:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually it is the cause that is under dispute. The hypothesis is that CO2 is the reason and man is the culprit.  But this is a moot statement given the history of this article.  Arzel (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a "Global Warming Controversy" article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy), which is enough to merit a major warning on the main page.76.106.186.17 (talk) 01:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Joe E Solebello

I propose that the first sentence should say this:

"Global Warming is the theory that the "average temperature" of the entire Earth's "near-surface" air, and entire oceans, has increased since the mid-20th century. The theory also claims that the temperatures will continue to increase in the future."Jsolebello (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Joe E Solebello
 * That would be wrong. That the temperatures increase is a measured fact. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Then why are so many people are still trying to get the data and methodology. When only people using private data and secret models can determine the temperature, then it is neither "measured" nor "fact". Q Science (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Because they have no interest in actually getting the relevant data and methodology, but prefer to make a stink. The data is available, the methods are published. What is not universally available are processed value-added data sets and actual computer code. There is nothing to stop people from collecting the raw data and doing their own computation - proper scientific reproduction, not rerunning the same code on the same date, which is trivial. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be good to have Joe E Solebello and "killthegore" (see the the previous thread here) to testify as witnesses in the ArbCom case. What I want to know is how they formed their opinions. Count Iblis (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Jsolebello has a point, and that's that this article appears to mix two different topics. The first is that Global Warming is used to represent the current interglacial or "modern" warming period which has followed the end of the Little Ice Age.  The other meaning of Global Warming is the theory that humans are primarily responsible for the current warm period, versus alternate theories which say that natural causes are primarily involved.  Two different things.  I propose that this article name be changed to "Global warming theory" and a separate article be started called "Modern warm period" or "Modern interglacial." Cla68 (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Modern warm period article would cover the beginning of this warm period, its characteristics, and why scientists believe we are in an interglacial, and then explain the different theories, including human caused, for why this warm period started and is ongoing. Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Cla, i'm sorry - but you should be aware that your comment is non-sense. It mixes up glacial/interglacials and the LIA. The current interglacial is not the modern warm period - nor was the last glacial the LIA. LIA is simply a term - it has nothing to do with glacial/interglacial periods. If you are going to try to comment on a scientific field - then at the very least try to read up on it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No need for personal attacks here, Kim. I understand that some say that the LIA was not a glacial period at all, but a cooling trend during a longer warming period/interglacial lasting since the last major ice age.  That still doesn't mean that no one calls the current warming period, which appears to have started around the end of the 19th century, a "modern warming period."  The thing is, this article treats this period as a warming period then says that humans are probably the reason for it. Cla68 (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not a personal attack Cla, its simply pointing out that you have gotten things seriously wrong. There is no real nice way to tell people that they are wrong - sorry. No the LIA was not a glacial period at all - and i've never seen anyone claim that it should have been. Please look up Holocene or Interglacial. Try at least not to get the basics wrong. The graceful reply here would have been: Doh! Where did i leave my mind :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The article treats the current epoch since the start of the industrial revolution - and yes, during that period humans have caused some of the warming. According to the scientific estimation - most of the warming since the last part of the 20th century. (Attribution of climate change). If you want an article on the longer timescale - you should turn to Climate change. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Kim, there polite ways to disagree with someone. Saying, "I'm sorry, but your comment is nonsense" vs "I'll have to disagree with you here, because I understand that the LIA was not a glacial period, and I believe the literature backs me up."  See the difference?  Please try it, you'll find it works better.  So "Modern warming period" is a term often used for the warming trend since the end of the LIA?  What other names are used for it? Cla68 (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but i'm not going for aesthetical points here. Your comment was not a disagreement point - but so completely and utterly wrong that it was non-sense. And in such a case i go for being blunt --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Kim, please answer my question and please attempt to do so in compliance with our civility policy. Cla68 (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it's your responsibility to inform yourself to a useful level if you want to contribute on that topic. It's not Kim's job to do so. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

That's two votes for a title change.Jsolebello (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Joe E Solebello
 * See WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So, there are two positive indicators that there may be a consensus for a title change. Jsolebello (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Joe E Solebello
 * No, that just indicates two instances of disagreement with current consensus. The title is fine as it is. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Articles are named using the most commonly-used phrase that refers to the subject. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  18:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my post above isn't clear. I'm saying 'no' to the proposed renaming, because the subject is generally referred to as 'global warming' not 'global warming theory'. I suspect the motive for requesting the renaming is to trigger the It's ooonly a theeeerie! response that's been conditioned into the badly-educated by creationists when natural selection comes up. :) Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  10:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Amatulic believes the title is fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsolebello (talk • contribs) 18:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No to changing the title, since this article is about the warming itself, not just scientific explanations of it (discussions of mitigation strategies, politics of action, etc. would be inappropriate in an article just on the scientific theory). Explicitly calling the way scientists explain this warming a theory is redundant at best, and an attempt to prop up the position of skeptics at worst. Check the archives - this has been discussed dozens of times. &mdash; DroEsperanto (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

New ref
Enough non-science. Maybe we should fold some of this in here or about William M. Connolley (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Such are the trials of an on-line, layman-edited "encyclopedia". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsolebello (talk • contribs) 15:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But, it needs to be watched. This article is dangerous.Jsolebello (talk) 15:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Joe E Solebello
 * Very uneven in quality - based upon a cursory reading, some parts are well-done, others not so much.-- SPhilbrick  T  11:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Published by the Brookings Institution Press? -Atmoz (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Which makes it rather inedible. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Rahmstorf's "Statement C" should say something like "Anthropogenic Global Warming will have no strong effect on Humanity in the short or long-term, positive or negative." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.186.17 (talk • contribs)

Pix again
I prefer the warmest decade plot to the warmest month one. Mostly because any one month is closer to weather than to climate; we're aiming for long-term stuff, not just news William M. Connolley (talk) 08:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes good sense. I can regenerate the global plot for the decade using the NCDC dataset on the flat projection.  I'm not a fan of the Mollweide projection in the existing image since it squeezes so much of the northern landmass into a tiny area.  -- Autopilot (talk) 12:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Mollweide is an equal-area projection, meaning the number of pixels a region covers on the map is exactly proportional to the actual area it covers on the globe. For my money, that type of map is a vastly more accurate way of representing the high latitudes than a plate carree or similar flat map, especially when we are taking about something like a global average.  Dragons flight (talk) 12:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The equal-area projection unfortunately squeezes the "interesting" bits into only a few pixels and uses most of the area for the oceans. The description that "most of the heating has been in the arctic" is very hard to see since it is such a small portion of the image.  Averaging NOAA's month-by-month data for 2000-01 through 2009-12 produces a slightly different image, but the main trend is the same.  The data also clearly shows that the majority of the temperature increases are happening where there are people. -- Autopilot (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Temperature anomalies 2000s.svgGISS temperature 2000-09 lrg.png


