Talk:List of climate change controversies/Archive 11

Merge proposal
These controversy pages just gerrymander information across multiple articles on the exact same topic. This article should be merged with global warming. CensoredScribe (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Recent Edits
Tried to insert the following:

''Although arctic sea ice rebounded by almost 57% from 2012 to 2013, climatologists argue that coverage continues to trend down. ''

Stephan Schulz reverted it by (laughingly) claiming Fox is not a RS, and the trend is, of course, down. So it appears that he both doesn't understand WP:RS (since any non-opinion Fox News pieces is clearly RS just as any non-opinion piece is from a Left-leaning news source) and also didn't actually read the insertion because it clearly states what he is stating in the revert. So its pretty clear that the revert was of the knee-jerk variety.

The insertion is not an opinion, doesn't pull any information out the article other than the coverage coverage, supports continuing global warming, and simply takes new information and puts it on the page. As any statistician would tell you, a one-year spike/rebound in ice coverage says absolutely nothing about the long-term trend and is simply "another data point" to add to the chart. Not sure what the issue is. Ckruschke (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * I'd refactor your edit a bit. The Fox article does not mention the 57% figure and there are much better sources to use for this, for example this one: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2013/09/a-real-hole-near-the-pole/
 * I'd say something like this:
 * Arctic sea ice extent for August 2013 was 2.38 square kilometers above the value for August 2012, the record low recorded since 1979. The overall trend continues to show a decline of 10.6% in ice extent per decade.
 * Also, check out the section I opened below about an image linked to this I'd like to add to the article. Cheers. Gaba  (talk)  17:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The so-called "rebound" is a simple case of regression to the mean - the trend, by any reasonable standard is indeed strikingly down. If you only cite Fox News for the percentage, then you engage in WP:SYN, making a point (indeed, two: "Although..." (suggesting a conflict when none is there) and "climatologists argue"!) that your source does not. Oh, and Fox does not have you 57% - they claim a "whopping 60%". A single year figure is not meaningful in climatological terms, and is not (so far) a significant point in the controversy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/09/climate-change-arctic-sea-ice-delusions The more sensible press is commenting already on how 'delusional' and 'wrong' this little symphony of orchestrated reports were. --Nigelj (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia cannot be at the same time be a serious encyclopedia and an encyclopedia which uses FN to source scientific "facts." Nor should left-wing sources be used (e.g. Huffington Post), though by "left-wing" I presume you're referring to publications like NYT which are not left wing unless you happen to be so far to the right that serious journalism appears left. Sorry, but having "news" in the name of a business does not automatically mean that business is a reputable news organization. I promise you this proposal will go exactly nowhere...but possibly backwards.  N o f o rmation  Talk  18:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Stephan Schulz, Nigelj & Noformation I think we've established that Ckruschke's edit is not suitable as it is, but what do you think about my proposal to comment on this issue (possibly coupled with the image I propose to add in the section below)? Regards. Gaba  (talk)  18:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think your suggestion is much more factual, and the image would serve as a useful illustration. But I fail to see the controversy aspect of it (and this is Global warming controversy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Gaba - I don't have a problem with your suggested change and the different source. Thanks for working this! If I'd know that by simply inserting FoxNews as a source would cause this much consternation I would have taken it upon my source to dig deeper. My fault for not forseeing this...
 * I won't get pulled into a discussion With Noformation/Stephen Schulz on the continuing silly statements about FoxNews not being a WP:RS and/or your "assumptions" about what you THINK I'm saying. I think that that was the whole point of the original revert and my opening thread comments - people not assuming WP:Good Faith on my part... Ckruschke (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * I do assume good faith. This means that I believe that you believe you would be bettering the encyclopedia by introducing a FN article to source a scientific fact.  You are wrong, but that doesn't mean I assume bad faith on your part.  And if you disagree that FN is a silly source for a scientific fact then you're free to bring it up at WP:RSN as always;  but most people very well understand that FN is not credible for scientific matters (or most matters actually since anything that is accurate can generally be sourced to an organization without a reputation for dishonesty, misrepresentation, etc.).   N o f o rmation  Talk  23:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm obviously referring to the silliness of the assertion that FN isn't a RS for "anything" which I've heard again and again - that's laughable. Again, if I'd known it was going to cause this much consternation, I would have looked for another source. All about "knowing the audience" and I obviously underestimated the vitrole against FoxNews. Why FoxNews isn't on this list when equally opinionated (from the opposite side) news sources such as CNN, CBS, and the NYT (just to name a few) who have had to recant "facts" that weren't facts equally as often as FoxNews is obviously a discussion well beyond this thread. Thanks for your reply Noformation! Ckruschke (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Can we get back to the article topic ??? Just a reminder the topic is the "public controversy". So I'm thinking dump the whole "scientific position" section for a section on the "public experience". In general I think "public controversy" would be better shown by showing public polls and the public experience of big stories from Mainstream media at the level of BBC (Climategate and movies An Inconvenient Truth. Showing political side as public works deems to fit so should also stay.   The mainstream scientific position belongs in Global warming and should be pointed to but not cited or replicated here because it is not about public opinion.  The article is about the coverage, not about the scientific value or lack of it in the coverage.   Seriously, does anyone think the IEA CO2 chart is a big part of public awareness ?   Likewise I can say just point to Global warming denialism as related but not the topic.   And I could see to not include The Great Global Warming Swindle or blogs as too small a number exposed to it.  So ? Shall I be WP:BOLD and whack out section 2 ? What do folks think ? Markbassett (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't accept your reminder declaration about the topic of this article, so naturally I don't agree with your editorial opinions that follows either.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yah, well put up what you think topic is. I'm looking at an article starting "The global warming controversy concerns the public debate over whether global warming is occurring" as the declaration of topic, re this Talk question gotten about 8 layers deep and focus is somehow on whether Fox is RS rather than whether Fox has a public presence.   If you've come to some other view of what the article topic is, please say what and quote the subsection.  Markbassett (talk) 22:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedic article about a controversy. It is not a forum in which we pursue the controversy, much less where we slug it out with each other one to one. Nor is it a place where we argue with fellow encyclopedists about whether Fox News is right about Arctic sea ice or not. What we need here, per WP:TPG, are suggestions for improvement to the article based on reliable sources about the topic. Fox News may be a protagonist in the latest chapter of the controversy, but as we've gone through in the section below, many of us think it's too soon to call that press story a significant part of the 'controversy' yet. Reliable sources about the controversy will help make that clear, as and if they begin cover the effect that that story has had, or hasn't had, on public perception or political action. --Nigelj (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Nigelj - Agree the article is saying it is to be about public controversy, do not seek forum for whether Fox is right or not, and further repeat that whether it is in the controversy is all that matter. So yes, include a Fox or MSNBC or whatever story if it's had significant part in the "public controversy".  A url to their website constitutes WP:RS verifying the story exists and it's content.  A second source saying this story had impact would be good also.   The RS is that the story happened, and that it's part of controversy, that's all. Markbassett (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Besides that "I" created the thread which has nothing to do with what you are arguing about Markbassett. If you are irritated that there is "8 layers" between what you think are the germaine points here, make a new thread... Ckruschke (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * Ckrusche -- So ? I replied directly to your post, which is why it's at that level and not 9 indents deep.   I'm not irritated the above went 8 layers deep in reply to replies, just thought it needed a reminder to the question of Fox belonging and my thought that for this article on the 'public controversy' it (or CNN or movies etcetera) is appropriate to "public controversy" scope as part of big media. Markbassett (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mark! Ckruschke (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * This whole debate about whether FN is a RS misses the point. Inclusion of a single data point of a single metric in a summary discussion is not appropriate. If such a discussion belongs anywhere, it belongs in the main article Arctic shrinkage, but even there, I doubt it will satisfy due challenges. This article, and the main article are broader topics. We aren't editing the What's happening in the arctic right this minute.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  12:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes - I realize one data point is nothing - I've said that above - however it was a somewhat significant point and I could foresee the rabble coming out of the woodwork with "see I told you so" edits. It doesn't appear to have happened, but nonetheless I was trying to help the page.
 * On a side, but related point, I brought up FoxNews on the WP:RSN page as suggested and the response was essentially "we don't know why it wouldn't be RS for technical/science issues, who told you that?" I'm not going to run off and add in a bunch of FN ref's, but just thought I'd close the loop considering the adamant opinion I was reading that FN is not a reliable source for scientific matters. Ckruschke (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * It's not, as a rule, reliable for scientific topics, and a single apathetic reply at WP:RS/N does not change that. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. If you supply me with the "rule as to why it isn't reliable", maybe I can redirect their apathetic reply into something more pointed. Since my question was "I can't find anything on Wiki that says it isn't RS" other than word of mouth, an actual example would probably be helpful. You can feel free to send that to my page if you'd like. Ckruschke (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * While I agree that Fox News is rs, I do not think that the text has been written neutrally. The implicit message of the wording is that climatologists are wrong and are ignoring scientific evidence.  "Although [facts are x], climatologists argue [facts are y."  A neutral phrasing would be that climate change skeptics point to x as evidence that global warming may be reversing, while climatologists say...."  As pointed out, this article is not about the science but about the controversy as reported in reliable sources.  TFD (talk) 16:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Does this thread contain a proposal for how we could improve the article, and if so, would someone please re-state that proposal and the RSs it is based upon? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It is at the top of the discussion thread, where a editor introduced text he wanted to include, and provided a source which had been challenged for reliability. TFD (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The OP contains
 * (A) Ad hominem's directed at reverting ed ,
 * (B) A statement by the OP which sounds to me like an admission that this attempted edit was not a significant improvement to the article and that statement reads "As any statistician would tell you, a one-year spike/rebound in ice coverage says absolutely nothing about the long-term trend ";
 * (C) A closing with which I agree 100% and it reads "Not sure what the issue is" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * For those three reasons your point to the OP is unsatisfactory and I am repeating my polite request for someone to re-state this thread's proposed article improvement and RS on which it is based? Reminder that eds seeking consensus try to avoid that part of WP:DISRUPT which says "A disruptive editor is an editor who.... Does not engage in consensus building (and) repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits"
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * As the originator, I think the thread should be closed as its original intent (my proposed edit) has been "overcome by events".
 * The discussion on the RS of FoxNews as a source for technical/science related issues is beyond the scope of the thread's original intent. If someone wants to continue the discussion, and I have no wish to since it appears there is only anecdotal verbiage against FoxNews as RS and thus really not worth the discussion, I suggest it be in a separate thread. Ckruschke (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Image for Artic shrinkage section
Hi all, I'd like to get your opinion about using this image for the Global_warming_controversy section. The source is the National Snow and Ice Data Center  and its Use and Copyright policy states that images can be published citing the proper source (in this case, the NSIDC itself) I think it's a pretty good image to put in perspective the controversial 2013 resurge in sea ice coverage some like to use as "proof" that the ice is not melting anymore. What do you think? Gaba (talk)  17:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I like the idea, but suggest a different section.  Instead, how about a section that talks about headlines based on short term trends?   Then we could also include things like
 * Going-down-the-up-escalator when discussing global air surface temperatures. I linked the gif and supporting text, but there is a link for a static image showing both perspectives on trends overlaid on actual data. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I just came back here to comment that the whole recent Arctic shrinkage non-event probably isn't worth giving article space to (per WP:DUE) "Some news people unquestioningly believe a press release and print some nonsense, sensible reporters say it's nonsense, the end." This is hardly a 'controversy', or even part of a controversy. Re Gaba's NSIDC image above, I'm not enough of an armchair copyright lawyer even to comment, but I know that "Graphics by Skeptical Science is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License." They already got re-used in the Guardian article I linked above. The only remaining questions are about the words and the space: (1) Do we have enough good sources to be able to create a short section on the role that people doing the 'escalator trick' with the data have had on the actual global warming controversy over the years? Actual stuff with examples, and no need for any WP:OR? (I haven't - only that one Guardian article) and (2) Do we have any evidence that the escalator trick is a notable enough part of the actual global warming controversy over the years to warrant coverage here per WP:DUE? (I don't have any such evidence, other than the fact that Skeptical Science have bothered to create the graphics, but that's a bit post hoc I fear). So I would need there to be more sources than I presently know of, to find this a truly good idea. --Nigelj (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty much with Nigelj on this, which, if I were smart, would mean I would stop with that. However, I ask (rhetorically, I don't want an answer) who says the ice isn't melting anymore? I have seen comments on the rebounds from last year, but I haven't see the claim it has stopped melting. That may simply mean I don't frequent the wacko sites, but it isn't out job to refute wackos (as if fact would help). Second, while a nice looking graph, it is a graph of August, which is close to arbitrary. It isn't the minimum, so why August, other than it might be the handiest monthly series, which is hardly a good reason. The entire section in this article is three sentences, and an image, so the narrow subject of what has happened to ice in August. It already suffers from a text section which doesn't explain the image, not to mention what appears to be a random selection of quotes for the text. Isn't this supposed to be a summary of the main article? It isn't. Speaking of the main article, which is a different story, but I cannot resist,
 *  Projections as to when precisely this will occur vary between the years 2060–2080,[4] 2030,[5][6] and 2016.
 * Surely this must be in the running for the worst sentence in Wikipedia? )I know, I know, there are many more worthy candidates ,but seriously, it would make the Onion proud.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  19:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Very well, if the consensus is not to expand that section but to remove it, I have no issue with that (also, it would appear that using that image is not actually that simple). On a minor and unrelated note: Sphilbrick I don't know what you find wrong with that sentence, it's pretty clear to me. Cheers. Gaba  (talk)  19:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (Even more unrelated: I just realized that comment above was my 2000th edit :) Gaba  (talk)  19:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't read any suggestion to remove the section, much less a consensus. It is surprisingly short. Given that there is a whole article, I understand it is appropriate to have a summary here, not full-blown coverage, but what we have is not a summary of that article, we have a couple random points. However, I just spent a few minutes reading the main article, which needs so much work I don't know where to start, so summarizing it isn't easy. I meant to suggest that the image, might be more appropriate ant he main article, but I would still prefer a relevant time period, like September. If the choice of August was based upon the breathless Fox article mentioning August, all the more reason to avoid it. September is important. August is not. ((ec) Congrats on the milestone)-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  19:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean that right now the consensus was to remove it, I meant that if it came to that then I would agree (I expressed myself poorly, sorry) I said that because it appeared to me that that was what Nigelj was proposing above, perhaps I understood that wrong so it'd be great if he could clarify that.
 * The choice of August in my case is not really a choice, that's what the link I proposed to use as a source uses. Why the NSIDC chose to use August is a different question but I guess they must have their reasons. Thanks for the congrats :) Gaba  (talk)  20:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * They do one every month.


