Talk:List of climate change controversies/Archive 1

This is an archive of discussion up to the end of 2004.

Objective examination
I take exception to one statement in the article:
 * It is rare to see an objective examination of global warming, one which considers arguments from both sides and tries to determine honestly which presents the best case.

This may be what constitutes "objectivity" in a U.S. law court, but it is not how things work in science (and, I'd argue, it is utterly inappropriate to science. Scientists are informed by previous research and debates.  But scientific objectivity is based the claim that the world exists and can be understood independent of our relationship to it.  Scientific objectivity occurs when scientists observe data under rigorous conditions and interpret such data based on reproducable methods. Perhaps one can say that an "objective examination of the global warming debate" would consider and evaluate the different arguments made by different people.  But an objective examination of global warming as a physical phenomenon would be based on an examination of physical events themselves and not different people's arguments about the phenomena. SR


 * Yes, reality is not determined by popularity of science. It seems unlikely that Earth became round when most people believed it was round.  This article does serve the purpose of examining the controversy itself and should continue to exist as history of the controversy.  Other pages show the state of actual climate change (yes, warmer) and of the global warming movement (everyone knows why is it warmer). Eventually this might fold into an article about the global warming movement, but at present the controversy is an issue of its own. -- SEWilco 15:14, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Why this article
I don't understand why this article exists, when the global warming article already describes the controversy. In any case, it needs a rewrite, because it implies that the pro side is somehow led by members of the Democratic Party of the United States, and then mentions in passing that there are international organizations involved and that there is something called a Kyoto treaty. This has got the whole matter bassackwards. Furthermore, it treats it as an American partisan political issue, when in fact it is an important worldwide issue, it gies the Democratic Party much more credence as a leader on this issue than it even remotely deserves, and it doesn't even begin to address the international nature of the debate. Really, why duplicate an article with a redundant discussion of this so-called controversy when there already is an article that discusses the matter? soulpatch


 * You are 100% right. I only made this article in the first place, because I couldn't figure out how to wedge all its content into global warming. But now that global warming is getting more balanced, we can move info from Global warming controversy and then eliminate it entirely. Since you seem to know a bit about it, would you like to help? --Ed Poor


 * I'm stretched too thin already. I have only so much time and so many Wikipedia articles to get involved with.  I'll leave it to your capable hands.  :) soulpatch

The impression this page gives to me is that a whole pile of rather higgledy-piggledy stuff that was clogging up the GW page has been shunted out to here. I think thats good: it helps keep the GW page clean. People who like to emphasise controversy can see where it ends up: a mess! (William M. Connolley 13:57 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC))

List-O-Names needed?
(of the 2 paras displayed below) Why is the former preferred to the latter? The list of names is in the skepticism article. And the IPCC participants are to be expected to be IPCC supporters, so they're hardly a representative group (and the list-o-2-names should be in the skepticism article). It's like counting newspaper articles where Wikipedia authors complain about Wikipedia. (And I'm just as septic as the next guy) (SEWilco 14:52, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC))


 * The IPCC science working group agrees that there are significant successes and problems with the simulations which are used to predict climate, while opponents assert that the report summaries omit the negative aspects (see IPCC) and mostly report progress is being made in understanding climate. A number of scientists with backgrounds in climate research -- notably Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer, Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling and Sherwood Idso -- dispute the global warming theory (see global warming skepticism). However, the skeptics are vastly outnumbered by those who accept the IPCC position: of the 120 contributing authors to the IPCC TAR, only 2 are known to have voiced any complaint.


 * The IPCC science working group agrees that there are significant successes and problems with the simulations which are used to predict climate, while opponents assert that the report summaries omit the negative aspects (see IPCC) and mostly report progress is being made in understanding climate. A number of scientists dispute the global warming theory (see global warming skepticism) or the supporting research.

(William M. Connolley 15:52, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)) I don't particularly insist of the full list of skeptics - you can take out as many as you like as far as I care - but leave the 2/120. This *isn't* the sceptics page so the position of the mainstream (and what it is) is important. Your preferred version 2 mentions the skeptics but omits to mention the mainstream (sentence 1 is essentially neutral; sentence 2 is skeptic) - because you consider the mainstream position so obvious and dominant it doesn't need mentioning? I'm not sure. The skeptics *are* vastly outnumbered and that should be mentioned.