 * "Squeezes"? No.  The right plot is a fair representation, while the left grossly exaggerates the importance of polar regions.  The most extreme warming is in the Arctic, but since only ~5% of the Earth is in the Arctic, it is certainly wrong to say that most the warming comes from there.  Either plot makes the point that warming is preferentially over land masses.  Dragons flight (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with DF. An equal-area projection is a much fairer representation of what is going on. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

How come one plot shows "no data" for most of Greenland and points north, and the other show extreme warming in the same area? Also, why does one show the Antarctic Peninsula warm and the other cold? I agree that an equal-area projection is preferred, but so is accurate data. Q Science (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Different datasets is my guess. NASA vs. (?) I don't think the difference you point out is there, since f.i. the Antarctic peninsula isn't in the (?) dataset. I agree with all of you on equal-area being the best projection --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The data comes from NOAA -- there was a citation for the June plot when I added it to the front page:

. Since there is clearly a rough consensus for the equal-area plot I'll see if I can convince gnuplot to plot it that way and also track down the NASA dataset for comparison. -- Autopilot (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A decadal mean is too short for climate, but I seem to be in the minority here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

RS
Cal sems to be on a bit of a campaign to replace RS's with non-RS's. Quite why is a mystery. But I hope he will stop. Cla: per endless discussion, RC is an RS for cliamte stuff. Fringe books by "skeptics" aren't William M. Connolley (talk) 12:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WMC, the Schmidt paper is not from a peer-reviewed scientific publication. It is from a self-published blog.  I replaced it with an independently published book written by scientist Ian Plimer.  Do you have any reason why WP's policies on reliable sources and verifiability should not be followed in this instance? Cla68 (talk) 12:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Cla, you aren't seriously saying that Plimer's book is reliable for other than Plimer's opinion- are you? [please read the Synopsis section in the H&E book, and tell me that this isn't a fringe reference] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Cla, just pause to read what is written. RC is a climate blog written by climate experts. As such it is an RS for cliamte-related matters. That discussion has been had, and agreed on. If you want to re-open it (and I think it would be a pointless sink of time) you need to actually properly re-open the discussion. Declaring, on nothing other than your own non-existent authority, that RC isn't a RS, is just disruptive William M. Connolley (talk) 12:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. RC clearly falls within the criteria of WP:SPS. A declaration of unreliability by one editor does not overrule existing policy, nor does it overrule the existing consensus on the reliability of RC. Plimer by contrast is way out on the fringes, demonstrably wrong on numerous issues and has no expertise whatsoever in the topic area. You might as well use Erich von Däniken to source an article about ancient Egypt. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The policy is clear that self-published sources, "are largely not acceptable." Some exception may be made for an established authority, but secondary sources are preferred.  Plimer's book is not self-published and he is also an expert in the field.  Here's the thing, I did not alter the text at all, so obviously the accuracy of Plimer's book for that text is not an issue here.  Again, we should not be using a self-published source if a reliable secondary one is available, which in this case, there is. Cla68 (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Lots of assertions here. Plimer is not "an expert in the field" (mining geology is not climate science). What is the scientific opinion of Plimer's book? ... Not very good - right? Sorry but while you may hide HSi under not getting reviews - this one has been reviewed, and rejected as WP:FRINGE. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Geology is one of the scientific disciplines involved with climate science. Also, none of those reviews takes issue with Plimer's views on greenhouse gasses.  I read the section in Plimer's book that I cited, and he said nothing that contradicted what the article said in that portion of the text.  So, what's the problem? Cla68 (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What section are you talking about, and which page. (i'm sitting with the book in front of me). The problem Cla is that Plimer's book is a fringe resource - we do not reference Erich von Däniken for measurements on the Pyramids, even if he got that part right. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact i just checked your assertion that "and he said nothing that contradicted what the article said". Which is quite frankly wrong. Plimer states in that chapter that 98% of the greenhouse effect is from water vapor - which is completely and utterly incompatible with the text and all the other references given. (and btw. one of the items that he has been criticised about - despite your assertion that he hasn't). Can you please verify that we are reading the same text. Mine is the Quartet edition, i checked on page 370 where Plimer provides a diagram. I do expect an answer to this - since i hope that you aren't misrepresenting the reference. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC) [note btw. also that 98% is completely incompatible with all scientific references i've read. Can Boris or WMC chime in on that? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)]
 * This is exactly what I was talking about when I said the book was demonstrably wrong on numerous issues. It's stuffed full of errors. Plimer mangles many facts, misrepresents others and simply makes up stuff. Ian G. Enting has produced a huge list of errors made by Plimer in the book, demonstrating why this book should never be used as a reliable source for anything other than Plimer's own peculiar views. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have the book in front of me right now, so I'll have to table my own response. What I will say, is that the article currently states that water vapor is the most major greenhouse gas, which Plimer does not appear to disagree with.  If Schmidt gives a different number than Plimer in his RealClimate paper, then we definitely need to go with Plimer as Schmidt's paper is self-published and Plimer's isn't. Cla68 (talk) 23:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting view Cla. Are you really saying that you made this claim without actually checking the book? And that we should trust Plimer, (because he wrote a book! (ignore the reception)) despite the fact that it is quite obvious to all who have read a bit on the science, that Plimer is wrong? Do we also ignore all the other references who contradict Plimer? (the Trenberth, and NCAR/UCAR refs?). Face it Cla: Plimer is a WP:FRINGE source - and he gets the basic physics wrong. This is getting beyond parody - sorry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you support keeping the Schmidt reference in the article, even though it's self-published? Cla68 (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Cla, i do. Because Gavin Schmidt is a published expert on this particular topic (radiative forcing)(Shindell et al(2009), Schmidt et al(2003) etc etc) Thus it matches all our exceptions for WP:SPS. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is Schmidt the only other source for this information on water vapor besides Plimer? If so, then I would say the text in question needs to be seriously reviewed for why it shouldn't be removed.  Basing text in a featured article solely on a self-published paper is unsound.  It sounds to me that we need to clarify that there are differences in opinion on the number, "Schmidt says that water vapor accounts for 78% of greenhouse gasses while Plimer states it is 98%."  I would be ok with doing that and including the RealClimate source in that context. Cla68 (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) No, Schmidt is not the only source. As with almost everything else he has said about climate (El Niño is caused by earthquakes; most CO2 is from volcanoes) Plimer is in violent disagreement with what is universally accepted by those competent in the field. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If Schmidt is not the only source, then why is only his paper used for the water vapor number in the article? If it isn't, then why wouldn't it be ok to also include Plimer?  It seems that, in this case, because Schmidt's paper is not independently published or peer reviewed, that the Plimer book actually meets our verifiability standard better and should be used in its place. Cla68 (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "why is only his paper used for the water vapor number" because it isn't (there are 2 other refs to that text). But even if it was, Schmidt is a reliable source to the information (matches expert clause in SPS) - Plimer's book isn't (fails reliability => FRINGE). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is Schmidt's RealClimate article referenced in any other secondary source that you're aware of? Cla68 (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, how about if we just go with Kiehl and Trenberth for now, and supplement with peer-reviewed sources as time allows? Cla68 gets a win by knocking out one from RC, while we avoid misleading the reader by including Plimer's nonsense. Deal? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wang et al (1976) and Mitchell (1989) give similar numbers to those in the text. Dunno what K&T's are offhand. ...or newer sources. -Atmoz (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think both sources (Schmidt and Plimer) should be included, plus more if there are more. I assume that there is no objection to using Roy Spencer's new book as a source since he is a climate scientist?  Cla68 (talk) 04:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Plimer's book is OK for political stuff but has no place in a serious article about the science. As for Spencer's book, what is the intended use? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know right now. I notice that the text on cloud composition and its effect on radiation is still unsourced.  I'm trying to find more sources for that and anything else where it would be helpful. Cla68 (talk) 04:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't the logic a bit backwards here? WP:V boils down to "Any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation", yet here Cla68 seems to be saying, "I think X and Y should be included, plus more if there are more. I assume that there is no objection to using Z as a source" as if the object were to bring certain sources into use, rather than to source certain material. Don't forget, it's building up the encyclopedia that counts. --Nigelj (talk) 11:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be an assumption on Cla68's part that Plimer's opinion should be included in the article simply because Plimer published it in a book. How would this work if we applied it to other articles on science? If we were to give weight to minority sources simply by virtue of their having been published in books, Wikipedia's science coverage would be very different. This isn't how we do things here. --TS 13:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal on yearly climate change articles
Hi. I have listed a new proposal at the talkpage of WikiProject Environment regarding Wikipedia articles that could be started based on the global warming subject, as it occurs per year. The idea is to either create yearly articles detailing the effects, observations, etc. of global warming and climate change given reliable sources per year (to avoid synthesis) based on an extensive list that could be further developed, or to create a timeline of major developments in both climate science and climate-related occurrences in the real world, new modelling simulations, etc. (somewhat similar to History of climate change science ). If there is any interest in the proposal, please discuss basic concerns related to the existing articles and the incorporation of new articles here, and specific details on the WikiProject talk page. Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 14:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * An annual period is suitable for weather, but not for climate. For climate observations you'd probably looking for a window of two or three decades. --TS 00:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Sorry I think I missed the point of your proposal, which refers to scientific developments as well as climate observations.  I'm not clear that we'd need to do that, though, unless a single timeline article existed and became so large and unwieldy that it would need to be divided up. --TS 01:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Climate science weather' or 'Which way is the wind blowing in climate science'? Treating scientific publication like a world-series sports event? Divide the scientists up into attack and defense players and plot their moves on a giant scoreboard? Maybe we could sell the rights to satellite TV stations. Hmmm. --Nigelj (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it would be much better simply to archive the existing article as an interesting relic of a particular way of thinking at the turn of the millennium, and to start completely again. The real article that should be here is "climate forecasting". This is a scientific article with no political bias and doesn't presume to know what is actually happening to the climate. To be frank, the present article is really a poor rewrite of the groupthink of a particular eco-political group who have taken over the field of the climate and really is doing no one any good, not wikipedia, not science nor even the eco-political grouping that runs this subject. 85.211.197.74 (talk) 08:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Given past history on this article there's not a hope in hell of a sensible discussion on name change, but that can't stop me being sensible. I propose a change of title to global temperature forecasting. 85.211.197.74 (talk) 08:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's wrong on several different levels. Not only is it a invented neologism, it's not even remotely descriptive of "global warming" in any accepted sense, nor of climate modeling. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Stephen, as we all know global warming as a topic has been as totally discredited as the 1970s global cooling fad. Global warming is "non topic", it is not a subject of research it is a particular conclusion at a particular time based on what we can now see was a lot of garbage data and personal opinions/hysteria by a certain eco-political mindset. It is putting the cart before the horse The subject is climate forecasting, the science is the science of forecasting climate trends. 'Global warmings' is no more a subject of long-term interest to wikipedia than the "double dip" predictions by some economists. Economics/climate forecasting is the key, the particular viewpoint on what is happening to the economy/climate is far less relevant and equally subjective. 85.211.197.74 (talk) 09:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No. The aim is understanding the climate system and its forcings. "Forecasts" are not relevant, models are. Models allow certain predictions, but these are, of course, conditional (X number of major volcanic eruptions, Y amount of sulfur emissions, Z greenhouse gas emissions will likely result in certain changes in climate). But that is besides the point. This article describes the phenomenon of global warming using reliable sources. If you can find reliable sources for your proposal, feel free to write it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

In reporting science, we're really limited by the peer reviewed literature. Global warming is a very significant phenomenon, both in the instrumental and satellite temperature records and in multiple lines of climate-related research, from basic research through to trying to understand the causes and mechanisms in operation in earth's climate. For general discussion of climate research there are articles such as climatology. As long as the thermometers, the seasons, the primary literature and review articles reflect the reality of global warming, we as an encyclopedia don't have the option of treating it as if it didn't exist. --TS 13:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a good idea to list global warming-related events in chronological order (or perhaps reverse-chronological order) on a timeline, and the proposal presents a list of items that could be included in such a timeline, but that would make each year very extensive, especially the most recent years. Although I agree that the climate change itself would be on a multidecadal basis, certain specific events can be directly or indirectly linked to warming, for example openings of the Northwest Passage, release of methane clathrates or coral bleaching events. I'd say that we need at least one reliable citation for each event if it's a scientific journal, and at least two citations each if they are from news sources, but a link to global warming must be exliciptly mentioned and not simply inferred. This is where a timeline could get extensive, so the proposal is to publish that timeline first. I see that this discussion has derailed into an argument on the reality of global warming. If the IP is referring to the "Climategate" email affair, that alone disproves nothing about climate science or climate change, nor do the skeptic publications that followed it. However, these types of incidents could be mentioned within the timeline. We could also include notable figures such as Stephen Schneider and Al Gore, but this should probably be avoided at first as to prevent POV warring and BLP issues. I don't think it's necessary to include all sorts of weather records, unless they are especially siginifcant pertaining to global warming, for example an entire large country setting a record high average temperature by a few degrees for a three-month period, or northern hemisphere land temperatures setting a new record for a specific period, etc. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 15:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Political debate and population growth
Intro

''The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is occurring.[6][7][8][B]  Nevertheless, political and public debate continues. The Kyoto Protocol is...''