 * July
 * June
 * May


 * Which means if we find the graph useful, we have to decide which one to use. And September, the month of the usual minimum, seems like a decent choice, but we have to treat carefully, as it is a bit ORish to choose.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  20:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

IMO, (A) We should keep a section on arctic ice; (B) I agree that the immediate news about what actually happened in 2013 and how it is reported by some is small potatoes, but would be fine using the image in the arctic ice section for that purpose. (C) That said, I think what I described under "B" has its greatest significance in terms of its being illustrative of the kind of tactic used to foment appearance of scientific controversy. This is the point I was trying to express earlier. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I wasn't clear above. Following NAEG's lettering, what I mean is:
 * (A) We should have a section on Arctic shrinkage, which ideally as User:Sphilbrick says, should summarise the aspects of the 'main' article, Climate change in the Arctic, that deal with the controversies
 * (B) I tried to say above that the immediate news about Arctic ice in 2013 is too small for specific coverage at this point: there does not seem to be any actual controversy. I would now add that, if it turns out that there is anything significant about Arctic ice in 2013, it should go in the sub-article first, and then be summarised here, but only if the controversy part of it becomes a major enough feature to be mentioned in this summary.
 * (C) I tried also to say that if we can find a source or two that make the general point that the 'escalator trick' is a tactic used to foment the appearance of scientific controversy, then it is worth a new section here. By 'escalator trick', I mean using short runs of steady or decreasing data to 'prove' that there is no increase (or vice versa), while ignoring large increases when they appear.
 * --Nigelj (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I am literally (OK, almost literally) running out the door so a couple quick points. I fully agree re A and B. If 2013 events deserve some coverage (and that isn't clear) it first belongs in the main arctic article, and here, only to the extent that it belongs in a summary (highly unlikely). Re escalator, I've seen it in SS, but one would have to show it is common as a skeptical argument. My limited experience is hardly definitive, but I haven't seen it, so I remain, absent evidence uh, skeptical.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  22:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A very reasonable position on the escalator. Somewhere on their site are the citations for places where denialeptics have made the various cooling claims.   In general, I'm easy.... all approaches that have been mentioned have merit and I have no strong preference. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Is it news ? Since this article topic is saying it is for the 'public controversy', I would say to not use it unless it's part of a public experience like Inconvenient truth or Climategate. Markbassett (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Climate change skepticism
I was surprised that there are two redirects for climate change skepticism, one that redirects here and one that redirects to Climate change denial. Should we get rid of one of them (I would like to get rid of the one that redirects here, personally)? I don't really see why we need two of them. Jinkinson (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you mean two redirects? I only see the redirect to this article here. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  16:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's easy to miss. When you're typing in CCS, a suggestion comes up for Climate Change Skepticism (denialism): see here. This is the other redirect. Jinkinson (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would simply nominate that redirect for deletion - it serves no useful purpose, no one is going to type in, or need to link, such a mouthful as Climate change skepticism (denialism) by mistake. On the other hand, if we keep it, then I think it does actually redirect to the correct article: the brand of so-called 'skepticism' that warrants 'denialism' in braces after it is mentioned, probably is actually denialism by another name. --Nigelj (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Oh I see it now, thanks. I guess the reason is because denialism is not the same as skepticism . The sentence at the top of the lede in Climate change denial explains this:
 * This article is about campaigns to undermine public confidence in scientific opinion on climate change. For dissent from the scientific consensus, see global warming controversy.
 * The redirect is explained by the use of the word denialism in parenthesis in Climate change skepticism (denialism). In any case I agree that it can be confusing so perhaps Climate change skepticism (denialism) should be deleted since Climate change denialism is already a redirect over to Climate change denial? Cheers.
 * I was about to comment the above when beat me to it. So basically I agree with him, the redirect Climate change skepticism (denialism) should be deleted. Regards.  Gaba  (talk)  16:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Interested editors may wish to review my edit here; note reasons stated in edit summary. Not saying you agree or disagree Gaba, but you did inspire me to look at it, thx. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Mmm I kind of liked that sentence, I feel it summarizes the purpose of that article quite well. I've opened a new section about that removal over at that article to avoid fragmentation. Everybody's welcomed to comment. Cheers. Gaba  (talk)  19:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion seems to have moved over to Talk:Climate_change_denial so I've gone ahead and nominated the redirect that initiated this thread for deletion here. Please comment/vote. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  16:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Non-neutral article title and how to make sense of mismash of overlapping articles
There are two long standing problems I have long wished to fix. Maybe now is the time, but it will take a group effort over a period of time.

First, this article's title is unacceptably non-specific and fosters a take home message that the __________?___________ aspect of global warming (reader fills in the blank) is a legitimate controversy. As a result, our poor definition of "global warming controversy" could unintentionally provide plenty of confirmation bias. Joe Romm has an excellent blog post that describes this type of semantics problem in more detail.

Second, we have a handful of articles with an ugly mishmash of overlap.

A rough idea of how to solve both problems goes like this:

1.  Move identified areas for future scientific research into a section in Scientific opinion on climate change, where they belong. After all, one aspect of scientific consensus can be stated "What are the most important known questions we still have to answer?" Climate sensitivity is one example where there is scientific consensus it is a very important question.

2.  Move the political section of this article to Politics of global warming

3.  Rename Public opinion on climate change  to Surveys of public opinion on global warming and possibly move text or tweak text in that article accordingly

4.  This articles' references to climategate, etc, are adequately covered by the main articles on those subjects.

5.  The rest of this article, being mainly a discussion of frequent public arguments inconsistent with scientific consensus, would go in an article of their own called Popular beliefs about global warming. This article would also include a new section (yet to be written) about the popular beliefs on the part of those who still hold to the progressive philosophy (not to be confused with political liberalism) that robust economic progress and international security depends on political implementation of policies based on the best scientific advice (produced by well funded and unmolested scientists).

6.  Finally, Global warming controversy would be converted into a re-direct pointing at Global_warming

Have at it ya'll. Whaddyathink?

PS I'll eventually get around to posting merge templates pointing at this specific thread on all the effected articles, but I'd be grateful if someone else beats me to the punch.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Love the idea and count me in to help out on whatever is needed. The only thing I'm not too sure about is the title Popular beliefs about global warming. How about instead of renaming Public opinion on climate change to Surveys of public opinion on global warming we rename it to Public opinion on global warming (which is currently a redirect to Public opinion on climate change), move the rest of this article over there and have what's currently in Public opinion on climate change be a section in it perhaps named Public opinion on global warming? Regards. Gaba  (talk)  15:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't get hung up on the difference between climate change and global warming in Wikipedia article titles. I think I'm right in saying that which we use is fairly random. I've never seen a reliable scientific source that says they are different. AFAIK, "the present day climate change is that global warming is happening." --Nigelj (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would since they are very different beasts indeed. Global warming is a subset of Climate Change. There is a lot of non-anthropomorphic Climate Change going on with the earth. There appears to be little non-anthropomorphic Global Warming. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, but of course those tweaks are not the important tweaks in this proposal. Look again and you will see an effort at clarifying the scope of these articles through the other tweaked words.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This article probably has a lot of junk in it; in the old days, it was where you dumped stuff too controversial / stupid for the GW page, but which the septics wouldn't give up. Those days are perhaps past. OTOH, I'm not at all convinced that the article itself shouldn't exist (I don't like the ref to Romm's blog) William M. Connolley (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WMC, I'm open to hearing the basis for your OTOH arguments, but like/dislike doesn't count.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I wonder if we could bite the bullet and actually have an article called Climate change skepticism to go with Climate change denial? With scholarly history of science and suchlike sources it would chart the origins of the use of the term (as opposed to actual scientific scepticism (yes, I'm using the 'c' and the 'k' spelling my way here)), the main skeptic arguments that have been used (e.g. http://www.skepticalscience.com/ - is there a wp:rs book about those arguments yet?) and so on. We would have to banish the wp:or approach, where people reproduce and reference lists of present day 'skeptic' websites to say things like 'Several people believe that...' --Nigelj (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems problematic to me. All real scientists are "skeptics" so how do you propose to distinguish your proposed Climate change skepticism article from Scientific opinion on climate change, especially if we add to the latter a section discussing the big questions most of the eggheads agree are important things yet to be answered? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I meant an article about that thing that people do when they say, for example, "Global warming will be great for grape growers", or "I see your 'theory' has fallen apart - there's been no warming since 1998", or "Water vapour is a bigger greenhouse gas than ever was". These are arguments that do not trouble the present day scientific community, but they are still big in the public's mind.  We don't include these people and their arguments under Climate change denial, because they are just ordinary folk, and their not being paid by anyone to say it. Equally, we don't include this phenomenon under Scientific opinion on climate change, as they're not scientists either. If we rename Public opinion on climate change  to Surveys of public opinion on global warming, there won't be any room for them there, as there are very few surveys that ask, "What is the dumbest thing you said in the comments section under a news article recently?" These people self-identify as 'Climate change skeptics', and they represent a real phenomenon, which I'm sure has had and is having a serious effect on the politics of climate change worldwide, yet we do not have serious article coverage of the phenomenon, that I know of. The title I suggested redirects here, but this article is about the real, scientific controversy. You're planning on scrapping this article and redirecting it to Global_warming, but again, that, hopefully, will discuss real scientific issues. I'm suggesting giving specific coverage to the phenomenon of the bloggers, the commenters and the people who turn up whenever GW is mentioned just to repeat their favourite conservapedia 'take out'? --Nigelj (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, my bad. What I'm suggesting is covered by Point 5 in the original post. The only problem is the proposed title Popular beliefs about global warming. That assumes that 'reality' is not, and won't in the foreseeable future be, 'popular'. --Nigelj (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, but look at original post item #5 again, with special focus on the yet-to-be-written portion.  A large segment of the population really do think scientists should be given freedom to do research and politicians really should act on the scientists' recommendations.  This is - right now - one of the "popular" beliefs.  We should report it as such in NPOV fashion, right alongside the specious claim that there has been a global warming pause (if you ignore ocean heating).NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. According to skepticalscience.com, there are 174 such 'skeptic' memes, as well as a top ten. Hopefully we'll find a better source too. --Nigelj (talk) 21:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * NewsAndEventsGuy - I'll differ based on what this article is supposed to be about ... Mostly that it is about the public discussion, not the scientific one, and that to validly say areas of cntroversy one cannot limit them to ones 'legitimate' without being WP:OR, one should just cite where there are fact of reported controversies. So:


