Talk:The Great Global Warming Swindle/Archive 3

Google Discussion

 * Looking over the first page of "+"controversial" +"controversy" for either movie, 7 out of 10 call TGGWS "a controversial X" ("movie", "documentry",...) in the 2 line preview. 0 out of 10 do so for AIT, and indeed two or three contain phrases like "there's no such widespread controversy surrounding this film". I'm not impressed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This effect is simply because the media have picked up a specific phrasing and replicated it. If a particular page is discussing AIT within the context of being controversial, or not, it is by definition controversial.  If someone is trying to argue that AIT is NOT controversial then they are defending against someone who does.  So even negative hits such as the one you point out are still valid hits in terms of the film being controversial.--GoRight (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. First, there is no reason why "the media" should pick up such phrasing for one movie, but not for the other (especially not if, as you seem to claim, they are so similar). Secondly, the Google summary shows you the context of the keywords. Its a good (if not perfect) indication of how they are used. And thirdly, that is an absurd claim. Consider "AIT is an uncontroversial movie about a controversial topic". There is no question that there is some controversy about AIT - there is some controversy about whether it is appropriate to give red roses to your bosses wife. The question is whether there is enough controversy to call the movie "controversial" and if (it's not), if this is a sufficiently significant property to require it to be mentioned in the introduction. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It is evident that you don't pay attention to the media on political topics on a regular basis. They frequently reuse sound bite material from each other, and this is exactly the type of sound bite phrasing that gets used.  Bush and his Gravitas.  Kerry and his flip flops.  TGGWS and being controversial.  It is all the same effect.


 * I assume you are familiar with the newswire services like the Associated Press. One writer at the Associated Press writes a single story and that gets sent out to literally hundreds or thousands of media outlets and will get picked up by some percentage of them as "filler stories".  This is why you can frequently find the same story, almost word for word in most cases, in a number of print media sources on Google news.  The media in question don't have to be in some huge conspiracy, they merely need to echo one another on point for which they are ideologically aligned and the newswire services only serve to increase this effect.


 * I doubt that I have convinced you of anything here, so let us just agree to disagree on this point. --GoRight (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, let's not yet. If your hypothesis would be correct, then I would expect that the phrase in question appears a lot in pages by news outlets (which do reprint wire stories). Alas, "The great global warming swindle is a controversial" in both the standard news query and the news archive finds zero hits. Oops. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, an interesting result is it not? What does this result say about those 900+ hits you claim below in terms of being WP:RS?


 * Given that result I looked into the results returned by your query a little more carefully. Here is a page that claims to have taken a quote from BBC News.  Note the first sentence: "The Great Global Warming Swindle is a controversial documentary film by British television producer Martin Durkin, which argues against the scientific opinion that human activity is the main cause of global warming."  Here are a few interesting queries based on that:


 * "The Great Global Warming Swindle is a controversial documentary film by British television producer Martin Durkin, which argues against the scientific opinion that human activity is the main cause of global warming." - 2 hits.
 * "The Great Global Warming Swindle is a controversial documentary film by British television producer Martin Durkin" - 98 hits.
 * "The Great Global Warming Swindle is a controversial documentary film by British television" - 269 hits.
 * "The Great Global Warming Swindle is a controversial documentary film" - 757 hits.
 * "The Great Global Warming Swindle is a controversial documentary" - 791 hits.
 * "The Great Global Warming Swindle is a controversial" - 939 hits.


 * "The Great Global Warming Swindle is a controversial" BBC News - 173 hits and note the similarity of the results.


 * Please note the trend identified above. This is from one BCC article which is no longer available on their site.  The first three are clearly hits based on that one article.  The rest?  Who knows but I wouldn't rule out a lot of the other ones having been influenced in a similar manner.  It all depends on how much you want to plagiarize the original source.  A fair number of these go on to mention or reword the original text but have pretty much the same material.


 * I also note a lot of broken video links in these hits. I surmise that at one time there was a video on youtube or google video which also used this sentence.  That likely influenced things as well.