 * Dr. C, you keep insisting that there is a "mainstream" representing real and honest science, against which "skeptics" keep paddling in "denial" of reality.


 * (William M. Connolley 15:36, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)) Thats a rather un-nuanced version, but essentially its my view(nuaces would include distinction between Lindzen-type and Michaels type). But no, its not what I've put into the article - your POV blinds you.


 * Perhaps this stems from confidence that the UN would never create or support a body harboring bias. But science is not decided by majority vote: that is how politicians decide policy, not how scientists determine reality. --Uncle Ed 14:30, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 15:36, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)) sci-is-not-done-by-vote is one of those meaningless cries of the septics.


 * Firstly, by putting in the above, you appear to be conceeding that the majority position *is* in favour of GW theory, even though you do your best to remove this from the article. So come on: which is it?


 * Secondly, I haven't written the-majority-says-this-so-is-is-correct, I have written the-majority-says-this.


 * Thirdly, deciding reality is one thing. But we're not talking about that. What we're talking about is deciding what is written about the "consensus" and other views of reality.


 * I removed GWB as a sceptic. If the only reason he was listed is his opposition to the Kyoto protocol, I don't think it's very accurate.  From everything I've read,  including the Kyoto Protocol page on wikipedia, his decision was mostly economically motivated and had nothing to do with his belief or disbelief in global warming.  In fact he agrees that scientific evidence suggests change is needed and claims the major flaw in the protocol is that it is not applied equally to everyone.

To Do
To Do: add IPCC quote about it taking another 10 years before the signal will emerge from the noise.


 * Isn't announcing the hope that the signal will someday "emerge from the noise" equivalent to conceding that natural variations dwarf any other identifable cause? In other words, that there is LESS THAN the ghost of a chance that GW theory is correct? --Uncle Ed 14:35, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 15:36, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)) Wouldn't it be a rather good idea to actually find the quote and examine its context before attacking it?

Quotes in context
I don't agree with you, William, about a "majority" of scientists endorsing the GW theory. That is the position of some politicians and some environmental activists, but I'm unaware of any survey of scientists which supports that view.

Moreover, even if 51% of scientists surveyed agreed completely that "the GW theory is sound science" that wouldn't mean much to me. Now if 80% were that certain, I would sit up and take notice. But anything less than 95% means that there would be significant opposition to the hypothesis.

It would be interesting to study a bit of the history of biology or medicine, and determine the "tipping point" at which Louis Pasteur's germ theory of disease gained such wide acceptance that immunizations could be required by law. In the 1860s, acceptance was zero: no one knew that microbes transmitted disease. How long did it take Joseph Lister's idea of using carbolic acid for sterile surgery to catch on?

How much evidence must be collected? And how many other researchers need to be able to reproduce the results independently, before a consensus forms? --Uncle Ed 18:47, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Disaster area
(William M. Connolley 21:00, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)) This article has been a disaster area for some time. I'm now going to attempt a major re-write... (William M. Connolley 21:34, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)) OK, stopped for now.

Text removed
(William M. Connolley 10:05, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)) An anon added:


 * They claim that these instruments are far removed from the influence of the urban heat island effect of large cities and are therefore more accurate than the surface temperature readings, which they claim are critically flawed and derived from poorly maintained weather stations around the globe. These other methods of measuring temperatures show a much less significant warming trend, which they claim is a more accurate picture of our climate.

The same anon removed the note that the sfc record is built from land *and sea* records - an embarrassing fact for those who like to over-emphasise the UHI. Also, the urban and rural trends are pretty similar anyway. See-also the Urban heat island page for more on these myths.

Text removed, why?
I was the anon who added the text which you subsequently removed. I have since registered.

I am slightly confused as to why you removed that text. Was it simply because I accidentally ommitted the word 'sea' when reconstructing the relevant paragraph? It would have been easier for you to simply re-insert the word, it seems, than to go to the trouble of reverting the article and then posting as to why you did so.

As for the reasons given... the existence of sea surface temperature readings in the global surface record is not an "embarrasing" detail for those of use who think that many climatologists make a good government-subsidized living perpetuating public anxiety over a highly questionable scientific theory. Yes, the global surface record does include the sea measurements (which themselves have flaws, but that's for another discussion)... however, the global surface record also includes all of the faulty data that I mentioned. Therefore, re-insertion of the word "sea" would have been your intellectually honest course of action.

