Talk:Climate change/Archive 65

Images 1 and 2
I was thinking of adding a few mages to this article. The first two would go in the politics section, and relate to Article 2 of the UNFCCC treaty:

''Most countries are Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The ultimate objective of the Convention is to prevent "dangerous" human interference of the climate system. As is stated in the Convention, this requires that GHG concentrations are stabilized in the atmosphere at a level where ecosystems can adapt naturally to climate change, food production is not threatened, and economic development can proceed in a sustainable fashion.''

''The Framework Convention was agreed in 1992, but since then, global emissions have risen. During negotiations, the G77 (a lobbying group in the United Nations representing 133 developing nations) pushed for a mandate requiring developed countries to "[take] the lead" in reducing their emissions. This was justified on the basis that: the developed world's emissions had contributed most to the stock of GHGs in the atmosphere; per-capita emissions (i.e., emissions per head of population) were still relatively low in developing countries; and the emissions of developing countries would grow to meet their development needs. This mandate was sustained in the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention, which entered into legal effect in 2005.''

''In ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, most developed countries accepted legally binding commitments to limit their emissions. These first-round commitments expire in 2012. US President George W. Bush rejected the treaty on the basis that "it exempts 80% of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the US economy."''

''At the 15th UNFCCC Conference of the Parties, held in 2009 at Copenhagen, several UNFCCC Parties produced the Copenhagen Accord. Parties associated with the Accord (140 countries, as of November 2010) aim to limit the future increase in global mean temperature to below 2 °C. A preliminary assessment published in November 2010 by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) suggests a possible "emissions gap" between the voluntary pledges made in the Accord and the emissions cuts necessary to have a "likely" (greater than 66% probability) chance of meeting the 2 °C objective. The UNEP assessment takes the 2 °C objective as being measured against the pre-industrial global mean temperature level. To having a likely chance of meeting the 2 °C objective, assessed studies generally indicated the need for global emissions to peak before 2020, with substantial declines in emissions thereafter [...]''

See climate change mitigation for the image sources.

As I've argued before on this talk page, I think that the relationship between emissions and concentrations should be explained in this article.


 * I have a minor problem with the term "CO2 emissions" in the caption because, for example, emitting CO2 by burning sustainably grown wood would not lead to growth in its atmospheric concentrations. However, the emissions/concentrations graphs illustrate an important concept and I'm in favor of their inclusion.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 06:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Nice text on an important piece of the puzzle. TreacherousWays does raise an interesting question ("observations" thread above) regarding how much detail of any subpart is appropriate for a summary article.  My emotional reaction was "HOORAY great text important stuff but oh no, more dense information for an already dense article".  Whether it goes in this article or another its a great first draft.  At a minimum I would like to see the concept mentioned in this article, supported with images, but to me these particular images lack communication punch, and I already know the concept they are trying to express.  I'd be interested in seeing other approaches to graphically communicating the same concept, if available. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe the text Enescot has reproduced above is the existing text in the article and is only for conext. I don't think Enescot is proposing any textural change here.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for kicking me under the table. Guess I dozed off.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose you could get round that by referring to “net” CO2 emissions. I had another look at the source material, and came up with another idea for the second caption:    In order to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, worldwide emissions must be dramatically reduced from their present levels.      Most worldwide emissions lead to a net increase in concentrations, so I think that this helps to avoid the problem. Enescot (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems good to me.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 09:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Much improved with the captions, E.  In their current form, these graphics do a great job communicating something about the science.   The graphics themselves still do not tell the reader why they are relevant to the text in the politics section, and the text in the politics section doesn't get around to talking about concentration targets and stabilization for a long way down from the top.   So at the moment, they strike me as a little divorced from the section's main thrust, at least in the opening paragraphs.  Maybe that would resolve itself if the images simply move down a bit in the section, I'm not sure.   Please take as well intended criticism - cheers for your effort to illustrate this important point! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. The third sentence of the first paragraph of the politics section does refer to stabilizing GHG concentrations - As is stated in the Convention, this requires that GHG concentrations are stabilized in the atmosphere at a level where... - so I think placement near the top is acceptable. I agree that the caption text could be changed to make the link between the treaty and concentration stabilization clearer. My suggestion is: Article 2 of the UN Framework Convention refers explicitly to "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations (IPCC, 1996)." In order to stabilize the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, emissions worldwide would need to be dramatically reduced from their present level. The additional cited reference is:  Enescot (talk) 02:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Image 3
The other image I want to add shows some of the observed impacts of global warming. It could go in the "attributed and expected effects" section. The existing image on glaciers could be deleted:



''Global warming may be detected in natural, ecological or social systems as a change having statistical significance. Attribution of these changes e.g., to natural or human activities, is the next step following detection.''

Natural systems

''Global warming has been detected in a number of systems. Some of these changes, e.g., based on the instrumental temperature record, have been described in the section on temperature changes. Rising sea levels and observed decreases in snow and ice extent are consistent with warming. Most of the increase in global average temperature since the mid-20th century is, with high probability, attributable to human-induced changes in greenhouse gas concentrations.''

''Even with current policies to reduce emissions, global emissions are still expected to continue to grow over the coming decades. Over the course of the 21st century, increases in emissions at or above their current rate would very likely induce changes in the climate system larger than those observed in the 20th century.''

''In the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, across a range of future emission scenarios, model-based estimates of sea level rise for the end of the 21st century (the year 2090-2099, relative to 1980-1999) range from 0.18 to 0.59 m. These estimates, however, were not given a likelihood due to a lack of scientific understanding, nor was an upper bound given for sea level rise. Over the course of centuries to millennia, the melting of ice sheets could result in sea level rise of 4–6 m or more.''

''Changes in regional climate are expected to include greater warming over land, with most warming at high northern latitudes, and least warming over the Southern Ocean and parts of the North Atlantic Ocean. Snow cover area and sea ice extent are expected to decrease, with the Arctic expected to be largely ice-free in September by 2037. The frequency of hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation will very likely increase.''

Ecological systems

''In terrestrial ecosystems, the earlier timing of spring events, and poleward and upward shifts in plant and animal ranges, have been linked with high confidence to recent warming. Future climate change is expected to particularly affect certain ecosystems, including tundra, mangroves, and coral reefs. It is expected that most ecosystems will be affected by higher atmospheric CO2 levels, combined with higher global temperatures. Overall, it is expected that climate change will result in the extinction of many species and reduced diversity of ecosystems [...]''

The article does not, in my opinion, adequately convey the strength of evidence for the observed effects of global warming. I think that adding this image would help in addressing this problem. Enescot (talk) 01:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm more ambivalent towards the third image (than 1 & 2 above). Image 3 contains a lot of data and speaks to the question of 'is global warming happening', however I'm not sure that it really addresses the main problem with that section - not much clarity on the potential effects in practical terms - ie what has been and what, in different scenarios, would be the tangible effects on humans and their environment.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Enescot that the image would be very useful - it's a striking illustration of the multi-pronged, mutually reinforcing evidence much of modern science is build on. On the other hand, it's hard to integrate the image at a sufficiently large size to be more than decorative. So I'm sitting on the fence... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I like it too. On my screen image size is fine, and the exception for finely-detail images being larger than the default would seem to apply.  See section on images in WP:MOSNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ian that the section has problems. The reason I suggested the change was mainly because it's an easy change to make. I think the issue of whether or not warming is happening is vital. Perhaps it would be better addressed by making a change in the article's text somewhere, e.g., “a wide range of evidence strongly supports the view that the climate system has recently warmed.” In reply to Stephan's point, I could edit the image to include only the sea level and Northern Hemisphere snow cover graphs. This would allow the two graphs to be made bigger. It would then essentially be a rip-off of the IPCC's work. Enescot (talk) 04:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the power of the graphics comes from showing a multitude of evidence, so no, I would not restrict it to only a few indicators. We should try to find a way to get the full concept in somehow, hopefully here, but possibly in a sub-article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, I agree with Stephan. If everyone used a full size monitor like i do, this would not be an issue.  But for folks doing their wiki on much smaller devices I can see where large pics with fine detail can be problematic.  Beats me how to proceed.  Maybe turning the double column of images into a single column? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

`

Other views section
The Other Views section states:

"Most scientists accept that humans are contributing to observed climate change"

The use of the word "accept" implies an absolute certainty about the theory of AGW. Akin to saying - Most scientists accept that the planet is round. Also in the following sentence -

"However, some scientists and non-scientists question aspects of climate-change science -" The inclusion of the term "non-scientists" has a pejorative connotation, seeming to indicate that those who do not adhere to the theory have a less informed viewpoint. Do "non-scientists" not also adhere to the concept of AGW, so this should be mentioned in the first paragraph?

Suggestion for edit:

"Most (many?) scientists adhere to the theory that humans are contributing to observed climate change. National science academies have called on world leaders for policies to cut global emissions. However many other scientists question aspects of climate change science, specifically the link between human activity and climate change."

This (or something similar) provides a more neutral viewpoint for this section and adheres more to statement of fact than insertion of opinion regarding the theory of AGW.

ABLegler (talk) 02:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there might be a case for removing "some non-scientists" for the reasons stated above. It's worth noting that it's the job of scientists to question so anyone working in the field of climate science will be, almost by definition, questioning some aspect of climate science. But, "However many other scientists question aspects of climate change science, .." gives an impression that many scientists have doubts about the validity of climate the science as understood by the reader of the sentance. To say "many" scientists doubt fundamental aspects of the science of global warming would not be accurate (at least in the context of group size). There have been many studies - Doran, Anderegg, Oreskes, von Storch - into the opinions of scientists on global warming. Scientific opinion on climate change is a good place to start to understand the range of opinions. I do not know of any scientist publishing in the field of climate science who doubts that there is a "link between human activity and climate change" and would be interested to see a citation of such a view.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 08:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Enescot reply to ABLegler
Your suggested edit does not have a source provided to support it. The current edit is supported by two references, and is also implicitly supported by the article scientific opinion on climate change. I'll refer to the two sources cited:

US National Research Council report
The first is a report by the US National Research Council, which states:

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 (see Figure 1).

I do not see that there is a significant difference between the words “accept” and “agree”. However, I would be happy for the article to be changed to:

Most scientists agree that humans are contributing to observed climate change

Royal Society document
Note: this is also available in html format. Quote:

'Misleading arguments: Many scientists do not think that climate change is a problem. Some scientists have signed petitions stating that climate change is not a problem.'

'' There are some differences of opinion among scientists about some of the details of climate change and the contribution of human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels. Researchers continue to collect more data about climate change and to investigate different explanations for the evidence. However, the overwhelming majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main points, even if there is still some uncertainty about particular aspects, such as how the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will change in the future.''

'' In the journal Science in 2004, Oreskes published the results of a survey of 928 papers on climate change published in peer-reviewed journals between 1993 and 2003. She found that three-quarters of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the view expressed in the IPCC 2001 report that human activities have had a major impact on climate change in the last 50 years, and none rejected it.''

'' There are some individuals and organisations, some of which are funded by the US oil industry, that seek to undermine the science of climate change and the work of the IPCC. They appear motivated in their arguments by opposition to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol, which seek urgent action to tackle climate change through a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.''

'' Often all these individuals and organisations have in common is their opposition to the growing consensus of the scientific community that urgent action is required through a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. But the opponents are well-organised and well-funded. For instance, a petition was circulated between 1999 and 2001 by a campaigning organisation called the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM), which called on the US Government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition claimed that "proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."''

 These extreme claims directly contradict the conclusions of the IPCC 2001 report, which states that "reducing emissions of greenhouse gases to stabilise their atmospheric concentrations would delay and reduce damages caused by climate change."

'' The petition was circulated together with a document written by individuals affiliated to OISM and to the George C Marshall Institute, another campaigning organisation. On 20 April 1998, the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued a warning about the document circulated with the petition because it had been presented "in a format that is nearly identical to that of scientific articles published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences." The statement pointed out: "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal." ''

I think the above text supports the use of the term “non-scientists”. Indeed, “non-scientists” is probably too weak a description of the deliberate effort by some to undermine public understanding of human-induced global warming.

For the sake of additional clarity, I've provided two other supporting references below:


 * Memorandum by Professor Sir David King, former Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government – Section on “THE CLIMATE CHANGE SCEPTICS”
 * "The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" (page 3).

Enescot (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

CANVASS CALL - Proposed policy about overlinking in edit summaries
CANVASS CALL - Proposed policy about overlinking in edit summaries

FYI I have proposed a policy about links in edit summaries; Since this page is often the subject of improper overlinking in edit summaries by various IPs, I thought readers of this page would be an appropriate group to canvass, in case anyone has a pro or con opinion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: The proposal failed and voting is closed, though I'd be grateful for comments on my talk page.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Those various IP's are one very annoying IP jumping editor doing the same thing on many, many articles with anything relating to AGW. Arzel (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Only one editor?? At Talk:Planetary boundaries there were a lot of sections titled "Add [url]" (with no substantive content) being added, nearly all from IP addresses in Michigan.  Is this the same guy? _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * My guess is yes. Some folks have said there's someone in lower Michigan they've dubbed "The Kalamazoo Kid".  Whatever the story is, there are a LOT of lower Michigan IPs with the same basic m.o. and a penchant for climate articles.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Someone keeps reverting my edits
(This comment was cut out from midstream in the prior thread and given its own section heading, since it has nothing to do with the prior thread) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Somebody keeps reverting my changes. My changes cite the specific scientists with criticisms of global warming orthodoxy and note that some, including Nobel Prize winners, have resigned from the American Physical Society in protest of that organization's view that the evidence for man made global warming is "incontrovertible." I also cite sources showing that the Earth has been both warmer and colder in the past than now, and that periods of warmer Earth have generally been associated with increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Whomever makes these reversions is slanting the article toward regarding global warming as settled science. There is a controversy about it. The current version of the article correctly notes that most prominent scientific organizations that have put out statements about the subject take the view that man made global warming is supported by the evidence. However, it is also a fact that many scientists disagree. This is in contrast with basic equations of physics and chemistry, where nobody disagrees. Editing out the other side of the controversy impoverishes the article rather than improving it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickcrane (talk • contribs) 19:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Three different people have reverted your edits. There are very many scientists in the world; we do not have room in this article to cover the views of all of them. If you want to understand the weight of the views of mainstream scientist on this topic try reading Scientific opinion on climate change. Yes there is a history of natural climatic variation (covered in part in climate change) and perhaps this article would be improved by placing global warming in that context but it would need to be done well. There is a media bias which seeks to give the impression of a much greater degree of controversy over the science of this topic than exists. Nothing (in my view at least) is incontrovertible (including any physical equation you choose to name) but many aspects of the science of global warming are well settled.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many people have done the reverting. My comments are accurate. Science is not about "mainstream" vs. "not mainstream.' It's about the gradual accumulation of evidence. F=ma and E=mc2 not because scientists have voted on it, but because all experiments confirm it true. The Earth has been much warmer and much colder in the past then now. It has generally been warmer, and has had rather high co2. All the graphs in the article under discussion are misleading because they exclude 4 billion years of Earth history and focus on an insignificant few decades. Global warming theory has been established by models, not experiments. That's not science. That's why some scientists have resigned from APS in protest. That's a very unusual thing for scientists to do. I do not think the media is biased in the direction of exaggerating the controversy. Rather, many media take a scoffing view towards anyone who questions global warming orthodoxy. I for one don't question the view that there is significant evidence in favor of the man caused hypothesis. But, as a doctoral level scientist with a master's in philosophy of science I can tell you that the evidence is nothing like as certain as that for current physical or chemical theories or for the theory of evolution. The evidence for global warming is more like that for evolution in Darwin's day, before we discovered all the "missing link" fossils and found the DNA basis for evolution.


 * One would think that someone with that much education would read [their own talk page comments] and if they had done so, they'd remember to sign their edits. After you finish that, please see Talk:Global_warming/FAQ NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering that the APS is a physics organization and not a climatology organization, that it is made up of physicists and not climatologists, any "action" in protest by its members to a science of a separate discipline that is being pushed by the media is itself an example of media exaggeration. The same would be true if members of APS suddenly started protesting over neuroscience. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The reason that I don't have as much facility with the mechanics of Wiki as you is that I have other things to do than to vandalize others' work. APS is a scientific organization. Climatology, otherwise known as weather forecasting is not a science. Computer models are not experiments. Criticizing APS is an ad hominem argument, not a factual or logical one. Your comments are completely devoid of facts about global warming. It's all your POV. The purpose of Wiki is to convey information, not to push POV. That's why my comments are factual. Vandalizing them doesn't increase the case for global warming. Rather, it appears consistent with the advocates of that hypothesis that attempt to persecute others with divergent opinions. It's much like the Catholic Church persecuting Galileo. It didn't prove anything. I await your comments on how the fact that the world has generally been warmer in the past than now, and often had similar co2 levels bears on the view that man is the only possible cause of temperatures now that are slightly higher now than a couple of hundred years ago.


 * Read the FAQs, they answer all of your objections. There is a relatively small number of talking points that conservative propagandists use over and over.  It doesn't matter that these talking points have been repeatedly refuted.  Repetition is more effective than logic.  The message is always the same: don't make Big Oil pay any of the costs of the polution it produces. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Further, that you call the science of climatology "weather forecasting" may indicate part of the problem; climatology isn't the science of weather forecasting. Meteorology is the science of weather forecasting. Climatology, and indeed the science of climate change, is not concerned with weather anymore than gerontology is concerned with predicting each bone break someone experiences over their lifetime. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the materials inclusion again and blocked Rickcrane for 24 hours for 1RR. All I ask is Rick once you come back don't think you will gain anything by continually trying to add your thoughts to the article space. Go through the talk page and gain concensus for your additions, but personally there is the majority argument standing in your way that yes the Earth has seen higher temperatures, co2 than we have currently, the main issue is that the current change is supposedly unprecedented. Any arguments you wish included in article space must be backed up with supporting sources. Khu kri  21:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The introduction is very bad.
Global warming is the temperature rise that is unequivocally underway in Earth's atmosphere and oceans.[2] With greater than 90% certainty,[3] scientists have determined that global warming is caused mostly by human activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels.[4][5][6] This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries and is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.[7][8][A]

This intro sounds like your almost trying to hide something. It goes so out of its way with "unequivocally" and "is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing". I am an engineer and you don't write like this.

This sounds so much better

Global warming is the temperature rise that is underway in Earth's atmosphere and oceans.

Also In the intro why would you say its not disputed add this to another section just say the affermitive and delete the negative sounds much better.