 * 1 - No, areas for future scientific research would be valuable in the Global warming article, but are inappropriate here as they are not part of 'global warming controversy', or in 'the public discussion'
 * 2 - No, Political questions mentioned here are the public debate hot spots so belong in the article about the public discussion if in fact they are topics of controversy.
 * 3 - Yes, rename public opinion to Surveys to clarify that it is about surveys and since public discussion is what the overall article is about so not right to label the one section so much like the whole topic.
 * 4 - Partly, by limiting content for Climategate, etcetera. Having main article elsewhere does not exclude it from having a role here.  Just means it gets mention here if part of the 'Global warming controversy', and then point to that main article with either wikilink if it's a short mention or a redirect line if it's a whole subsection.
 * 5 - No no no -- the public arguments are the intended focus for this article, so just whether they are the 'public discussion' and particularly contested points is what matters and consistency to scientific consensus does not something that would be the contention. I just see talking about a 'consensus' as if it were the 'Global Warming Controversy' to be a contradiction in terms.
 * 6 - Maybe -- I supose you could merge this article in with Global warming though (a) hard for me to see surveys as belonging alongside hard measurement temperature charts, (b) the concern over confirmation bias seems even more likely if the content from here was put in with what's there, and (c) hard for me to think editors both there and here would be generally happpy to have all in one.  Markbassett (talk) 07:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Re Markbasset #1; Surprise!  Open scientific questions are already part of this article.
 * Re Markbasset #5; Please revise your statement, since I did not understand it. I think there are grammar issues in that section.
 * Re Markbasset #6; I oppose your lukewarm proposal of merging this and [[Global warming]
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

On #3 (rename "Public opinion on climate change" to "Surveys of public opinion on climate change", everyone above with an opinion said "yes", or stopped doubting.  I have officially proposed that move at the article talk page.  Please consider sharing your views at Talk:Public opinion on climate change NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Paleoclimate records
A user's recent edits (reverted by another user) assert some sort of controversy exists regarding certain paleo records, but the editor never explains, in NPOV fashion, the nature of the alleged controversy. Also lacking were any citations. At best the reverted text seemed to be cultivating an impression of controversy based on implication and innuendo. Since the user has tried to say something about these records before, I thought we should start a talk thread.

, if you want to say something about the MWP, you need to cite sources. If you are looking for sources, please see the items cited in the Skeptical Blog post "How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?" (the blog itself can not be cited in the article unless there is a consensus that one of the blog-exceptions applies, but it can still be used by editors for background and as a source-of-citable sources, according to wiki's standards). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What has the Geologic temperature record got to do with the MWP? Since the topic is geologic evidence on multi-million to billion year time scales, the last 1,200 years or so is offtopic. Perhaps this is supposed to be a reference to the hockey stick controversy, part of which is discussed under the dubious heading of Data archiving and sharing. That section is about political demands for data which had already been made public, combined with political demands for private compute codes, correspondence and details of funding. Some trimming and clarification needed. . dave souza, talk 18:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on the technical nuances, but that's sort of a moot point if the user isn't even looking at any sources. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Other opponents dismiss the consensus argument altogether, stating that science is based on facts rather than consensus.
This is broken; there is no consensus arguement made, other than by the septics. But I'm not sure how to fix it William M. Connolley (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Other opponents dismiss consensus altogether, on the grounds that science is based on facts rather than consensus." Or "dismiss considerations of consensus altogether". N p holmes (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, Dr. C.

It is the primary argument of AGW theory supporters that there does exist a scientific consensus in favor of the AGW theory. There is, however, a division amoung AGW theory supporters:
 * scientists in various climate-related fierds
 * science journalists, assorted bloggers, and (above all) politicians.

When we laymen read the popular press (since we aren't sufficiently well-versed to read the peer-reviewed literature ourselves), we find almost nothing but references to the UNIPCC's conclusions. That intergovernmental panel makes statements of degrees of certainty (90%, 95%) based on the consensus of the scientists whose work they cite.

We google for more information and find websites designed to refute skeptics, with huge headings (amounting to slogans) like, "The debate is over."

Please consider that the GW controversy is not confined to the pages of scientific journals. There is also a media battle.

There are really two questions:
 * 1) Is there scientific evidence for or against AGW theory?
 * 2) What percentage of scientists in the relevant field (or fields) accept, question, or reject the theory?

I should like Wikipedia to address both questions separately - even if there is a relationship between them. I'd like to see the full scientific case for AGW theory, including how the "models" work. But I'd also like to see a comparison of the theory (and the hypotheses which rely on it) in comparison with observations, both contemporary (e.g., 1979 to date), historical (say, 1850-2013), and proxies (e.g., ice core data). Along with this, we ought to explore (or at least summarize) the sunspot & cosmic ray theory (i.e., that natural cycles of sunspots influence cloud formation, which in turn affects the terrestial reflection or absorption of infrared. That would be the purely scientific aspect.

But the second aspect (which may be larger for the public and for governments) is a determination of scientific consensus. There is a dispute between AGW supporters and "skeptics" as to whether such a consensus exists. Rather than reporting the position of the UN's climate panel as representing a clear consensus on an issue which is no longer subject to scientific debate, I should hope we would indicate to our readers what each reliable source says about scientific opinion on AGW theory. I refer to "the collection of the opinions of many different scientific organizations and entities and individual scientists in the relevant field." Are you willing that the article should remain neutral on this latter aspect? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi . What is your proposed edit and what are your sources supporting it? Regards. Gaba  (talk)  16:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Consensus is not a matter of the percentage of scientists that support a view, but is determined by looking at the literature. Once consensus is reached, scientific journals stop publishing the other side.  Not that they are censoring them, but because it is no longer possible to reasonably defend the other view based on available data.
 * Consensus is not just reflected in literature about by scholars in the field but will be accepted in the literature in other fields as well. Hence historians writing about medieval plagues will accept modern science about bacteria.
 * OTOH, some scientists will reject consensus, and there may be astronomers who consult there daily horoscopes. But that has no bearing on consensus.
 * Often, members of the public and affected industries will resist scientific consensus, and claim that the discussion is still open. But that does not mean that consensus has not been reached.
 * TFD (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * That makes sense, TFD, but it looks like the article is making a circular argument. It would be more clear if we said that journals decided to stop publishing articles after consensus had been reached. As of now, the article seems rather to argue that because so few anti-AGW-theory articles were published, that is proof that the scientific community are in consensus.


 * So which is it?
 * Hardly anyone submits articles opposing the AGW theory, and this indicates a consensus; or,
 * Journal editors realized there is a consensus, and therefore they've chosen not to publish articles opposing the AGW theory


 * It's hard to tell from the article. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It is neither. It is just not possible to write an article arguing against AGW that conforms to the standards required for publication, since any reasonable conclusions drawn from the facts would hold that most global warming is man made.  It is of course possible to argue against AGW using selective facts and/or faulty arguments, but that would not satisfy academic publication standards.
 * Compare with astronomy. It is possible to argue that the alignment of planets affects terrestrial events.  But it is unlikely that such a theory could be reasonably defended in an academic paper.  TFD (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It is the primary argument of AGW theory supporters that there does exist a scientific consensus in favor of the AGW theory - you've made that up. Care to prove me wrong? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't make it up. I simple read the Global warming controversy article in Wikipedia. No idea appears more often (or with as many references) as the argument that AGW theory is supported by scientific consensus. Please point out any other pro-AGW-arguments that I've overlooked and indicate their relative weight. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What are these "pro-AGW-arguments"? Only deniers seem to think AGW is a Good Thing. . . dave souza, talk 18:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The GWC page wasn't written by AGW theory supporters so your argument makes no sense. To support what you say, you have to find examples of consensus being used as the primary argument. Really Ed, this is basic logic, I'm shocked William M. Connolley (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Bill Connolley; the notion that this article wasn't written by supporters of the AGW theory beggars belief. It is so clearly an attempt to dismiss any questions about the theory itself and was written primarily by. . . wait for it; YOU. Starting in 2005. The notion, stated in the article itself, that scientific opinion is settled is so antithetical to science as to be completely laughable. You can use the dying patient analogy if you choose, but you've abandoned the scientific aura by so doing. In short; the notion that the controversy only exists among partisan lay people ignores a considerable and growing number of real scientists, doing real scientific research, the actual data itself and the very notions of what science is. But do go on; it will be fun to watch you scamper away as your argument dies a slow and painful death, shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.18.28.141 (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

David Deutsch's views
I tried to include the following quote ... while the supercomputer simulations make (conditional) predictions, the economic forecasts make almost pure prophecies. For we can expect the future of human responses to climate to depend heavily on how successful people are at creating new knowledge to address the problems that arise. So comparing predictions with prophecies is going to lead to that same old mistake.(David Deutsch )

This was rejected by a few users because 1. Deutsch is claimed to be a "marginal contributor" 2. It is book promotion spam. 3. The point that 'prediction is difficult' is too obvious. Firstly point 2. It is not spam, I can assure you I have no financial interest in promoting Deutsch's book, but I do have an intellectual one. Surely every quote from a book can be construed by spam if this one is. To be fair, perhaps I could rephrase it slightly to make it seem less like a promotion? That's just a failure of my language. On to Point 1. As I said in the edit history, Deutsch is very well known, he is basically the father of quantum computation. He also comments on climate change quite a bit. He has a TedX talk where he addresses it. David Deutsch is one of the days eminent thinkers and far from marginal, and if you haven't heard of him, that's your loss, do some research. In any case the view expressed in the quote is held by other more prominent skeptics such as Nigel Lawson and Matt Ridley, so perhaps I should refer to them as well? Finally, point 3. While it may sound obvious that prediction is difficult, especially of the future. This is a notion which is largely ignored by those who call for strict action to reduce carbon emissions. It is one of the central arguments skeptics use and must be included in this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Austrartsua  (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for at least attempting to start a thread. However, in this thread you are only arguing about a quote without any other text .  First, that smacks of WP:PLAGIARISM but even if that were not the case, wikipedia is not a directory of quotations (see item 1 at WP:NOTDIRECTORY.  Second, you haven't made the case (to me anyway) that you are talking about a controversy, and even if you are, that is a significant one or one that belongs in this article instead of another.  After all, anyone can publish a book.  Simply stating an opinion does not a "controversy" make.   What's the Queen's views on pomegranate sauce?  Well, why should anyone care?  Is pomegranate sauce even controversial?  Should the Queen mention this in her memoirs, like I said... anyone can publish a book.   Third, your own edit summary says
 * "many people don't know (Deutsch's) views on global warming. Wikipedia is the ideal place to share them."
 * That sure sounds like an admission that he's a marginal commentator on this subject and that your main goal is WP:PROMOTE Deutsch, rather than improve the encyclopedia. See WP:NOTHERE. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Add more recent info please
I don't have the info I'm asking for, BTW. In all the graphs, citations and quotes I'm noticing in this article, none seem to mention a date past 2010. I see graphs that end in 1990, 2000, 2005 and 2010 and I see images comparing polar ice coverage no later than 2007. I'm just asking whether someone who has access to more recent data can fill in the data gap up to the present day, or at least to the end of 2012 or 2013. Thank you. 173.89.8.225 (talk) 06:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you click on the images, you get to the image description page, which often has a (soft or hard) link to the data sources. I've updated the instrumental record to the latest graph already on Wikipedia, which is 2012. I don't think the complete 2013 data is out yet. The temperature anomaly image was already at 2012, only the caption was older. That said, some of the images are from external sources, and many of them are not time-sensitive and/or updated regularly. Also see Talk:Global_warming/FAQ Q7. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