The satellite and balloon records ALSO include the sea surface temps (and much more accurately), but'' they do NOT include the faulty surface data from the weather stations. Your point is moot and, in fact, wrong. To imply that the satellites do not include the oceans (much more accurately) is dishonest.

The question should now turn to the appropriate name for this article. "Global warming controversy" is clearly not appropriate given the fact that the "opponent position" is subject to approval (or even censorship) from the "proponents". If you are unwilling to actually allow one paragraph of the "other side" to be fairly represented, perhaps this article should be renamed.


 * (William M. Connolley 09:57, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)) I recommend you read up a bit more. SSTs and land sfc show pretty well the same rate of warming. Urban and rural, ditto. All this argues against any large UHI bias, as do a whole pile of papers, most recently Peterson. There are multiple satellite records, showing warming rates between 0.8 and 0.22 oC/decade. Which particular one are you talking about?

Well, I don't have much time to dig around much right now, but the very first result on a search for "satellite global temperature record" was a NASA site with this paragraph prominently included...

"The lower tropospheric data are often cited as evidence against global warming, because they have as yet failed to show any warming trend when averaged over the entire Earth. The lower stratospheric data show a significant cooling trend, which is consistent with ozone depletion. In addition to the recent cooling, large temporary warming perturbations may be seen in the data due to two major volcanic eruptions: El Chichon in March 1982, and Mt. Pinatubo in June 1991."


 * (William M. Connolley 15:13, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)) This is of course wrong. All the satellite T records show warming, but the amount varies with the record. If you're going to paste in stuff here its better to include the URL so stuff like date and provenance can be checked.

Actually, the surface record is at odds with every other record available, and, oddly enough, it is the only one people like you seem to be interested in. Why could that be?

I would prefer that YOU cite evidence to support your point of view ASIDE FROM the surface record. YOU are the one censoring statements which were included in the article in the section dedicated to OPPONENTS' VIEWPOINT, statements which even included the qualifying clause "opponents would claim...".


 * (William M. Connolley 15:13, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)) Why don't you just read the satellite temperature record page, if thats what you're interested in? It contains all the references you need but can't seem to find yourself.

It is clear from viewing some of your "work" here that you have a very biased and ideologically blind viewpoint. Given that fact, it would be appropriate for you to substantiate your claims.

Furthermore, no one is suggesting that there is NO warming. The debate is over how much and why. "Opponents" would claim that claims of anthropogenic global warming are based on faulty surface measurements, faulty computer models that fail to even come close to predicting current climate given past data, and geopolitical pressures. The actual reason for what little warming we have actually experienced, we would claim, can easily be attributed to the big star that heats everything up--the Sun, that is--among other reasonable factors.

We would also claim that in the UN's endless quest to redistribute the United States' wealth, they have created a solution (Kyoto) in search of a problem, and then feverishly went to work searching for a problem to justify the solution. It's so convoluted, the entire global warming industry, that it is almost confusing.


 * (William M. Connolley 15:13, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)) Watch out! The black helicopters are coming to get you! Woo! Woo!

Here's some fun stuff... perhaps you should include these esteemed professionals in your article.

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world." Christine Stewart 1998, Canada's Minister of the Environment

"We may get to the point where the ONLY WAY of saving the world will be for the industrial civilization to collapse." - Maurice Strong, Secretary General Rio Summit, 1992

''"A lot of people are getting very famous and very well funded as a result of promoting the disastrous scenario of greenhouse warming." ''- Prof. Sherwood Idso, University of Arizona

"I was warned when I wrote my first paper (which discussed the difference between the climate models and some figures I was looking at for the tropics) that it would be very difficult, and my funding would probably be cut. In fact, it has been cut." - Prof. Reginald Newell, MIT

"Some greenhouse scientists have adopted an almost missionary zeal in dealing with their subject... Such uncritical zeal and a constant need for backpeddling on the original doom-laden predictions do little for scientific credibility. Predictions on climate change have in effect changed from working hypotheses to being dogma central to a large research effort, and are communicated to the media and the general public with much more credibility than they merit." Dr Richard Hobbs, CSIRO


 * (William M. Connolley 15:13, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)) Well that was fun. Was any of it published in the peer-reviewed literature? Apart from proving that you read Dalys dubious site, what are you hoping to show?

Are you suggesting that those quotes are FABRICATED?!?