This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.43 (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, we shoud simply state the by now well established facts in the lead without all this qualifying and without including all those refs. That should be done in other sections. Count Iblis (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yea thats what I am saying. You shoulden't have to add that. When I read this the first thing I thought was what are they hiding! People on the right side of an argument do not need to write qualifiers. Thats saved for the people on the wrong side of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.96.65 (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Purging the paragraph of the expressions of scientific certainty would result in a substantial worsening of the article.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I read "and is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.[7][8][A]" I just think ok then who does dispute it and why. Unequivocally is not a word that is needed in any scientific article. It takes away from the article and to me makes this more of a political thing then science. The person who wrote this prob is not an expert because when I write I do not use qualifiers like that before I state my case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.46 (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The IPCC disagrees with you. Have you bothered to read the primary sources you want to delete from the lead?  Someone hat this nonsense please.  I probably shouldn't since I screwed up by getting sucked in.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I also agree that the lede needs a more straightforward wording. The wording suggested above is an improvement. The lede currently reads like "Global warming is really really happening". It is; but putting it that way does not help convey it. Apart from NewsAndEventsGuy and JJ (both of whose opinions I respect but I disagree with here) is in favour of the lede as it is currently?--IanOfNorwich (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As I understand the proposal, this is what is being discussed so far:


 * Global warming is the temperature rise that is unequivocally underway in Earth's atmosphere and oceans. [2] With greater than 90% certainty,[3] scientists have determined that global warming is caused mostly by human activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels.[4][5][6] This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries and is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.[7][8][A]
 * (Then continue with the next paragraph, and I realize ya'll might want to propose changes there too but no one has been specific yet.)
 * (Then continue with the next paragraph, and I realize ya'll might want to propose changes there too but no one has been specific yet.)


 * Is that what is being proposed?   NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not proposing loosing all that. In the first instance I'm interested in others views on changing
 * "Global warming is the temperature rise that is unequivocally underway in Earth's atmosphere and oceans."
 * To:"Global warming is the temperature rise that is underway in Earth's atmosphere and oceans." as proposed above by the IP contributor (and me in an earlier thread).--IanOfNorwich (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Whoa! How is this discussion not just a continuation of the prior discussion? Why are we getting into this again? Why this continuing effort to water down the lede by removing "unequivocal"? _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously. This was just debated [here,] [here,] and [here] and Ian, your conclusion was that it does comport with the primary source but you just don't like the wordsmithing style.  Do you have any substantive arguments to add, or was your agreement to live with the style of the current text only limited to 10 days  48 hours, and you now want to re-open the style debate?   NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The biggest problem is obviously the use of the word "unequivocally". The speed of light is unequivocally 299,792,458 metres per second, the temperature at which all molecular motions cease is unequivocally absolute zero. The IPCC may believe or claim that this is unequviocal, however within science, as I assume most of the regulars here are, there is very little that is unequviocal. Furthermore, since the measurements being used are statistical averages the statement, regardless of what the IPCC or anyone else might say, impossible to say with 100% certainty or unequviocally. It is ironic that an article caliming to be based purely off scientific measurements would start off with such an unscientific statement. As the IP stated, it is being used for purely political purposes. If you want to have an article stating the IPCC opinion on GW, then do that. But don't use their statement within a scientific article, which by design falls within a margin of error. Arzel (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * But since IPCC goes out of its way to say that the degree of certainty expressed by "unequivocal" is not limited just to instrumental temp measurements, but rather is the combination of many independent lines of evidence, at worst we have identified some material that needs to be added to the article. Fact that Arzel may wish to scold those IPCC scientists for what he thinks is an unscientific word choice doesn't really have any bearing on whether IPCC AR4 is a WP:RS.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The way the word "unequivocally" is used is simply bad grammar. Q Science (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It's an adverb that modifies "underway" and conveys the degree of scientific uncertainty about that finding, thus the meaning conveyed here in the lead is the meaning conveyed in the primary source that is cited. If you disagree, then details please. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * How would that read if a synonym was used? Perhaps definitely.


 * Global warming is the temperature rise that is unequivocally underway in Earth's atmosphere and oceans.


 * Global warming is the temperature rise that is definitely underway in Earth's atmosphere and oceans.


 * I just think that that sounds dumb. In my opinion, the following is better English.


 * Global warming is the current rise in the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans.


 * Which, in my opinion, is simply an attempt to redefine a common phrase to have a politically different meaning. But that is not the point of this discussion. That said, current rise is not appropriate for an encyclopedia that will still be around in 100 years. Neither is underway. I am sure you can do better. Q Science (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Many readers are bombarded with explicit blogosphere statements that we are not warming. Many readers are neither engineers nor scientists.  Do we assist their comprehension of our primary sources level of scientific certainty by phrasing  implicit statements for the sake of style?  Our primary sources felt it necessary to state it in explicit terms.  Why can't we?  For style's sake?  Phooey.  I'm for reader comprehension of our primary sources, even by those non-engineers and non-scientists fresh from the "we're actually cooling" blogs.  Especially since in the next sentence we start talking about a level of scientific certainty that is less than 100%  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If you really want better "reader comprehension", then use words that someone in sixth grade will understand. As for your obvious bias against blogs, remember that the current phrase is Climate change, implying an uncertainty with respect to the way the temperature is changing. Q Science (talk) 06:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Instead of accusing me of bias, how about accusing me of trying in good faith to honor wikiepedia policies defining the concept of "reliable sources", such as WP:BLOG. As for your implied argument that warming is not unequivocal because scientists prefer "climate change", find some primary sources that give the scientists reasoning for that term, and I bet those sources will say it more accurately expresses the myriad of responses in the climate system above and beyond mere temperature increase (aka "global warming").   NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * We all know what global warming is: "Global warming is a rise in the temperature of Earth's surface." Does every sentence in the article have to be politicized? Kauffner (talk) 23:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * While you and I know what it means, Kauffner, the unfortunate reality is that plenty of other people would say "We all know that global warming is the biggest hoax ever". This discussion is relevant to the all the people who don't identify with either group of "we-ALL-knows".   Stating the level of scientific certainty is not politicizing.  It's just accurately reporting our primary sources in this article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So because you believe that plenty of other people don't know the "truth" that we should use WP to advocate what the IPCC believes the truth to be? I thought this was a scientific article, not a political article.  Arzel (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem attack is not productive, and we were discussing whether to include the level of scientific certainty expressed in our primary sources. You may not like what they say, but that isn't grounds to uncivilly smear me by putting a false spin on my words. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy: I share your desire that it should be made clear that the Earth's atmosphere is warming. But I don't think anyone will be better informed by us keeping the term "unequivocally". As the IP contributor above notes it just makes it sound like we're defensive about something. I believe you and JJ are tilting at windmills here - we've got our own resident sceptics here haven't we? Do they really now doubt that the world has warmed over the last 100years? Well do you? Kaufner, Q Science, anyone else? It may be that there are some slightly deranged politicians in the US that doubt it but I don't think they'd spend long editing Wikipedia (or reading it) - they'd have to do too much looking at other people's views. Even if they did, do you think the u-word will make a difference with them? I don't but it might just make a difference with some people who think that the article doth protest too much. I believe the debate has moved on and so should the article.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 13:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * How can you, or anyone else for that matter, say with 100% certainty that the earth is warmer today that it was 100 years ago? We don't even have an accurate baseline measurement for 100 hundred years ago.  We didn't have satelite measurements until the 80's.  This is why people don't believe in AGW, this is why the AGW articles on WP are little more than a protected class to present only one view.  I find it extrememly disturbing that so many so called scientists would even make such a statement, when they should know with the basic statistic class that they should have taken during their undergraduate years, that it is impossible to make such a statement.  That anyone would make such a statement shows that it is clearly a political statement, and not a scientific statement.  Did anyone editing this article even take a basic statistics class?  What is the margin of error?  What is the P value?  Arzel (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTAFORUM NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I disagree that Arzel's comment above constitutes an ad hominem attack, and I think though there is a lot of argumentative fluff around the fringes there is a valid point with respect to the wording of unequivocal. Arzel it is not up to you or the editors you are railing against to debate whether the world has warmed or not, how, scientific intrumentation etc, that is for us to demonstrate via reliable sources, not our synthesis of the sources, but how we word these article to represent the sources is in our control. Regards  Khu  kri  16:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Me neither, but then I wasn't talking about that one. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "People" (about half of Americans, less in other countries) don't believe in AGW because of a pervasive campaign to that end, not because of any lack in the science, which, if approached unprejudicially, is compelling. It is a disservice to our readers, regardless of their reading grade-level, to cave-in to those who would deny, diminish, or distract from the established science. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Some aggressive archiving

 * See earlier discussion archived here. --TS 00:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The page got fat again. I've removed the following dormant sections to archive for the stated reasons:


 * Biased towards science-based presentation? | Yes, this is an article about a scientific phenomenon.
 * Natural disasters | consensus to exclude image
 * Use of the term uncertainty in the lede | rather old
 * What did IPCC actually say about likely temp rise?| Rather old except for myth-based query about cooling trend at the end
 * Direct temperature measurement | very old.

I have also removed a discussion section started and maintained by an identified, now blocked, sock puppet. I did not archive it.

The result is to halve the size of this very large discussion page, which I hope will make life easier for everybody without curtailing any discussion.

I take care to avoid mistakes, but I'm human and I'm not in charge. Please do restore potentially fruitful ongoing discussions I may have inadvertently closed. --TS 00:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I've performed another bout of aggressive trimming over the past day or two. The following items were removed:
 * Scibaby
 * CERN first results on Cosmic Rays enhancing aerosol formation.
 * Request for revision of incorrect and misleading opening paragraph (or at least, for clarification why it should not be revised)
 * Spencer paper and FAQ-21
 * Should Global Warming be the exception to the rule?
 * Proposed IPCC citation
 * Observation
 * Comments
 * Peak Oil and Global Warming
 * Proposed change
 * Rate this page" poll seems broken/bugged

Please inspect the history of Archive 64 here for annotations on why I removed each item.

The page size is now a manageable 80KB. As usual please restore any items removed in error or prematurely. --TS 02:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

More archiving, usual criteria:
 * New images
 * Images 1 and 2
 * Image 3
 * Other views section
 * Enescot reply to ABLegler
 * US National Research Council report
 * Royal Society document
 * CANVASS CALL - Proposed policy about overlinking in edit summaries
 * Someone keeps reverting my edits
 * The introduction is very bad.

See history of archive 65 for annotations.

Usual offer applies: please revert any mistaken archiving without further discussion. --TS 00:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Some aggressive archiving [2]

 * See earlier discussion archived here. --TS 00:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The page got fat again. I've removed the following dormant sections to archive for the stated reasons:


 * Biased towards science-based presentation? | Yes, this is an article about a scientific phenomenon.
 * Natural disasters | consensus to exclude image
 * Use of the term uncertainty in the lede | rather old
 * What did IPCC actually say about likely temp rise?| Rather old except for myth-based query about cooling trend at the end
 * Direct temperature measurement | very old.

I have also removed a discussion section started and maintained by an identified, now blocked, sock puppet. I did not archive it.

The result is to halve the size of this very large discussion page, which I hope will make life easier for everybody without curtailing any discussion.

I take care to avoid mistakes, but I'm human and I'm not in charge. Please do restore potentially fruitful ongoing discussions I may have inadvertently closed. --TS 00:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I've performed another bout of aggressive trimming over the past day or two. The following items were removed:
 * Scibaby
 * CERN first results on Cosmic Rays enhancing aerosol formation.
 * Request for revision of incorrect and misleading opening paragraph (or at least, for clarification why it should not be revised)
 * Spencer paper and FAQ-21
 * Should Global Warming be the exception to the rule?
 * Proposed IPCC citation
 * Observation
 * Comments
 * Peak Oil and Global Warming
 * Proposed change
 * Rate this page" poll seems broken/bugged

Please inspect the history of Archive 64 here for annotations on why I removed each item.

The page size is now a manageable 80KB. As usual please restore any items removed in error or prematurely. --TS 02:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Third paragraph in the opening section
Two sentences of this read :- "Warming is expected to be strongest in the Arctic and would be associated with continuing retreat of glaciers, permafrost and sea ice. Other likely effects of the warming include more frequent occurrence of extreme weather events including heatwaves, droughts and heavy rainfall events, species extinctions due to shifting temperature regimes, and changes in agricultural yields." This is given with no reference but is reported as fact when it is merely the opinion of whatever editor wrote it. In truth at present the Arctic sea ice is slightly thicker than usual and polar bears numbers are at a 30 year high.  Smokey TheCat  22:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It might surprise you, but we do not require a citation for every word, or even every sentence. The claims are amply supported by the source given. Arctic sea ice this year is either at an all-time minimum, or very close to it.. NSIDC also states that "large area of low concentration ice in the East Siberian Sea, visible in NASA Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) imagery, suggests that the ice cover this year is particularly thin and dispersed this year". I don't know what your sources are, but they seem to disagree with the mainstream. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The quoted sentences are from the WP:LEDE and so summarise this article; this article itself is a top-level article that summarises dozens of detailed sub-articles. The quotation given omits all the wikilinks that take the reader directly to the sub-articles, all of which are beautifully and fully cited, in detail, to a great many reliable sources. Many of these cites are repeated below in this article too, in the summaries. --Nigelj (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Besides that, see [this] and [this] NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to rename subsection headings
While the "observations" thread is unfolding - and I do have an open mind about clear proposals, with reasons, for how to improve the article - in the meantime I do think the article could be intimidating to a reader with only a bit of science background and new to the issue. However else the article may be changed as a result of the "observations" thread, or any other thread, would anyone object if during the interim I made the section headings a bit more newcomer-friendly?

CURRENT

 * 1) Temperature changes
 * 2) External forcings
 * 3) Feedback
 * 4) Climate models
 * 5) Attributed and expected effect
 * 6) Responses to global warming
 * 7) Views on global warming
 * 8) Etymology
 * 9) See also
 * 10) Notes
 * 11) References

PROPOSED
No changes to text or to order of sections, but rewrite 1st level section headings as follows:
 * 1) Observed temperature changes
 * 2) Initial causes of temperature changes (forcings)
 * 3) What amplifies temperature changes (feedbacks)
 * 4) How will temperatures change in the future (models)
 * 5) What will result from temperature changes (effects)
 * 6) Theoretical options for responding
 * 7) Views of the issue
 * 8) Terminology (etymology)

Thanks for commentsNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I like those headings better, for what it's worth. TreacherousWays (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd have no objection to 1 to 3 though would be interested to hear other views. 4 - the meaning is changed and it's hardly super technical anyway.The remainder are not really technical in their current form so I'd keep.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Have a read of positive feedback and negative feedback. Climate feedbacks don't just 'amplify' temperature changes. And amplify is, strictly speaking, the wrong word. There is such a thing as amplification and then there are the enhancing and augmenting effects of positive feedback. One draws in a controlled amount of energy related to the amplitude of the stimulus, the other draws in a potentially limitless* amount of energy related to the 'error', or difference between the stimulus and what is expected/normal/required. (*Until it gets limited by some other external factor) Also, where else in Wikipedia do we assume that the reader does not understand 'etymology'? --Nigelj (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Consider the poor newbie, fresh from the street of climate cluelessness and there brain is now full with the new compound vocabularly word "external forcing". Do we just whack 'em on the head with the unfamiliar term "feedback" or can we rewrite that section header to convey the concept in level 1-oh-1 basic english at first blush?  If my phrase "What amplifies temperature changes (feedbacks)" is built around the wrong word ("amplify") what other suggestions does anyone have?  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

"Unequivocal" -- again!
Ian, what the hell are you doing unilaterally removing "unequivocal" from the lead sentence? Did you think you could "stealth" it out? You certainly know that is not a "minor" change, as you have participated in previous discussions (you know how to use the archive). What gives? Has someone swiped your password? _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 15:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, Ian, what are you doing? Do you not know that this is settled science?  Man is the sole responsible party for the current warming of the earth.  I suppose in the past the sun was a major contributor, but today Man trumps the sun in excess gas.  Arzel (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Behind that sarcastic comment is either an astounding ignorance of the subject or a dishonest oversimplification. 98.92.183.113 (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm the guy that wrote the text, and I myself think its sort of rough. Note that Ian didn't strike IPCC's pullquote from the ref, where they use that word.  So I think this is a writing style issue not an issue as to meaning (right Ian?)  Maybe some wordsmith out there can suggest a better way to phrase the first sentence while preserving IPCC's word "unequivocal"? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Gods this article is hard work sometimes. Arzel: I take it you are being sarcastic - if you want to discuss the causes of global warming I'd be happy to do so with you on my talk page as improving Wikipedians  understanding (mine and/or yours) of this topic is worthwhile but this is not the place. NewsAndEventsGuy is right in that the change was supposed to improve the wording rather than change the intended meaning. It is at best clumsy to refer to a "temperature change" as unequivocal. People, organisations and statements can all be unequivocal about the temperature change but a temperature change can't itself be unequivocal any more than it can be a meek, bold or bloody-minded temperature change. If the archive held some lengthy discussion on the use of the word I would be on questionable ground changing it however the use, in the lede, of that word was not discussed at all. The only people who agreed that wording as a whole were NewsAndEventsGuy and Upidity - I have no problem with that but I'm hardly attempting to overturn a broad consensus.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The quote doesn't say the temperature rise is "unequivocal", but that global warming is "unequivocal" and the temperature change is the evidence. So, to say in the lead that the temperature rise is unequivocal is not quite right. Maybe change to: "Global warming is the unequivocal result of the temperature rise now underway ..." Vsmith (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Read in a vaccuum, Vsmith, what you say is a reasonable interpretation but it's incorrect when taking all of AR4 into account. Other IPCC sources do define various relevant terms and phrases as follows:


 * "Global warming refers to the gradual increase, observed or projected, in global surface temperature..." [] (The part I left out is the part where they implied its 100% certain we're doing it.)


 * "The global surface temperature is an estimate of the global mean surface air temperature. However, for changes over time, only anomalies, as departures from a climatology, are used, most commonly based on the area-weighted global average of the sea surface temperature anomaly and land surface air temperature anomaly."


 * So if you combine those defintions with the IPCC AR4 quote I used in the text, you get Global warming is the
 * "unequivocal" {IPCC AR4 quote I used in the text}
 * "increase, observed or projected, in global surface temperature..." (first IPCC AR4 quote above)
 * "based on the area-weighted global average of the sea surface temperature anomaly and land surface air temperature anomaly." {second IPCC AR4 quote above}


 * Or in other words, global warming means "the unequivocal temperature rise in earths oceans and atmosphere". I left out the bit about projections and the part about the temps being  surface temps.