For current information, check by a pioneer and patriot in climate science: Roy_Spencer_(scientist). His information is the best. Today his mainpage highlights "Global Precipitation Mission ready for launch today" (February 27th, 2014) Check it out! — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Needs RS-supported opposing views
I love Wikipedia and what it has done to spread knowledge and understanding to the masses, but have to honestly say that I am saddened to see it being used by some as a mouthpiece for one way of political thought. It is quite obvious to the layman nonpartisan reader of this page that it only tries to show one side and stomp out any contrarian views of the so called “global warming” debate. Since when is any science “settled”? There are many mainstream scientists that are opposed to this view but their findings are arbitrarily banned because it goes against the “gate keepers” of what they perceive is the “settled science”? I please ask Wikipedia administrators to be fair minded and not allow two or three global warming zealot editors to not allow some opposing view shown on the page. To not do so would go against the Wikipedia principles for trying to reach a consensus and just stifle information that we don’t find politically correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B575 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 24 January 2014
 * The problem is that there are no scientists opposing climate change theory in reliable sources. Hence, we cannot give those views much weight, if any.  TFD (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Global warming denial/non-anthropogenic global warming isn't even an SPOV outside of the U.S., let alone among reliable scientists. And if you think there is no opposing view mentioned, then you clearly haven't read the article. Please do so before commenting in future. Rwenonah (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, he's read it, alright. It's (somewhat) better than it was, but still makes no sense.
 * "there are no scientists opposing climate change theory in reliable sources" -- good God. Besides alarmingly fractured syntax -- You lead a sheltered life, Sir. 19:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tillman (talk • contribs)
 * Please explain how the article makes no sense. Do you deny that there is virtually unanimous agreement among (non-fringe) scientists that climate change is happening? If so, please provide sources. If not, I'm not sure why you bothered to comment. Rwenonah (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's a funny thought: During this cycle of Climate Cooling, I decided to visit the 'Climate Cooling' article in Wikipedia;  I wondered if there are Cooling advocates and 'Cooling Deniers' (?)  There could be another Wikipedia article on the controversy as the 20-yr sun cycle continues cooling. Funny? — Truly, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who wishes to uncollapse this thread, please list the reliable sources you think should be used as a basis for your proposed article improvements, and remember this article falls under discretionary sanctions pursuant to WP:ARBCC. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Ineffectiveness of countermeasures
A point which I have often raised on this subject is that even if we assume global warming to be a major threat to civilisation, there is still no point in pursuing countermeasures which do not appear to be having any beneficial effect.

The stock response to climate change is to pour money into wind and solar projects, usually in the form of subsidies or feed-in tariffs which serve to make these very expensive forms of energy more competitive with fossil fuels. Globally we have been doing this for over a decade, yet there is, as far as I know, no verifiable evidence of this having reduced carbon dioxide emissions to any useful extent. Yet, the response of governments to this lack of results has so far been to propose even greater renewables expenditure, as if this will somehow turn a null result into a significant one.

Some sources (e.g. the Guardian) quote the current global expenditure on renewables at around a billion US Dollars a day. It is significant that this outstrips expenditure on research into other possible routes to carbon-neutral energy by a least two orders of magnitude. For example, the ITER fusion project, one of the largest and most costly advanced nuclear projects, could be funded to completion in 13 days (instead of over a decade) if renewables expenditure ceased. There are many other promising lines of research which could be funded to completion with less than a day's global renewables spending.

This raises the question, are we obsessively throwing money into a nonstarter called renewables, when the solution might be at-hand in another form? Perhaps we just need to remove the horse-blinkers and look in other directions. --Anteaus (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've seen this described as one of the stages of denial: 'it's happening, but we can't do anything about it." However, for this to appear in the article we need reliable sources: what sources do you propose? . . dave souza, talk 05:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * In heaven the other day, St Peter said to the newly dead guy, "How'd you die?" Said the newly dead guy, "Well, I was obsessively throwing money into a diet of 100 cal/day but since there was no obvious benefit, I simply stopped eating altogether". Seen this? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Effectiveness is rhetoric (and only political) unless there is scientific data. Where's the data? — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Lukewarmism as defined by whom?
I just reverted the addition of a link to the very new article Lukewarmer, added by. It appears that that article was started, and entirely written, by Jinkinson in the early hours of today. The reason for my revert was that the article as it currently stands defines the term lukewarmer very narrowly to include only people "who question the scientific opinion on climate change, but not the part of it that says that human is the main cause of it--the only part they question is either how much should happen or how bad the consequences will be." This is a particular political stance, that the article goes on to say is exemplified by Matt Ridley, Greg Gutfeld, Anthony Watts, Peter Lilley. Bjorn Lomborg, Patrick Michaels, Judith Curry, Roy W. Spencer, and Mitt Romney.

Now, I don't know enough about American politics to know the opinions of many of those people, but I find it very unlikely that when Jim Prall said "It would be helpful to have lukewarm [as] a third category," referring to Anderegg's PNAS paper Expert credibility in climate change in 2010, he had this group of people in mind, let alone the idea that it's scientifically literate to question is either how much global warming should happen or how bad the consequences of it will be. Therefore we should not imply by the use of such a link that someone said something, or referred to some people's views, that they clearly did not. --Nigelj (talk) 09:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur, even though I've tried to clean up the new article a bit. For that matter, I am dubious the new article has adequate sources to withstand an AFD.  See WP:NeologismNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Update, I nominated Lukewarmer at AFD. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Opinion piece in San Francisco Chronicle unreliable?
recently reverted my edit because he said, correctly, that what I added was sourced to an opinion piece. He also said that such pieces are "not RS, in particular not for BLP material." However, I think that it is reliable, as is unsurprising given that I added it in the first place, and think that some discussion of its reliability needs to take place here. According to WP:NEWSORG, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." In this case the material cited to the article is neither--it's just Debra Saunders saying that David Legates said something. I imagine the policy I quoted above was created to prevent people from injecting the opinions of journalists into articles and presenting them as facts, but I am not trying to do that. Given that the same policy says, "If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact", I propose we do just that and add the quote back in, but preface it with "According to Debra Saunders". Also, if she plucked this quote out of thin air, she's certainly got some chutzpah given that she attributes it to Legates in multiple opinion pieces. Jinkinson  talk to me  18:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Whether it is reliable or not, the original edit that was reverted struck me as saying that someone had done a bit of petulant whining but wasn't really informative of anything substantive beyond the fact that petulant whining had occurred. At 186,000 bytes the article is already too long so I was going to revert the edit myself for those reasons also. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Saying that someone said something is a statement of fact. Since a statement may be accurately or inaccurately reported, it must be reliably sourced.  TFD (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Global warming pause or hiatus, aka the "missing heat"
We don't seem to have anything obvious here on this, so here's a new Nature news article:
 * Climate change: The case of the missing heat:Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation. Nature news report, January 2014

I'm not a regular here, so will let someone else find a place for it. But I guess the "Pause" is now respectable? Judith Curry has amusing commentary at The case of the missing heat. There's also a long list of papers on this topic/topics at Scientists explore causes of the pause in warming, though I doubt the commentary is RS. But interesting. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This was written by a science writer but it does look sound, but it is complicated. The point is not that global warming has paused, but by atmospheric temperature measurements, it has increased less than expected by the accumulation of greenhouse gases.  The main point of the article concerns the various theoretical mechanisms that could account for the slow down in temperature rise.  For example, is the excess heat shunted into the deep ocean?  A small paragraph with a summary along the lines of my summary above would be ok,, to use the article as the basis for saying global warming has "paused" would not be based on what the article actually says. I am One of Many (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

A new article has since been started, read it at Global warming hiatus NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

US regional temps in winter 2013-2014
Headine-1: It was March misery in frigid northern, eastern USA QUOTE: “Many parts of the northern and eastern USA took a serious chill pill in March, and several places probably will record one of their 10 coldest Marches.” [Nothing is as constant as change; is this due to man? Or is it due to the sun.] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/03/29/march-cold-weather-records/7007455/
 * Regional temps don't mean a whole lot when we're talking about the entire climate system and how we're taking in more radiation from the sun than we re-emit back to space. Unless you're doing rhetoric, of course.  (see above)  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless we are a star we take in more radiation than we reflect; however, it has always been so and sun cycles are also persistent. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:FORUM NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:Notnews seems more relevant. Regional temperatures in a given month are routine news, ergo not appropriate for wiki in any article. Sailsbystars (talk) 07:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't quite say they can never be relevant. Patterns of extremes/records are one indications of changing climate, and there is legitimate scientific debate as to the role of climate change in the stuck & kinky jetstream that has been producing these regional chilly temps in central/eastern US this winter.  For example, "Is the Arctic Really Drunk, or Does It Just Act Like This Sometimes?".  But this thread isn't really trying to develop any article improvement ideas, so it should still be collapsed per WP:TALK  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a difference, though. Your article links global warming to changes in global circulation and then to changes in regional temperature.  The USA Today article is basically almanac data for the month of March.  Hence the difference between routine news and stuff potentially relevant to Wikipedia.  A wiki-irrelevant aside, I know that for the Moscow heatwave a few years back there was some calculation done where it was something like 80% likely to have been caused by global warming.  I wonder how much less likely the recent cold spells in N. America are under global warming... would be an interesting calculation to do. Sailsbystars (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we agree that depending on context regional temps might or might not merit mentioning, and the solution lies in following good sources that provide context, not just almanac type stats. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more. This link might help put the problem of local temperature variations into perspective. I am One of Many (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Edits about US Greenhouse gas trends based on DRAFT report
Today an IP has been trying to add info on US GHG emissions in a series of edits more or less tied to an EPA report. The IP started by citing a BLOG, and after we complained, the IP posted a link to a chapter of an EPA report. My guess is that the IP might have just accepted the BLOG's "spin" without doing any due diligence or critical thinking of their own, because the top webpage at EPA introducing this report makes it quite clear that this is only a draft report, which might be tweaked now that the public comment period has closed. We could revisit this proposed edit later, after the official report is released. But right now, a draft report undergoing revision following public comment period is not what wikipedia calls a reliable source. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, here's a reliable source that basically says the same. I'm still undecided as to whether it's worth mentioning in the article. Sailsbystars (talk) 02:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the last addition. This source states "The 2012 downturn means that emissions are at their lowest level since 1994" which is not the same as "greenhouse gas emissions were below 1994 levels". The second source states: "Total U.S. emissions have increased by 4.4 percent from 1990 to 2012, and emissions decreased from 2011 to 2012 by 3.3 percent" which implies an increase of 1.1% since 1990. Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  03:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The draft EPA report also attributes the lower emissions in part due to less demand of heating on account of mild winters ~2011-2012ish. I haven't looked at the report to see if it includes anything on fugitive methane, either.   Certainly the claim that switching to gas is an emissions-saver is out there, and might be worth some coverage in one of our articles.  But the coverage would have to include some discussion of RSs concerned with fugitive methane, as well as RSs asserting its a false sale pitch when we beat the lower annual emissions of GHG for new infrastructure to replace old, worn-out infrastructure, because (according to available RSs) we should be comparing instead to replacing worn out GHG-emitting infrastructure to other options, e.g., building efficiency and noncarbon power generation.   Fifty more years of emssions at a 10% reduction over a coal plant on its last legs isn't really a bargain, is it? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This most recent series of edits at least passes the RS test, however, it strikes me as weightless context-free spin because it doesn't mention that EIA (allegedly) tracks only (A) CO2 and not the US' complete GHG portfolio and (B) only emissions from within US borders but not emissions elsewhere that were produced so that the US could import various goods. Thus, fugitive methane isn't included, nor are agribusiness methane emissions, nor emissions related to all the industries that the US has exported to cheaper foreign labor markets. At the moment I don't have good RSs to offer but the non-RS opinion piece titled "US Falling Emissions a Mirage: Offshoring and Fracking" is worth reading for background, and to help track its references for other things that pass the RS test. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Undid revision 609100499 undue weight to fringe source
@dave souza