 * Even so, I can also give you another potential source of bias to account for your result, and this is a good one. The wikipedia factor!  :)  Let's not underestimate the influence this page has.   It comes up at the top or near the top of a Google search for "The Great Global Warming Swindle".  Please note the first line that is displayed in the preview.


 * More and more people are relying on wikipedia to be an unbiased source for material. They read it here, and post it there.  Since this wikipedia article has this exact phrase in the opening line while the AIT page does not, this could easily be a factor in explaining your result as well.


 * I note that while I have provided not only explanations but evidence to support those explanations for how your query has a systematic bias. Perhaps you can show how mine are systematically biased, as in they inherently skew the relative results?  As I said, if such a bias exists I will be happy to work to remove it. --GoRight (talk) 07:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not that I buy your argument that all the first three are "clearly hits based on that one article", but you do realize that even if you assign all of the first 4 queries to that hypothesized multiplication effect, and without any scrutiny of the 7 AIT results, its still 20 to 1, or XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX:Y.  And if you look below, you see that the great "Wikipedia effect" has almost entirely failed to reproduce the Wikipedia lead sentence for AIT (and the three hits are clearly attributed). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * GoRight, I don't really understand what your point is. You wanted to bring in Google searches to justify (or otherwise) the use of "controversial" for TGGWS. Now the results don't seem to show what you want, you're going to ignore them? --Merlinme (talk) 08:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The results are what they are. I claim my results are less biased that Stephan's.  Both he and you are welcome to disagree.  I have provided a rational explanation for what the bias in his queries are.  If you don't believe my explanation then believe Stephan's results over mine.


 * I do not believe that there is any argument or any amount of evidence that I can provide which will change Stephan's mind on this matter. I hope others are more objective on this point.  Given this, I simply see no reason to go on arguing this point with him as it will simply be an "I'm right.  No, I'm right!" ad infinitum exchange.  When faced with this type of situation, intellectually honest people typically just agree to disagree and move on.  Does that answer you question?  --GoRight (talk) 07:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. You are almost certainly correct that the Google results (and possibly even the BBC article) are heavily influenced by Wikipedia. I personally have found it disconcerting on a couple of occasions when attempting to research something on the internet which I think is wrong in Wikipedia, how many hits you get which basically repeat the Wikipedia article verbatim. Anyway, unfortunately all this shows is that Google is going to be of no help here. In which case, I'm afraid you're going to have to try to find another way to change the consensus (which has survived numerous other attempts to change it). --Merlinme (talk) 08:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed William M. Connolley (talk) 09:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether the BBC article in question was influenced by wikipedia or not is certainly open to debate, and I see no evidence thus far that the particular BBC article in question was so influenced. What I do see evidence of is that the article in question undoubtedly got picked up and amplified.  Either way the claim of controversy traces back to one source (either the BBC article itself or the wikipedia editors here if the BBC article had been influenced by them).  This accounts for a significant percentage of the hits in Stephan's query.  Wikipedia may possibly account for a significant percentage of the remaining hits in Stephan's query which were not influenced directly by the BBC article, thus diluting the validity of Stephan's claim even further.


 * Let us focus for a second on the implications of the above reasoning and assume, as you suggest may be the case, that the BBC article had in fact been influenced by this very page. In that case my queries above demonstrate that the article clearly amplified the effects of the commentary originating here significantly.  Now you (collectively) wish to argue that the film is controversial based on the widespread characterization of the film as being controversial (and using Stephan's results as evidence).  This becomes a circular argument on your part where you make a claim of controversy, play that claim through an amplifier, and then reassert the claim when challenged based on how how often the claim has been made.  This amounts to you claiming the film is controversial simply because you called it controversial way back when.