 * Our second source in the text, "America's Climate Choices (2011)" uses "global warming" in the same way (at page 15) and that section cites for support the very IPCC pullquote I used in the text.


 * So the statement is accurately represents the sources as phrased;
 * And because many people think we are cooling or staying the same it is appropriate to hit them on the head with this well-sourced degree of uncertainty
 * Especially since we just went out of our way to dump down the 100% certainty that its anthropogenic to ">90% certain" as stated in the sources (so far);


 * But I agree with Ian that it could read a bit smoother. I'll try my hand at it in a few days if no one else gives it a whirl first. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

"Scientists have determined"..."using unequivocal evidence"..."of observed and projected surface temperature"..."the incontrovertible truth"..."of how right I really was all along". OK. OK. The IPCC didn't say that. Probably not the last part anyway. Kauffner (talk) 07:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * People, organisations and statements can all be unequivocal about the temperature change but a temperature change can't itself be unequivocal any more than it can be a meek, bold or bloody-minded temperature change.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 11:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If a temperature change can't be unequivocal, why did the IPCC say (in the ref in the article text) "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal"?


 * Answer: they are implicitly talking about a scientific finding. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I know the IPCC do use the word in much the same way as you did in the lede but that doesn't make it good prose. The IPCC are the best authority we have on climate change but they are not necessarily an unquestionable authority on the use of English. Try "Gravity, is an unequivocal natural phenomenon by which physical bodies attract with a force proportional to their mass."--IanOfNorwich (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ian, please consider the meaning of equivocal: subject to two or more meanings, uncertain.  The existence and cause of GW ("temperature change") is not uncertain, not subject to multiple meanings; it is unequivocal.  Certainty of existence is not restricted to people, etc.  _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The temperature change exists; it is certain. The IPCC state it as plain fact. They are unequivocal about it. They do equivocate a little over the cause or meaning of the temperature change. But can a temperature change equivocate?--IanOfNorwich (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "The temperature change exists; it is certain."   Tell that to USA-RNC chairman Michael Steele, who on air in March '11 [declared we are actually cooling].  But in any case, see article tweak.  Is that better?  Hopefully it strengthens the implicit meaning that we're talking about a scientific finding that is unequivocal.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, no, I find the tweak not better: GW is not only unequivocally underway, it's cause is also unequivocal (e.g., not sunspots, etc., but anthropogenic). I strongly resist any weakening here because that is the declared intent of the deniers (equivocate existence, then equivocate cause).
 * Ian, the original formulation does not mean that GW ("temperature change") is being unequivocal; it means that its existence and cause are not subject to uncertainty, or even multiple meanings. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * JJ, I would be happy to alter the text to state that the cause (i.e., human GHGs) is unequivocal if we have good sources. The sources now in the article text explicitly do not say human GHG emissions are the cause.  They only say it is "very likely" the cause, where that means >90% certain.  If you have primary sources as good as IPCC and US National Academy of Science that say it is 100% dead certain (or similar wording) that human GHGs is the cause, then please share!!NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) JJ, I agree that the existence of the warming is not (in the sources) subject to uncertainty, but here I have to direct you to the archive. I am pretty clear on what is causing Global warming, so are you and NewsAndEventsGuy and I think we agree. Unfortunately, the IPCC has only deigned to tell us that it's more than 90% sure that the cause is primarily anthropogenic and everyone else (Royal Soc, US Academy of Sciences) seem to have followed that line. This was pointed out User:Udippuy a user who has made no other contributions to Wikipedia but he is nonetheless, as far as I can tell, right on this one. Yes I do prefer NAEG's change. I still think it does not read well but I don't have the immense resources of time, intelligence, will and persistence that would be needed to even attempt a decent rewrite (at least not just now). It's because I think this subject so important that I believe this article should be (and sound) accurate, neutral and authoritative.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ian, you sound confused. Earliar you were saying that temperature change is not unequivocal, now you are claiming that the scientific finding is not 100% unequivocal.  I would say that the IPCC's own statement that temperature rise is unequivocal can be taken at face value.  _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * JJ, have you read what I have written and tried to understand what I mean? I can try to explain again if you like.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As I read it JJ, Ian, and NAEG (that's me) all agree that our sources say the scientific finding that we're warming is "unequivocal".  Since this thread started with Ian's objection to using "unequivocal" the way I originally did, but he says he's OK (at least for now) with the [revised way I used that word], I think this thread is RESOLVED.   JJ, is there anything more to argue about in this thread with respect to article text?   NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Resolved with a 90% certainty? :-)  Sure, I'm good, but I think Ian is still unsettled. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Less than 10% unsettled. Do you like the >90% bit? I'm not very happy with that, though fear it's my POV that rebels.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 23:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Ian for complaining about my first draft, and JJ for insisting we keep "unequivocal". Ya'll might be interested in this pithy description of how IPCC's thoughts on the subject we've debated (certainty of warming and certainty of cause) evolved through the 1st four assessment reports: See  section 3.1.1.

Does 1RR or 3RR apply to this article?
Does arbitration 1RR or the wiki generic default 3RR apply to this article? There are different banners on this articles talk page and (for one example) Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My understanding is 1RR, but I'd be loath to invoke such a rule unless there was dire need. Stopping someone from actively edit warring (as above) is one thing but punitive bans are a bit pointless, why what's happening......--IanOfNorwich (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) It's on an article by article basis. They were originally imposed as part of the Climate Change community sanctions, and were transitioned to arbcom discretionary sanctions after the arbcom case.  See here if you want to trace the lineage of sanctions on each page.......  I generally go by the sanction warning at the top of the talk page or in the edit notice. If there is one, then it's in effect, if there isn't then it isn't. And as Ian points out above, unless there's active edit warring going on, there's little reason to use either....  Sailsbystars (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

This policy also applies. Count Iblis (talk) 17:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Geoengineering
One of the statements in the section on geoengineering is not supported by the cited source:

''Another policy response is deliberate modifications to the climate system, known as (geoengineering). This policy response is sometimes grouped together with mitigation.[125] Although some proposed geoengineering techniques are well understood, the most promising are under ongoing development, and reliable cost estimates for them have not yet been published (IPCC, 2007c). Geoengineering encompasses a range of techniques to remove CO2 from the atmosphere or to reflect incoming sunlight. As most geoengineering techniques would affect the entire globe, deployment would likely require global public acceptance and an adequate global legal and regulatory framework, as well as significant further scientific research.[127]''

The cited source is IPCC (2007c), which states:

17. Geo-engineering options, such as ocean fertilization to remove CO2 directly from the atmosphere, or blocking sunlight by bringing material into the upper atmosphere, remain largely speculative and unproven, and with the risk of unknown side-effects. [emphasis added] Reliable cost estimates for these options have not been published (medium agreement, limited evidence) [11.2].

This is not consistent with what is in the article. My suggested revision:

''Another policy response is geoengineering of the climate. Geoengineering encompasses a range of techniques to remove CO2 from the atmosphere or to reflect incoming sunlight. Little is known about the effectiveness, costs or potential side effects of geoengineering options (Barker et al, 2007). As most geoengineering techniques would affect the entire globe, deployment would likely require global public acceptance and an adequate global legal and regulatory framework, as well as significant further scientific research.[127]''

Reference:


 * Barker, T., I. Bashmakov, A. Alharthi, M. Amann, L. Cifuentes, J. Drexhage, M. Duan, O. Edenhofer, B. Flannery, M. Grubb, M. Hoogwijk, F. I. Ibitoye, C. J. Jepma, W.A. Pizer, K. Yamaji, (2007). Executive summary – Unconventional options. In: Mitigation from a cross-sectoral perspective. In: Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Enescot (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems like a good suggestion to me. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * AgreeNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Global warming-related article needing attention
Roman Warm Period was created this July and has been tagged for verifiability. --TS 20:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Where is the citation backing up the word "continuing"
As most people know, global temperatures have not risen this century. So, against the patently obvious, I assumed there had to be a precise citation reference backing up the word "continuing" in the sentence:

"Global warming is the continuing rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans. The evidence for this temperature rise is unequivocal[2]"

One could say: "global warming is a rise in temperature ..." as this would be a definition which we could then test to see whether it was happening. One could even say: "global warming is a rise over several decades". But the word "continuing" is a statement of fact: of what is (supposedly) happening. It is not a definition. Without a clear factual citation backing up, it so patently absurd in light of the lack of warming that it is laughable. Moreover, this "continuing" rise is just a matter of opinion - I don't think its warming, most other people I know don't think it is warming - who are these people who say it is? Do they exist? When did they hold this opinion? Last week? Last year? Last decade? Did they ever hold this opinion? It is just some sayso opinion which cannot be objectively challenged because there is no citation on which it is based, no factual record set which can be checked to verify whether it is still correct. In short, without any evidence to support its inclusion in such a prominent position is the most obvious sign of an article which is little short of blatant baseless propaganda which immediately undermines anything following. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.201.135 (talk) 12:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If "most people know" this - then most people are wrong. Sorry. Check out the FAQ and loads of other discussions in the archives. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * In his defense, I think "continual" was the word that was supposed to go there, and in any event is more proper. Also, "continuing" is a bit crystal ball-ish.  Who knows, the earth might get slammed by a giant comet traveling near the speed of light and kicked out of orbit like a soccer ball tomorrow.  At that point I would think global temperatures would start falling pretty fast.  Kevin Baastalk 17:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, continual is clearly the wrong word. The rise in global temperature is actual a very spikey and noisy affair as a glance at the global temperature graph will show. On the other hand, it is just as easy to verify continuing as the correct word. You just need to read the cited sources, e.g. [6]: Does anyone looking at that global temperature graph, and the article on greenhouse effect, really think that graph is going to suddenly come down again? Further down this article (which the lede summarises) we read about "how atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases might change in the future". "The earth might get slammed by a giant comet traveling near the speed of light and kicked out of orbit like a soccer ball tomorrow"? Well, if we have to write every Wikipedia opening sentence to allow for that, there's a lot of work to do, and I don't think we should start here. How about all the politics and finance articles first? --Nigelj (talk) 17:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I see nothing n the above that suggests this is the definition. Where does anyone define global warming in this way? The word used is: "is". That means it is a definition, and for such a ridiculous claim (bearing in mind it isn't currently warming this century) to be in the very first sentence it needs to be strongly supported by I would content not just one citation but numerous citations backing up this as the definition, a widely used definition, not one dredged up from an obscure page in a highly contentious report ... moreover, not just a definition used by one group, the lede should not be partisan, so it must be a general definition that is accepted by all. Instead this is a very partisan assertion, with no citation to back it up. In other words it is the most blatant piece of propaganda. 88.104.201.135 (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Global average temperature is currently warming this century. You may have misread the data or been intentionally misled by someone. --TS 19:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)



scam
http://www.politicalcrush.com/conspiracies/big-green-money-machine-environmentalist-propaganda-dwarfs-paid-climate-skepticism/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.100.152 (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither the publication nor the author is reliable, but it might be interesting if true, or if picked up by a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

This author is a political analyst and opinion-editorialist, with articles published at AmericanThinker. He holds a Master’s degree in Russian, East European, and Eurasian Studies and is a PhD. student in Political Science, with specializations in International Relations and Comparative Politics. He speaks fluent Russian and worked in Moscow as a copy editor for the economic news agency Prime-Tass (prime-tass.com) and was International Programs Manager for Russia’s first liberal arts college. He believes that defeating socialism (and all other forms of collectivism) once and for all means thoroughly discrediting the ideology utilizing reason, evidence, history, and philosophy. He is currently editing his first fiction novel. **Not reliable enough for you?--69.130.100.152 (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That's right. Read about reliable sourcdes.  Also, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Sceptic views are now NPOV
In an article in the independent, Hansen said: "Climate sceptics are winning the argument with the public over global warming," The requirement of wikipedia are for neutral point of view. Can I spell that out neutral POINT OF VIEW. Hansen has now said the neutral point of view ... not the scientific neutral point of view ... but the neutral point of view an average point of view of all humanity not a very insular group who have a particular outlook on science. The neutral point of view is now decidedly sceptical.

The inference is very clear, that the article should represent a neutral point of view. That means as the argument is now decidedly in favour of sceptics, then the sceptic view should be represented in a substantial part of the article.

Can I just point out that Hansen specifically says: "global warming". This is an article about global warming. The neutral point of view as articulated by one of the people often referred to here as the authority for the "science" has stated unequivocally that the sceptic argument is winning. How much of the sceptic position do we see here? Does it mention the pause in temperature? The lack of trend in climate extremes? The failure of almost every climate prediction? The multitude of evidence against positive feedbacks? No, there is not one attempt to represent a neutral point of view, only the view of people like Hansen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.92.34 (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And can I just emphasis, that whenever a sceptic like Monckton has the opportunity to test public opinion (i.e. the neutral point of view), they win the debate. When the argument is put to the test, the sceptics win! There is no question that NPOV is sceptical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.92.34 (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Please note that NPOV does not mean Popular POV. See WP:UNDUE; the public, who are "being won over", are not experts, nor even knowledgeable at all. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 15:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Hansen has now said the minority view is that of people like him. Global warming is a popular subject. THE POV here is to define this subject as science. Global warming is not a scientific subject. If you want an article on the science, then flag it up and use the appropriate scientific name like AGW and leave the popular article to reflect the political debate. A popular subject like this must be definition reflect the popular POV. If you want a scientific article, then please go away and create one, but don't pretend that global warming should be dominated the minority view of scientists like Hansen.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.92.34 (talk) 08:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I did not put that well. A better description is that global warming is the poplar perception of a range of issues from sunspots to CO2 forcing. Hansen ascribes to a particularly narrow viewpoint which ascribes all climate change to a very narrow set of drivers such as CO2. The public want to read about all the science and given a poplar name, the article must reflect the poplar interpretation and not the narrow view of Hansen as to the scope of the article. As for reliable sources, in a poplar article on a poplar subject (not the scientific AGW), the reliable sources are clearly those sources thought to be reliable by public. BBC, good papers. To arbitrarily restrict the reliable sources to those supported by the minority view is clearly POV push and would be like an article on some church doctrine only being able to refer to catholic (not all) writings on the subject. > — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.92.34 (talk) 08:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

To see how a popular subject with scientific content is dealt with I would like to draw everyone's attention to Extraterrestrial life This has the following sections:


 * Background
 * Possible Basis
 * Beliefs
 * Scientific Search
 * The Drake equation
 * Candidate locations in the Solar System
 * See also, etc.

This clearly shows that the scientific section is very much a minority where a subject refers to the popular area. There are some here who are trying to argue that because the e.g. search for aliens is scientific, then an article on aliens must be written by the scientists searching for extra terrestrial life. This is palpable nonsense. A minority science view of a subject, dominating a popular subject is not supported by WP:UNDUE. Like Aliens, Global warming is a contentious view, scientists disagree just as many in the public still believe outrageous calims like 60m sea level rise a burning up earth and that it is all the sins of mankind. This is the public perception of the alarmists. I don't think an article on global warming should fail to mention all the strange beliefs that have at one time or other been pushed by alarmists and called science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.92.34 (talk) 09:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * And just before I do some real work, can I suggest we include a section on popular portrayal of global warming. There are many wonderful pictures of a globe burning. Can we get one of these? We ought to mention the many predictions of mass deaths etc. these again are an important facet to understand this cult movement. Wikiepedia needs to record this popular culture. We need to record the way a bit of science was portrayed as this doomsday cult - that is what global warming really means - the popular doomsday cult - end of the world. There are some excellent sources we could start by referring to which list all the claims made about global warming. Perhaps we should start by categorising these? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.92.34 (talk) 09:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Look again at what James Hansen actually said. "Climate sceptics are winning the argument with the public over global warming". People who doubted the Apollo lunar landings were successful in swinging poll numbers during the 1990s. All it took was a single television special Did we ever land on moon?, several books, and the growth of the Internet. Around half of the population still believe in ghosts. None of this alters the science of Global Warming and NPOV does not require that we rewrite this article to reflect opinion polls. Hansen's remarks are better suited to Public opinion on climate change. — ThePowerofX 10:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Citation documentation
I have polished the canonical IPCC citation template and documentation (currently at User_talk:J._Johnson Peviously I was thinking of copying it here and letting it get buried in the archives, with a link from the FAQ. But the archives are static, and this will be revised when AR5 comes out. So I was wondering if it would be better to put the whole thing in the FAQ.  Or perhaps a separate 'doc' subpage.  Suggestions? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It would be most useful (due to ready accessibility) if it is in the FAQ. I say go for it, and mucho gracias for your efforts.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * PS I wonder if the wiki programmer folks would be interested in creating an IPCC template? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm gonna' go for the FAQ. But only as pointer, as I find that as I work with these subtle changes suggest themselves; the work is still evolving. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead, new and improved first paragraph
See article change I just made, in attempt to address the grammar and writing style comments of the above thread. Note that no one has complained about the reliability of the sources, or whether the text accurately reports what they say. If there are continuing debates about content, please reiterate them. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think "Scientists say the evidence for this temperature rise is unequivocal" should become "The evidence for this temperature rise is unequivocal". The statement is sourced to the IPCC, a UN body, and attributing it to "scientists" reminds me too much of tacky shampoo commercials. It could be "logical people who understand the science", but why do we have attribute the statement to anyone? Does the cited ref say scientists believe this, but others believe that? --Nigelj (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point, and I hate tacky shampoo commercials. See revised edit on article page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Much better!--IanOfNorwich (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC) I moved a comma and added another to hopefully make it clearer what exactly the >90% certainty refers to - change it back if it doesn't work. Mikenorton (talk) 15:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Good catch Mike, thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Now how about changing:
 * "The evidence for this temperature rise is unequivocal and, with greater than 90% certainty, scientists have determined that most of it is caused by human activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels."
 * To:
 * "The evidence for this temperature rise is unequivocal. There are multiple lines of strong evidence that most of this warming is caused by human activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels.".
 * That's well supported by the sources.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 15:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Or keeping it (Mikes version that is) and moving Ian's concepts into the first sentence of paragraph 2:  "In addition to widespread melting of ice and rising sea levels, the instrumental temp.... etc" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I made the above comment about this being written poorly. It should be this. This is much better and takes out the buzz words that take away from the merit of the article.
 * Global warming is the current temperature rise in Earth's atmosphere and oceans. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated with greater than 90% certainty that a majority of this warming is caused by human activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Examples of such activities are deforestation and burning of fossil fuels.[3][4][5][6] This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries.[7][8][A]


 * The instrumental temperature record shows that the average global surface temperature increased by 0.74 °C (1.33 °F) during the 20th century.[9] Climate model projections are summarized in the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) by the IPCC. They indicate that during the 21st century the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.5 to 1.9 °C (2.7 to 3.4 °F) for their lowest emissions scenario and 3.4 to 6.1 °C (6.1 to 11 °F) for their highest.[10] The ranges of these estimates arise from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations.[11][12]

Also the end "This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries." As someone reading this and not a climate scientist (im an electrical engineer) I have no idea if this refers to the Global Warming or the Man Made part. So do all the National Science Academies agree that the globe is warming or do they all agree that we are causing it. I do not know the answer so this should be fixed by someone who knows about this topic. I actualy do this for my job write documents like this so sorry about this but you never just put IPCC I don't know who they are you write Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) then change the next occurence t0 IPCC. I have put the 2 corrections on this into my paragraphs above.