Would you be so kind to explain for what reason you classify the source of my edit as "fringe source". Citing wikipedia ''The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policies, Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. Jointly these say that articles should not contain any novel analysis or synthesis, that material likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, and that all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately. Should any inconsistency arise between this guideline and the content policies, the policies take precedence.'' 1. The source in my edit is a reputated scientific journal. 2. Both sides on this issue, Legates et al. vs. Bedford and Cook used the same journal for publication. 3. The consensus article from Cook et al.(Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) is still a source for the topic in wikipedia, though, scientific investigation shows it´s methodology of research does neither reach the standards for verifiability nor a neutral point of view (according to wikipedia guidelines a fringe source). 4. Taking into account that there is a consensus resp. significant majority in the wikipedia editors community to improve articles in accordance to wikipedia policies, then it is necessary to scrutinize sources - whether to support it or not. 5. This is the wikpedia article global warming controversy, obviously (as its name suggests) made to represent the controversy - not to hide it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.229.27.134 (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Here is the fundamental problem. Legates et al. conducted no new research.  They reinterpreted Cook's data.  You can download Cook's data and compare it to Cook's analysis and it matches up.  Also keep in mind that every study that has been conducted has found basically the same result: a consensus of 97%.  So, if we were to change the wording in the article to reflect the re-interpretation of data in one paper (my own view is that the re-interpretation is incompetently done--but that is not playing a role here), this would be placing WP:UNDUE weight on a WP:FRINGE interpretation.  We should only modify the consensus percentage or add discussion about possible bias in its interpretation when actual studies (not re-interpretations to support one's own view) show that there is a problem or change in consensus. I am One of Many (talk) 00:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree some (all?) of the authors have records replete with boneheaded debunked claims and are questionable as RS.  But, as this is the "controversy" section, I'd be OK reporting on 1. Cook's methods vs 2. Legates methodology used in critiquing Cook, vs 3. Cook's rather obliterating rebuttal of the Legates methodology.  But I don't have time to work on it.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk)
 * Is Science and Education a reliable source? I know nothing of the journal and note that we currently don't cite Bedford and Cook 2013 in our article either.  I also note the very curious case that Legates et al is absent from the cited by tab on the original ERL Cook et al paper, even though the Benford and Cook reply is listed. Such "cited by" pages are usually automatic....  Sailsbystars (talk) 03:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I wondered the same thing, but had nothing substantivec to add either way about the journal itself. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks to the responses from three editors here who have taken the opportunity to answer in advance upon a question I´ve asked dave souza. You three may not be surprised that I am not satisfied with your replies. The main reason for that are your efforts "en ensemble" to bypass my question. 1. For what reason should one think, that the journal Science & Education (publisher Springer) is NOT a reliable source. It is listed in the Science Citation Index database, wikipedia contains two citations with this source (very normal for papers with interdisciplinary education topics). Knowing nothing about the existence of a scientific journal is for sure no criterion for its reliability. Hard enough to know the most important journals of one´s own research field. 2. Cook´s data: The point is HOW he used the data in terms of statistical verifiability. It´s not simply a matter of re-interpretation but a matter of re-analysis, revealing unequivocal facts. . Dear editors you are welcome to say that this cited source is not useful or WP: "something..." therefore I suggest not to insist on peer rewieved articles when the case should more properly be entitled "homework in statistics for a math student newbie: look for mistakes!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.229.16.166 (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Energy_%26_Environment is a journal from a reputable publisher, but it's not a reliable source. So just because something is published does not mean we can use it as a source.  I find no evidence "Science and Education" is a reliable source (or used elsewhere on wikipedia for sourcing facts).  It's only mentioned in a few articles, for instance for publishing by a paranormal investigator.  Thus the burden is on you to demonstrate that it's a reliable source, not for my to demonstrate that it isn't.  It's an obscure journal, and such journals are frequently where fringy studies go when they get kicked out of the mainstream publications.  Sailsbystars (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Original opinions expressed in reliable sources or unreliable ones are primary sources and WP:WEIGHT requires that we determine the degree of their acceptance when including them. My guess is that no attention has been paid to this paper in reliable sources.  One of the authors, Chrisopher Monckton, is a leading climate change sceptic, and has no credentials in science - he studied classics.
 * Also, before presenting a source, one should read it first, not just the summary. I imagine the IP read about this report somewhere and it would be helpful to provide that source.  We can then see whether this report forms part of the controversy, i.e., is it frequently cited in climate sceptic circles, and do we have any reliable sources that mention that.
 * TFD (talk) 03:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Climate sensitivity section outdated
Section needs updating:


 * IPCC AR5 no longer gives a "preferred" value, just a range. Judith Curry and others have pertinent commentary. Skeptical commentary runs that IPCC didn't want to "dilute the message" by publishing a lower estimate?


 * There's a rambling discussion on Nic Lewis's review of climate sensitivity, which never actually cites the paper. Cite, shorten, update, give reactions.


 * There are other recent empirical CS estimates. I see that the parent climate sensitivity article itself needs updating.


 * This section should probably be a part of, or subsection of, "Greenhouse gases". Discuss moving it.

I'll put this on my to-do list, but it's likely to be awhile.... --Pete Tillman (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Global_warming_controversy#Public_opinion and some other quality issues.
That section is quite useless. Our reader have no advantage from old poll data. Instead of merge, erase it. Furthermore the Debate over most effective response to warming has nothin to do with the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. The section is completely useless as well. The controversy is a) about the conclusions out of the science base and the regional profit and loss pattern and burden sharing, to which the IPCC doesnt have an answer.  b) about the failures of the IPCC to achieve political regulation. It is somewhat preposterous to list the Mainstream scientific position and challenges to it but not at all to refer about the actual controversies, e.g. the failure of Kyoto, various states leaving the agreements, the lack of committment of third world and BRIC states, and the controversies around carbon taxing, cap and trade or the European and other trading schemes. Serten (talk) 23:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested move
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Page not moved: no consensus Ground Zero | t 02:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Global warming controversy → Climate change debate – I assume that Debate hits more the bullpoint than controversy. I first dont agree with the useless nature/social distinction made between "science" (we know its settled exempt a small Gaulian village) and public opinion or policy (which dares to deny or not to care). As Reiner Grundmann has pointed out, "climate change as a long term issue requiring more public involvement and debate, not less". Climate change is a Science, technology and society (STS) phenomenem and all aspects combined are being scholarly covered. That said, were better off if we accept that climate change happens and the most important partis belongs to the Debate over most effective response to climate change (not warming as now in the rather outdated article). This has, on first hand nothing to do with scientists opposing the mainstream, as still being connoted in Global_warming_controversy. The debate, and its a hot one, is about what conclusions are being drawn, globally or regionally, from climate change and whos to take burdens, profits and loss. Serten (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Why is climate change a better description or name? Global warming describes what it is about, it is not about cooling.
 * Why do you think the word debate is better? Looking at a dictionary we have
 * debate:-
 * a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: debate in the Senate on farm price supports.
 * a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.
 * deliberation; consideration.
 * controversy:-
 * a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion.
 * contention, strife, or argument.g
 * It seems obvious to me which describes the situation better. Does debate have some special social sciences meaning? Or is there some other good reason for wanting this change? Dmcq (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Youre heartily invited to refer to the linguistic experts at NASA primary school Whats in a Name? Global Warming vs. Climate Change. Quote Like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we've chosen to emphasize global climate change on this website, and not global warming.... Climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas amounts will affect. Michael Lockwood states it may result in colder winters for the UK and more with for greenland in the next decades. That said, how to react on that properly is being debated. I dont care muczh about the activists, like Singer or Dessler, either wrote books with my title suggestion included but more about Why We Disagree About Climate Change. Disagreement or Debate, but controversy is something else.  Serten (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It is true 'climate change' is used more often in science, and articles in journals do debate points. I am a bit concerned that this name change seems like the weasel wording beloved of 'climate change skeptics'. A survey Frank Luntz commissioned showed that referring to climate change instead of global warming would help make the subject less of a concern to the public. The word debate also seems to imply that there are two sides of comparable scientific weight as when television presenters balance a debate. If this article is about the science then your title would be fine. So the question really is as I see it, is this article mainly about a scholarly debate or about a public controversy? You have been arguing elsewhere that the public aspects are far more importance and scientists are tekkis going so far as wanting to remove the list of national institutions giving their opinion at scientific opinion on climate change and putting in a social scientist saying consensus forming can be counter productive instead. Therefore I would have thought the public aspect would be more what you were interested in this article addressing. Dmcq (talk) 09:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please notice that I am completely agnostic towards the "standard sceptic" claims. I myself share the doubt about climate scientists however, when they believe to have a prerogative to make political suggestions in the field "which society at large should take up because scientists always know best" combined with a basic lack of actual feasible solution proposals. (see Grundmann). I agree with him that "climate change as a long term issue requiring more public involvement and debate (from all sides, no distinction between scholar and lay people), not less" and I would like to see that debate being covered here. Serten 12:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you believe the policy recommendations of the IPCC are mainly made by or based on reports by climate scientists? Dmcq (talk) 15:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Does anybody have to care? Pauchauri is a railway engineer. Does it make the reports worse? Its like in Wikipedia, to write articles about a topic, you dont need to be a scientist but better be a writer. The Assessment reports are using research from a vaste array of fields, they are not science themselves. Meither the policy recommondations. Serten (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know what that was about. But I will point out where one can check out the lead authors of IPCC working group 3 which  is the group mainly in charge of formulating the recommendations. The lead authors specialisms are as an economist, a hydrologist and statistician, economics and social scientist, and a researcher on solar energy. Dmcq (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not an improvement. From the discussion above, the idea of a 'prolonged' public dispute or debate that is inherent in controversy is more fitting than debate on its own, which implies it will be over once discussed. Equally, there is no harm in calling a spade a spade, and this article does not discuss global cooling. All the effects of climate change that are happening, and are predicted, are as a result of the increase in thermal energy ('warming') in the global climate system. This is an encyclopedia not a tool for settling debates or a campaigning platform so the most direct and accurate language we can use the better, regardless of the psychological effects that some sociologists think it may have on public opinion. --Nigelj (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose : The controversy is over global warming not climate change. And the issue is or has been about the science. The broader climate change discussion for social scientists belongs elsewhere. Vsmith (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I doubt that the broader climate change discussion is for social scientists only - and they belobng as well to "The science" dont they? If not, the article has to be moved as to "Controversy about IPCC climate assessments". One could consider a second article dealing with the broader aspects while this is reduced to a list of controversies about the IPCC climate assessments. Serten (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Global warming is not climate change. SkywalkerPL (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree with most contributors here who seem to say that "climate change" is is a weaker terminology than "global warming". Global warming only mentions one aspect of climate, warmth, and on the face of it this may not sound so bad.  It may even be taken as suggestive of an increase in the nice dry conditions that most typically characterise "warm days".  Climate change may better present the big picture that the weather is being fucked.  Gregkaye (talk) 07:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We're supposed to just summarize the facts rather than campaign. And I think the WP:NPOV policy should be defended strongly if Wikipedia is to have any integrity. But actually a survey showed global warming was more worrying to the public. Anyway climate change as a broader term covers the study over millions of years as well as the current worry, whereas global warming more particularly refers to what is thought to the current concern. One can say global warming causes the Arctic ice to melt, but that just sounds silly when climate change is put in. Of course a scientist will very often say climate change instead as they will be studying whether global warming is currently happening. Dmcq (talk) 07:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The context included: "The controversy is over global warming not climate change." I agree about WP:NPOV in article content but, in the accepted context of a talk page, it was a case of POV opposing POV. I personally don't mind which title is used here as long as people are motivated to develop good content.  Even though I did not "vote" I still think it is clear that climate change is the terminology with more currency.  I stand by what I said.  A fact is that a warmer atmosphere can contain more water vapour with the effect of an increase in the potential of severe weather conditions.  Gregkaye (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I was responding to the 'and on the face of it this may not sound so bad' as it sounded to me like you thought we should decide the name based on how bad it sounded rather than what you thought was correct terminology. Sorry for any misunderstanding. Dmcq (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Climate Change ≠ Global Warming. There is Climate Change going on that is both anthropogenic (Global Warming) and non-anthropogenic. There is far far more controversy on the Global Warming aspect of Climate Change than with the natural warming of the planet. Why would we want to pour more stew in the pot? As for Controversy vs Debate, I see more magazine articles and the press use the term controversy over debate. It seems to fit the situation much better so why change that either? keep as is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the consensus is quite against a move. I wont challenge that. I believe that "Climate change debate" would be a different article and worth while trying. Right? Serten (talk) 10:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Wrong. There already is a History of climate change science which covers the scientific debate. Dmcq (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * History of climate change science is as said, about science. Who actually cares about the science that predicted global warming but got the Winter of 2010–11 in Great Britain and Ireland? The public debate about climate change, wether e.g. the british municipalities should buy inflatable boats, sun screens or Grit bins is a completely different issue. Serten (talk) 12:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Who actually cares about the science"? Perhaps the educated public who realise that one winter is weather, climate is classically over 30 year periods. Of course the misled and the ignorant don't care, but we're trying to educate, not repeat misinformation. . . dave souza, talk 19:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Put yourself in the shoes of a mayor, take Derbyshire. The chattering classes and the Met office tell them in 30 years warming is ahead. Michael Lockwood, no sceptic at all, assumes that there is another Maunder minimum coming up and climate change means colder winters in the UK and warmer ones in greenland. So actually based on relevant climate change science the UK municipalities better take care about gritting bins now and sun screens later. Thats my point about climate change being of importance for actual politics. Serten (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Climate change sometimes means what this article is about, but global warming always does. Ergo, no move.  Sailsbystars (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You may feel as you like. However there is actual research about the different terms importance, take End of_the World or_Happy Ending Powerpoint RGMS Disputed_climate_science in_the media_Do countries matter or Discourse of Climate Change: A Corpus-based Approach. How about scientific opinion as base for the move or split? Serten (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose as almost by definition the controversy is about global warming and associated global weirding. As Frank Luntz would have told you himself. . dave souza, talk 19:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * What is "global weirding? I assume we might close the debate, as the science is settled by Frank Lutz and the IPCC combined. Great combination. An article about Climate change debate imho has its own right, since the Great controversy about global warming is a different issue.  Serten (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry I misspelled Luntz as Lutz in one of my contributions above, fixed now. It is Frank Luntz. Dmcq (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