 * So, even if your don't believe in the absolute figures generated by these Google searches, the the effects that they have uncovered in terms of amplification (whether originally sourced to the BBC News or here at wikipedia) still serves to at least undermine the current claim that the film is obviously controversial because lots of people have called it controversial, does it not? --GoRight (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * a) You raised Google, not us b) I'd have thought a pretty good definition of "controversial" is that lots of people have called it controversial, regardless of where that opinion originated. I mean, what else does the word mean? c) With the google evidence at best inconclusive (and I'm sure many would argue it's against your position), you appear to be trying to appeal to a large "silent majority" who don't think TGGWS is controversial. I'm afraid I don't think this exists. I've certainly seen no evidence of it. d) I can't see any of this having an effect on the current consensus. --Merlinme (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "b) I'd have thought a pretty good definition of "controversial" is that lots of people have called it controversial, regardless of where that opinion originated. I mean, what else does the word mean?" OK, lets go with this and apply it equally to both films.  So, what is the objective bar that I must meet in order to be able to make a comparable claim over at AIT?  In other words, how many is "lots" and do either of the films meet that standard?  --GoRight (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Who said there was any objective bar? And why must the two films be treated identically? Do all Westerns have to be treated identically because they have a similar subject matter? Do Hitler and Stalin have to be treated identically because they're both 20th Century dictators? I don't edit An Inconvenient Truth. I've never seen the film, for a start. Therefore I have little or nothing to add on that Wikipedia article. I have seen TGGWS, and I do have quite strong opinions on it. I find the argument "a completely different film is treated in this way, therefore this film must be treated in the same way" completely pointless. They're different films. Please try and change the consensus on AIT on that page, and the consensus on TGGWS on this page. --Merlinme (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL. :)  In case you hadn't noticed, they have been actively censoring this discussion on the AIT page and a recent compromise points that discussion back over here!


 * The bar should be objective to make it fair as required by NPOV, rather than simply the majority pushing their view onto the minority. As the minority view on this point I have no way to affect the text other than to engage you in these discussions.  I feel strongly that the current state is skewed in favor of the "mainstream consensus view" so I seek to change it in a manner in line with the rules and conventions of this site.


 * The bar should likewise be the same for both films for the same reason, to make the assessment of WP:WEIGHT based on an objective measure rather than subjective opinions and to maintain NPOV is a "fair" manner. Again, as the minority view on this point I cannot win the argument based on subjective opinions and a show of hands so trying to make the measure objective simply gives me another tool to try and win the argument.  And with scientific backgrounds this crowd focusing on objective measures rather than subjective opinions should carry some weight.


 * Having reviewed the past debates on this point and having made my own argument I will drop this discussion on the TGGWS page for now as I see that I am not swaying any real opinions so the consensus remains, albeit with one more voice on the minority side. :)


 * Would you object to our taking a straw poll to simply confirm the relative numbers on each side (yes, I know, again)? --GoRight (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * For the last time, I don't know and I don't particularly care what they're saying on the AIT talk page. If you have a problem with what they've said there, take it up there.


 * It's virtually impossible to be objective about something like this. What we can say is that there is consensus that "controversial" is a reasonable compromise, based on the alternatives. I for one find the use of "controversial" reasonable and defensible, but I would never argue it was objectively correct, in the same way that 1 + 1 = 2.


 * If I had to estimate, I would guess there are three or four people who want to lose controversial, two or three people who would like something stronger like "polemical", and three or four people who think controversial is reasonable. However whatever the figures are is to miss the point about consensus; "controversial" is the only thing which we can achieve a stable article with (because it's a compromise that people can live with). In Wikipedia consensus is to some extent determined by what version of an article survives; i.e. it's implicit consensus because it reaches a state which no-one changes. When I previously conducted the straw poll, it was as much as anything to get consensus. We agreed that a majority of people could at least live with a particular wording, and then the diehards said that they would go along with the near consensus. In this case, compromise led to consensus. If all you want to do is find out how many people you need to recruit to 'win' the argument, please do not conduct a straw poll, as that is most definitely against the spirit of Wikipedia. Please see: Polling is not a substitute for discussion and What_Wikipedia_is_not.