To be honest the true problem is the writers seem to not know much about writing tech. You are mixing up the global warming with the causes which are 2 diffrent concepts. It would be BEST to use 2 paragraph intro one about the undisputed fact that the globe is warming and the other about the causes with the references about both seperate. Its really confusing. I am no expert im just saying it is and an expert should fix this. As is it sounds like its written by a political hack and I am much less likely to read the rest. While politics should have a part in funding they shoulden't be the ones explaining this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faridafarid (talk • contribs) 16:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I wish I could edit this but I can not for some reason here is how it should be first the unequivocal is fine at first I thought it wasent but the problem is that the quote is taken off the webpage by taking part of the phrase and not the whole thing. Here is how it should be when I can edit ill change it eventualy cause its funny bad now. Also it says recognized change to supported. I deleted the negative but you can add it back in either way this is so much better.


 * Global warming is the observed temperature rise in Earth's atmosphere and oceans. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that the Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level[2]. This finding is supported by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries.[7][8][A]


 * The instrumental temperature record shows that the average global surface temperature increased by 0.74 °C (1.33 °F) during the 20th century.[9] Climate model projections are summarized in the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) by the IPCC. They indicate that during the 21st century the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.5 to 1.9 °C (2.7 to 3.4 °F) for their lowest emissions scenario and 3.4 to 6.1 °C (6.1 to 11 °F) for their highest.[10] The ranges of these estimates arise from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations.[11][12]

[Insert info about causes in a paragraph here not an expert] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.43 (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Faridafarid, welcome to having a wikipedia account. Put 4 tildes "~" after your comments on  talk pages so we can tell who's said what. As you've probably noticed changes to this page get closely scrutinised especially changes to the lede. It might be best to suggest changes one by one or at least highlight the changes you are proposing. Stick around we could use what I think NewsAndEventsGuy might call a wordsmith.


 * Changing to:"This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries." defiantly gets my vote, for starters.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ian this is the 2nd time today you confused me. Please show our new editors how to use strikeout and insert tags so your draft edits are clear.  It isn't such a big deal when posting draft rewrites of long-static sections (like Enescot does) but on dynamic text its very confusing what you want to put in and what you want to take out.  Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * strikeout and insert would probably be better.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 08:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Based on above comments, and some new thought on my part I am about to change the article text as follows


 * This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries and is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing .[7][8][A]

for the following reasons:


 * The sources in this article do not say what the struck text says;
 * The best sources I know about are the ones cited in the lead to Global warming controversy, and they constitute a tenuous argument, most recently formulated here. In that thread I agreed with the argument, but the NPOV editor in me admits that in the great logic tree of life, this argument is a slender branch;
 * I agree with recent comments that saying this out loud makes us sound defensive in an intellectually silly sort of way; and
 * Saying it invites continual argument whether some group has taken a contrary position, and if any supposedly have, then we argue whether they're a group of national standing, for example see the argument over the Geological committee of the Polish Academy of Science.

In sum, the struck text seems to have a very high cost, skin-of-teeth sources, all for relatively little return on investment. So I guess I agree it should go away and I made that change today. I look forward to any dissenting opinions. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * PS and I also struck this cite


 * because (pardon the double negative) it does not say there is no disagreeing body of national standing, and it does not say all the sci academies of industrialized nations agree. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it would be better to find what source does support the statement. In going through a lot of the citations I find that generally inadequate specification (e.g., lack of page numbers) would make it difficult to locate the source.  For which I think the proper response should be fixing the citaiton -- not emasculating the article. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If you can find better cites than what we have in the articles I linked to, JJ, then please share. But beware of circular citations, which abound, since quoting something that is based on our wiki article is not an RS.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Beware of plummeting satellites, too. Are you saying some of your deletions were circularly referenced?
 * Where a significant quote or such is sourced only to another article, then the appropriate response would be to check the source in the other article, and possibly grab that. If the quote or material is not readily found -- perhaps because of the all too pervasive lack of specification, such as page numbers -- then the appropriate response would be to search the source for the specific location.  Or at the least tag it for someone else to work on.  I would say that deletion (except for BLP, copyright, etc.) should be the last resort.  I think most of the material in this article could be faulted for an incomplete, improper, or incorrect citation, and if it simply blown away at the first fault then there will be very little left to fix. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Silly JJ... you are making assumptions about my research efforts.  If you can find hat-hanger cites to salvage that text no one will be better pleased than I. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Based on comments from this thread, I propose to substitute the current lead paragraph 1 with this (cites omitted but I'll include them if this goes live)
 * Global warming is the continuing rise in the rising average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans.  The evidence for this temperature rise is unequivocal and, with greater than 90% certainty, scientists have determined  According to scientists, such warming of the climate system is "unequivocal", as evidenced by temperature readings, the widespread melting of snow and ice, sea level rise, and other observations.  Scientists are more than 90% certain that most of this warming is caused by human activities which increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels.  These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Why on earth use the strange wording "according to scientists" - who else would determine it? All this fiddling with the lead is imho unecessary - and we really should look back on the wording we had a year ago for the lede and determine which flows and is cited better. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently we agree that the current lead doesn't flow, so I would welcome your sweat for alternatives more than your shooting down of mine. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is our [text as of 1 yr ago today]. One of the problems in the lead first paragraph, is that it cited the 2008 "Understanding and Responding to Climate Change" - written by US NRC staff based on US NAS reports, for the notion that most of the warming "has been" caused by humans, (as opposed to "very likely us").   While I am convinced it is us, now the NPOV editor in me takes over.  The US NAS itself just published a new review of climate change, in their 2011 final report (following four precursor panel reports) titled "America's Climate Choices", in which they say the cause is "very likely" us, based on a "preponderance" of the evidence, while citing IPCC's definition of "very likely" meaning >90% certain.  So on this side of the scale we have a 2011 US NAS super-report saying the cause is "very likely" us (not is us).  Does anyone have any suggested citations saying it is us for comparison? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem I pointed out is the problem with what is supported. There is 2 things here The Globe Warming and the Cause. I am not an expert in this field and as someone trying to get info its very confusing.
 * The evidence for this temperature rise is unequivocal[2] and, with greater than 90% certainty, scientists have determined that most of it is caused by human activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels.[3][4][5][6]


 * Ok here you talk about the temp rise being unequivical and then state that it with 90% certainty they determined that it is caused by humans.
 * This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries.[7][A]


 * So does this mean that they all agree with the globe warming or the cause thats the problem. I still think it should be like this
 * Global warming is the observed temperature rise in Earth's atmosphere and oceans. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that the Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level[2]. This finding is supported by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries.[7][8][A]


 * The instrumental temperature record shows that the average global surface temperature increased by 0.74 °C (1.33 °F) during the 20th century.[9] Climate model projections are summarized in the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) by the IPCC. They indicate that during the 21st century the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.5 to 1.9 °C (2.7 to 3.4 °F) for their lowest emissions scenario and 3.4 to 6.1 °C (6.1 to 11 °F) for their highest.[10] The ranges of these estimates arise from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations.[11][12]


 * [Insert info about causes in a paragraph here not an expert]Faridafarid (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That's a half proposal. When you tell us how you propose to include the part you omitted about the cause, then I will think about.  Bear in mind this isn't for the body of the article, but the WP:lead to the article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

For further comments please see the new thread [here] NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

"Global warming" definition?
The way the prior discussion is going I wonder if we need to revisit the definition of global warming (and with a view to documenting this in the FAQ). A glance through the archives showed various prior discussions, but I didn't see ("said the blind man...") any authoritative scientific source. Curiously, the IPCC (TAR and AR4) doesn't seem to define "global warming" anywhere; the definition in the glossary is for "Global Warming Potential". The EPA has a definition ("an average increase in temperatures near the Earth's surface"), though I would be a lot happier with an IPCC definition. There is also a distinction to be made from "global warming" as a generic term for any such increase in temperature, and the current and continuing episode. And there is the general confusion of global warming itself, and "global warming" as a general reference to all of the related climate change consequences. I think it would be good if we could sort out all that, with some solid sources. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * A noble goal, JJ. NASA follows EPA's definition and has a useful history of the term in this essay.   We could say something like "Global warming in a scientific sense means an increase in the average near-surface temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans.  In a non-technical sense it also refers to the current episode of warming, and all of its effects, since the warming trend began in the 19th century." NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Nice reference, it defines
 * Global warming: the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.
 * In the past, there have been many edit wars to use a similar definition here, including many attempts to change the article name to the more correct "Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)" to explicitly include the effects of CO2. Q Science (talk) 06:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I like the NASA reference. I lean towards amending the second sentence to: "In a non-technical sense it also refers to the current episode of unusually rapid warming beginning in the 19th century and all of its climate changing effects, since the warming trend began in the 19th century ."
 * I haven't dug out how the prior discussions went, but am hoping we might avoid any flare ups by establishing that while the term has a narrow technical meaning it is also used non-technically to refer to climate change generally (and specifically AGW).
 * Inserting "unusally" above, in light of the following. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Here are a few more definitions from US agenices; They all have a dimension that it is us, as opposed to very likely us.


 * EPA  Global warming is an average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth's surface and in the troposphere, which can contribute to changes in global climate patterns. Global warming can occur from a variety of causes, both natural and human induced. In common usage, "global warming" often refers to the warming that can occur as a result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities. []


 * US GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM Key Finding #1: Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced.  Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to humaninduced  emissions of heat-trapping gases. (p. 13)[]


 * NOAA - NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE  Global Warming:  An overall increase in world temperatures which may be caused by additional heat being trapped by greenhouse gases.  []


 * NASA - EARTH OBSERVATORY   Global warming is the unusually rapid increase in Earth’s average surface temperature over the past century primarily due to the greenhouse gases released by people burning fossil fuels. []

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

'For scientific disputes...'
The article now begins, "For scientific disputes, see Scientific opinion on climate change..." We are not here to teach the controversy; there is no scientific dispute on any major point. There is a large and comprehensive 'Global warming and climate change' link template at the foot of the article and hundreds of hyperlinks throughout the text. I'm not even sure about "For the Sonny Rollins album see Global Warming (album)" - I've never heard of him or it and I don't think we're here to plug his album for him. I suggest a complete cull of the big block of whatever-these-things-are-called from the top of the page. --Nigelj (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree we should axe most or all of that stuff. However, many people who are looking for the main article about the current episode of warming will first try searching on the phrase "climate change".  Somehow the scope of these two articles (global warming and climate change ) needs to be crystal clear and instantly understood by newcomers, and that might require some of those whatever-these-things-are-called at the top of the page.  I agree the rest should go away    NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I made a change, in two edits here (sorry, the main edit summary is on the first edit). The things are called hatnotes (d'oh, I knew that!), and I think this is a lot clearer, without introducing stray POV comments or leading people away to random, more obscure articles. The phrase I used is based on the lede of climate change, and tries to draw attention to the main disambiguation and definition problem we face here. People who want more detail will find all the links they need in either this or the other article, or in the large navbox that appears at the bottom of both of them. I hope colleagues find this an improvement - I've given it a lot of thought. --Nigelj (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing this, N, and I changed your text to thisto avoid potential misreading by newbies.... after all, the current episode of warming is a longterm one too. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice one. Let's see how it sticks. --Nigelj (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yet more work on the lead - this relates to several recent threads
Several recent threads have addressed issues with the lead, and in particular the flow, the accessability, complaints about jargon, the defintions, etc. Also among the suggestions was the idea of going back a year to see what worked well. Pulling all those comments together, here is my proposed rewrite for lead paragraph #1 and the first part of #2. Note that the temp info from paragraph 2 was moved into paragraph 1, and was not simply deleted. Also the notions that the temp rise is continuing and that it is rapid are strongly implied but not explicitly stated - just for the sake of readability. Here is the text, and also a demo-diff so you can see the references and overall look. I reverted the demo to the current text pending comments.


 * Global warming refers to the rising average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans and its related effects. In the last 100 years, Earth's average surface temperature increased by about 1.4°F (0.8°C) with about 2/3 of the increase occurring over just the last three decades.[2] Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain most of it has been caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuel.[3][4][5][6]. These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries. [7][A]

[Here is the diff] (Especially note the new reference about the last 3 decades.) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well the first part is only partially correct in your rendering. Global warming is not only the past increase, but also the expected continuation, the attribution and the expected consequences here of. Generally there is too much focus on the past warming part for the first sentence of the lede.
 * Composition of the lede is supposed to be: first paragraph with a quick summary of the major theme and a definition, the rest of the paragraphs of the lede should summarize the body of the article. As i see it, this isn't what your proposed lede does. Which is why i once more refer back to old versions of the lede. We've had outside praise for that, as well as featured article status for it.
 * Now the large question: Why exactly are we fiddling so much with the lede? Has anything major happened to the body or the subject in general? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've reverted this.


 * Main objection: Redefinition of what global warming is. According to this, "global warming" is about the past - only - which it isn't. Continuing is the correct wording according to the scientific references that we have. And once more: Too much fiddling with the lede - too little work on the body. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Kim reverted my recent edit because Kim erroneously believes the following two bits of text are substantively different in content:


 * OLD: "Global warming is the continuing rise of average temperature....
 * NEW: "Global warming refers to the rising average temperature...."


 * Specifically, Kim alleges the new text is only about past change. Wrong.  In the new text, the word "rising" is a present, repeat present participle.   Therefore it means presently rising as in right now.  Nowhere does the new text even hint at an end to the rise.  Instead, the full paragraph of new text (follow Kims diff) explicitly states that the rate of rise has been increasing.  Note that "has been" is in present perfect tense, again meaning right now.  Not just in past, but now as well.  Past and right now.... in other words "continuing".   If Kim insists on changing the first phrase of the 1st sentence to insert the word continuing (as well as unneeded verbosity) I suppose I can live with it for a while.  That would be more of a consensus seeking solution than just reverting a whole paragraph wouldn't it Kim?


 * Since (A) Kims content-based reason for revert is based on bad grammar, (B) no one else objected when I proposed this change, and (C) this new text uses Kims excellent suggestion of looking back a year to get the good features of that text plus addresses complaints that were recently made about flow and readability, I have restored the proposed new text.


 * Kims secondary reason for objecting is that there has been too little work on the body, but this complaint is irrelevant to the mertis of this edit and, as I have previously pointed out, anybody can suggest work for others to do. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Global warming is not just a concept about the present and the past. It is also about the future continuation. I would prefer that you keep a non-personal tone here. May i suggest that you look at the WP:BRD-cycle and not revert back to an edit that has just been reverted, without discussing it first? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (A) I short-circuited WP:BRD on grounds that your primary reason for objecting was based on an unambiguous grammar error (and I'm surprised you're complaining about that);
 * (B) You've changed your reason for objecting from being about the past to being about the future;
 * (C) If you really want the unnecessarily verbose form of the first ten words or so, please tweak my edit so "continuing" is put back even though that would not change the meaning;
 * (D) See your talk page for my response to your non-personal tone remark. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

conflict edit, apparently. Responding to Kim's question why is there so much lead work and what has happened? ANSWER: In response to the recent thread "Add 'is believed to be'", I studied the sources in this article and found that they did not in fact jive with the lead first paragraph, specifically, we said humans ARE the cause, whereas the sources say we are most likely (as in > 90% certain). My POV rebels at having to dumb down the certainty that humans are the cause, but hey - that's what the sources say, and there has been a great deal of debate about this in recent threads.

If that was the rock in the pond, all this 1st paragraph lead editing that Kim finds so curious is just the ripples as the text settles down into a smooth reading easy flowing lead appropriate form that includes the >90% certainty nuance. After my first edit along these lines 4-8 weeks ago or so, every subsequent change Ive made to paragraph 1 has been about refining that text in response to comments like yours. Note that the current form is directly based on some of the text from a year ago, as you suggested, Kim. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I just made a few tweaks that I hope are non-controversial. On the subject of past-present-and-projected-future temperatures, I agree that it is important not to leave the lede ambiguous as to whether temperatures might have risen until recently, and/or might now be steady, and/or might be just about to fall again. There have been many misinformed blog-readers here in recent years who would have been delighted if they could have made this article give that impression. Unfortunately, I think many blog readers do not get past the lede, let alone into the scientific references, and so the wording here is very important. I tried putting continuing in there somewhere, and it didn't really work, for two reasons. (1) We now have 'and its related effects', which is new in the opening sentence. This means that we get three things in the list - the rise, its projected continuation, and its related effects - which quickly gets difficult to scan. (2) The sentence now starts with "Global warming refers to the rising average temperature..." rather than "is the increase in". So now the subject of the sentence is the temperature ('the rising average temperature' with its adjectives). So use of the word "it" later in the sentence refers not to the increase but now to the temperature - a different thing. This might be why that sentence just won't settle down, let alone stand being extended as in (1). BUT... I have found somewhere where we may be able to help. Later on we say, "scientists are more than 90% certain most of it is caused by", which I think should read, "scientists are more than 90% certain most of it is being caused by". Is that a help? --Nigelj (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it a help? I have not looked yet.  I'd just like to thank Nigelj for a constructive effort at solution seeking.  I'll look at the substance later. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I was the one who complained before that it was bad. It is a lot better now then it was before.

There is just one thing


 * and scientists are more than 90% certain most of it is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuel.