HadCRUT close-in graph
This image has, in the last few days, been added to the article four times by, and deleted by Timelezz, ThePowerofX, Stephan Schulz, and now me. This little meme, that the global temperature hasn't risen for x years, is a standard piece of climate change denial bunkum. It is a typically useful meme, because it takes only a few seconds to say, and several paragraphs to adequately debunk. We even have a whole article looking at the topic from every side with due WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV and so on at Global warming hiatus.

This article is not about that meme, nor about the science of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation, it is mainly about the published positions of the major scientific bodies of national or international standing worldwide, and whether they agree or disagree with consensus scientific view. No national or international body here mentions the tiny subset of HadCRUT data shown in this graph, and none of them mention the ins and outs of this meme. Even the close-in graph of the recent surface temperature variation - with a five-year running mean - that we use on the article about the phenomenon shows a very different picture. Adding this misleading graph, and using this uncited personal commentary as a caption, is inappropriate in this article. --Nigelj (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC) tags, because in nearly all cases I found a good source directly associated with the text, usually in the form "The BBC writes [reference]: Blablabla" or similar, with the tag attached to the Blablabla. These things are well-sourced and verifiable. I looked if some of the other changes should be reinstated, but mostly found no improvement, just more wordiness. Prince Charles already redirects to the one and only, in 2002 there was only one Bush administration, the existence of environmental campaigns is common knowledge, and so on. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Reverted. In several cased these "Blablabla" is not attached to anything in particular, the sources do not point to an external link or make peculiar allegations. In 2002, there was not only "one Bush administration" as the term can easily mean the George H. W. Bush administration (1989-1993) and the segment leaves unclear which one is it. And do not assume "common knowledge" in controversial subjects. Dimadick (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you explain how "The Bush administration also voiced support for an adaptation-only policy in the US in 2002." could refer to the George H. W. Bush? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

When talking about 2002 it is clear which Bush is it. It is much less clear in sections without dates. Dimadick (talk) 10:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I spotted only one other instance where it might not be absolutely clear without referring to the book and stuck in a reference to the appropriate one. That would have been much quicker than all this. Dmcq (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Global warming controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0916-09.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 06:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Global warming controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080807224318/http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/SFgate/SFgate?&listenv=table&multiple=1&range=1&directget=1&application=fm07&database=%2Fdata%2Fepubs%2Fwais%2Findexes%2Ffm07%2Ffm07&maxhits=200&=%22A21H-04%22 to http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/SFgate/SFgate?&listenv=table&multiple=1&range=1&directget=1&application=fm07&database=%2Fdata%2Fepubs%2Fwais%2Findexes%2Ffm07%2Ffm07&maxhits=200&=%22A21H-04%22

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 06:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 one external links on Global warming controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://climatesci.org/2008/04/23/comment-on-real-climates-post-on-the-relevance-of-the-sensitivity-of-initial-conditions-in-the-ipcc-models/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.house.gov/waxman/safeclimate/index.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100909234738/http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_15978060 to http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_15978060
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mnp.nl/en/dossiers/Climatechange/moreinfo/Chinanowno1inCO2emissionsUSAinsecondposition.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11074
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.whistleblower.org/doc/A/Atmosphere-of-Pressure.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/judge-dismisses-ken-cuccinelli-mann-0437.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Global warming controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110228070607/http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2005/0714letter.pdf to http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2005/0714letter.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Article does not reflect global view
I'm going to put the globalize template on this the introduction is very U.S. centric. 109.158.179.154 (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure this is warranted. The US is emphasized in the introduction, but maybe rightfully so.
 * Quoting from the article, emphasis mine:
 * "Disputes over the key scientific facts of global warming are more prevalent in the media than in the scientific literature, where such ::issues are treated as resolved, and '''such disputes are more prevalent in the United States than globally.[10][11]"
 * Quoting from lower in the article:
 * "Just 19% of Americans and 20% of the Chinese who have heard of the issue say they worry a lot about global warming—the lowest ::percentages in the 15 countries surveyed. Moreover, nearly half of Americans (47%) and somewhat fewer Chinese (37%) express little or no ::concern about the problem."[40]"
 * If the dispute/controversy is centered/loudest in the US, then it makes sense that the US would be emphasized in the intro and elsewhere. TelosCricket (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If the dispute/controversy is centered/loudest in the US, then it makes sense that the US would be emphasized in the intro and elsewhere. TelosCricket (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Milankovitch Cycles
I've reviewed some of the sections concerning global warming and have found little to no reference to the work of Milankovitch. Has no one brought this research and theory to the arguments about global warming? It would seem to be of vital importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhyPluto (talk • contribs) 23:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, yes, his work has been explored in the context of global warming. Largely, the data suggest that based on earth's stage in the Milankovitch cycle we are in, the earth should be cooling. TelosCricket (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Forgot links-- http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/milankovitch-cycles
 * http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm

TelosCricket (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Global warming controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070915053005/http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2934318.ece to http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2934318.ece
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013144956/http://worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/btenvironmentra/187.php?nid=&id=&pnt=187 to http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/btenvironmentra/187.php?nid=&id=&pnt=187
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727205617/http://www.realclimate.org/Mann_response_to_Barton.pdf to http://www.realclimate.org/Mann_response_to_Barton.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727205805/http://www.realclimate.org/Scientists_to_Barton.pdf to http://www.realclimate.org/Scientists_to_Barton.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071222185156/http://www.researchchannel.org/prog/displayevent.aspx?rID=21211&fID=345 to http://www.researchchannel.org/prog/displayevent.aspx?rID=21211&fID=345

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Political Controversies and Corruption
I am posting this here because a search for "Criticism of Climate Change" redirects to this article.

The issue I want to raise relates to political controversies and corruption. For example, in Canada, climate change is associated with fraud and corruption. Green tech companies are top political donors, government officials in Ontario are currently on trial for deleting emails related to cancellation of power plants and the auditor general reported tens of billions in public waste resulting from Green Energy Act.

There is clearly an issue here that "Climate Change" is an excuse to justify corruption and put billions of public dollars into private pockets.

As I understand, climate change fraud is also a heated issue in Australia and parts of Europe.

I propose 1) add a section called climate change fraud and corruption to this article, or 2) create a separate article for politics of climate change, which separately deals with the political and public policy aspect.