 * Incidentally, I apologise if I've been getting slightly bad-tempered recently, it's just that these discussions are quite time consuming, we've had them before, and we don't seem to be going anywhere new. --Merlinme (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, "An inconvenient truth is a controversial" yields 7 hits, while "The great global warming swindle is a controversial" yields 927 (and AIT generates 4.5 times more hits than TGGWS). Still not impressed... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This particular query is horribly biased because it completely eliminates any pages that legitimately discuss AIT within the context of being controversial but don't happen to use that exact phrasing, while at the same time playing into the tendency of the media to pick up news feeds and replicate specific phrasings such as the one applied to TGGWS in this case. --GoRight (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh? On the contrary. This query gives us some indication of how many web pages actually call either movie controversial. Your queries inherently return all pages with phrases like "AIT is a movie about the global warming controversy" - which make no claim about the movie itself being controversial. And again, why is does the "tendency of the media to pick up news feeds and replicate specific phrasings" work for only one of the two movies? Looking e.g. at the Wikipedia lede for AIT, "An Inconvenient Truth is an American Academy Award-winning", there are only tree hits, all attributed to Wikipedia. How did the media fail to pick up this phrase? Looking at TGGWS again, "The Great Global Warming Swindle is a controversial documentary film" from our Lede finds over 700 hits...--Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, these queries tell us how many websites parrot this exact phrasing, which given the media effect is a huge and systematic bias. My queries have no such systematic bias one way or the other as far as I can see, but if you can find such a bias we can certainly work to eliminate it from the queries as long as it is based on a recognizable pattern or phrasing.  You do agree that AIT could be discussed in the context of being controversial without actually using this exact phrasing, correct?


 * Do you detect a large number of false hits as evidenced by the actual text of the articles/pages as opposed to the 2 line summaries which are often misleading? If so let me know and I will either work to eliminate it or acknowledge it if I can't, but your example thus far is merely an example of a systematic bias that I have already avoided.  --GoRight (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not claim that my queries have no false hits. If there are some specific phrases that appear to be biasing these results in a systematic way we can easily eliminate that bias by explicitly excluding those phrases.  I would think that this is a preferable approach to obtaining an objective dataset than picking a specific phrase that is almost guaranteed to introduce just such a systematic bias.  Agreed? --GoRight (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I doubt that that is a useful and viable approach. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. As I said above if you can produce something that remains objective but is more credible then we can work with that.  --GoRight (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The only real conclusion I can draw from this is that the Google approach is highly controversial, to say the least. Gmb92 (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That's why we have an instruction manual at WP:GOOGLE. It's an excellent resource, I recommend it. Also, it is quite easy for all here to paste our searches so that we can see each other's explicit search constructions and critique or improve them. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"Controversial" in the first sentence
Pointers to Archived Threads on this topic:
 * Propaganda or polemic?
 * Polemical documentary
 * All those in favour of "controversial documentary film", with the "polemic" quote somewhere in the lead, say Aye. Those opposed say Nay

--GoRight (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Some Google Queries to Provide Objective Data on Purported Levels of Controversy
Consistent with WP:GOOGLE, search engines can be used to provide valuable data relative to a debate. It is important to understand what the resulting statistics imply, however. I have compiled a few relevant and interesting queries related to the issue of these movies being "controversial". This is being done in direct response to the oft asserted, but little supported, claim that the reaction to AIT was that it was overwhelmingly not controversial whereas the reaction to TGGWS was just the opposite. This is an attempt to inject some objective data, rather than subjective statements, into the discussion. Any other objective data on this topic would be appreciated.

I am placing this into it's own section because the text for the following table is large:


 * I ran some of the queries above and came up with different results, I think that's probably because I am misinterpreting the use of the "plus" sign in the tables above to be a "logical and" operator. It would be helpful I think if in the future we pasted the explicit search used along with the summary data.


 * Anyway, sometimes the answer you get is determined by the way the question is asked. To describe the topic here as a "controversial documentary", it seems to me that the best way to test to see if this view is "widely held" is to (a) search for that exact and explicit language, and (b) to limit the sources somehow, for example, by searching Google's news archives rather than the entire world wide web. The next step is to look through a bunch of the hits that result for evidence of false positives, hits that came up but were not explicitly related to someone describing the work as a "controversial documentary".


 * Limiting the search explicitly to Google's news archive also reduces the number of results that are returned, making it possible to actually look at the individual hits to get a qualitative sense for whether or not it's a "garbage-in, garbage-out" quantitative result.