Maybe site this. scientists are more then 100% certain that none of global warming is caused by man would be a true statement. I am sure there are a few. This would add credibility to the statement. Saying scientists just sounds to generic.Faridafarid (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess I mean now that I think of this site something or nothing don't site scientists. It sounds like something you would do in a dental floss add.Faridafarid (talk) 17:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Your comments are nonsensical; you exhibit little understanding both this subject (and others you have jumped on) and Wikipedia. If wish to contribute you would be well advised to sit back and watch ("lurk") for a while. Otherwise your comments are likely to be collapsed and ignored. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Engineers are more than 100% certain you are wrong (im an engineer). If you read my comment it has nothing to do with the subject at all so.... If I am using info from the IPC to support something I say one of the following. sientists from the IPC are more then 90% certain. Or just state the 90% by itself with the reference tagged (this is what I would do). Faridafarid (talk) 13:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Introduction
There's a "not in citation given" tag in the introduction to the section on "attribution and expected effects". I've prepared a revision which hopefully addresses this problem:

''"Detection" is the process of demonstrating that climate has changed in some defined statistical sense, without providing a reason for that change. Detection does not imply attribution of the detected change to a particular cause. "Attribution" of causes of climate change is the process of establishing the most likely causes for the detected change with some defined level of confidence (Hegerl et al, 2007). Detection and attribution may also be applied to observed changes in physical, ecological and social systems (Rosenzweig et al, 2007).''

References:


 * Hegerl, G.C., F. W. Zwiers, P. Braconnot, N.P. Gillett, Y. Luo, J.A. Marengo Orsini, N. Nicholls, J.E. Penner and P.A. Stott, 2007: 9.1.2 What are Climate Change Detection and Attribution?: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
 * Rosenzweig, C., G. Casassa, D.J. Karoly, A. Imeson, C. Liu, A. Menzel, S. Rawlins, T.L. Root, B. Seguin, P. Tryjanowski, 2007: 1.2 Methods of detection and attribution of observed changes: Assessment of observed changes and responses in natural and managed systems. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 79-131.


 * Please note that as previously discussed I have developed a standard IPCC reference form (see examples at Global warming and Climate change, and all the details at User_talk:J._Johnson). I think we should also use Harv, which I will urge in a separate section. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't agree - other editors please refer to User talk:J. Johnson and Talk:Global warming for details. Enescot (talk) 05:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And see for resolution. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Trims to the section
I suggest that the "species migration" sub-section is moved to the climate change and ecosystems sub-article. I would also like the information on limits of human survivability in the "social systems" sub-section to be moved to the climate change, industry and society sub-article. In my opinion, these two topics are not important enough to be covered in this top-level article. Enescot (talk) 01:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Fine with me to mention species migration and provide a pointer instead of a subsection. However, I disagree with the level of import you place on the practical limits of human survivability.   Unless people take the limits of adaptation into consideration, no one can have a well-informed discussion of the timing for emissions cutbacks or R&D investment for mitigation.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see what the basis is for having human survivability mentioned in this article. There are an enormous number of individual studies on climate change impacts. Why should this very specific piece of research receive such great attention? In my opinion, the main criteria for judging importance for inclusion in this section of the article should be: Article 2 of the UNFCCC; the IPCC's "reasons for concern," "key vulnerabilities", and "robust findings and key uncertainties". In the IPCC Synthesis report, there are large number of important impacts, including those related to health and ecosystems, which are not mentioned in this article. It would not be possible to cover all of these impacts in this article, and I think mentioning human survivability places undue weight on one particular type of impact and research paper. Enescot (talk) 03:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Reserving the option of revisiting the Sherwood paper as part of a larger discussion of limits to adaptation, I can live with it going away for now. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Title
I suggest we change the title from
 * "Attribution and expected effects"

to
 * "Expected effects of global warming"

because the text of the section barely mentions attribution, and a fair bit of attribution discussion is in the section called "Initial causes of temperature changes (External forcings)" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Footnote problem
Looks like we have a problem with non-ref footnotes. See "‹The template Cref2 is being considered for deletion.›  [A]" in the lede for example. Think there are 4 in all. HELP:FOOT may help. I need to get some sleep and can't untangle it myself right now.....--IanOfNorwich (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Not really. Cref2 was developed to differentiate between footnotes as references, and footnotes as notes.  There is no reason why notes should not contain notes.  (If there is a problem, it is due to  stuffing bibliographic details into footnotes, and thus into the source text, but that's a separate issue; see below.)  It is easy enough stuff the 'crefs' back into 'refs', and I'll do so if that is agreeable. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Bias in the section on public opinion
There is a remarkable degree of bias in this section towards UK and US public opinion. I've highlighted in bold what I view to be the most biased text:

''In 2007–2008 Gallup Polls surveyed 127 countries. Over a third of the world's population was unaware of global warming, with people in developing countries less aware than those in developed, and those in Africa the least aware. Of those aware, Latin America leads in belief that temperature changes are a result of human activities while Africa, parts of Asia and the Middle East, and a few countries from the Former Soviet Union lead in the opposite belief.[147] In the Western world, opinions over the concept and the appropriate responses are divided. Nick Pidgeon of Cardiff University said that "results show the different stages of engagement about global warming on each side of the Atlantic", adding, "The debate in Europe is about what action needs to be taken, while many in the U.S. still debate whether climate change is happening."[148][149] '''A 2010 poll by the Office of National Statistics found that 75% of UK respondents were at least "fairly convinced" that the world's climate is changing, compared to 87% in a similar survey in 2006.[150] A January 2011 ICM poll in the UK found 83% of respondents viewed climate change as a current or imminent threat, while 14% said it was no threat. Opinion was unchanged from an August 2009 poll asking the same question, though there had been a slight polarisation of opposing views.'[151]

'A survey in October, 2009 by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press showed decreasing public perception in the United States that global warming was a serious problem. All political persuasions showed reduced concern with lowest concern among Republicans, only 35% of whom considered there to be solid evidence of global warming.[152] The cause of this marked difference in public opinion between the United States and the global public is uncertain but the hypothesis has been advanced that clearer communication by scientists both directly and through the media would be helpful in adequately informing the American public of the scientific consensus and the basis for it.[153] The U.S. public appears to be unaware of the extent of scientific consensus regarding the issue, with 59% believing that scientists disagree "significantly" on global warming.[154]'

''By 2010, with 111 countries surveyed, Gallup determined that there was a substantial decrease in the number of Americans and Europeans who viewed Global Warming as a serious threat. In the United States, a little over half the population (53%) now viewed it as a serious concern for either themselves or their families; a number 10 percentage points below the 2008 poll (63%). Latin America had the biggest rise in concern, with 73% saying global warming was a serious threat to their families.[155] That global poll also found that people are more likely to attribute global warming to human activities than to natural causes, except in the USA where nearly half (47%) of the population attributed global warming to natural causes.[156]''

'On the other hand, in May 2011 a joint poll by Yale and George Mason Universities found that nearly half the people in the USA (47%) attribute global warming to human activities, compared to 36% blaming it on natural causes. Only 5% of the 35% who were "disengaged", "doubtful", or "dismissive" of global warming were aware that 97% of publishing US climate scientists agree global warming is happening and is primarily caused by humans.[157]'

Researchers at the University of Michigan have found that the public's belief as to the causes of global warming depends on the wording choice used in the polls.[158]

In the United States, according to the Public Policy Institute of California's (PPIC) eleventh annual survey on environmental policy issues, 75% said they believe global warming is a very serious or somewhat serious threat to the economy and quality of life in California.[159]

A July 2011 Rasmussen Reports poll found that 69% of adults in the USA believe it is at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified global warming research.[160]

'A September 2011 Angus Reid Public Opinion poll found that Britons (43%) are less likely than Americans (49%) or Canadians (52%) to say that "global warming is a fact and is mostly caused by emissions from vehicles and industrial facilities." The same poll found that 20% of Americans, 20% of Britons and 14% of Canadians think "global warming is a theory that has not yet been proven."[161]'

Suggested revision
I suggest that the text in bold is removed and moved to the sub-article on public opinion on global warming. My revision includes info on a poll (in bold) by the World Bank focussing on developing countries viewpoints. I think this addition is important since it goes some way to addressing what I view to be the bias towards developed countries views and "is warming happening?" questions. More information should be included on questions concerning what should be done about global warming:

''In 2007–2008 Gallup Polls surveyed 127 countries. Over a third of the world's population was unaware of global warming, with people in developing countries less aware than those in developed, and those in Africa the least aware. Of those aware, Latin America leads in belief that temperature changes are a result of human activities while Africa, parts of Asia and the Middle East, and a few countries from the Former Soviet Union lead in the opposite belief.[147] In the Western world, opinions over the concept and the appropriate responses are divided. Nick Pidgeon of Cardiff University said that "results show the different stages of engagement about global warming on each side of the Atlantic", adding, "The debate in Europe is about what action needs to be taken, while many in the U.S. still debate whether climate change is happening."[148][149]''

'A 2009 poll commissioned by the World Bank targeted public attitudes in developing countries towards climate policy (World Bank, p.2). Polling was conducted among 13,518 respondents in 15 nations - Bangladesh, China, Egypt, France, India, Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Russia, Senegal, Turkey, the United States, and Vietnam. The publics in all countries polled saw climate change as a serious problem (World Bank, p.2). In most countries, the public believed that scientists agree that climate change is an urgent problem which is understood well enough that action should be taken (World Bank, p.3). In 14 countries, clear majorities thought that if their countries act on climate change, other countries would be encouraged to act (World Bank, p.3). In nearly all countries, majorities supported key national steps to deal with climate change, even when the steps were described only in terms of costs, not benefits (World Bank, p.3).'

''By 2010, with 111 countries surveyed, Gallup determined that there was a substantial decrease in the number of Americans and Europeans who viewed Global Warming as a serious threat. In the United States, a little over half the population (53%) now viewed it as a serious concern for either themselves or their families; a number 10 percentage points below the 2008 poll (63%). Latin America had the biggest rise in concern, with 73% saying global warming was a serious threat to their families.[155] That global poll also found that people are more likely to attribute global warming to human activities than to natural causes, except in the USA where nearly half (47%) of the population attributed global warming to natural causes.[156]''

Additional reference:



Enescot (talk) 05:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If we include a snippet about "Region X" from an older worldwide poll, that won't necessarily communicate the most recent results for Region X. For example, in the last non-bold text you propose to keep (from 2010) one gets the impression that concern has dropped in Europe but there's no explanatory text.  Meanwhile, [new info for that region] made headlines just last week, where Europeans are, according to the poll, more concerned about climate change than about economic turmoil.  Personally, I'd be happy to see all of the public opinion text move to the public opinion article.    NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Too much bold text. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd rather see these large draft text sections indented (instead of italicized), and to call attention, use italics (instead of bold). It would make it much easier to read IMO.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not exactly easy to read but the principle of the proposed changes is good. The article text as it currently exists in the article is almost a textbook example of systemic bias and recentism, with every study that struck an editor's fancy being tossed into the article. This new one appears to try to summarize that a bit more, which is a good thing. NW ( Talk ) 13:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support.Enescot (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't realise that using bold text made the text more difficult to read. I'll start using indents as you suggest. Personally, I'm rather sceptical as to the Gallop poll results of wide variations in year-to-year data. They appear inconsistent with the work of Krosnick in the US. I don't agree that all the info on public opinion should be moved to the sub-article. Rather, I think that the text should be revised. In my view, the problem with the poll you cite is that it only covers Europe. The Gallop poll was conducted across a much larger number of countries, while the World Bank poll gives more attention to developing countries. I think that including the World Bank poll in this article is appropriate since developing countries make up a larger proportion of the world's population. I've rewritten the Gallop part of my suggested revision:


 * In 2010, Gallop ran polls about global warming across 111 countries. Based on the poll, 42% of adults worldwide saw global warming as a threat to themselves and their families. Compared to an earlier 2007-08 Gallop poll, there were increases in concern in some regions (e.g., Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa), and decreases in others (e.g., the US and Europe).


 * I know that this doesn't address your concern regarding more recent poll results, but I don't see a way of doing this that doesn't place undue weight on results from one region. Enescot (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess one has to choose between an idealized world according to wiki guidelines, and our readers real world practical reality. I value the latter:


 * (A) Traffic stats: Sept 2011, Global warming averaged > 10,000 hits per day.   Public opinion on climate change averaged about one hundred.
 * (B) Reader stats: I bet my bottom dollar that most readers of the English wikipedia are in the USA and Europe.
 * (C) FACT: Polls show a major discrepancy between opinion in Europe (climate worry exceeds economic worry) and USA.
 * (D) FACT: Polls show correlation between low USA awareness regarding degree of scientific consensus and climate worry, and noticeable increase in public concern when public is given accurate info about that consensus.
 * (E) QUESTION: Are the majority our readers (presumably in USA and Europe) likely to be more interested in public opinion in their own homelands, or in some global average (including opinions of, for example, Mali, Honduras, and Turkmenistan) ?

QUESTION:  Given the volume of traffic on the two ENGLISH-wiki pages (100 hits vs 10,000 hits per day), is it more important to highlight the Europe-USA difference and connection to public education, or some globalized average opinion from the distant corners of the globe? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You appear to be saying that this article should be written to favour US/European interests or concerns. I view this as systemic bias and thus totally unacceptable . Enescot (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether it is acceptable or not, systemic bias is a fact of life stemming from the economic divide in the world and is not a problem that can be addressed by our failure to emphasize the most relevant material for the majority of our readers. Although I think the economic divide sucks, this isnt the place to try to fix it.  IMO, trying to do so dilutes the impact of our coverage in this most-read of the climate articles.  Serenity_Prayer  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your analysis, and I think I'm correct in wanting to revise the section. I've therefore placed a template in the section to attract other editors to this issue. Hopefully this will encourage further discussion over the best way forward. Enescot (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

What about the cooling?
There needs to be a section that outlines the evidence that, if true, completely debunks global warming. There has been research that shows that the Earth is no longer heating up. Antarctica is getting bigger. The research gives evidence that Earth is actually cooling instead of heating up. Until this is done, then, in my opinion, this article has "bias" written all over it and shouldn't even be featured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mast3rlinkx (talk • contribs) 12:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:RS. Antarctica is not "getting bigger", as far as I know. Sea ice trends in Antarctica show varying signals, but that is not unexpected, and very much in line with our current understanding. I'm not aware of any serious sources that claim that Earth is cooling. As always, there are short-term variations in the temperature, but long-term temperature trends are all up. If you know about reliably published opposing results, please present your sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Antarctic ice sheet is losing mass faster and faster according to [this 2011 paper]; see also [author inteview] NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the trend of Antarctic sea ice (as opposed to ice sheets on land) is less clear, and frequently misused as a talking point by non-sceptical so-called sceptics. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * For other readers, [here is a pithy summary] of the land-ice vs sea-ice issue Stephan and I have been discussing. Sea ice comes and goes and doesnt make any difference to sea level.  But the land ice is aged by millenia, this [thousands-of-years-old ice is shrinking faster and faster], and its water can effect sea level.  In addition, the [temperature of the ice sheets surface layers in East Antarctica] is gradually warming and if that doesnt stop, it will reach the melting point.  I agree with Stephan that an increase in sea ice is just one piece of a complex puzzle, and is not the silver bullet evidence of cooling that some try to make it out to be.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Right, [the temperature of the ice sheets surface layers in East Antarctica] has warmed from -57.5°C to -56°C over about 50 years. At that rate, it might start melting in around 2,000 years. (The point being that "warming" and "reach the melting point" have no meaning unless you include some values. I am sure it is warmer near the coast, but these are the number in the provided abstract.) Q Science (talk) 04:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * but that does not refute my main point - that energy (aka warming) is entering the system. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, melting does not depend on the average temperature, but on the warmest season. McMurdo Station reaches -2°C in August. Parts of the Peninsula are above freezing for large parts of summer, and can reach up to 15°C. Even slightly higher temperatures increase both spatial and temporal range of melting. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Arctic cooling in winter actually amplifies global warming, see here: "Pronounced warming in the Arctic region, coined Arctic amplification, is an important feature of observed and modelled climate change[1, 2]. Arctic amplification is generally attributed to the retreat of sea-ice[3] and snow, and the associated surface-albedo feedback[4], in conjunction with other processes[5, 6, 7, 8]. In addition, the predominant thermal surface inversion in winter has been suggested to pose a negative feedback to Arctic warming by enhancing infrared radiative cooling[9]. Here we use the coupled climate model EC-Earth[10] in idealized climate change experiments to quantify the individual contributions of the surface and the atmosphere to infrared radiative cooling. We find that the surface inversion in fact intensifies Arctic amplification, because the ability of the Arctic wintertime clear-sky atmosphere to cool to space decreases with inversion strength. Specifically, we find that the cold layers close to the surface in Arctic winter, where most of the warming takes place, hardly contribute to the infrared radiation that goes out to space. Instead, the additional radiation that is generated by the warming of these layers is directed downwards, and thus amplifies the warming. We conclude that the predominant Arctic wintertime temperature inversion damps infrared cooling of the system, and thus constitutes a positive warming feedback" Count Iblis (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I am confused. The abstract implies that "close to the surface in Arctic winter [is] where most of the warming takes place". I thought it was dark in the Arctic during winter. As a result, in a vacuum, each day should be colder than the one before, not warmer. However, since the surface inversion is caused by heat flowing toward the surface in one frequency band and then re-radiating to space in another, most of the energy radiated to space by the winter surface actually comes from the inversion layer. Thus, the inversion keeps the surface from getting as cold as it would without an atmosphere. I have trouble seeing how that is a positive feedback. Unfortunately, the full article is behind a paywall. Q Science (talk) 06:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Try [this explanation] NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. However, it simply says the same thing. Still confused. Q Science (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am tempted to engage further, but suggest you direct your question to the folks at Real Climate, which welcomes this sort of general discussion. We are far adrift from discussing how to improve the article.  I suggest you start by looking further into the cause of the inversion.  [For example]


 * Usually I would be one to collapse a general discussion of this sort, but since I am a guilty participating party I will leave that for someone else to do NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