24.212.169.208 (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd venture to say that for any widespread idea you can find at least some instances of corruption associated with it. But do you have any reliable sources that make this case for "Climate change" (whatever that means - strictly speaking, its a predicted and observed phenomenon) in particular? BTW, we do have Individual and political action on climate change, which Politics of climate change redirects to. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd also add that there's quite a lot about climate change fraud and corruption in the climate change denial article, but perhaps that's not the fraud and corruption you were thinking of? . . . dave souza, talk 09:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * None of that is very relevant to the topic of this article which is about climate change itself and how to deal with it etc as stated in the first sentence. We have an article Climate change in Canada for related political action in Canada. Dmcq (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Global warming controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110119003144/http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/2229-richard-lindzen-a-case-against-precipitous-climate-action.html to http://thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/2229-richard-lindzen-a-case-against-precipitous-climate-action.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304204052/http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=%2Fclimate%2Fipcc_tar%2Fvol4%2Fenglish%2Findex.htm to http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=%2Fclimate%2Fipcc_tar%2Fvol4%2Fenglish%2Findex.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070521082042/http://web.dmi.dk/solar-terrestrial/space_weather/ to http://web.dmi.dk/solar-terrestrial/space_weather/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006231234/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/048.htm to http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/048.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.montana.edu/lkbonney/DOCS/Publications/DoranEtAl2002ClimteCooling.pdf
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130723201219/http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=9bc9a7c6-2729-4d07-9629-807f1dee479f&k=0 to http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=9bc9a7c6-2729-4d07-9629-807f1dee479f&k=0
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929083942/http://www.hoover.org/publications/epp/2834741.html?show=summary to http://www.hoover.org/publications/epp/2834741.html?show=summary
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528030007/http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/05/do-you-heart-the-hartwell-paper.html to http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/05/do-you-heart-the-hartwell-paper.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070410184455/http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/exxonmobil-smoke-mirrors-hot.html to http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/exxonmobil-smoke-mirrors-hot.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070819134355/http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/exxonsecrets-2007 to http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/exxonsecrets-2007
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070701124215/http://www.cckn.net/compendium/int_vulnerability.asp to http://www.cckn.net/compendium/int_vulnerability.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927120738/http://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/information/testimony/t_020718_letter.php to http://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/information/testimony/t_020718_letter.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

THE RESEARCH OF STUDENTS
i am a student myself, and i have many topics about global warming in my book. The content in the site is relevant, but it should be easier to understand so that kids can understand it too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AwesomeAngelina..... (talk • contribs) 10:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So what are you suggesting - the page needs additional content? Where/What? Also you need to be careful when you are citing your own work - conflicts of interest obviously go against Wikipedia guidelines. Ckruschke (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Ckruschke

Internal radiative forcing
I removed "Internal radiative forcing". I don't see why it is any way notable. Spencer is notable, but not every idea of every notable person is notable, so that's no argument. Notice that the only ref to it is a webarchive; if there's no current live link or any secondary discussion, it's NN William M. Connolley (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree, "Internal radiative forcing" is not reliably sourced and pseudoscience. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * , you have me laughing. That word pseudoscience is invective, it seems to say "I must be right because the people who disagree with me are pseudoscientists". But Spencer is a serious scientist, more so than you, one supposes, and you really can't hurl words like that about. In any event, this article does not seem to be about science, it begins by saying that it "concerns the public debate over whether global warming is occurring...", and the focus of the page is on public opinion. That would be an absurd approach to a scientific article! Moonraker (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Discussion of other editors and a general "I don't like this" is not a persuasive argument. I concur with the revert, which at least hold open the possibility of more discussion if there were current RSs.  Instead you talk about other editors, and express general dislike for the article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * you shouldn't make assumptions about editors, especially since you have no idea who anyone is here. That said, Spencer's "modeling" work on "Internal radiative forcing" and global warming is pseudoscience and there is not going to be a reliable source to be found.--I am One of Many (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * and, you have me laughing again. I see the word "pseudoscience" is being repeated, from which it's fair to draw the inference that 's opinion of Spencer is that his work has no value and that he or she claims to know more about climate science than Spencer does. May one ask what those greater scientific qualifications are? (I don't think I have "expressed a general dislike of the article", I have simply pointed out that its focus is on public opinion. Does either of you disagree with that?) Moonraker (talk) 00:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTFORUM; You have not made the case, based on reliable sources, that the text you wish add would be an article improvement.  This talk page is for that purpose and that purpose alone, see WP:TPG NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The following message has just been posted on my talk page. It seems that I am being threatened? Moonraker (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

[ I redacted my signature and time stamp which Moonraker copied along with the DS notice to keep this thread comprehensible. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * In reply to this absurd post, I can point out that I am not pursuing an edit war or even arguing for someone else's addition to the page to be reinstated, I am asking questions to which replies would be appreciated, instead of threats. Moonraker (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * , I must draw your attention to Wikipedia conduct policies, and in particular to Harassment. Making unjustified threats is not a reasonable way to conduct a discussion on a talk page. If you were an Admin, it would be grounds for you to be recalled. Moonraker (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Being an article talk page, please see Focus on content(bullet 2), supported by WP:Reliable sources of appropriate WP:WEIGHT. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Talking about pseudoscience as if it was some reason to exclude something in this article is just wrong. After all the whole point is to go into the controversy and much of it is just pseudoscience and it would be wrong to exclude it. However I agree that this particular theory just didn't make any sort of mark anywhere and so shouldn't be in. Dmcq (talk) 10:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * and, I don't agree that the above discussion was off topic, and I am not much concerned with the particular information about Internal radiative forcing, which doesn't seem to add much to the page: it isn't one focussed on science, more on what public opinion says, as if that mattered, and what the controversies are, which is more interesting. But I am concerned about the use of that word "pseudoscience" as an argument to delete research by Roy Spencer. The need for a neutral point of view calls for a balance of views, and you can't get to that if supporters of certain viewpoints are acceptable but those whose research disagrees with them can be dismissed as "pseudoscientists". That's the exact opposite of the scientific method. Can please tell us how that assessment of "pseudoscience" was arrived at? And also whether every scientist who disagrees with the alarmist point of view (such as Judith Curry, for instance), would also be removed from the page as a "pseudoscientist"? Moonraker (talk) 11:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You gave the game away by referring to the scientific consensus as "alarmist," which clearly indicates that constructive discussion will not be possible. Everyone should just move along now. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know why they pinged me. I was agreeing about pseudoscience not being a reason for excluding things here. However I also said that I agreed that the section just hadn't the sources or importance to justify its inclusion. Arguing about pseudoscience won't change that. The only thing that would change that is some good secondary source. Dmcq (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , I will explain briefly what you ask—even though this is off topic for discussion on a talk page—in the hope that it will bring this discussion to an end and you can move on to other topics. Spenser's "theory" was based on a computer model that was based on scientifically implausible and false assumptions. Claims made that purport to be scientific but are based on scientifically implausible and false assumptions are pseudoscientific as I see then. So, now you have my view and we can move on.--I am One of Many (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2019
I am not asking for personal permisison to edit, but I think there should be more visual representation of studies that find GW is not as bad as is claimed, if at all. 144.92.115.109 (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * (Closing edit request as it's a general comment) – Þjarkur (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:DUE. Prinsgezinde (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2019
For Example, the top two contributors for Climate Change public interests’ groups between 2017-2018 came in around $25 Billion in donations to Democrats (OpenSecrets.org, 2018). For the top two Private Lobbying groups for Oil & Gas between 2012-2018 was about $16 Billion.
 * It is hard to know what to make of this inchoate request. But even were it better explicated, I fail to see how this topic would fit with the topic of this Wikipedia page. M.boli (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Misleading statement
The following statement is misleading: The authors found that 3974 of the abstracts expressed a position on anthropogenic global warming, and that 97.1% of those endorsed the consensus that humans are causing global warming. The authors found that of the 11,944 abstracts, 3896 endorsed that consensus, 7930 took no position on it, 78 rejected the consensus, and 40 expressed uncertainty about it. That was 97% of the 3974 NOT 97% of all 11,944. The actual percentages are:
 * Agree 32%
 * Disagree 0.6%
 * No Opinion 66%

Looks very different now, doesn't it? When writing, keep in mind that there are lies, damned lies and statistics... Please either remove the misleading statement or provide the correct numbers. IMO the article in general is not balanced. TheDoDahMan (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * You need to provide a reliable source that backs up your analysis. And note that reliable source means a news article, not an opinion piece in mainstream media, or a peer-reviewed article in an academic journal or a university textbook. Blogs and editorials don't count. TFD (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * References! You just have to calculate percentages. It is not an "analysis". It is careful reading of the results in the reference that is given.TheDoDahMan (talk) 05:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The article is not misleading. It wasn't a poll of people. Had this been, for example, a poll question then yes a large percentage of "no opinion" would be important. But it was a sample of abstracts, most of which did not try to answer a particular question. The article is correct, of the abstracts that happened to express a view, 97% expressed that view. M.boli (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It is misleading. It implies that 97% of those polled agree, which they do not. If you check the references provided, at least one of them criticise this particular study.TheDoDahMan (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You’ve just been told it wasn’t a poll. Was it a poll, or not? Roxy, the dog . wooF 15:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So its not a poll. Its still deeply flawed and misleading. Let's call in a stats expert.TheDoDahMan (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It has been explained to you perfectly well in this thread. Which part don’t you understand? Roxy, the dog . wooF 15:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Um... we say right in the quote you provided, "97.1% of those"... "of those" is those that took a position. That's not misleading; it is accurate and consistent with the language in the source. VQuakr (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

"global warming" or "climate change" or both?
The opening lede paragraphs include seven references to "global warming" and four references to "climate change". While in casual parlance, this terms are often used as synonyms, they aren't exactly the same, and we ought to be a bit more circumspect. I fully understand the terminology has changed over the past few decades, with references to "global warming" prevalent earlier in the periods and the gradual shift to the use of "climate change" later in the period, but we ought to talk through exactly how this article should be written.

The title suggests that the subject is "global warming". It may well be that we don't literally mean "global warming" in the sense that the only item of interest is the changing global temperatures, and instead is a placeholder for the broader concept of "climate change", but if that's what we mean, we ought to say so explicitly.

Furthermore, in some cases we use the term "global warming" to specifically mean the temperature record as opposed to all climactic activity. Confusingly, in some cases we are using the term "climate change" when we are talking about the narrower subject of temperature rather than the broader subject of climactic activity. For example the opening sentence of the third paragraph uses the "climate change" phrase but is clearly talking about temperature:

"Political and popular debate concerning the existence and cause of climate change includes the reasons for the increase seen in the instrumental temperature record, whether the warming trend exceeds normal climatic variations, and whether human activities have contributed significantly to it."

The fourth paragraph starts with "global warming" but seems like a discussion of the broader issue of "climate change".

Treating these terms as interchangeable leads to the silly statement that: "there is a scientific consensus that climate change is happening and is caused by human activity.".

Nobody with a brain disputes that climate change is happening so that opening graph is meaningless. In contrast, many thoughtful people question how significant global warming has been in recent decades and how much of the measured change is caused by human activity.