The second sentence is poor. It implies that debate continues regardless of the scientific consensus. This is not correct. Part of the debate may be about the science, but another part is due to determining what the appropriate policy response should be. Science does not prescribe an appropriate policy response. This is incorrectly implied in the current revision. My suggested revision is:

There are different political and public views on what should be done about global warming

Views on global warming

Many studies link population growth with emissions and the effect of climate change.[119][120]

I don't like this sentence. It is true that population growth is linked with emissions, but there are also other factors, such as economic consumption, technological change, energy efficiency, decarbonization of the economy etc. It is therefore biased to single out population growth. I suggest that the sentence is removed. It can be replaced with something from the IPCC report.

You can divide emissions correlation between observed trends and projected trends. With regard to observed trends, this bit from the IPCC report is appropriate:

GDP/capita and population growth were the main drivers of the increase in global emissions during the last three decades of the 20th century.

This can be rewritten and moved to the greenhouse gas section of the article:

''(i) Between the years 1970 and 2004, growth in gross domestic product and population were the main drivers of growth in CO2 emissions. (ii) CO2 emissions are continuing to rise due to the burning of fossil fuels and land-use change.[41][42] (iii) Estimates of changes in future emission levels of greenhouse gases have been made, and are called "emissions scenarios." (iv) The future level of emissions will depend on uncertain economic, sociological, technological, and natural developments.''

With regard to future emission trends, I think that sentence (iv) is already an adequate summary. Enescot (talk) 07:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there anyway you could be clearer. Every time you propose something on the talk page, I have to struggle to understand what you're proposing. Part of that is you seem to propose changes in multiple section in one post. Keep things simple (for us stupid people). Also, line breaks are not currency: more is not better.
 * In this case, "intro"-disagree. Your version adds unnecessary words without adding any new information. "views on gw"- Kill it. Refs a book and a news article. -Atmoz (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll try to put things differently. In regards to the intro, my concern was that it implied that a scientific consensus on global warming should lead to a political consensus on global warming. This is due to the use of the word “nevertheless” to join the two sentences together. On reflection, I think that this is probably unimportant.


 * On the issue of population growth, I think that the existing revision has two problems. Firstly, it only points to the link between population and GHG emissions, and ignores other factors affecting emissions, such as economic consumption. Secondly, mention of population growth is not linked to a particular viewpoint, i.e., “some people think that population control should be used to combat global warming.”


 * On the first point, my suggested change is to refer to the IPCC report which breaks down emissions growth according to the Kaya identity. This allows emissions growth to be linked to economic consumption, energy efficiency, population, and the amount of low-carbon energy sources in the energy mix. I think that the Kaya identity is an unbiased way of understanding and consisely summarizing factors that affect GHG emissions. My revision is also more specific than the previous revision, in that it explains how these factors have influenced emissions over a specified time period (1970-2004).


 * On my second point, I think that the existing mention of population growth in the section on “views on global warming” is out of place. The “views” section deals with conflicting opinions on what should be done about global warming, e.g., “developing countries blame developed countries etc.”. Mention of studies linking gw to population is a fragment, and is not used to build an attributed argument to a particular interest group. Since mention of population growth is not linked to an argument based on gw, it does not belong in the “views” section. It should therefore be moved to a different section. In my opinion, mention of population growth should be moved to the section on GHG emissions. There, the fact that population growth is linked to growth in emissions can be stated without the need to relate that fact to a particular interest group, e.g., one favouring population control.


 * To conclude, my revision (1) addresses the problem of bias in concentrating on population growth while ignoring other factors affecting emissions, and (2) moves mention of factors affecting emissions growth to a more appropriate part of the article. Enescot (talk) 07:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No matter what you believe about the climate, the anti-growth policies promoted by the environmentalists only undermine our ability to deal with its, as Freeman Dyson has argued in detail. Growth and technological advances leave us better prepared for whatever the future might bring. Dyson's favorite example is the genetic engineering could allows us to create trees that absorb more CO2. Kauffner (talk) 02:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, there is an interrelationship between climate change and population, as recent events show, for example these tragic developments. However, though progress is uncertain, we can always hope that technology can improve, and that mini cows could save the planet..... dave souza, talk 09:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Theory
Shoudn't this page be titled "The Global Warming Theory?" This theory isn't proven, and need much more evidence. As well as that, the article is presented as fact, not a theory. This is clearly not right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.96.158 (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See the FAQ, Q8. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Flat Earth does not have 'theory' in the title, even though it is obviously not true. The lack of that word implies nothing. Zazaban (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Etymology section
While I like the etymology material that was recently added, it made me wonder about news reports and pundit interviews I have heard over the past few months, which claimed that the term "climate change" was introduced as a synonym into the political debate by conservative politicians / denialists who felt that the term "global warming" was too alarmist. I have now heard variations on this theme often enough that I wonder it deserves mention. I tried, and failed, to find anything authoritative that could be used as a source, though. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Accidental rollback
Sorry folks, I seem to have pressed the wrong link when running a diff, and accidentally rolled back an edit here. I've undone it. --TS 22:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Section Predicting disasters
The sub-section "Predicting disasters" added by OrpheusSang doesn't seem to fit under "Adaptation." Three reasons. First, it's sourced to the Guardian, compared to the IPCC and the Journal of Geophysical Research, it seems more newsworthy than noteworthy in an encyclopedic article. Second, so far it's just a meeting, there are many others such as COP15, and not a lot has been set in stone; holistically and in my opinion, I don't think it's notable. Third and finally, the section title "Predicting disasters" and the sentence "[...] early warning system, that would predict meteorological disasters caused by global warming" seems premature and inaccurate; to my understanding predicting meteorological events is to weather, not climate, climate's the statical distribution of these events. Therefore I believe it should be removed or moved. --CaC 72.251.76.95 (talk) 06:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In this sub-section, AGW is treated as a kind of secular god that we can blame for rain in Pakistan or any other unfortunate event that might happen. Kauffner (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your reading, not mine, and your description is a silly way to respond to a serious issue. . . dave souza, talk 07:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with CaC, WP:NOTNEWS and I've not been able to find more informative sources about this specific conference. There's a significant topic involved here, which should be expanded using better sources. Therefore, I've moved the paragraph to talk, below, for further discussion and proposals. . . dave souza, talk 07:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"On August 15, 2010 The Observer reported that that the following week scientists from the world's three leading meteorological organisations: The US National Center for Atmospheric Research, the UK Met Office and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration would meet in Boulder, Colorado to set out plans to set up an early warning system, that would predict meteorological disasters caused by global warming. The meeting was to come in the wake of disasters including record flooding in Pakistan, a heatwave in and around Moscow and the splintering of a giant island of ice off the Greenland ice cap.ref http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/15/climate-change-predict-next-disaster"