New study (from BEST) confirms warming trend
This article published yesterday by the Economist presents the results of an independent study by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group,(with a skeptical view and different methodology). The study confirms the well-known warming trends from NASA GISS, NOA and HarCru). Is this reference good enough RS for including a summary in the article? or shall we wait for the supporting paper to be published? I rather ask first than beginning an edit war. Thanks--Mariordo (talk) 03:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: further references from the leading author can be found here and here. And the following is not a RS (editorial), but provides the full background for this study and its significance: see here.--Mariordo (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Probably need a journal publication. Certianly if we want to mention it to any significant extent. The importance of the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation would be a bit of a turnup for the books.©Geni 06:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * At present this does not seem to meet the notability level to get into this article. Another study confirming all the others isn't that big a deal, and we only have the scientist's PR statements to support the idea that the method might be any better (given the identical outcome it seems to look about the same). --BozMo talk 08:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree; however it might fit in "scientific opinion..."; at least the anon 99.* would think so. (As an aside, I thought there was general agreement that ground temperature record was over half incorrect in detail, in the sense of having the wrong location.  That doesn't mean the other confirming data doesn't indicate the general warming trend.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is probably too much detail for our overview article here at this point in time, but I think that it certainly deserves mention in the Instrumental temperature record article. The fact that the series goes back to 1800, for instance, would make it notable as the longest running quasi-global temperature set.  The only question in my mind is whether we add it nowish or wait until it's been properly vetted by peer review.....  Sailsbystars (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Haven't we previously heard something like this from the Berkeley EST group? And decided that a single paper (even one confirming our supposed AGW bias) is not necessrily notable unless some reliable (and scientific) secondary source says so? _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems like a hugely significant report, from a group that includes the recent nobel laureate. according to this editorial at Forbes, the study was funded in part by the Koch brothers (anti global warming), had a major climate change skeptic on board, and the major GW critic had said prior to release that he would accept the results. from the perspective of a marginal participant (me) in the detailed debate on article bias here at WP, this seems to herald the end of the public debate for the most part (outside the scientific communities routine and necessary discussion minutiae and formalities of peer review) . However, I wont add it myself, as i do want to respect consensus, and my perspective may be in the minority. I think it will be important to observe the public and media response to this report, in addition to its position as a peer reviewed document. As always, A.G.W. (assume good will) on A.G.W. (anthropogenic global warming) :) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on the comments above, I think it is better to wait for the papers to be published before adding anything to this article. Regarding notability, I believe the main media has made it already notable enough, because besides the Economist article cited above, articles have been published by such reliable sources as Science Daily, The Guardian (see here reactions from leading climate change researchers), BBC News, New York Times, and Los Angeles Times. Then I will proceed to add a synthesis in the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature article under the initial results section and the instrumental temperature record article as suggested. Also I think it would be appropriate to have a short paragraph in the global warming section of the urban heat island article, and finally in the reliability of temperature records (instrumental temperature record) section of the main global warming controversy article. I will begin editing only the first two to allow time for feedback in the corresponding talk pages, before moving a summary to the latter two articles. Thanks for all the suggestions.--Mariordo (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the BBC (and others) these are the results of a 'US scientific group set up in the wake of the "Climategate" affair'. This is most relevant at Climatic Research Unit email controversy, I think. This was the body set up because so many Americans said that the hacked e-mails showed that the whole of climate science was broken, and the other enquiries explicitly only looked at procedures, looked for illegality, malpractice and so on, without reviewing the actual science. Well, this is the review that looked at the science itself, is it not? --Nigelj (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As Nigelj says, reliable sources have discussed the announcement's relevance to central claims made during the Climatic Research Unit email controversy, and related articles. Both the BBC news item above and this BBC article give good coverage to the political aspects of how those denying significance of climate change had hyped up attacks on the climate records this study has apparently confirmed, and are now backtracking on their undertaking to accept the findings of this study. These aspects were also covered by news in The Times (dead tree version, don't have online subscription). . . dave souza, talk 18:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nigelj and dave souza. At first I avoided the Climategate article because it has been so contentious, but I believe a summary is justified as the BEST group was formed due to this controversy and in the spirit of healthy skepticism and transparency. I already did the two edits mentioned above (here and even shorter here), the content and citations can be taken from there.--Mariordo (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The secondary "reliable sources" here seem to all be newspapers, which are not reliable in regards of science. If Science or Nature says something about this, fine, but currently the signficance is all political, in regard of public opinion.  _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree, JJ, this does not advance the science of climate change one iota. It is one of the final bits of tidy-up after the e-mail hacking: in simplified terms, there were those who said, after the official enquiries were in, "Well, they may not be guilty of professional malpractice in their e-mail-writing, but they sure as hell made all the figures and graphs up". This is the proof that the CRU scientists weren't guilty of any of that either. --Nigelj (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * FYI: The results of this study were by covered in Science Daily, Nature, and New Scientist, not only the popular media.--Mariordo (talk) 03:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

[http://www.economist.com/node/21533360 Climate change: The heat is on; A new analysis of the temperature record leaves little room for the doubters. The world is warming] Oct 22nd 2011 from the print edition, page 99; regardin Berkeley Earth, NASA GISS, NOAA, and HadCRU. (Source: Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature)

See Richard A. Muller, Climatic Research Unit is a "CRU', and also see Climatic Research Unit and related CRU hacking incident. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A setback for those denying the mainstream findings, but not new or, as yet, peer reviewed. See above for other aspects, and RealClimate: Berkeley earthquake called off for the expert opinion of Eric Steig. BTW, see HadCRUT and note that this study doesn't cover sea temps, so Hadley isn't relevant. . . . dave souza, talk 00:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting comments, Special:Contributions/Dave souza. Do you have non-Realclimate.org sources too?  If so, please post more here.  99.190.85.15 (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

To summarize why it's a bad idea to consider anything about the BEST project for inclusion in this particular article:
 * BEST has published or is publishing a single paper
 * it hasn't been through peer review yet
 * it merely confirms what we knew and adds nothing

It's probably of considerable importance to American politics, but this article isn't about American politics.

The paper may, when finally reviewed and properly published, be a useful source for articles such as urban heat island. It has confirmed that the urban heat island effect does not account for the instrumental temperature trend. --TS 15:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Minor tweak: BEST has publicised drafts of four papers which it is submitting for peer reviewed publication, these papers introduce novel methods which have to be subjected to examination and replication before they can become an accepted part of the body of climate science. The main conclusions essentially confirm earlier peer reviewed work, and refute common claims by deniers. There are more detailed aspects such as whether the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is more or less significant to global temperature variations than the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) which may eventually prove of some significance to the pages on these detailed questions, but have little or no impact on the overview of global warming. . dave souza, talk 16:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting comments. More discussion of potential interest at Talk:Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature.  99.35.15.107 (talk) 05:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 23 October 2011
Please change statement, "The only members of the UNFCCC that were asked to sign the treaty but have not yet ratified it are the USA and Afghanistan," located at the end of the fourth paragraph. Russia, Japan, and Canada all elected not to sign the extension.

76.88.148.92 (talk) 02:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * List of Kyoto Protocol signatories. Russia, Japan and Canada have signed the Kyoto Protocol from what I see. Stickee (talk)  03:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * See update re kyoto, etc, in the lead NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

More archiving
The page got fat again.

More archiving, usual criteria:
 * New images
 * Images 1 and 2
 * Image 3
 * Other views section
 * Enescot reply to ABLegler
 * US National Research Council report
 * Royal Society document
 * CANVASS CALL - Proposed policy about overlinking in edit summaries
 * Someone keeps reverting my edits
 * The introduction is very bad.

See history of archive 65 for annotations.

Usual offer applies: please revert any mistaken archiving without further discussion. --TS 00:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Some more removals:
 * Third paragraph in the opening section
 * Proposal to rename subsection headings
 * CURRENT
 * PROPOSED
 * "Unequivocal" -- again!
 * Does 1RR or 3RR apply to this article?
 * Geoengineering
 * Global warming-related article needing attention
 * Where is the citation backing up the word "continuing"


 * For reasons, see recent edit history of archive 65. Please do restore any section without further discussion if I have archived it in error. --TS 16:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

And more:


 * Yet more work on the lead - this relates to several recent threads
 * 'For scientific disputes...'
 * "Global warming" definition?
 * Lead, new and improved first paragraph
 * Citation documentation
 * Sceptic views are now NPOV

As usual, please restore any sections archived in error. --TS 11:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Title specification
This regards the question Enescot raised about chapter titles. Strictly speaking it is independent of whether Harv links are used, or not. But converting to Harv also involves upgrading the citations, so this is properly discussed here.

Keep in mind the distinction between the reference that contains the full bibliographic details of the source (the report), which Harv links to with somethng like "IPCC AR4 WG1 2007", and the citation, which points to a specific location within the the source. Also keep in mind that WP:verification is facilitated by having the citation as specific as possible. This usually means having page numbers. But here it is more specific to identify sections or sub-sections. And I think we are agreed that linking to the on-line text is highly desireable, perhaps even expected for the canonical citation format.

The citation format requested by the IPCC for technical summaries and chapters (but not Summaries for Policymakers or FAQ sections) includes authors, year, and chapter title (example). Our style as currently evolved is lead author only, followed by "et al.", some form of chapter and/or section title, and optional page number. The question is how to formulate the "title" to reference both the chapter (as Enescot desires, and I do not oppose) and section or sub-section (as I strongly desire).

A simple approach is to include everything, which has a distinct advantage in providing the complete context, but is also quite long, as witness this example:


 * Chapter 4 Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice and Frozen Ground, Section 4.6 Changes and Stability of Ice Sheets and Ice Shelves, 4.6.2 Mass Balance of the Ice Sheets and Ice Shelves, 4.6.2.1 Techniques 4.6.2.1.1 Mass budget, p. 361.

Question: should we include the intervening levels? I think it would be sufficient to cite just the lowest (most specific) section (e.g.: 4.6.2.1.1 Mass budget), followed by the page number, if we are not too particular about all the intervening context.

Strictly speaking this does reference the chapter, as in the IPCC work the section numbering includes the chapter ("4"); this is countenanced by citation authorities such as CMOS. However, I am not adverse to explictly citing the chapter. I think we should include the chapter number (as "Chapter 4", "Chap. 4", or "Ch. 4"), as that is both sufficient and generally more significant to most people than the title. But should we also include the title?

Comments? _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: Forgot to mention that the non-chapter sections, such as the Summaries for Policymakers, are not numbered, so should have the title (or acronym, such as SPM). The above regards the numbered chapters only. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've changed my mind over the need to have such lengthy citations. Apart from the SPMs and TSs, I think we could probably dispense with chapter titles. I think the IPCC does say that their full reports can simply be referred to as being the work of the IPCC (PDF). Since their reports are cited so often in this article, I think that we can dispense with author information of the chapter in question.


 * I agree with you that it's only necessary to cite the title of the very last level of the sub-section of the report. Using your example, this would be " 4.6.2.1.1 Mass budget". I wouldn't bother citing the titles of higher level sections, i.e., "Section 4.6 Changes and Stability of Ice Sheets and Ice Shelves, 4.6.2 Mass Balance of the Ice Sheets and Ice Shelves, 4.6.2.1 Techniques".  If the section of the report is not cited, I think that page numbers would need to be retained or added.


 * Although this is slightly off-topic... [moved to section above. -JJ] Enescot (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Although the numbering of sections incorporates the chapter number, not all "chapters" (e.g., SMP) number their sections. So some chapters need to be named, and I am fine with being consistent across the board.  I think we are converging on the following:
 * Chapter numbers: include for numbered chapters.
 * Chapter titles: include for unnumbered chapters (SMP, TS, App.), else optional.
 * Intermediate sections: leave off.
 * Lowest-level section: required, include number (if any) and title.
 * Page number: optional if linked to html section, else required.

I have found the page number a convenient place to link to a pdf, but at this point I see that only as optional. (Authors discussed in section just above.)


 * Everyone good with that?
 * _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with that. Enescot (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not care, provided that the format is simple and I do not have to spend my volunteer time trying to learn something new on the computer. I used to do that for pay, and hated it, so if you want me to follow suit, it has to be canned for simpleminded computer morons of which I (thankfully) am the posterchild. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're hardly a moron, computer or otherwise (way over qualified), and quite competent to master the standard of citation I am trying to establish. What I see is a lot of frustration (others as well as yours) because (I think) folks are getting taught bad from the outset.  What I am hoping to establish should, in the end, be clearer, and even simpler.  If all the discussion here seems confusing, just think of it as construction rubble, or scaffolding.  The final product (model) will be cleaner. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, JJ, I was only putting joking words in my own mouth to describe myself.... and in an effort to say any standard you arrive at needs to be so simply explained (demonstrated graphically is better) that anybody can instantly comprehend the standard at a single reading, and without struggle. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah. Unfortunately, such a goal is idealistic, an asympote that can only be approached, never attained. If something could be that obviously "right" we wouldn't need any explanation.  And even with the most cogent of explanation there is the fundamental problem of getting the horse to drink.  So we settle for relatively better; some assembly may still be required. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Are we done here? If so I recommend someone manually archive it. If it's still apparently finished on Friday 11th, I'll do it myself. --TS 22:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

"Biggest jump ever in greenhouse gases" resource
http://my.news.yahoo.com/biggest-jump-ever-seen-global-warming-gases-183955211.html Portal:Current_events/2011_November_3 99.109.125.146 (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is probably a place for this but it isn't here. There is almost certainly an article about the history of anthropogenic greenhouse gas production. --TS 03:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Citation of IPCC authors
How to include the chapter authors in citations of the IPCC reports needs careful consideration. For chapters and technical summaries (but not the FAQs or SMPs) the IPCC Working Groups request attribution of all of the lead authors in (see example, bottom of page). However, this is a lot of cluttering details of extremely limited interest, and also contrary to long accepted practice of reducing lists of three or more authors to something like "Solomon et al.". My recommendation here is that we follow standard practice.

As to how this is to be done: one possibility is to do this within the cite/citaiton templates, using the "author" and "chapter" parameters. I recommend against this. First, because it is useful to use "author" for identifying the report as a whole. Second, because something like "Ch. 8" (in reference to a given report) is more meaningful to most of our readers (and most of our editors) than the unfamiliar "Randall 2007". Second, if each chapter has a separate reference (the full bibliographic record, noting the distinction I made in the section above between reference and citation) then there is a lot of repetition of material (full title, list of editors, publisher, ISBNs), which only confuses and hides the essential differences.

My recommendation is that attribution of the author(s) be done in the citation, like this:
 * 1. ^ Solomon et al., Technical Summary, TS.1: Introduction, in.
 * 2. ^ Bindoff et al., Chapter 5, Section 5.5: Changes in Sea Level, in.

where the is the Harv link to the full reference:
 * (pb: ).

Note that the full reference contains all the bibliographic details, but is listed only once, with the contituent elements (the chapters) linking to it. Also, additional details of the citation specification -- such as chapter titles, section headers, or page numbers -- can be included in the citation.

This does not cover all possible details, but I hope that as far as it goes it will be satisfactory.
 * _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Enescot reply
I think this mostly addresses the concerns I've raised in the previous thread. On my talk page, NewsAndEventsGuy requested that I post examples of where I felt that loss of citation information was important. I thought that I might as well post these examples here for other editors to look at. It should help to clarify the concerns that I raised previously. With the citation style you've put forward, the problem had concerning the citation in example 1 would not apply. I think that example 2 shows that retaining the name of the IPCC chapter may be beneficial for the "robustness" of citations, should any errors creep in.

Example 1
The most important example I feel is the loss of the IPCC chapter from the citation. Here is a citation I used in current sea level rise:

(1.1)

You changed this to:

(1.2) Magnitudes of impact, in 

As I stated earlier on, the above example does not apply to your current suggested citation style, where the SPM bit would be retained. I changed citation (1.2) to this:

(1.3) in

which is pretty much the same as the citation style you've proposed.

Example 2
I made an error in a url link to an IPCC report chapter:

(2.1)

However, as you can see, the rest of the citation gives more than enough information for another editor to track down the correct url/supporting text. Citation 1.1 was changed to:

(2.2) Fischlin, A., Section 4.4.9: Oceans and shallow seas - Impacts, p. 234, in .

Citation 2.2 is less helpful than 2.1, and unfortunately redirects the reader to the WG1 report, and not WG2. This is probably because 2.1 contains the incorrect url which links to a WG1 report. The difference is that the single error in 2.1 is much easier to correct than the two errors in 2.2. Enescot (talk) 08:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Rejoinder
There is a good issue to take up regarding chapter titles and section headers. But the style I propose does not preclude any options here (is even more accomodating), so I would like to defer that until some other details are sorted out.

Regarding your (above), I am not clear on what the issue is. I will point out that (as I think I have stated before) in making these conversions I am not trying (generally) to improve them, to make up all the deficiencies of the originals. In this case I did drop the "Summary for Policymakers" (a disimprovement -- sorry). In this case the citation could done more particularly (more fully) as:

(1.4) Summary for Policymakers, section C: Current knowledge about future impacts: Magnitudes of impact, in 

Which is to say: chapter (the SMP), section ("number" and title), and subsection. This is a bit lengthy, which gets back to the discussion I would like to defer a bit. The point I would make here is that omitting or inserting any of this identifying text ("detail"), for better or worse, is fully accomodable; this does not really bear on the use of Harv or the IPCC citation.

There are some minor issues here, such as citing the IPCC as author. More accurately it should be the Working Group, but I think it is quite acceptable leave off the "author" in this case. If the IPCC is cited as the author, then the acronym is preferable.

The "retrieved" date (access date) is also well left off. Even though we are linking to a web page, that refers to the work, which is not as changeable as a web page, having a definite form and publication date. (We have also discussed errata on my talk page.)

A more significant difference, not obviously visible, is that you used a cite book template for the citation (followed by the "in IPCC..."), where I just wrote it out. (Likely this is what you meant above by "purely written text citations".)  I could quibble about how that was used, but I don't see (yet??) any problem in the concept.