 * For example, this news archive search, on "controversial documentary" with "glogal" and "warming", but specifially excluding "durkin" or "swindle" yields 32 hits from news archives, and only a handful of these mention "An Inconvenient Truth".


 * On the other hand, the same search modified to allow "swindle" or "durkin" yields 46 hits, of which the majority are related to "The Great Global Warming Swindle".


 * Finally, as a check...exclude "gore" and "inconvenient" and you wind up with a pretty fair triangulation.


 * Another way of looking at the use of Google to test for "controversiality"...


 * riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Most claims refuted
1) The consensus on climate change is the product of "a multibillion-dollar worldwide industry: created by fanatically anti-industrial environmentalists; supported by scientists peddling scare stories to chase funding; and propped up by complicit politicians and the media".


 * Has this been refuted? I'm not entirely sure how you would.

2) Records of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels since 1940 show a continuing increase, but during this period, global temperature decreased until 1975, and has increased since then. (This graph used in the programme's first airing was twenty years old and was originally sourced as "NASA", but later was said to be from a 1998 graph found in the Medical Sentinel journal. The authors of the graph were from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, publisher of the Oregon petition. Durkin acknowledged that the graph's time axis was "mislabelled", indicating that 1988 data were valid through 2000. The graph was corrected in subsequent showings by ending the data series at 1988.)


 * Depends to some extent which version of the film we're talking about, but let's say it counts as refuted.
 * Refuted in what sense? Refuted in the sense that the chain of production of the graph being used is bogus or refuted in the sense that the point being made was wrong?   GoRight (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The graph was incorrectly attributed (to NASA) and incorrectly labelled (to 2000), as admitted by Durkin. There was a cooling in the middle of the century, it's believed from sulphate cooling. Any graph from 1988 to 2000 does not show what Durkin wants it to (i.e. it shows significant warming). At the best his use of an unclearly sourced, out of date graph is extremely scientifically dubious. Others might say it was deliberately misleading.

3) All models of temperature increase as a result of the greenhouse effect predict that the warming will be at its greatest for a given location in the troposphere and at its lowest near the surface of the earth. Current satellite and weather balloon data do not support this model, and instead show that the surface warming rate is greater than or equal to the rate in the lower troposphere.


 * Refuted.
 * Where? GoRight (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I do lose some patience with people who come to this subject late and clearly haven't read the many, many references in the article. See, for example, Sir John Houghton's response to the programme. Or see the IPCC Fourth Assessment. You may distrust the IPCC Fourth Assessment; that's fine, provided you can find me a reputable scientist who disagrees with its conclusions about atmospheric temperature. --Merlinme (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Reputable, as in one who agrees with you. Lindzen obviously wouldn't suffice?
 * If you can find me a reference which says Lindzen disagrees with the current interpretation of atmospheric temperature records, please give it to us. It may exist, but I haven't seen one. In any case, Lindzen is far less of a sceptic than he is usually made out to be. If you read Richard Lindzen, he describes the odds of temperature going up in the next 20 years as 50-50; and he offers a range bet on the amount temperature goes up in the next twenty years. The no payout level is 0.2 degrees C to 0.4 degrees C. As a gambling man, I would say this means he expects temperature to go up by 0.3 degrees C in the next twenty years. 0.3 degrees in twenty years is actually perfectly compatible with the range of projections in the IPCC report (low range: 1.1 degrees C in 100 years). Also, he does not dispute that more CO2 in the atmosphere should cause increased temperature; he disputes that we fully understand the heat budget in the atmosphere. Basically he thinks the models overemphasise CO2; CO2 has a role, but not as much as the IPCC summary implies. As to whether he's right, I have no idea; but very few other atmospheric scientists agree with him. --Merlinme (talk) 12:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

4) The film shows that increases in CO2 levels lagged behind temperature increases during glacial terminations.