 * (William M. Connolley 08:36, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)) At the moment, I'm suggesting that you refuse to admit that you cribbed them off Dalys website. But where did Daly get them? You won't say, and he doesn't say, and never will now, since he is dead.

I can understand why you would suggest that. They are devastating to the credibility of your position.


 * (William M. Connolley 08:36, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)) Evev if accurate and in context, they are irrelevant to the science. The chances of them being A and IC is slight, but we will never know, because you refuse to source them.

You have only the most flawed and inaccurate means of recording temperature to support your claims (as opposed to all other mutually validating alternative means), and apparantly you no longer have the credibility of other professionals... they all but admit to duping the public to secure funding.


 * (William M. Connolley 08:36, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)) You're going to have to be a bit politer than this if you want this conversation to continue.

Why do you choose the least accurate means of recording temps when discussing this issue? Do I really need to ask? You definately need to answer.

"Helicopters coming to get you?" What are you talking about? The UN would like nothing more than the authority to levy a global tax, but that won't fly here in the US. So they settled on an alternative. We know that Kyoto was specifically drafted to require the United States to pay huge sums for "pollution credits" to... well, everyone.

This has nothing to do with "black helicopters." If you don't even understand how Kyoto works, you may be better served picking another topic.

BTW, the NASA site I quoted was dated 2000. Unless you altered the data, 4 years is not going to change anything in the big picture of long term trends.


 * (William M. Connolley 08:36, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)) Well, thats an interesting point, because you're wrong. Why oh why won't you simply go to the satellite temperature record page and look at the most recent data, which shows that the trend is now warming. Of course, if the sat record *was* long term then an extra 4 years wouldn't matter. But it isn't, so it does.

It shows a 25 year trend of an almost complete lack of warming. As a climatologist, you should know better than to point to 2-4 years of anomolous data and claim that it is a "trend". That is patently absurd.


 * (William M. Connolley 22:34, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)) Well no, it doesn't. If you look at the piccy on the page (which shows the series with the lowest trend, btw) it shows several warmings and several coolings. Overall, the trend is upwards. You quoted (presumably with approval): failed to show any warming trend when averaged over the entire Earth. Now you are backing off slightly: its a start. Now notice that adding a few years of data to the series has significantly changed the trend: which is why picking trends from such a short series is a bad idea.

You still haven't explained why you felt the compulsion to censor a legitimate addition to the "opponents" section of "your" article.


 * (William M. Connolley 22:34, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)) You added: They claim that these instruments are far removed from the influence of the urban heat island effect of large cities. See the UHI article. You added: which they claim are critically flawed and derived from poorly maintained weather stations around the globe - this is just unsupported mudslinging. You added These other methods of measuring temperatures show a much less significant warming trend which is meaningless in its context (which others? paleoclimatic? how do those measure the present trend?). I'm not trying to censor useful material: currently this bit says: Members of this faction give more weight to data such as paleoclimatic studies, temperature measurements made from weather balloons, and satellites which they claim show less warming than surface land and sea records.. What do you want to add?

BTW, this guy disagrees with you... I'm sure he does not achieve your standards of sophistication (he's just some idiot from MIT), but... http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95000606


 * (William M. Connolley 22:34, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)) Richard Lindzen is a std.skeptic. He doesn't like the NAS report becuase it backed up the IPCC TAR and sadly for him, he can't think of any cogent arguments so is reduced to op-eds.

He's a "standard skeptic" because he disagrees with you?


 * (William M. Connolley 20:42, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)) He's a std.skeptic because he trots out all the usual half-truths, though only in non-peer-reviewed journals, because he couldn't get away with it under peer review.

That's why the world will never take the global warming scare seriously. The pompous self-protectionism of global warming "advocates" discredits your cause. Perhaps we should refer to you as a "standard junk-science pusher".


 * (William M. Connolley 20:42, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)) You could try. Why don't you take a look at attribution of recent climate change and try to (scientifically) dispute anything I've added. Or even try the satellite temperature record.

After all, your entire cause is built upon highly tweaked computer models


 * This too is more std.skeptic untruth.

which use "corrected" (altered) data to generate predetermined results, but can't predict past climate trends with past data!


 * (William M. Connolley 20:42, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)) This is so blatantly untrue I don't know why you bother. Presumably, you are regurgitating septic sites. I can prove that you are wrong: see: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm I know this won't do any good, but I have to try.