- moved from article by dave souza, talk 07:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Divergence problem
A recent edit added the following caveat to the caption of the image Commons:File:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png:


 * The divergence between the instrumental and reconstructed data in recent decades has led some to question the historical accuracy of the reconstructed data

As it stands I believe this is an overstatement. The divergence problem only affects a proportion of boreal tree ring proxies. Other proxies are not affected. I'm also in some doubt as to the weight this should have in this overview article. --TS 18:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point, already resolved: deleted at 19:56, 28 August 2010, by Wikispan. . dave souza, talk 06:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I made the edit in question. I'm sure that we all agree that the divergence problem exists, and that someone looking at a chart which overlays instrumental data on reconstructed data should be aware of it. How then can a brief, neutral mention of the problem possibly be excessive? I am not a climate change skeptic, but I believe in honest presentation of science, warts and all. This should be in the article. Having said that, I won't be putting it back in. Thparkth (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What evidence do you have that it's a significant issue in the graph concerned? It shows a number of reconstructions at a scale where the Divergence_problem would barely be visible, though some reconstructions do seem to diverge from the instrumental record. "Some" is a weaselly term, and suggests undue weight to fringe scientific views. Note also that numerous proxies don't have the divergence problem. If we did mention it we'd have to outline the range of proxies used, and show how it has only affected some trees but not others. There's a case for saying more about the inherent uncertainty of reconstructions increasing the further back they go. It could also be noted that global climate has been warmer in the past, exceeding present temperatures in the previous interglacial periods and possibly during the Holocene climatic optimum. . . dave souza, talk 18:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspect the issue can also be related the potential for the divergence problem to have existed in the past as well. So as the reconstructions could also be subject to a divergence issue....that said I dont think anything needs to change in the figure. --Snowman frosty (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest I don't think it's a major issue for this article. Obviously I think it would be worth mentioning, but I'm not going to pick any fights over it :) Thparkth (talk) 19:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

IAC report
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/196642 Its going to be a good day when the world will finally see that Wikipedia is stuffed full of pseudo-scientific "bullies" who impose theory as fact in an effort to manipulate what they WANT science to be, versus what is the actual truth. Most wikipedians are white, leftist, anti-capitalist, and global warmists who emotionally WANT anthropogenic global warming to be fact, and are far less open to the idea that it may not be a fact at all. for the sake of Wikipedia's credibility, lets hope that all these reports coming out are just one big Rush Limbaugh conspiracy. You wont cite an article like this will you? http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/196642  Of course not. Thats because this is not about science, but emotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.52.158 (talk) 04:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please take a minute to look through the FAQ above, perhaps especially Q.11. --Nigelj (talk) 11:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC) The IAC report that you indirectly referenced is being discussed here, and is not due to be published until tomorrow. A pre-publication preview of its executive summary is available here for the time being. --Nigelj (talk) 11:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

How strange, that scientists, who spend their entire lives studying the subject, are driven exclusively by emotion, while conservative talk radio hosts, with no training at all, are never emotional. Maybe it is all the mathematics that scientists have to learn that make them so much more emotional than talk radio hosts. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Please take a look through the FAQ" ... you may as well just ask Pachuri, Mann and all his chums who write this gumf whether we are allowed to mention anything they don't approve of. This isn't an article on global warming, it is a propaganda article written by a small group of people with no interest in science. The simple fact is no one cares what the article says any longer. Like the Berlin wall it should be preserved as is as a monument to stupidy! 85.211.173.217 (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of giving this section a more descriptive title. There is a detailed, and decidedly more sober, article on the subject at the CSM. From that article:


 * The review panel, assembled in May at the request of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri, did not address the science of global warming itself.

I'm sure we'll want to write it up in the article on the IPCC. --TS 16:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Media coverage of climate change
I feel I ought to flag my creation of Media coverage of climate change in case anyone's interested in contributing to it or linking to it, etc. Rd232 talk 13:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

With media interest in climate change plummeting like a stone, this is hardly the time to start a new article on an already tired and out of date subject. It would be much better to consolidate the enormous verbose articles in this area into a couple of historical documents which future historians may find useful when they come to research the various environmental fads of past eras. 85.211.173.217 (talk) 08:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 95.232.245.175, 12 August 2010
In the article aren't mentioned deesagreement theories, but they exist. For a neutral explanation of the argument I suggest to cite the theory of ‘Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres’ of the hungarian ex NASA deployer Ferenc Miskolczi. Original theory: http://met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf

95.232.245.175 (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * per below. --Stickee (talk)  22:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that other theories aren't mentioned, but the Wikipedia consensus seems to be that the scientific consensus is in favor of anthropogenic sources being the primary cause of global warming. That being said, I can't say that that article is sufficient evidence to the contrary.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The wikipedia consensus is that this article should be POV, does that therefore mean it is right that it is POV or that the consensus is wrong? 85.211.235.82 (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Please point to the section of WP:NPOV that a part of the article violates, and we can talk about that part in more detail. Thanks. Jess talk&#124;edits 07:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The idea of a scientific "consensus" is, in itself, a little misleading. Very few scientific theories have been promoted to the rank of "fact" (this isn't one of them). The word consensus, should be changed to "opinion", or "main stream opinion" or something like that. It really isn't a consensus at all. Even if the UN says it is.Dkronst (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus has no place in science. Science is based on facts, and it only takes one good fact to prove a whole load of consensus wrong. It is the arts who don't have facts and base everything on opinion who use this wierd notion of "consensus". Real scientists don't care twopence for consensus, they don't run opinion polls they don't have to because they have facts to back up what they say not some stupid media consultant run opinion poll of paid-up employed climate "scientists". Consensus has no place in science. The facts either prove it or they don't, anything in between is just waffle and no scientific article would ever stoop so low as to try to assert anything based on some PR media, arts degree waffle of some consensus. 85.211.173.217 (talk) 09:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a solution to the debate over Consensus versus Proven Facts could be to rename the article "Climate Change: A General Consensus" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oz Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing is ever proven in science. The best that can be done is to review the scientific literature and establish what can be inferred from the general thrust of well replicated results.  In the large scale, one way of doing this is by many domain specialists surveying or reviewing the literature in their field, and contributing towards a larger review which is itself reviewed by a panel of scientists.  This is one of the meanings of "scientific consensus."  In the field of climate change, the body that carries out such reviews is the IPCC.  Another, lesser meaning of scientific consensus is the endorsement of the IPCC's main conclusions (that there is a recent warming trend which is probably partly due to human activities increasing the proportion of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere) by national scientific bodies like the Royal Society and the National Academy of Sciences.  --TS 16:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This discussion is moot, because the sources say "consensus." The term is explicitly endorsed by the science academies of all the major industrialized countries. Our personal opinions on the place of "consensus" in science are irrelevant unless we can find sources better than the science academies, which would be a tough assignment. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The first and most pertinent definition of consensus is "general agreement". Perhaps some people get it confused with unanimous. Nonetheless, anyone who is familiar with how science operates will understand exactly what consensus means, precisely because rational appraisal of evidence and theoretical prediction is required to make judgements. Hence, peer review. Ninahexan (talk) 01:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Royal society now say global warming has stopped!
The proposal is based on unsupported original research, there is no substantial support for it and none is likely to materialize, and in the light of that there is consensus to archive. --TS 19:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article describes global warming as a continuing process. This assertion is now clearly at odds with the Royal society who make it clear that: "This warming has not been gradual, but has been largely concentrated in two periods, from around 1910 to around 1940 and from around 1975 to around 2000." In order to accommodate this change in scientific thinking I suggest the following change to the first sentence:


 * "Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of the of Earth's near-surface air and oceans as was experienced from around 1910 to around 1940 and from around 1975 to around 2000." Isonomia (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You are trying to synthesize a general trend out of specific statements. This is not helpful. You are misrepresenting the source, which says nothing about global warming not continuing, or not happening currently. It discusses two periods of more substantial warming, which is discussed in this article - "Global temperature is subject to short-term fluctuations that overlay long term trends and can temporarily mask them. The relative stability in temperature from 2002 to 2009 is consistent with such an episode." Hipocrite (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)
 * Here is the para from which you (Isonomia) excerpt, and the following one.


 * "Measurements show that averaged over the globe, the surface has warmed by about 0.8oC (with an uncertainty of about ±0.2oC) since 1850. This warming has not been gradual, but has been largely concentrated in two periods, from around 1910 to around 1940 and from around 1975 to around 2000. The warming periods are found in three independent temperature records over land, over sea and in ocean surface water. Even within these warming periods there has been considerable year-to-year variability. The warming has also not been geographically uniform – some regions, most markedly the high-latitude northern continents, have experienced greater warming; a few regions have experienced little warming, or even a slight cooling."
 * "When these surface temperatures are averaged over periods of a decade, to remove some of the year-to-year variability, each decade since the 1970s has been clearly warmer (given known uncertainties) than the one immediately preceding it. The decade 2000-2009 was, globally, around 0.15oC warmer than the decade 1990-1999."
 * The RS do not say or imply that global warming has stopped. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  19:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Come on Squiddy, they clearly have not included the last decade of cooling for very obvious reasons: because it is cooling. As everyone already knows this, I really don't know what the fuss is here with stating the blatantly obvious: Global warming has stopped. It is therefore extremely misleading, no that isn't strong enough, it is blatantly false, to fail to mention the lack of warming in recent times. Now I know the fact that there has been no recent warming isn't exactly welcome news here, so I've used the wording of the RS to concentrate of the "concentration in two periods", rather than the lack of warming. I think this more than a a fair compromise and I can't see how you can argue against its inclusion. Isonomia (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't quite understand - the RS says "The decade 2000-2009 was, globally, around 0.15oC warmer than the decade 1990-1999." This does not appear to say anything about warming stopping. They note that there was lots of warming in two specific periods, but I think you're taking that and syntehsizing something they didn't say. Hipocrite (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, there's nothing here that's not already well covered, certainly no U-turn and no 'stopped' warming. What we need is not one editor picking sentence at a time out of context and starting new sections on each one, but reliable secondary sources that say what other academics are making of the RS's new summary. Then we can see if there's anything worth noting in the article here. --Nigelj (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hipocrite, I did think you better than that! The RS position is a huge change, and as you well know there are many many many other sources saying that global warming has stopped including the BBC. You are arguing against the proposal I could have made: "it has stopped" rather than the compromise I picked which is to include the quote regarding periods of warming. Now stop agreeing with me not to include the cessation of warming in the lead and start addressing the actual proposal!! Isonomia (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Tsonomia, you seem to think that "each decade since the	1970s has been	clearly	 warmer	(given	known	uncertainties)	than the one immediately	preceding it. The decade 2000-2009 was,	globally, around 0.15oC	warmer	than the decade 1990-1999." equals "global warming has stopped". You're wrong. Please read more carefully. . . dave souza, talk 22:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Now we get the brilliant news that (1) the BBC is an authority on science and (2) the BBC says global warming has stopped. Wonderful news.  But sadly not true. --TS 22:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The proposition is that the first sentence is changed to reflect the Royal Society position so that it now reads: "Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of the of Earth's near-surface air and oceans as was experienced from around 1910 to around 1940 and from around 1975 to around 2000." It is not to say: it is cooling. The fact it is widely accepted that global warming has stopped, is A reason for putting this change. Note for those who are purposely being obstructive IT IS ONLY ONE REASON lump it or like it, it doesn't matter because the point under discussion is whether the lead should reflect the position of the pre-eminent scientific body. 85.211.202.125 (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ... Sorry, Sorry...couldn't resist.--Topperfalkon (talk) 23:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, enough with the jokes. Can we get back to discussing the article? Guettarda (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The current status suggests not, so I would suggest we archive this section. Count Iblis (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with archiving. Just a handy reference – "the warmest 12-month period in the GISS analysis was reached in mid- 2010," however "the monthly anomalies in 2010 have declined steadily over the past five months as the Pacific Ocean moved into the La Niña phase.... it is not possible to say yet whether 2005 or 2010 will be the warmest calendar year in the GISS analysis.".... "it is likely that 2012 will reach a record high global temperature. The principal caveat is that the duration of the current La Niña could stretch an extra year, as some prior La Niñas have." Interesting times. . . dave souza, talk 08:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Before archiving isn't it necessary to discuss the proposal under consideration? YES IT IS. Now lest discuss the proposal and no stupid tricks like avoiding addressing the proposal by archiving it!85.211.129.195 (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The proposal was addressed. The proposal is wrong. It took a quote out of context, and it suggests that warming in certain periods implies cooling in all other periods. It is widely known that global warming has stopped by conservative news sources, who also know that global warming never started and that global warming when it started was not caused by burning fossil fuels. They also know that thousands of climate scientists doubt global warming and that all climate scientists are liers. They also know that nobody minds it when they contradict themselves. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems Fitting
Seems fitting that there is no critic section of this in relation to articles about how humans are not contributing to the global climate change.