 * True, although arguably misleading.
 * How is this statment of fact misleading?  GoRight (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Because Durkin presents this as a killer blow to the theory that CO2 can raise temperature; but it is not particularly disputed by people who do believe that CO2 can raise temperature. See, for example, Houghton's points. What happened thousands of years ago is not necessarily relevant to what is happening now. Also, no serious scientist (including, for example, John Christy) disputes that increased CO2 does raise the Earth's temperature. They may argue about how much, but they don't argue about causation. Durkin does not tell you this. --Merlinme (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Its true that this fact can still fit into the AGW theory, however, this video is a self-proclaimed response to Gore's movie, which, If I'm not mistaken, presented the graph as the cornerstone of proof to the theory, while not mentioning the gap at all. THAT is misleading. Of course, calling AIT controversial is out of the question...

5) Carbon dioxide levels increase or decrease as a result of temperatures increasing or decreasing rather than temperatures following carbon dioxide levels, because as the global climate cools the Earth's oceans absorb carbon dioxide, and as the climate warms the oceans release carbon dioxide.


 * Very misleadingly presented, but is it untrue?
 * Yes, its untrue; both the "because" and the start, since its coupled.
 * Some references please? GoRight (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Read the links to Wunsch. He is on record as saying that what he wanted to say was that there was a dangerous feedback effect where as the oceans warmed (because of CO2 increase), even more CO2 would be released. Durkin presented him as saying that CO2 would was released from oceans because of the increase in temperature, implying that CO2 rises because of the effect on the chemistry of the oceans. Wunsch has described this as "the reverse of what I was trying to say". If this isn't misleading, what is? --Merlinme (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, isotopic measurements of atmospheric carbon along with measurements of ocean chemistry show that the ocean is a strong sink of CO2 and thus is acting backward from the way Durkin suggests. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

6) Due to the large oceanic mass, it takes hundreds of years for global temperature changes to register in the mass of the ocean, which is why analysis of the Vostok Station and other ice cores shows that changes in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide follow changes in global temperature lag temperature increases by 800 years.


 * More or less true.
 * I don't think so. I've not seen the lag ascribed to thermal lag before
 * And this fact makes the assertion incorrect how? And strickly speaking you have seen the assertion, it's right there in the film! :)  GoRight (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The first part of the sentence is true (up to the word "ocean") but the second can be most charitably described as "speculative." Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

7) Water vapor makes up 95% of all greenhouse gases and has the largest impact on the planet's temperature.


 * As far as I know this is true.
 * No, 95% is far too high
 * Source?

8) Water particles in the form of clouds act to reflect incoming solar heat.


 * As far as I know this is true.
 * Its either trivial or wrong (they reflect SW but I think not LW)
 * References please?  GoRight (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's trivially correct, like saying oxygen is a gas; i.e., it's true but not directly relevant to the problem at hand. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * How does that qualify as refuted?

9) The effects of clouds cannot be accurately simulated by scientists attempting to predict future weather patterns and their effects on global warming.


 * Debatable.
 * I think it was just poorly worded. I think that the assertion is more along the lines of current climate models don't adequately account for the effects of clouds which is most likely true.   GoRight (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that the working definitions of "accurate" and "adequate" are very much in the eye of the beholder. (BTW did they really say "future weather patterns and their effects on global warming"? That construction of words doesn't make any sense.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

10) The total concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is just 0.054%, a very minuscule amount.


 * Broadly true, but very misleading.
 * Wrong, its 0.38 ish
 * I am quite surprised that there is a controvery over the current level of C02 in the atmosphere. Sources please?  GoRight (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Earth's atmosphere or Keeling curve has plenty of them. I assume you know what ppm means? Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The figure of 380 ppm (0.038%) is correct for parts per million by volume; 540 ppm (0.054%) is approximately correct for parts per million by mass. The latter is formally correct but is not the normal way the figure is presented. It's sort of like giving a numerically correct value for atmospheric temperature in degrees Rankine and suggests the person who wrote it isn't very conversant with the scientific literature. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

11) Humans contribute much less than 1% of that. The documentary states that volcanoes produce significantly more CO2 per year than humans (Durkin has subsequently admitted that this claim is wrong[8]), while plants and animals produce 150 gigatons of CO2 each year. Dying leaves produce even more CO2, and that the oceans are "the biggest source of CO2 by far." Human activity produces a "mere" 6.5 gigatons of CO2 each year. The film concludes that man-made CO2 emissions therefore cannot be causing global warming.