After seeing these bogus models, we are expected to believe that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are responsible for warming that occured prior to 90% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions! Anyone who cares to pay attention to the issue can see right through it. Meanwhile, temperature trends PERFECTLY correlate with the intensity of the sun.


 * No they don't/

So just keep calling people (MIT climatologists, at that!) "standard skeptics" when they disagree with you and watch as you and others like you lose more and more and more of your credibility. Are they just handing out PhDs nowdays or what?


 * I don't have a PhD. You get a point if you can resolve that puzzle.

Oh, I'm sorry. You are correct. Temperature trends do NOT perfectly correlate with the intensity of the sun... they PERFECT CORRELATE with the inverse of the length of of the shortening solar cycle. As solar maxima have been occuring with increasing frequency, global temperatures have been increasingly proportionally.


 * (William M. Connolley 20:13, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)) No points for you then. T trends don't perfect corr with anything. The solar people keep switching variables in an effort to get a correlation, which is why their statistics are hard to evaluate. T trends corr somewhat with solar for a bit, then don't. Some of the correlations have been bulked out: see:


 * Although correlations often can be found, the mechanism behind these correlations is a matter of speculation. Many of these speculative accounts have fared badly over time, and in a paper "Solar activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some purported correlations" (J. Atmos. and Solar-Terr. Phy., 2003 p801–812) Peter Laut demonstrates problems with some of the most popular, notably those by Svensmark and by Lassen (below).


 * (from Global warming).


 * All this talk of view points makes me wary. We're NPOV. William M. Connolley, you are ridiculous. DG 21:35, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 11:43, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)) I've reverted DG's edits. The proponents one - that this is an experiment with uncertain outcome - should definitely be in there. The septic ones: small-warming-would-be-beneficial is definitely and argument that is made, so I can't see why it should be removed. THe gdp/co2 one isn't exactly a favourite of mine (but then none of the septic args are) so I'll let another (sane) septic remove it if they want to.

Terminology (supporter - alarmist)
You can make a Google search to see that "global warming supporter" or "global warming proponent" is a virtually non-existent term. Moreover, it does not capture the position of this group too well. Because of these two basic reasons, I've changed the description of this first group in the controversy to a rather standard term "alarmists" which expresses the opinion of this group quite clearly. --Lumidek 16:00, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Whilst there may be no evidence that "global warming supporter" is used it is used here as a neutral term to refer to those who support global warming without referring to any specific group of individuals. Several articles do something similar and I think it perfectly captures the groups name: that is, that they support the idea the global warming is true.


 * Alarmist is a patently POV term. What evidence do you have that those who support global warming refer to themselves as such, or that they are commonly held to be as such? I could equally go through all the global warming articles and alter "oppoents to global warming" and replace it with "global warming deniers". --Axon 16:52, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * To expand on this, "global warming alarmist" has only 97 google hits. Given the provocative nature of this term, the lack of evidence of its widespread usage and the fact the notations of "supporter" and "opponent" are more neutral I have deleted this term from this page. --Axon 10:10, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

move "arguments against the existance of global warming"
I think that this line should be moved or removed:
 * There is a distinct correlation between GDP growth and greenhouse gas emissions. A cutback in emissions would lead to a decrease in the rate of GDP growth

Reason being - this is not an argument against the existance of global warming - this is an argument in favour of doing nothing about global warming. - Drstuey 21:41, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re-reading the section in question, I felt that it was justified to move that item and the preceeding one, which was also not an argument against the existance of global warming. So I did. - Drstuey 13:42, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And now I've added a third argument in favour of doing nothing about global warming taken from Global warming skepticism which is a minor help with the requested merge - Drstuey 13:51, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Endorsement of GWT
Cut from article intro:

The science of global warming is spread over several articles:
 * The basic science is covered in greenhouse effect
 * Recent climate trends include: global warming, global cooling
 * Past climate behavior, being studied in determining normal variation as well as recent climate: historical temperature record, temperature record of the past 1000 years, satellite temperature record
 * Causes of recent climate trends: attribution of recent climate change

To speak of the science of global warming is to assume that it has been proven


 * (William M. Connolley 17:36, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)) The problem is you don't even understand what science is. String theory is science, though there is no proof that it is "true". In fact in its current state it probably isn't.

and is no longer disputed, such as Pasteur's germ theory of disease or Galileo's contention that moons revolve around Jupiter. The global warming theory is barely 15 years old, and it is still being debated vigorously in scientific circles.