Almost all references to the opposite of "man made global warming" is conveniently not to be found. If man can cause global warming, can it cause global cooling like in the 70's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.197.90 (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Essentially all of the talking points against man-made global warming are the stuff of conservative talk-radio, and the conservative propaganda machine follows the usual rules of propaganda -- stick to a small number of talking points and repeat them over and over. This is one of those talking points.  You can find them all at global warming controversy. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Not so, ever hear of Willie Soon? He's an astrophysicist, not some conservative talk radio host. Funny that what you accuse the skeptics of doing are the ones I see done on CBS and CNN quite often. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.229.227 (talk) 09:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * See also the FAQ at the top of this page, particularly perhaps Q1 and Q13. --Nigelj (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Even as the bottom falls out of AGW everywhere else, the POV warriors remain in charge at Wiki. When the media fails to even mention the fact that the White House has scrubbed its Web site of climate related promises, the issue must be truly dead politically.. A leading statistics journal has published a paper that shows once again that the hockey stick it is fraud and isn't supported by the raw data Micheal Mann claims he used.(McShane and Wyner) End-of-the-world theories that didn't come true are a dime a dozen. The greenhouse gas theory was proposed in the 1890s and again in the 1930s, only to be discredited by a drop in temperature both times. Kauffner (talk) 06:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Kauffner, you seem to be under the misapprehension that WattsUpWithThat is a "leading statistics journal", or that the much heralded draft McShane and Wyner paper has been published. It will be interesting to see if this obviously flawed paper does get published, and if so what amendments appear. More significantly and on-topic for this article, Lake Tanganyika is experiencing unprecedented warming as a result of anthropogenic climate change – see Jessica E. Tierney et al., 2010 Late-twentieth-century warming in Lake Tanganyika unprecedented since AD 500. Nature Geoscience 3; June 2010 pp 422-425. . . dave souza, talk 07:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * By definition, something local to a particular lake is not about global warming. Local phenomena must have local explanations. The surface temperature of Tanganyika has been rising for hundreds of years. More sediment causes it to rise faster. There's been deforestation and road building, but an AGW explanation gets more attention.


 * Despite your sarcasm, McShane and Wyner is already listed on the journal's website. Kauffner (talk) 05:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Like any paper, we need to see the recognition it receives before including it. So far Google scholar shows no citations.  TFD (talk) 07:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Still preliminary, but Zorita has some interesting comments. . . dave souza, talk 07:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is one of those FAQ Q22 situations. Also McShane and Wyner would almost certainly be considered for Hockey stick controversy rather than here because it is specifically an evaluation of proxies used in paleoclimatology and has nothing much to say about the recent warming. --TS 15:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The article already has dozens of references dated 2010. But a source that doesn't fit an agenda will always be too new or too old. Kauffner (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I could understand that complaint if the editors of this article were in the habit of slipping in singleton, non-review research papers dated 2010. On the contrary, if you search the references section for the year 2010 mostly that appears in "retrieved" dates for web copies of papers that are for the most part several years old and review papers, not primary research.  --TS 01:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Old Farmer's Almanac?
Really? Why? It's not remotely a reliable source for climate predictions, the reference is two years old, and the "Brattleboro Reformer" may be reliable for local information, but is hardly a source of wide notability. Moreover, the quote (if it is one) is unclear - is Joseph D'Aleo contributing to the OFA or to the BR? The whole sentence is also grammatically challenged, and at least archaically quaint, not encyclopaedic. Is the intro ("Said ...") also lifted from the article (in which case it should be marked as a quote) or the creation of a Wikipedian? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources referenced in the journal's Wikipedia article indicate that it has been a notable voice in weather and climate forecasting since 1792. If you don't like the verbiage, please suggest alternative wording. Cla68 (talk) 10:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean notable voice for local (US/Canada) weather forecasting. Only very recently they got into climatology and started making statements about the global climate. This really doesn't belong in the article.  SPLETTE &#32;:]&#32;How's my driving? 11:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Aren't almost all of the AGW predictions fairly recent, as in since the mid to late 1980s? I thought it was only around the mid-1980s that the theory of man-made warming started to gain widespread attention.  Anyway, you're right about the almanac being oriented only to the United States.  For that reason I'm going to remove it. Cla68 (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought it was nice because it gave the article a lighthearted touch. It made the contrarians look a bit foolish (really, the Farmer's Almanac?) but after all it's verifiable. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at Talk:Old Farmer's Almanac and at the article itself, I see that the item was included in the article. I've commented on that, and then noticed that somebody had recently said that the publication in question was a quite different one with a similar name: Farmer's Almanac. The claim seems credible, but I'm still investigating.