I have to go now, so back to Example 2 later.
 * _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah! Having slept on the matter I now recall why I am adverse to using a template in the citation in the manner of example 1.3. My biggest objection is the inclusion of bibliographic details (the reference) in the article text, where the intermingling confuses and obfuscates both text and reference. To the extent that only details of the citation (such as chapter, section, page) are included, and not of the reference (series, publisher, isbn, etc.), are included this objection is minimized. But I am also concerned that having or  templates in the notes would confuse the different usage in citations and references, sliding back to having the entire reference buried in the text. (And even to named refs.) So while at one level this particular use of  is not exactly an issue in switching to Harv, at another level it is. I am somewhat opposed, but open to further discussion. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

In your I believe your point is about which form an error is most easily detected and corrected. (Note that I did detect the error, and tagged it.) In that case I suspect the original error was due to misreading "Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: contribution of Working Group II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" for "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change". You have to agree that the signal-to-noise ratio here is pretty low, because of all the redundant clutter. This exactly why I want to use Harv, so cluttering details can be pulled out of the text and put into a separate section and linked to with Harv. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Consensus?
There are a few more details regarding implementation, but in regard to the basic question of using Harv, is everyone on-board with proceeding? No further questions? _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Speaking for myself, my answer to the narrow question about existing cites is YES go ahead. However, if what you really want to know is whether we are embracing a future policy that all subsequent IPCC citations will follow the same format, then I can not agree to that until I see a FAQ or something similar that makes it simple, repeat simple, for other editors to understand the format at a single reading.  Developing those materials means thinking like an educator instead of a computer literate technical editor.  While I am grateful for your attempts to explain in text only form, for whatever reason those efforts are not working, at least for me.  My suggestion is to try writing an IPCC-Harv-for-Dummies manual, using graphics (screen shots maybe?) to reinforce the text.  But if not graphics, at least different text.  But thats just me.... what do others think? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that we shouldn't require a format without explaining how to do it; and I do anticipate some such documentation. But what we are looking at now is what the preferred format should look like. Essentially setting the target to aim at. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * [Moved from below] Although this is slightly off-topic, I think that keeping author information is required where the actual text of the article explicitly refers to a group of IPCC authors, e.g., "Smith et al (2001) concluded...". As you know, this style is used in effects of global warming but also in several other articles. Dispensing with author information in these articles would, in my view, require that article text be changed for consistency, i.e., "Smith et al (2001) concluded..." would become "IPCC (2001) concluded...". Enescot (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the use of "IPCC" as author is intended for those sections which are compilations of other sections (SMPs, FAQs "as a group", etc.). Strictly speaking "IPCC" as author is a complement, not a substitute.  Within a footnote, where we specify chapter and section, I would say that "author" is optional, which is largley our current (if poor) practice.  But you do raise a good point in regards of in-text citations – I wouldn't want to see all that detail.  One approach would be to not link such citations directly (i.e., don't use Harv in the text), but follow them with the footnote with the full citation.  And here I think we could use the more generic form.  E.g.: "The IPCC (2001)[1] concluded...".  What do you think? _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * On articles where it's necessary, I'm happy to change to the IPCC (2001)[1] form. I've posted a thread on Talk:Effects of global warming to discuss the issue further. Enescot (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Are we agreed that citing chapter authors is optional (provided that the chapter is indicated)? And that for the extracted chapters (e.g., the SPMs) "IPCC" (or similiar, see following) is used as "author"?


 * Where we use "IPCC", I have been wondering if we might add the AR acronym? E.g.: "IPCC AR4 (2007)".  It could be argued that this is redundant, but I think most readers, and even many editors, are not that familiar with the specific year of each AR.  It could also be argued that this is right at the point where (per my experience) editors are most likely to err in which AR they are referencing, so this bit of redundancy could be very useful.  I don't know if I would make this obligatory. But accepted, yes, perhaps even preferred. What do you think? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Whoops! Forgot to include the consideration that each AR has three "Summary for Policymkers", and likely multiple Appendices, so in some cases it may be equally good to specify the Working Group. Not, I think in the text, but in footnotes. E.g.: textual "IPCC AR4 (2007)" might link to "IPCC AR4 WG1, Summary for Policymakers, ...".  Again, this is redundant with following information, but I think warranted for identifying which SMP (etc.) where more specific author identification is not provided. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that having the author information as optional is a good idea. Retaining chapter authors might be worthwhile in effects of global warming since the authors' conclusions are explicitly atttributed in the text. If the chapter authors aren't specified, then I think that the author can be given as just the IPCC. I agree with your idea of including in the citation which assessment report is being cited, the year of the assessment, and the working group. I think that using the various AR acronyms is fine since the full report citation would be given later on in the references section. Enescot (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Having just finished most of the IPCC citations at Current sea level rise (aside from the garbage citations), I am starting to feel that simple "IPCC" works better than "IPCC AR4" (etc.). I left a few of the latter in; check'em out and see what how you feel about them. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 23:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Time for Harv?
When I revised the IPCC references in this article I followed the extant form of including the entire reference (template) in each note. But as I gained experience in other articles it has become strongly apparent that having the reference (the templated bibliographic details of a source) in a separate section, and only citing the source, using Harv templates, in the note is much easier. I have also worked out some improvements in the citation form (see my talk page, or Current sea level rise), and if I implement those I would also like to start converting to citing with Harv. Any objections? _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * For starters, let's just think about Harv for IPCC references. Question:  We have so many quoted blocks from IPCC, how would that work with Harv?  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * IPCC citations for starters is fine with me, and hopefully no one kicks up a fuss about mixed modes. I haven't noticed any use of block quotes in the refs (though with all the template clutter they could be hiding there); probably you are thinking of the "|quote=" parameter in the citation template.  I have never seen what the point of that is, and I think we'll be quite fine without it. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In [this version of the article], please see ref #3 and #4, which are examples of IPCC citations that use the quote parameter of the citation template. IMO, for article text that is expecially likely to be attacked, using block quotes from the source (in theory) reduces the number of kneejerk comments or edit wars.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. What you are looking at is the quote parameter (in the template).  And as I said, I have never seen what the point of that parameter is; we can get along fine without it.
 * So last call: any objections to converting to Harv? (At least for the IPCC citations.) _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain that it's the best way, what are the alternatives? Harv is (iirc) on the way out and usually not used anymore. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That would be my question, too: what are the alternatives? (Named refs are not an alternative -- they are a problem.)  The only alternative I'm aware of is sfn, which seems to be a hybridized form of Harv and (yikes!!) named refs.  I haven't seen anything about Harv going away; that sounds more like some people's wishful thinking. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit conflict]
 * And I'm seriously confused. I tried to say that some way to include quotes, such as the examples I provided, is important and JJ seems to answer that they are not.  I don't want to chop off the ability to include quotes.  It saves everyone the hassle of looking for quotes in order to verify article text, and it will reduce kneejerk argumentative responses.  Sure we can survive without quoting, but it is very useful.  How would quoting work using Harv? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * My apologies for any confusion! I totally agree we need to quote, and in no way do I mean that we stop quoting.  (In text, or in footnotes.)  What I mean is that we do not need the template "quote" parameter to do so -- it is unnecessary.  E.g.:
 * is readily replaced with:
 * and the result is essentially identical. No problem! _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * and the result is essentially identical. No problem! _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * and the result is essentially identical. No problem! _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Slow brain day here I guess. Please demonstrate by changing the article in your desired fashion for the first two or three IPCC references, including the quoted text now found in the template parameter, and then reverting your own edits pending discussion.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Better yet, here is a side-by-side comparison. Original note using "|quote", and revised note with text outside the template.

And how I would do the note with Harv.

We don't need no stinkin' "quote" parameter! _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks that helps, but it still doesn't answer the question how would you HARV-ize these references while preserving the quotes in the new HARV-IPCC formatting you propose? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, just like I have shown (above)? The second box uses Harv, and preserves the quote.  The only difference from the first box is that "in " replaces (and links to) the complete bibliographic reference, which is located somewhere else. Nothing is lost! (Except some redundant clutter.) I think I should actually do one, so you can see it in context. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

citation template with quote parameter vs citation template without
OK, I understand that using the citation template we don't need the quote parameter, and you're example 1 and 2 appear to have identical results. But between those two choices, why not use the quote parameter? Reasons to use it appear to be (1) it exists, (2) it produces the same result, and (3) newcomer editors won't know all this carefully nuanced background, but will instead be more likely to see the help guide for the template, complete with info about the quote parameter. Also, at least for my brain, stringing info via
 * parameter 1 | parameter 2 | parameter 3 | parameter 4 |

is easy to comprehend, as oppposed to
 * parameter 1 | parameter 2 | parameter 3 | then something else

Is there some reason why, when using a citation template, you think we should not use the quote parameter? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, several reasons. In reference to your points:
 * (1) Just because something can be done, or used, does not mean it should. Trying to do the quote within the citation confuses the link with the thing linked, and confuses the template (the linkage).  (E.g., try editing a number of templates with long quotes and you will appreciate the advantage of having the closing braces in view, not at the end of some long string of text.)
 * (2) Narrowly speaking it does not produce the same result (look closely). More importantly, you may not understand the distinction between citing a source, and the source's reference, and  have missed the point of using Harv: to pull the references (bibliographic detail) out of the text, and not have to repeat references (or even worse, use named refs) for each citation.  E.g., if you have two different quotes from the same page/section of a source, quoting them using 'cite' means repeating details (perhaps inconsistently).  It truly is much easier to use a Harv link to connect a quote to a reference than to build the quote within the reference.
 * (3) I think new editors are confused largely because we have not clarified the disinction (nuance) between a citation and a reference, nor provided good instruction. The documentation doesn't really urge use of the quote parameter, even suggests caution. That editors try to use this parameter is (I think) because they have no clear instruction, or even decent examples.  One of the reasons I'm doing all of this is to provide decent examples, so that editors do not need to grope around for something that works.


 * Your brain might find it easier to comprehend quotes/citation/reference separately, rather than trying to stuff everything into one template.
 * - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

More questions
Please interline answers to each as we go.
 * Okay. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

1. I thought Harv was going to produce something (like this, 2011). Instead there is a footnote number. What happened to the thing (like this, 2011) you were talking about earlier?
 * The footnote number is there because the citation was done in a note (i.e., between &lt;ref> tags). Harv links can be added there, or in the text.  And with or without enclosing parentheses.  In the example above  (could have been in parentheses) "IPCC AR4 WG1" is the "author", followed by the "date" (year).  See IPCC_Third_Assessment_Report for examples.

2. Would refs done with citation templates appear in one reflist and refs done with harv appear in another, or would they all appear in the same reflist?
 * No, no, you don't understand! Reflist (or an equivalent) catches the "notes" (footnotes, endnotes) created by the misnamed &lt;ref> tags.  Harv creates a link -- which can be in the text, or in a note -- to the (also misnamed)  or  template, which creates the reference.  Harv templates (where ever they are) link to "citation" templates (where ever they are).  Yes, the terminology is confusing (just what did you mean by "refs"?), and we are stuck with it.  Which is why I keep insisting on proper distinctions, and clarity and consistency in usage.

3. I can't see how they can appear in the same one, since refs with citation templates get numbers in order, and earlier you said Harv would alpha sort them ones formatted with harv. Please explain?
 * The note numbering is an automagical function of the wikimedia software as it corrals all the notes (text in &lt;ref> tags, which may include various templates). None of templates have anything to do with that numbering.
 * Harv does not alphabetize (sort) anything (and I don't believe I have said that). One of the advantages of Harv (aside from moving bibliographic detail out of the main text) is that the references can be alphabetized (and should), but that has to be done by the editor.

4. If they appear in the same list, but mixed up, will the footnote numbers still make sense?
 * They don't. Harv links show up where you put them; footnote numbers follow footnotes.

5. In your harv example, when I click on IPCC AR4 SYR I jump to the citation templated reference, which is very confusing and maybe not what you intended. Why would we use Harv AND a citation template?
 * That's a problem of building the example in the talk page. The example just above shows the use of Harv with a quotation. To see the relation betwen Harv and the reference it points to see the example below in .  And again, it is not a matter of using Harv or a citation template; they work together.  It is using Harv to link from the text (or note, or citation) to the reference (generated by the 'cite' or 'citation' template).  The point being that references are then not required through out the text, but can be collected in one area (and alphabetized).

6. While harv might be a huge advantage to a harv-trained editor working on their own project, is it reasonable to expect newcomer editors to easily find the information and program their brains accordingly?
 * Yes, because (as I said above) once we've sorted out the canonical form we will make it easy to find examples and explanation, greatly flattening the learning curve. As well as upgrading existing usage, which is what editors should be emulating.  I don't believe new editors find Harv less easy to learn (and I maintain it is more easy to use).  The problem seems to be everyone who find citation difficult enough as it is (with which I agree), and whose broken understanding of citation, reference, and Harv itself makes it seem harder than it really is. Note that my biggest difficulty in converting other articles to Harv is 1) splitting up named refs, and 2) verifying, fixing, and possibly augmenting the existing references.  Adding Harv templates is the least of it all!

I applaud your efforts, and yet at the moment I have a strong intuitive belief that the answer to #6 is so strongly "no" that all the benefits of harv combined won't be able to overcome the new-editor learning curve hurdle. But I'm trying to keep an open mind. A better example perhaps would be to just process 20% of the article and then revert it, as a demo edit. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your "intuitive belief" is based on past experience with citations, which are unnecessarily difficult as they are. I can't change the past, but I am hoping to improve the future.
 * No way am I going to put in the work to untangle the existing mess, only to revert it. If you want examples, check out IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (which is not entirely up to my standards, or Enescot's, but adequately demonstrates the use of Harv with citation templates).  Also check out IPCC Third Assessment Report, which has no &lt;ref> tags, and therefore no notes, and no super-scripted numbered links to notes.  It also has parenthetical Harv links in the text.  _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Enescot reply
I'm opposed to any information being deleted from IPCC citations. This is something I've noticed on current sea level rise and this article – see User talk:J. Johnson. I think the following should be kept: As I've stated on User talk:J. Johnson, some of these details have been removed on recent revisions to climate change articles, notably on current sea level rise, where details on the chapter of the IPCC report referred to were removed from at least two citations. Without this information, users of the CUP version would not know where to find the supporting reference (see note). Also, the IPCC report chapters represent the work of the IPCC authors, and not the IPCC itself. This is of some significance, since in the SAR, there was a dispute between one lead author (David Pearce) and the IPCC over the content of the Summary for Policymakers document. In general, I think citations should contain as much information as possible, and I do not see what is to be gained from removing the information I've mentioned. Enescot (talk) 05:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "{{cite book" style, rather than purely written text citations, as has been adopted in current sea level rise. In my opinion, cite book presents the citation information in a more consistent manner than written text, and I think it is worth keeping.
 * details on the section of the IPCC chapter in question, using " | contribution="
 * the name of the IPCC report chapter, using " | series="
 * the authors of the IPCC report chapter, using " | author="
 * the date when the url referred to was accessed, using " | accessdate="
 * details on the print and web publishers of the IPCC reports, i.e., the IPCC, GRID-Arendal, and CUP.
 * Note: if the IPCC or GRID-Arendal were to change their urls, there would be the same problem. Enescot (talk) 07:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I wonder if there is some confusion here. E.g., you mention "purely written text citations".  We do need to distinguish between the reference to a source (or "work"), which includes all of the bibiliographic details, and is (indeed!) preferably generated using a citation template, and the citations to the source which show where each quote or point in the text is found.  Much of the confusion is because editors often dump in an entire reference, with all the gory details, every time they cite something, the whole reference being used for the citation.


 * What I advocate is listing each reference (in its fullest bibliographic glory) once in a separate section ("References", "Bibliography", or such), then use some form of short citation (such as Harv) to link to the full reference. For instance, the first note in Current sea level rise goes to this note, which contains a citation to one of the IPCC reports.  That citation has a Harv link which links to this reference, which is produced from a template.


 * So the use of a "citation" template has been kept (because I agree that it is more consistent), just not in the "citation" (properly speaking).


 * Some of the "loss of details" refers to use of a citation specification such as "Chapter 4, Section 4.4.9: Oceans and shallow seas". There is standard practice to the effect that "Chapter 4" is redundant where the chapter number is included in the section numbering, and can be left out without any loss of detail.  I have generally tried to retain all such specification details (including page numbers), but in this particular detail I am ambivalent, and have gone both ways. If I have screwed up anywhere in this regard that is my fault, not a lack of the "style".


 * Listing the chapter authors is a tough question, which I need to defer till later. For now note that my "evolved" style is to list the lead author in the citation (such as here), which I think will suffice.  (And yes, I do contemplate restoring that kind of detail where I removed it in this article.)


 * Though I have moved certain details of publication from the citation to the reference, I don't believe I have lost any (except the "places" of Cambridge University Press, which I feel is not useful). Note that if the IPCC or GRID-Arendal were to change their urls the ensuing mess would be much easier to handle if the changes are confined to a handful of references in one section, rather than more numerous citations buried all throughout the text.


 * Hope that helps to clarify. More on the authors issue later.
 * _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolved?
I think I have resolved all questions satisfactorily. So back to the orignal question: are we ready for Harv? Okay if I convert citations to using Harv templates as I update them? _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No objections? Going, going, ...  ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Please recall that I consented on a provisional basis, and that basis is that new editors be able to quickly find the pre packaged pre canned simple nobrainer instructions on how to get with the program. Something that does not require reading of editorializing, and something that communicates without pondering synthesis on the part of the reader.  In other words, something comprehensible at first reading, or maybe 2nd.  Have you written those yet, and more importantly, have you turned them loose for effectiveness-testing?  The test, after all, is not whether what you write in those instructions make sense to YOU, but whether they pass no-brainer muster with new editors.  I do not object to proceeding, but I reserve the right to bitch later if the project falls short on the training/educational side. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Understood. Please also understand that if I wrote the instructions first, pointing to sections, arrangements, examples, etc. not yet present they would be very confusing.  First we get the rabbit. What I am looking for at the moment is to avoid having anyone jumping up and blasting away (or reverting!) when Harv starts showing up in the citation changes I am about to make.  ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for caring enough to spend your day working on it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Before you do this, please look at Planck's law. I think the harv format is hideous. There is no path from a reference back to the text. (This is a new change by one editor and no consensus.) If you plan to use this format for just the IPCC references, then you have my support. However, if you plan to convert all the references, I think that this is a very bad idea. Q Science (talk) 05:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree - i don't like the Harv style. There's a reason for it going obsolete. Special cases - sure. But grouped refs/reflists, would work just as well in that case (as on Climatic Research Unit email controversy). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, I was intending to start with just the IPCC citations. But the principle of consistency would then imply conversion (eventually) of the rest of the citations. And given the expressions of Harv anxiety above, I think we are not resolved on this, and further discussion is necesary.

I agree that Planck's law (which uses Harv templates) has its hideous aspects. But, please, that is as much a misuse of Harv as anything inherent in Harv itself. For example, look at notes 50-53: all "Jeans 1905x" (these are the short citations). None of these has the page number, which is one the main reasons for have Harv in the first place: to allow multiple citation, with specific location (page numbers), of a source without have to repeat (and most likely incorrectly and/or inconsistently) the full bibliographic details of the source. But this example gets worse: these notes are linked from the text with one of those hideous concatenations of links: [50][51][52][53]. With Harv all of these could have been put into a single footnote (like this: ). Or, if a general reference is appropriate, in combined citation (like this: ). These are simply not feasible using named refs.

I submit that this is less hideous than the current state of affairs at Planck's law. (For further illustration please see Puget Sound faults.)