Now, many environmentalists and socialist (plus over half of the English-speaking lay public) might believe or claim that there is a "scientific consensus" in favor of GWT, but until surveys of climatologists, atmospheric physicists and other weather experts start consistently showing 95% or more favoring GWT, I don't think Wikipedia should endorse the theory. For now, we should say:


 * the global warming theory is disputed
 * less than 95% of scientists support it


 * (William M. Connolley 17:36, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)) Ed, you've lost it. This is nonsense. If you can't do better than this, give up.

Moreover, the Greenhouse effect article is not about global warming per se. We need an article on the "enhanced greenhouse effect" which is HYPOTHESIZED to happen in the future due to increased emissions.

Next: Having separate articles on global warming and global cooling doesn't make sense, unless we are going to use them to describe historical warm and cool periods such as the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. If we do this, we could discuss GWT in Global warming theory. But people searchnig for "global warming" would be confused and maybe distressed, because to the general public global warming refers to the supposed current period in which the earth's atmosphere is warming excessively due to greenhouse gas emissions.

Next: The three temperature record articles need a lot of work. Dr. Connelley, you could help by supplying quotations from (or summaries of) journal articles which are unavailable or hard to obtain on-line. But please do not suppress popular accounts in laymen's publications and you definitely have to stop censoring POVs which disagree with yours. Just explain WHY scientists such as yourself disagree. Do not deleted the disputed material, because that is against Wikipedia policy.

Finally: I'll read attribution of recent climate change, but it doesn't sound promising. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 16:19, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * I wish you hadn't removed those lines from the intro. I thought they were worthwhile to direct people to other relevant articles. If you don't like the word "science" then just change the word science, not remove the whole section. Personally I disagree completely that to speak of "the science of global warming"' is to assume that it has been proven. I think we should put the whole section back, but put in "alleged science" if you are really concerned about this. Also, if you problems with other articles you should discuss them on the talk pages for those articles, not here. - Drstuey 21:53, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 22:13, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)) I restored them, but have removed them again. On reflection, they seemed perfectly included within the "supporters position". However, now I've shuffled things round, this is some way down. So I shall restore them again. Argh.

New Structure
The page is looking much better now, I like the new structure - its symmetrical and the headings and sub-headings are correct IMHO. Good work team! Now to clean up the text!!!!! Actually one unsymmetrical thing is that the order is cheers - Drstuey 00:12, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Supporting points, supporting organisations, supporting individuals
 * Opposing points, opposing individuals, opposing organisations

Petitions
The petitions sections could do with some work. Firstly there is not adequate coverage of any supporting petitions - some are discussed on Heidelberg_Appeal. Secondly there is some logical argument here which is out of place in an encylopedia. For example it says


 * However, people who have examinated the petitions challenge that conclusion, pointing out that the 1992 petition is more than a decade old and only has 46 signers.

There is no need for this, we should simply state the date and number of signatures. We should leave it up to the reader to determine whether an old petition is good evidence or not. - Drstuey 00:19, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 16:29, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)) There are, really, no supporting petitions. This is because there is no need: the vast weight of science speaks for itself, and is summarised in the IPCC reports (at least as far as scientists are concerned).

Deleted individual supporters
(William M. Connolley 16:29, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)) I inserted a list of individual supporters, on the grounds of symmetry with opponents. Both the insertion and the reason were wrong and so I have deleted them. I'm less sure about the institutions - they should probably go too.

The reason is that there *is* no symmetry between the two sides. Essentially all climate scientists "support" GW; attempting to list the supporters is pointless and misleading.


 * I agree with delete of individual supporters, but think we should leave a large selection of heavyweight organisations/reports. I just added one and will add more. The idea being to present the evidence and let the reader make their own mind up. - Drstuey 10:38, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The intro (reasons for reverting)
(William M. Connolley 22:09, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)) I have reverted (again?) Eds changes to the intro. This is why:

My version:


 * The global warming controversy is a long-running dispute about human effects - past, present and future - on climate. The starting point is whether there has been significant global warming caused by industrial emissions of carbon dioxide. But this alone would be a scientific argument confined to the scientific press. The point that leads to major controversy - because it could have significant economic impacts - is whether action (usually, restrictions on the use of fossil fuels to reduce CO2 emmissions) should be taken now or in the near future.