On the sourcing, I have to ask that those who suggested this please stop dredging the barrel ever deeper. Sourcing science facts cannot be done from daft almanacs, books written by retired accountants, newspaper articles of any description, newspaper opinion columns written by writers infamous for their scientific incompetence, and the like. We are living through the golden age of science--more scientific information is available to scientists and the public, from extensively reviewed sources, than at any other time in history. There is no need to muddy our reporting of the known facts with nonsense and obfuscation. --TS 23:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Tony. Cla68 (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Tony, I notice that there are a few other references in the article that are not from scientific publications, including an article called, "The Truth About Denial" from Newsweek. Does your editorial above also include that source, or only sources that I add? Cla68 (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think all sources should be of the highest quality, but scientific matters should be sourced to reliable statements of scientific opinion held by a majority or a significant minority of qualified scientists in the field. The Newsweek piece is one of several sources for the statement that some oil companies and political organizations are attempting to challenge the science, just as the tobacco companies successfully held back healthy public policy for decades by compromising the science. This real life problem is in turn why we must be particularly careful on sourcing.  --TS 19:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Royal Society: "future temperature increases ... are still subject to uncertainty".
Uncertainty is covered in all relevant sources and the new report does not introduce anything new. In the circumstances, change of content does not seem to be merited. --TS 00:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Following the change in position of the Royal society, the lede fails to adequately signal the uncertainties in this subject and to address this I suggest including the following quote in the lede: "The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty" Isonomia (talk) 12:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The article currently says: Climate model projections summarized in the latest IPCC report indicate that the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the 21st century. I think that addresses it. Guettarda (talk) 12:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the sentences either side of the one quoted from the RS are very apposite too: "There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation. [already quoted above] Nevertheless, the risks associated with some of these changes are substantial." That doesn't sound like a change of position to me. --Nigelj (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Both responses are totally irrelevant and not exactly constructive because I was talking about signally the uncertainties in the subject in the lede. Isonomia (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Both responses address uncertainties. How is that "totally irrelevant and not exactly constructive"? Guettarda (talk) 12:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * “There remains the possibility that hitherto unknown aspects of the climate and climate change could emerge and lead to significant modifications in our understanding.” (Royal Society) As I recall it, it wasn't long ago that the same society was saying: "the science is settled". This is a major U turn by the society on the certainty of manmade global warming and the lede must reflect it. Isonomia (talk) 12:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how those statements are contradictory. Please see the scientific method article. Science, no matter how "settled" remains subject to uncertainty. If the Royal Society said otherwise, that would belong in an article about the Royal Society, not here. Guettarda (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Our lede (i.e. our summary), sentence by sentence goes: [defn] [average rise] [cause (human)] [counter (dimming)]. The RS summary similarly reduced, goes [cause (human)] [uncertainty/range] [risks] [politics]. It is clear that we have a more tempered summary already than the RS: we place two statements before stating the cause (they place it first); we mention global dimming very prominently, which they omit at this level; they go straight from the science into stating the substantiality of the risks and so the importance that "decision makers take account of [climate science's] findings", which we do not venture into this high up the article. So, by a point-by-point comparison, even after this alleged "change of position", our introduction to GW is more muted than that of the RS. I can't see why anyone would want to argue with this, other than to argue that we should be more definite. --Nigelj (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Since we don't cite a previous RS statement to support the lead, any revision in their stated views is not immediately relevant to the lead. At first glance our lead looks entirely consistent with the new report, though it covers different periods. While it's not really relevant to the lead of the article, no evidence has been presented by Isonomia that the same society was saying: "the science is settled". Their previous statement which can be downloaded from this page covers different aspects of the topic, and clearly does not suggest that the science is settled. . . dave souza, talk 13:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nigelj, I take that as a vote in favour of changing the lede to include uncertainty which as you kindly demonstrated is not adequately covered by the lede. I suggest adding the phrase: "although uncertainty still exists" to the relevant phrase with a reference to the Royal society. How does this sound?Isonomia (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you could have missed my original reply (since you said "both responses") but as I said before, the article (and specifically, the lead) already says Climate model projections summarized in the latest IPCC report indicate that the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the 21st century. We already have a specific statement about the uncertainty. Why would you want to replace a specific statement of uncertainty with the far more vague "uncertainty still exists"? That's not an improvement. Guettarda (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how Isonomia could have so misread what I wrote. The first two sentences of the second para of our lede are all about the uncertainty, in far more detail, as Guettarda says. My analysis of the first para showed that we are more muted than the RS; then we quickly go on to devote more coverage to uncertainty than they do. My first comment here was that this doesn't look like a change of position at all. I don't know how to say this any more clearly, so I'll assume that any more reported misreadings don't need responding to. --Nigelj (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nigelj, may I remind you of the previous utterings of the society: "This is not intended to provide exhaustive answers to every contentious argument that has been put forward by those who seek to distort and undermine the science of climate change and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of global warming", followed by a point by point "how to answer a global warming denier". This is like chalk and cheese, it is a complete U turn by the society and no doubt a huge humiliation to those who wrote the first one to have their wings so severely clipped. The fact remains that one of the most authoritative body on science is highlighting the uncertainty in the subject and any neutral article will reflect this prominently.Isonomia (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This proposal sounds like original research. It is not even apparent to me that it is at all accurate. --TS 16:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You could also try arguing that old chestnut that a press release of the royal society was not peer reviewed. The point is that the Royal society has dramatically changed its view since Lord May said: "The debate on climate change is over." or perhaps the change can be more dramatically illustrated by his quote: "On one hand, you have the entire scientific community and on the other you have a handful of people, half of them crackpots.". How can the present position of: “There remains the possibility that hitherto unknown aspects of the climate and climate change could emerge and lead to significant modifications in our understanding.” be compared with the previous position that: "The debate on climate change is over."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isonomia (talk • contribs) 17:16, 30 September 2010
 * Do you have a reference for the Royal Society (or any scientific society) stating "The debate on climate change is over"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Stephan, the quote comes from the previous head of the RS Lord May, and you will find it on the BBC webpage: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10178124 Isonomia (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I take that as a no, then? I checked the previous statements, as far as I know them, and found no such phrase. Of course individual scientists, even prominent ones, will occasionally say things that can be misinterpreted, or that are somewhat overstated. But there is no statement that I, or apparently you, know of that has the official support of the RS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you going on about. I gave you a link to a quote showing a change in attitude of the Royal society. Whether or not you are capable of finding the quote, doesn't matter as I'm not suggesting including that quote. The fact is that that the article amply shows the change in tone of the Royal society. That position is now that there is uncertainty and the lead must reflect the scientific consensus of uncertainty in this subject !!! Isonomia (talk) 21:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It shows no such thing. It shows, at best, a discrepancy between your understanding of a single statement by an individual and the current considered position of the society. It shows no such discrepancy between any previously published statement by the society. And what do you think is the statement "is likely to rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C" if not a statement reflecting the uncertainty? Compare "it will rise 3.2 °C" - do you see the difference? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

On the original claim at the head of this section, that there has been a "change in position of the Royal society", what evidence do we have to support that? I notice that the Daily Mail also seems to claim that the Society has changed its position, but from the statement of John Pethica I see no sign of a change. --TS 14:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, it makes no sense to ignore "especially at the regional scale". This refers implicitly to the situation in the UK: "the possibility of large changes in the circulation of the North Atlantic Ocean cannot be assessed with confidence. The latter limits the ability to predict with confidence what changes in climate will occur in Western Europe." We already had an unusually cold winter in the UK recently, and there were reports that this was due to a failure of the Gulf Stream to reach the region. Given the very real chance that the British Isles will get colder as well as smaller, while most of the rest of the world gets warmer, it's not surprising that the Royal Society stresses the possible regional variations in this way. Hans Adler 15:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)