Contrast this with Climatic Research Unit email controversy (similar to Global warming). These notes have a lot more text than at Planck's Law (though not as much as at Puget Sound faults), which I think conveys a softer, fuller feeling; I suspect that appeals to a lot of editors. But all that cushioning obscures the essential information, and obscures a lot of inconsistencies (which is what prompted me to tackle this). Consider: if you wanted to see if Andrew Friedman of the Washington Post was cited, or any of the IPCC reports, the only feasible approach is to use the search function in your browser (try it!), because relying on refs precludes putting the references in alphabetical (or any other) order. It is very much a strong advantage at Planck's Law that the reader can readily see what sources the editors have used.

The statement that at Planck's Law there is no backlink from a reference to the text is not strictly correct, and at any rate is also applies generally to all articles. What is backlinked is the note (footnote). The confusion is because at the other articles the full reference is dumped into the note (which I argue is a problem in itself), whereas at Planck's Law, Puget Sound faults, etc., the note contains a short citation, which is just as backlinked to the text as any other content contained in a note.

There is also the difficulty/ease of editing. Even though I already favored Harv, I was still surprised at how much easier it was to revise the IPCC citations using Harv (as at Climate change) than "simply" replacing the entire reference in the note (as at Global warming). (You all are welcome to engage in similar comparative exercises.) Indeed, the hardest part of all that work was not with Harv, but dealing with all the named refs. That is the truly hideous bit: having to deal with named refs.

Which leads to my central objection to the widespread practice of dumping the bibilographic details into the article text (often repeatedly): it confuses both text and bibliography, making editing harder.

In summary: the true "hideousness" is not the superficial aspects of using short citations at Planck's Law (which isn't even due to Harv), but the grotesquese results of using named refs instead of Harv. I suspect the real issue here is anxiety about using Harv. I assure you is a LOT easier than not using it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Part of my difficulty with the discussion is lack of brevity resulting in loss of the essential point. I am interested in the track back issue, but not interested enough to read text discussing it.  I wish you would just format the first 5 IPCC references the way you propose, and then revert, to show us what it looks like and how it works.  If a picture is worth a 1000 words, an actual demonstration would be worth 1000 pictures.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but wide-bore questions take wide-bore answers. Here is a narrowly focused, short response to the complaint that Harv templates have "no path from a reference back to the text". This complain is, strictly speaking, not valid, as the backlink to the text is really a function of the footnote.  That the footnote contains a Harv template rather than a citation template or any other content is immaterial, and the footnote's backlink to the text works equally well for all note content.


 * For examples (and a slightly longer response), look above at my previous and study how the backlink (the "^") works.  Then compare that with the backlinks in  (containing - !! - a Harv template) and   (straight text).  For additional examples already in place see IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report (mixed mode).


 * QED: Complaints that Harv has "no path ... back to the text" (backlink) are entirely spurious, as the backlink is a function of the note. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, in this example the path back to the text works well, the reader has a clear statement of the source and a link to the page in the source, as well as the arrow linking back to the text. This concise statement in the "notes" section also has a link down to the full bibliographical info in the "references" section. The alternative clutters the combined "references" with repetition of the full bibliographical details, and lacks the clear bibliography of the "harv" approach which is best for such repetitive use of different pages of the same reference. . dave souza, talk 10:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Harvnb references work well when there is multiple use of different pages or sections of the same reference book or website, as shown at Current sea level rise which would be immensely longer and more confusing if it included multiple repetition of all the bibliographic info which is usefully shown at Current sea level rise. In contrast, Climatic Research Unit email controversy doesn't make such multiple use of any given reference, so the harv system isn't applicable. It should be noted that in both systems citations can readily be grouped simply by including them within the same "ref" tags, preferably using    line breaks between citations to avoid the mass of text shown at ref. 12 of the Climatic Research Unit email controversy References. . . dave souza, talk 10:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems to be a common view that Harv "isn't applicable" if references are used only once, but even a little consideration will show that this is not true. In the first place, the biggest advantage of using Harv is moving all of the bibliographic detail out of the article text, which makes both the text and the bibliographic detail clearer and easier to read/edit.  Second, having the source references (with their bibliographic detail) in one location, and decoupled from the text, means that
 * a) the bibliography can be alphabetized and
 * b) is easier to examine,
 * c) doesn't require hunting through the entire article to find the references,
 * d) makes it easier to compare references for consistency (or to copy), and
 * e) does not preclude multipe use in the future.
 * "Named refs" lose all of these advantages, and then gets real difficult when later on someone does try reuse. That Harv is greatly preferable with multiple uses of a reference in no way diminishes that it is also greatly preferable even with single uses of a reference.  ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 22:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree when dealing with a bibliography, but in my experience there are also individual sources which fit better into the "notes" section rather than trying to treat them as though they were books. For examples of this sort of hybrid approach from 2009, On the Origin of Species and Fertilisation of Orchids worked reasonably well. Both use harvnb for book references, but inline citations for individual letters linked from the Darwin Correspondence Project. Something to resolve on a case-by-case basis. . . dave souza, talk 18:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * What you say is (I think) no objection to using Harv here, so possibly we are straying from the specific issue ("Resolved?"). But as long as we are on the relative merits of Harv vs. named refs, I would like to address this misperception that Harv is mostly suitable for books, and particularly your view that some sources "fit better into the 'notes' section rather than trying to treat them as ... books." The bottom line is that there is nothing about Harv that makes it more suitable for books, or less suitable for any other kind of source. (Why does anyone think otherwise?) Nor does Harv impose any need to treat sources "as though they were books." Harv is just a means of automagically creating links. I don't think any sources are more easily cited ("fit better") in notes (&lt;ref> tags) than in Harv; in Puget Sound faults you can find web pages, conference abstracts, even an on-line database, and they are all cited with Harv templates.  No where have I found named refs to "fit better"; I find Harv to be superior in all cases. (Would more discussion be helpful?) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 00:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I am strongly opposed to even discussing harv-ifiving the non-IPCC cites until and unless (A) the conversion of IPCC cites meets with general applause and (B) the project then develops the educational/training materials for new editors so they can easily follow the gameplan.  While the current method is awkward, IMO discussion about Phase 3 before even starting Phase 1 is premature.    NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I look way down the road for immovable problems because mucking around with named refs is such a pain I would be unhappy if my efforts were reverted (as has already happened). But hopefully no one will object to converting the IPCC citations, and then we can see about the rest.  (If Dave wants to discuss Harv further we'll do it elsewhere.) Okay? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 21:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay by me, the Puget Sound example looks good. Taking the IPCC cites first looks like a good approach, and if harv subsequently works well with other cites then so much the better. My only concern was to avoid being too rigid if there are any cases that don't fit so readily. My example of citing individual letters is probably not relevant here, and is an unusual circumstance. There should be no reversion of IPCC cites, if there's any doubt about the next phase then that can be fully discussed on this talk page before implementation. Thanks for your work on this, . . dave souza, talk 21:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. See Current sea level rise for a preview of what I'll be doing here. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 23:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Are we done here? --TS 22:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No. There are still some loose ends, and there may be more comments when I start revising the citations.  ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 00:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've archived one of the big, long-running threads that seems to have been resolved and left a pointer to it at the top of a thread that seems to be related to it. Do you think that works well as a way of maintaining continuity? If so perhaps I could do the same to this thread. There doesn't seem to be a lot of change in the discussion, the participants all seem to know what they're talking about, so I don't think it does the article much good to keep a large slab of intimidating-looking discussion lying around. --TS 20:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Review of 'Harv' links

 * This discussion relates to an earlier long thread now archived at Talk:Global_warming/Archive_65

I am still cleaning up some of the IPCC citations, but the Harv links have been implemented, so you all can take a look at how it works. Which I think is – real good! Take a look at Global warming to see the clunky but pretty nearly complete bibliographic references to the reports. Then scroll up into the Notes section, and see how (most of) the IPCC citations have a detailed specification (lead author, chapter, section, optional page) that then points to the report (e.g., "in IPCC AR4 WG1 2007"). The Notes generally and individually are much clearer not having all the bibliographic detail in each citation. (If not convinced, take a look at one of the early September versions.) All this is acheived by replacing the citation template formerly included in each citation with the simple "  ".

I am not quite yet ready to start converting the non-IPCC citations, but that should be contemplated, as it would be definite improvement to the article. Questions? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 21:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

"Notes"

 * This thread refers to edits discussed in the thread archived at Talk:Global_warming/Archive_65

Some interesting effects late today as I moved the reflist from References to Notes, and made other adjustments, but it should be stable now. This for setting up a list of references (not the reflist that catches footnotes) for Harv. The footnotes now come after the notes from the cref stuff, and – as was discussed a month ago – if cref is discontinued we can just move those notes into the regular footnotes.

Time for a break. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 01:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

For anyone that's interested: an update. I have mostly replaced the full in-cite IPCC references with Harv links, and the article is significantly smaller, and the citations no longer have that over-stuffed look to them. They also look pretty messy because I have been tagging things (mostly incomplete citaitons, with no section or page numbers, also some doubtful citations), but that is getting cleared up as I take successive passes through the notes. Currently I'm at about note 108, take a look above and below that to see typical changes. Enough for today. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 00:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Bias in the section on public opinion
There is a remarkable degree of bias in this section towards UK and US public opinion. I've highlighted in bold what I view to be the most biased text:

''In 2007–2008 Gallup Polls surveyed 127 countries. Over a third of the world's population was unaware of global warming, with people in developing countries less aware than those in developed, and those in Africa the least aware. Of those aware, Latin America leads in belief that temperature changes are a result of human activities while Africa, parts of Asia and the Middle East, and a few countries from the Former Soviet Union lead in the opposite belief.[147] In the Western world, opinions over the concept and the appropriate responses are divided. Nick Pidgeon of Cardiff University said that "results show the different stages of engagement about global warming on each side of the Atlantic", adding, "The debate in Europe is about what action needs to be taken, while many in the U.S. still debate whether climate change is happening."[148][149] '''A 2010 poll by the Office of National Statistics found that 75% of UK respondents were at least "fairly convinced" that the world's climate is changing, compared to 87% in a similar survey in 2006.[150] A January 2011 ICM poll in the UK found 83% of respondents viewed climate change as a current or imminent threat, while 14% said it was no threat. Opinion was unchanged from an August 2009 poll asking the same question, though there had been a slight polarisation of opposing views.'[151]

'A survey in October, 2009 by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press showed decreasing public perception in the United States that global warming was a serious problem. All political persuasions showed reduced concern with lowest concern among Republicans, only 35% of whom considered there to be solid evidence of global warming.[152] The cause of this marked difference in public opinion between the United States and the global public is uncertain but the hypothesis has been advanced that clearer communication by scientists both directly and through the media would be helpful in adequately informing the American public of the scientific consensus and the basis for it.[153] The U.S. public appears to be unaware of the extent of scientific consensus regarding the issue, with 59% believing that scientists disagree "significantly" on global warming.[154]'

''By 2010, with 111 countries surveyed, Gallup determined that there was a substantial decrease in the number of Americans and Europeans who viewed Global Warming as a serious threat. In the United States, a little over half the population (53%) now viewed it as a serious concern for either themselves or their families; a number 10 percentage points below the 2008 poll (63%). Latin America had the biggest rise in concern, with 73% saying global warming was a serious threat to their families.[155] That global poll also found that people are more likely to attribute global warming to human activities than to natural causes, except in the USA where nearly half (47%) of the population attributed global warming to natural causes.[156]''

'On the other hand, in May 2011 a joint poll by Yale and George Mason Universities found that nearly half the people in the USA (47%) attribute global warming to human activities, compared to 36% blaming it on natural causes. Only 5% of the 35% who were "disengaged", "doubtful", or "dismissive" of global warming were aware that 97% of publishing US climate scientists agree global warming is happening and is primarily caused by humans.[157]'

Researchers at the University of Michigan have found that the public's belief as to the causes of global warming depends on the wording choice used in the polls.[158]

In the United States, according to the Public Policy Institute of California's (PPIC) eleventh annual survey on environmental policy issues, 75% said they believe global warming is a very serious or somewhat serious threat to the economy and quality of life in California.[159]

A July 2011 Rasmussen Reports poll found that 69% of adults in the USA believe it is at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified global warming research.[160]

'A September 2011 Angus Reid Public Opinion poll found that Britons (43%) are less likely than Americans (49%) or Canadians (52%) to say that "global warming is a fact and is mostly caused by emissions from vehicles and industrial facilities." The same poll found that 20% of Americans, 20% of Britons and 14% of Canadians think "global warming is a theory that has not yet been proven."[161]'

Suggested revision
I suggest that the text in bold is removed and moved to the sub-article on public opinion on global warming. My revision includes info on a poll (in bold) by the World Bank focussing on developing countries viewpoints. I think this addition is important since it goes some way to addressing what I view to be the bias towards developed countries views and "is warming happening?" questions. More information should be included on questions concerning what should be done about global warming:

''In 2007–2008 Gallup Polls surveyed 127 countries. Over a third of the world's population was unaware of global warming, with people in developing countries less aware than those in developed, and those in Africa the least aware. Of those aware, Latin America leads in belief that temperature changes are a result of human activities while Africa, parts of Asia and the Middle East, and a few countries from the Former Soviet Union lead in the opposite belief.[147] In the Western world, opinions over the concept and the appropriate responses are divided. Nick Pidgeon of Cardiff University said that "results show the different stages of engagement about global warming on each side of the Atlantic", adding, "The debate in Europe is about what action needs to be taken, while many in the U.S. still debate whether climate change is happening."[148][149]''

'A 2009 poll commissioned by the World Bank targeted public attitudes in developing countries towards climate policy (World Bank, p.2). Polling was conducted among 13,518 respondents in 15 nations - Bangladesh, China, Egypt, France, India, Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Russia, Senegal, Turkey, the United States, and Vietnam. The publics in all countries polled saw climate change as a serious problem (World Bank, p.2). In most countries, the public believed that scientists agree that climate change is an urgent problem which is understood well enough that action should be taken (World Bank, p.3). In 14 countries, clear majorities thought that if their countries act on climate change, other countries would be encouraged to act (World Bank, p.3). In nearly all countries, majorities supported key national steps to deal with climate change, even when the steps were described only in terms of costs, not benefits (World Bank, p.3).'

''By 2010, with 111 countries surveyed, Gallup determined that there was a substantial decrease in the number of Americans and Europeans who viewed Global Warming as a serious threat. In the United States, a little over half the population (53%) now viewed it as a serious concern for either themselves or their families; a number 10 percentage points below the 2008 poll (63%). Latin America had the biggest rise in concern, with 73% saying global warming was a serious threat to their families.[155] That global poll also found that people are more likely to attribute global warming to human activities than to natural causes, except in the USA where nearly half (47%) of the population attributed global warming to natural causes.[156]''

Additional reference:



Enescot (talk) 05:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If we include a snippet about "Region X" from an older worldwide poll, that won't necessarily communicate the most recent results for Region X. For example, in the last non-bold text you propose to keep (from 2010) one gets the impression that concern has dropped in Europe but there's no explanatory text.  Meanwhile, [new info for that region] made headlines just last week, where Europeans are, according to the poll, more concerned about climate change than about economic turmoil.  Personally, I'd be happy to see all of the public opinion text move to the public opinion article.    NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Too much bold text. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd rather see these large draft text sections indented (instead of italicized), and to call attention, use italics (instead of bold). It would make it much easier to read IMO.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not exactly easy to read but the principle of the proposed changes is good. The article text as it currently exists in the article is almost a textbook example of systemic bias and recentism, with every study that struck an editor's fancy being tossed into the article. This new one appears to try to summarize that a bit more, which is a good thing. NW ( Talk ) 13:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support.Enescot (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't realise that using bold text made the text more difficult to read. I'll start using indents as you suggest. Personally, I'm rather sceptical as to the Gallop poll results of wide variations in year-to-year data. They appear inconsistent with the work of Krosnick in the US. I don't agree that all the info on public opinion should be moved to the sub-article. Rather, I think that the text should be revised. In my view, the problem with the poll you cite is that it only covers Europe. The Gallop poll was conducted across a much larger number of countries, while the World Bank poll gives more attention to developing countries. I think that including the World Bank poll in this article is appropriate since developing countries make up a larger proportion of the world's population. I've rewritten the Gallop part of my suggested revision:


 * In 2010, Gallop ran polls about global warming across 111 countries. Based on the poll, 42% of adults worldwide saw global warming as a threat to themselves and their families. Compared to an earlier 2007-08 Gallop poll, there were increases in concern in some regions (e.g., Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa), and decreases in others (e.g., the US and Europe).


 * I know that this doesn't address your concern regarding more recent poll results, but I don't see a way of doing this that doesn't place undue weight on results from one region. Enescot (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess one has to choose between an idealized world according to wiki guidelines, and our readers real world practical reality. I value the latter:


 * (A) Traffic stats: Sept 2011, Global warming averaged > 10,000 hits per day.   Public opinion on climate change averaged about one hundred.
 * (B) Reader stats: I bet my bottom dollar that most readers of the English wikipedia are in the USA and Europe.
 * (C) FACT: Polls show a major discrepancy between opinion in Europe (climate worry exceeds economic worry) and USA.
 * (D) FACT: Polls show correlation between low USA awareness regarding degree of scientific consensus and climate worry, and noticeable increase in public concern when public is given accurate info about that consensus.
 * (E) QUESTION: Are the majority our readers (presumably in USA and Europe) likely to be more interested in public opinion in their own homelands, or in some global average (including opinions of, for example, Mali, Honduras, and Turkmenistan) ?

QUESTION:  Given the volume of traffic on the two ENGLISH-wiki pages (100 hits vs 10,000 hits per day), is it more important to highlight the Europe-USA difference and connection to public education, or some globalized average opinion from the distant corners of the globe? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You appear to be saying that this article should be written to favour US/European interests or concerns. I view this as systemic bias and thus totally unacceptable . Enescot (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether it is acceptable or not, systemic bias is a fact of life stemming from the economic divide in the world and is not a problem that can be addressed by our failure to emphasize the most relevant material for the majority of our readers. Although I think the economic divide sucks, this isnt the place to try to fix it.  IMO, trying to do so dilutes the impact of our coverage in this most-read of the climate articles.  Serenity_Prayer  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your analysis, and I think I'm correct in wanting to revise the section. I've therefore placed a template in the section to attract other editors to this issue. Hopefully this will encourage further discussion over the best way forward. Enescot (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the template I added to the public opinion section is still there, I've restored this thread. I think it should remain open until the discussion is resolved and template removed. Enescot (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Was that my premature archiving? If so, apologies. --TS 17:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)