Eds version:


 * The global warming controversy is both a scientific and a political dispute about whether human actions have caused significant global warming caused by industrial emissions of carbon dioxide. This matter is generally seen as part of the larger controversy about human effects - past, present and future - on climate (see Climate change).


 * Questions about global warming would be a scientific argument confined to the scientific press, if not for the significant economic impacts and the urgent calls for action (usually, restrictions on the use of fossil fuels to reduce CO2 emmissions) should be taken now or in the near future.

I dislike Eds putting that idea that the main issue is to-date attribution of warming in the first para. If that was all it was (if there were no implications for the future) it would not be important. So the implications (especially economic) are an intrinsic part of the main controversy. The addition of "urgent" is also POV: Kyoto, for example, is not an "urgent" measure.


 * Mmm, its a tough one. There were some good things about the re-wording of the ?Ed? version, the writing style seemed a little better. However I agree that the main controversy stems from the possible economic impact of fossil fuel restrictions and that therefore this should be in the first para. In defence of ?Ed?'s changes, I would agree that the calls to action are getting increasingly urgent and stronger - I would agree that Kyoto is not an urgent action, however he/she didn't say "calls for urgent action" he/she said "urgent calls for action". - Drstuey 22:40, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why I moved the American Geophysical Union to a more neutral category
Upon reading the statement, it does not seem to take a position in the controversy. It does use indefensible terms (at least without qualification) such as "unprecedented" and "dangerous", since it only admits a CO2 contribution and does not take a stand on the size of that contribution it does not seem to really be taking a position in the current controversy. Even opponents of the controversy generally admit that 0.5 to 0.6 degree C contribution from CO2 doubling is likely. It also does not recommend an action (like supporting Kyoto), other than pointing to the importance of "science" is understanding the issues. So, Christy's signing of the statement also does not seem significant, certainly he can support the funding of further science. Did I miss something?--Silverback 05:57, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 09:21, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)) Yes, you missed the first paragraph:


 * Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century. 


 * septics typically don't even accept the existence of the rapid rise, nor that humans are causing it.


 * I thought it was craftily phrased and trying to avoid directly stating that humans were responsible for the rapid rise, allowing both sides to sign it.


 * (William M. Connolley 19:00, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)) I don't understand that. It *begins* by stating that humans are in altering the climate. This is not skeptic-compatible language.


 * Whatever, the influence of humans on the climate, even if it is minimal,


 * (William M. Connolley 19:00, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)) The statement isn't compatible with minimal warming: it says the *rapid increase*. Skeptics don't accept that stuff.


 * most skeptics would admit that it is increasing. The cosmic ray theorists for instance, probably think they have a promising case for natural influences, but might be willing to sign with perhaps a little implicit "yet" qualifier (in their inner voice) to the "cannot explain".  After all, it did not state that the human activities could explain it.--Silverback 11:16, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 19:00, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)) It says that natural *cannot* explain it. Nat includes CR, of course. This statement is in some ways stronger than the IPCC formulation, which is a baseline for sketpical acceptance.

Global climate change and Climate forcings
Please read the new articles and consider commenting on them and/or moving some material to either one. Note that climate forcings is not specific to global climate forcings, so if it makes sense to create a separate section please do.

I hope this helps get this part of Wikipedia sorted out.

Posted to all discussion pages listed in the "See Also" section of global climate change. --Ben 03:48, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * BTW: I think these were quickly merged and redirected - Drstuey 10:30, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Science magazine meta-analysis of recent literature
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change by Naomi Oreskes