I know it's easier to point out problems than to identify solutions. However, one of the purposes of the lead paragraphs is to clarify the scope of the subject, and we ought to find a way to clarify whether this article is about global warming or about climate change, and that discussion may well include a discussion of the overlap as well as the differences between the two concepts.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The good news is that "there is a scientific consensus that climate change is happening and is caused by human activity" is not silly. It is correct, and would be equally true with "global warming" in place of "climate change." There is not ambiguity between the two concepts, because in the present day the climate change comes from a radiative imbalance which is warming.
 * The lede sentences of this article spell out clearly: this article is about the public debate, not about "how significant global warming has been in recent decades and how much of the measured change is caused by human activity." — M.boli (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , The reason it is silly is that the climate is changing all the time, and has been changing for literally billions of years. Most of those changes, for obvious reasons, have nothing to do with human activity. The climate is changing now, and there is evidence that some of the changes are due to human activity. The phrase "is caused by human activity" means that human activity, and nothing else is responsible for changes to climate, which is literally laughable. It may well be correct to say that the ever-changing climate is experiencing additional changes in recent decades which scientists trace to human activity, but the sentence as stated is silly.
 * Additionally, the term "climate change" refers to a host of phenomena other than temperature changes. For example, changes in AMO and PDO, sea level increases, alleged changes in cyclone frequency and severity, changes in aggregate rainfall, changes in local rainfall patterns, snow fall changes, glaciation changes and more. Again, in casual parlance, the terms are often used interchangeably, but that doesn't mean we need to be so sloppy.
 * You might be correct if you assert that many in the public mistakenly confuse the two terms, but we aren't required to mirror that confusion—our goal should be to summarize the issues, which may include pointing out the flawed conflation, but doesn't mean we have to make the same error. S Philbrick  (Talk)  02:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You might be correct if you assert that many in the public mistakenly confuse the two terms, but we aren't required to mirror that confusion—our goal should be to summarize the issues, which may include pointing out the flawed conflation, but doesn't mean we have to make the same error. S Philbrick  (Talk)  02:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You might be correct if you assert that many in the public mistakenly confuse the two terms, but we aren't required to mirror that confusion—our goal should be to summarize the issues, which may include pointing out the flawed conflation, but doesn't mean we have to make the same error. S Philbrick  (Talk)  02:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * "Joe missing work today because of his cancer treatment." Maybe Joe is actually being treated for the effects of the steroids today. Also, earlier in life Joe had a melanoma which was cured, how do we know you aren't referring to that bout with cancer? And technically speaking, most people have some cancer cells all the time. Please be more specific!
 * Wikipedia isn't litigating global warming vs. climate change within this article. Nobody is confused by "there is a scientific consensus that climate change is happening and is caused by human activity" is just as clear as "Joe is missing work today and it is caused by his cancer." If you want to litigate Joe's cancer, there are other places. — M.boli (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And if you wanted to swap the language in that sentence which offends you, I don't think it would hurt anything either. M.boli (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * that's also my impression. If the article was more general about climatology, it probably would have a different name and scope such as "climate variation", "ice age", etc...  I do find "climate change" suboptimal but it has come to mostly mean the same as "global warming" and I think that the use of "global warning" in the current title is enough to eliminate possible confusion.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 02:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I had been mulling over an analogy but I like your cancer analogy. I'm in complete agreement that in casual conversation, someone might refer to "cancer treatment", and the other parties to the conversation are likely to understand that this is a placeholder for a number of issues some of which might not technically be "cancer treatment". I'm fine with that in casual conversation — I'll even go further and say that if someone hearing that conversation challenged them on the terminology and suggested that they really meant something else, that person is being unreasonable. However, Wikipedia is not a casual conversation. We understand (and probably hope) that statements in Wikipedia will be copied and used elsewhere, hopefully with the understanding that while it's the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, there are editors working hard to make sure information is supported by reliable sources, so the statement is an attempt to be correct not just approximate.
 * One could have an article about climate change controversy, because there are controversies about many aspects of climate change issues. Off the top of my head, some issues which are clearly part of climate change but do not squarely fit in with the narrower topic of global warming include:
 * thermohaline circulation
 * glacial advance, retreat and aggregate mass balance
 * pollen distribution
 * cloud cover
 * rainfall, in the aggregate, and by location
 * cyclone frequency and severity
 * tornado frequency, severity, timing and location
 * crop growth
 * sea ice extent and mass
 * sea level
 * If this article had gone into some depth on all aspects of climate change controversies I would be arguing that it ought to say climate change throughout. However, With the exception of a very short paragraph on Arctic ice, the bulk of this article talks about the narrower subject of warming. I'm perfectly fine with that, except that if the article is going to be about global warming, it ought to use that term. If it's going to be about climate change in general, it needs substantial expansion. Obviously, the easier approach is to keep the article largely as is and change the lead slightly.
 * I don't suggest mindlessly doing a search and replace, as even an article about global warming might properly refer to climate change if only to express the observation that global warming is an important part of, although properly a subset of climate change.
 * I will work up a list of all references to both terms in the lead paragraphs along with my recommendation. S Philbrick  (Talk)  15:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't suggest mindlessly doing a search and replace, as even an article about global warming might properly refer to climate change if only to express the observation that global warming is an important part of, although properly a subset of climate change.
 * I will work up a list of all references to both terms in the lead paragraphs along with my recommendation. S Philbrick  (Talk)  15:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I will work up a list of all references to both terms in the lead paragraphs along with my recommendation. S Philbrick  (Talk)  15:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I will work up a list of all references to both terms in the lead paragraphs along with my recommendation. S Philbrick  (Talk)  15:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It seems like a harmless change, and I do understand your point. I just replaced three instances of climate change   in the lede section. Two became global warming, one became climate will change because that is what the sentence was talking about. I may have missed some, most of the occurrences were in references and wiki-links. (Misfortunately I neglected to put an edit summary on the first edit. I hope whoever has this page on the watch list also notices the talk page discussion!) — M.boli (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I posted below before fully looking at your edits. I'll look now. S Philbrick  (Talk)  20:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The following is a summary of my proposed edits, along with a rationale:
 * My reading is that climate change denial is a term of art for good reason. Climate change denial encompasses a lot of material about the reality and effects of the currently changing climate and the appropriate responses to it, not just the narrow question about radiative imbalance.
 * My quick thoughts on your list:
 * 1 (hatnote) it would be OK to change it, not needed but not harmful.
 * 2 (hatnote) as noted, I think climate change denial is the appropriate term, and (as you note) a term of art.
 * 5 I think this is one that I changed
 * 7 I think this is one that I changed
 * 8 (climate sensitivity) how the climate system will change. I think saying how responsive warming might be is misleading, but I see what you are trying to fix. Can I propose something like how the Earth's average temperature will respond?
 * 8 (climate sensitivity) how the climate will change at local and regional scales is exactly correct. How the temperature will change at local and regional scales is wrong.
 * 12 I still think climate change denial is correct.
 * What do you think? M.boli (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Merge with Public opinion on global warming
We have two articles on the same thing. At Public opinion on global warming it says
 * ''Public opinion on global warming is the aggregate of attitudes or beliefs held by the adult population concerning the science, economics, and politics of global warming. It is affected by media coverage of climate change.

and here the scope is described as
 * The global warming controversy concerns the public debate over whether global warming is occurring, how much has occurred in modern times, what has caused it, what its effects will be, whether any action should be taken to curb it, and if so what that action should be.

Is there an reason to not merge these? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Public opinion on global warming should probably not have even been created since it is 8 years younger, but I agree the content is "similar" with this page being about twice as big. IMO Public opinion on global warming should be skimmed with the best bits incorporated into this page before deleting it. Ckruschke (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * Looking at the two articles I don't see much overlap. Roughly speaking, Public opinion on global warming seems to be a social science / public opinion research thing. While this article Global warming controversy seems to cover the substance of the public debate.
 * The main topic overlap may be the first section of the Controversy article: public opinion. It contains a main macro pointing over the Opinion article. This section also seems to be out of date. So I'd vote for shortening and updating the public opinion section.
 * Might it also make sense to update the lede sentences to make the distinction more clear? — M.boli (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality serves the cause better
The very first paragraph leaves much to be desired in terms of neutrality: so the people who agree belong to an overwhelming, prestigious consensus, the people (presumably scientists, from the way it's written) who disagree "attempt to convince the public that it isn't happening", "attempt to sow doubt in the consensus." It would seem they’re wholly unconcerned about the facts, their actions led by those mischievous “attempts” to sow confusion. Whatever you think about the facts, this portrait is a partisan one.

217.217.1.136 (talk) 08:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * No. You could say exactly the same about other articles about conflicts between science and crackpots. The difference is only that you have been indocrinated to think that this one is not a conflict between science and crackpots. We use reliable sources in the article, and they say it is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Edits
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Greenhouse_gases

"Attribution of recent climate change discusses the evidence for recent global warming. Correlation of CO2 and temperature is not part of this evidence."

Since there is no citation, it should be removed from the article Science vol (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Article title
Is there a better title for the article than "global warming controversy"? I would suggest that there may perhaps be no worse title: the "controversy" was, as far as the documentary evidence shows, artificially created and sustained by the fossil fuel industry, after their own science showed that their products were harming the planet. I would suggest that something like Political debate over climate change would be a better title, as it doesn't give false legitimacy to a controversy that is long since over in the scientific community. When not one national or international scientific body dissents from the consensus view that the climate is changing due to warming effects caused, primarily, by human activity, we're into the realms of "Earth roundness controversy" or "phlogiston controversy". Guy (help!) 21:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 2 May 2020
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus on what would be a better article title. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Global warming controversy → Political debate over climate change – To more accurately reflect (a) the scope and (b) the nature of the debate. Guy (help!) 10:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Sceptre (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support, as proposer. The subject as described is clearly distinct from but parallel to scientific opinion on climate change. The "controversy" (a word to avoid) was, according to documentary evidence from sources such as Exxon and Shell, deliberately manufactured by the fossil fuel lobby using the tobacco industry playbook (see ExxonMobil climate change controversy, for example, also cf. Merchants of Doubt) and at times veers right into conspiracy theory. On a purely technical note the terminology has changed from global warming to climate change, but on a more relevant note for Wikipedia, the "controversy" was always political and separate from - and, indeed, an industry reaction to - the actual science. It's worthy of note that climate change denial only became a qualifying criterion for Republican candidates comparatively recently. W was OK with taking action on climate change. Guy (help!) 10:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * oppose - new name is both more elaborate and misleading: large portions of the current page have only a tenuous connection to politics, and much of the politics cannot be described as anything as genteel as "debate". Also, although Evil Fossil Fuel companies undoubtedly did their best, the idea that the whole or even most of the controversy was manufacturer is nonsense William M. Connolley (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support move, but not necessarily to that place - Maybe split it? The article basically consists of Public opinion, Scientific consensus and Political questions. Scientific opinion on climate change already covers the second part, so whichever part is not covered there could move there. The third part could become Political debate over climate change, and the first part could either become an article of its own or be appended to the politics article. Essentially, this article is about the fight between science and denialism, so another option would be to cut it up into small pieces und move those to the Scientific opinion article and the Climate change denial article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I just looked at the early history of the article, eighteen years ago. Back then, it was basically "some say this, others say that". The name still reflects that attitude, and it is simply WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support move, but not necessarily to that place - I think there would be too much name confusion between the proposed name and Politics of global warming, which is about public policy debate. Maybe Public global warming controversies would work?
 * The Scientific Consensus and Political Questions sections of this article largely catalog political/social controversies in the public sphere which are linked to discussions that happened in science or policy spheres. Items like CO2-lags-temperature-in-ice-cores and urban-heat-island and so on were grabbed by the doubt merchants and injected into public controversy, appearing in WSJ op-eds and Senate speeches and shared over FB. Similarly with questioning the effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocols or the authority of the IPCC. Many of these sections have Main wiki-links.
 * Some parts of this article describe not specific controversies, but topics spawned by the public controversies. I'm not sure how to categorize them. This includes the sections on litigation to force the government to address climate change and the political pressures on climate scientists.
 * This Public Opinion section was written a long time ago, and I think it duplicates (but is more aged than) the Public opinion on global warming article. They should be merged.
 * I share the feeling that the topic tying this article together lacks coherence, and parts of it are duplicated elsewhere. -- M.boli (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , we should avoid the word controversy. Guy (help!) 22:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: I support a move, but to re-fashion along the lines of "Fringe arguments against global warming". —RCraig09 (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There is already climate change denial however, — Paleo Neonate  – 17:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as our primary article is at Global warming. We should remain internally consistent with sub-articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree re the concept of consistency, but there has been much discussion and a clear consensus to rename the GW article because, among other things, Climate change is being used predominantly. See, e.g., File:20200107 "Global warming" vs "Climate change" Google search term ratio.png. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If the primary topic is ever moved from Global warming to Climate change, then I would support this move, as I think "Political debate over climate change" would be a good article title. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: Should not be confined to "political". — the Man in Question (in question)  22:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate into Public opinion on global warming, scientific opinion on climate change, and Politics of global warming, with content merged as appropriate. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 01:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Relister comments: There's no consensus on an article title for a moment, although there does seem to be a general consensus that an article about the controversy should be about the political controversy (of which, sadly, there is a lot of) and not the scientific controversy (of which there is none). Sceptre (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: For the simple reason that the proposer is using the same "red herring" tactics that he states were used to create the "controversy" and clearly has an axe to grind. Apparently anyone who disagrees with man-made Global Warming is in the pocket of Big Oil and Big Tobacco? Come on... Ckruschke (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * Oppose - per many above comments but also because "political debate" is far too constraining. Not all of the debate is "political". -- Netoholic @ 03:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Cited a controversial, biased source"
We do not quote Idso because we think he is reliable. We quote him to show that there are denialists who hold this position. So, this deletion may have missed the point. But maybe there are secondary, reliable sources which say that there are denialists who hold this position? Replacing Idso with those would be an improvement. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)