 * Unsigned one, that was NOT a meta-analysis, it was an informal "review", more of a "poll" by inference that is discussed in an essay, and already mentioned on three wikipedia pages and corrected in detail on one.--Silverback 06:56, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi, I just had a go at describing the paper better:
 * I used "individual view" for the essay rather than "non peer reviewed" because those essays are described
 * In monthly Essays on Science and Society, Science features the views of individuals from inside or outside the scientific community as they explore the interface between science and the wider society.
 * Changed papers to abstracts (since the survey in the essay only looked at them).
 * GAWD!! Thanx, how could I have missed that, how embarassing for myself and Naomi, her essay is even more bs than I thought. Even explicit supporting comments would be far more likely to make the discussion of the full text than the abstract, and the discussion, not the abstract are where there are more speculative statements about the possible implications, possibly noting any doubts or where future work needs to be done because things are unproven.  I can't believe this essay is being quoted all over the place.--Silverback 10:42, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Changed the mentions of "consensus" or "IPPC Consensus" to "GW Theory" because the survey was not of whether the abstract said there was a consensus, the survey was of whether the abstract explicitly or implicitly accepted the GW theory.
 * Hope that's OK, I also attempted to summarise and remove some language I thought was confusing and clumsy, please don't be offended :-) - Drstuey 10:28, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Aloha, I've got a bit of a problem with "the portion of the GW theory implicitly accepted may have been the less controversial conclusions". 'Cos the abstracts that Naomi Wilkes described as "implicit" support for GW theory were the ones that had been sorted into the categories evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals now it seems to me that if a climate-change paper is evaluating the impacts of global warming and certainly if it is considering ways to mitigate the effects of GW theory, then it must surely implicitly be accepting all the science of GW? I would like to comment out those words until something better can come along. Also, where else is the essay cited, I'd like to have a look how those pages reference it. - Drstuey 10:55, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You've redacted too much in your latest edits. More qualifications are needed not less, for instance any "explicit" support for the consensus in older papers, would presumably have been support for the earlier IPCC consensus' not the later stronger version.  One might consider mitigation, even if the warming is natural in origin, so these may still only be partial support or less.  It could be argued that the analysis to have any validity should have considered only articles that could have been aware of the latest IPCC consensus, i.e. afterwards, and should of course, have involved a look at the article itself.  But polling articles is not what science is about, which is an important point and why I object to your deletion of the skeptics criticism of majoritarian or consensus science.  I leave this page until tomorrow though and give you a chance to think about it some more.--Silverback 12:13, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah but: that line is repeated exactly and word for word in the 'Points' section above so doesn't need to be said there, and that line is not about judging/counting whether there is a consensus, which is what this section is supposed to be about, and I still maintain that the Naomi survey was not seeing whether papers supported "consensus" so it doesn't make sense to criticise a consensus argument here. - Drstuey 21:22, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 18:29, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)) I think this survey is a good break-point; its time wiki recognised the obvious: there is a consensus position (IPCC) and most climate scientists accept it implicitly or explicitly. The skeptics make a lot of noisy but are very very few.
 * well of course, I completely agree with you, but I'm trying to be even-handed and scientifically accurate about it. Also, I still maintain that the Naomi survey was not seeing whether papers supported "consensus" that would be silly, since few if any of them will have referred to the IPCC or the politics of global warming. Most of those 938 papers will have simply accepted the science of global warming as fact and got on with it. You can see that because Naomi gives the methodology of the survey. The confusion lies because she uses the words "consensus position as represented by the IPCC". - Drstuey 21:22, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * (William M. Connolley 23:16, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)) I disagree with you, which is a shame since we seem otherwise to be close to agreement... The Naomi article is pretty well all about agreement with the consensus, and the consensus is IPCC. I do thoroughly agree with you saying simply accepted the science of global warming as fact and got on with it - this is indeed what most cl scientists do. But I would argue (and I think Naomi is arguing) that the "global warming as fact" is essentially the IPCC consensus. I don't think your last statement is right: she does indeed use consensus-as-IPCC but this is literally true; not a confusion at all.
 * The consensus that Naiomi referrs to is the 2001 consensus so there is unlikely to be explicit agreement with it in any of the pre-2001 articles unless they make an explicit statement in their abstract that the anthopogenic component predominates in the warming. Abstracts are not a way to assess consensus anyway, sentiments are not usually presented there, nor are uncertainties that still need to be addressed.  These may be expressed in a discussion at the end of the full text of the article.  This essay is not good science, has poor methodology, although the methodology has the advantage of allowing the author to infer a whole lot.--Silverback 00:19, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 12:39, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)) I disagree with you. However, I suggest that the main "home" for this review is at Scientific opinion on climate change and to save us all editing mutliple pages, could we as far as possible refer discussion to there; and make refs to the survey on other pages brief and as uncontroversial as possible, and point to the sci op page.


 * I agree.--Silverback 13:19, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Disinfopedia article
Perhaps some of you would be interested in contributing to Disinfopedia article (currently just an idea) on attempting to refute the false claims often made by those who deny that climate change happens or that it's important.