 * More or less refuted.
 * Which part? the 1% number is exactly in line with what I've read elsewhere.  The only thing I see here that is refutable is the volcano thing (which is admittedly incorrect, although it doesn't really change his point), and the conclusion.  The facts of this argument are not themselves flawed as far as I know. Oren0 (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The volcano part was 100% wrong. The rest, is also wrong because of the conclusion. (and if we drop the conclusion - it downgrades to misleading). Very close to 100% of the increase in CO2 (~35%) is demonstratively from burning of fossil fuels - see: Suess effect and this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The oceans aren't a source of CO2 at all -- they're a strong sink of CO2, as we know from multiple lines of evidence. Much less "the biggest source of CO2 by far"! There are issues open to dispute but this isn't one of them. To say that the oceans are presently a source of CO2 is absolutely, incontestably wrong and is prima facie evidence of unfamiliarity with the most basic scientific data and concepts. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm - not to be obnoxious - but isn't the Ocean both a source and a sink - with the net result as a sink? (which i agree is not in dispute at all) The entire argument in TGGWS was made by only referring to the source part (for land as well as ocean) and completely ignoring sinks - thus making for the argument that humans "must" be an insignificant part. (therefore my demote to misleading in the above). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

12) Solar activity is currently at an extremely high level, and is directly linked to changes in global temperature. The mechanism involves cosmic rays as well as heat from the sun aiding cloud formation [9]. Solar activity is far more influential on global warming and cooling than any other man-made or natural activity on Earth.
 * More or less refuted.
 * I doubt that it is this clear cut. Sources please?  GoRight (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See, for example, Alan Thorpe in the March 2007 issue of the New Scientist, as quoted in the article. He's not alone. If you can find a significant scientist who disagrees with this point of view, please tell me, as I would be interested. Eigil Friis-Christensen has explicitly said that Durkin overstates his case, specifically because Durkin rules out the possibility that CO2 could also have an effect. Friis-Christensen does not go that far. (And, it should be added, many scientists disagree even with the conclusions Friis-Christensen drew from his data. See, for example, various papers by Peter Laut.) --Merlinme (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

13) The current warming is nothing unusual and temperatures were even more extreme during the Medieval Warm Period, a time of great prosperity in Europe.


 * More or less true, although arguably misleadingly presented.
 * Not if we're tlaking about global or hemispheric
 * Please explain more.  GoRight (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please go to the link on the Medieval Warm Period. --Merlinme (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well if you believe in the hockystick this is wrong, but lets face it, if you aren't being objective.

14) There has been an increase in funds available for any research related to global warming "and it is now one of the best funded areas of science."


 * More or less true.
 * Very doubtful. For example, the whole env community gets only 20% of UK HPC funding - I think the particle phys people get more.
 * Note that "one of the best funded" does not equate to "the best funded." Climate related funding has been increasing significantly over the years in absolute $$$$.  GoRight (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2007

(UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I actually agree with you on this. I thought Durkin's arguments about the motivations of scientists were some of the more plausible ones. Yes, scientists are human too. However, when you do some basic research (as I have done), you quickly realise that almost no serious, active scientist disagrees that human beings are causing global warming. Even John Christy, who is something of a poster boy for the sceptics, disagrees about how much, and what should be done about it, rather then whether it is happening. --Merlinme (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe in the UK, but not in the US. In the US certain agencies want us to avoid mentioning "g- w--" because of its political sensitivity. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What is your point here? That climate scientists are having their funds restricted or that they simply can't discuss their science as being GW related?  In the latter case it doesn't change the facts that climate change related science funding has been increasing in absolute $$$$ for years. --GoRight (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If this is a fact - then you wouldn't mind presenting some documentation for it would you? Not hearsay from just some source - but factual information - please. It would be nice if you could at the same time document that it is "one of the best funded". Otherwise i'd be inclined to believe that this "fact" is nothing but hearsay. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't mind at all, proud to do it in fact. :)  I won't try to speak for all of the other governments in the world, but US federal funding for "environmental sciences" has roughly doubled from about $2B to about $4B since 1970 (in constant 2007 $$$).  See this chart from AAAS.  I assume you will accept AAAS as an acceptable source?  Environmental sciences get the 4th largest piece of the US federal funding pie (note that "one of the best funded" does not mean "the best funded").  See this chart from AAAS.  And finally, the US government funding accounts for just over 1/3 of the total world wide R&D funding.  See this chart from AAAS in 2005.  Note that these figures don't account for R&D funding from industry sources which dwarf those of the government sources in the US.  See this chart from AAAS.  Note also that these last two charts are for total R&D funding not just enviromental sciences.  The intent of these two charts is just to keep the US government funding in perspective relative to both private industry and other nations around the world.  --GoRight (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ummm...you are aware that "environmental sciences" (which is, according to your source, 7% of the budget) is a lot larger than climatology and global warming related research? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ummm...I doubt that any of this funding could be completely independent of "global warming". It will all have ties to GW claims.  But if you have some data to support your, currently unfounded, assertion I would be happy to listen.  And as Kim D. Petersen points out, let's have "some documentation for it would you? Not hearsay from just some source - but factual information - please."  You can quibble about the 7% all you want but the fact remains that the funding has doubled in constant 2007 dollars since 1970 and this segment is the 4th largest funded segment which certainly justifies a claim of "one of the best funded areas of research".  Everything is dwarfed by life sciences as the chart clearly demonstrates.  They are a full 50% of the funding. --GoRight (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ummm...you have seen that "environmental sciences" includes all of geology? Prospecting for oil, plate tectonics, vulcanology...that will be extremely tentative links. And, as you can see here, the total federal R&R budget doubled from 70B to 140B from 1976 to now...i.e. it doubled just as fast as the environmental sciences. What you are doing is not adding substantial documentation but cherry-picking and misinterpreting irrelevant data. -Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, there may be some small amount of unrelated (to GW) funding in these figures but these are clearly applicable as estimates for the purposes of this discussion. You can try to squirm but I have provided hard figures from a reliable source by even your standards.  You have provided hand waving.  Provide some hard data of your own or this "mini debate" is effectively over.  --GoRight (talk) 08:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Fact by fiat...have you considered a career as pope? Your numbers show nothing useful for this debate. I notice that you also ignore the inconvenient fact that environmental sciences funding has risen about as much as overall funding. I agree that unless one of us brings new reliable sources, this will just devolve into sterile bickering - I'm happy with letting the reader for his or her opinion based on the current state. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

15) Scientists seeking a research grant award have a much more likely chance of successfully obtaining funding if the grant is linked to global warming research.


 * More or less true.
 * Arguable. Certainly not refuted
 * Most of the atmospheric and oceanic research in the US has no direct relationship with global warming, but includes a whole range of topics from severe storms to interaction of weather with agriculture. See e.g., here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

16) It is more likely that vested interests occur among supporters of the proponents of the theory of man-made global warming because hundreds of thousands of jobs in science, media, and government have been created and are subsidized as a result of this theory.


 * Hard to prove one way or the other.
 * "Hundreds of thousands of jobs" is pure fantasy. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

17) Scientists who speak out against the theory that global warming is man-made risk persecution, death threats, loss of funding, personal attacks, and damage to their reputations.


 * May be true.
 * But misleading
 * What's misleading about it? Its true.   GoRight (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's trivially true. We all risk all of that all the time (well, if we have any funding, else only the rest). Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's misleading because it implies that there are thousands of sceptical scientists out there who are afraid to speak out for fear of their lives. If you follow the link to the BBC website which I put on this page, you'll find that it's very hard to find these scientists. --Merlinme (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

18) Some supporters of the theory that global warming is man-made do so because it supports their emotional and ideological beliefs against capitalism, economic development, globalization, industrialisation, and the United States.


 * May be true, although this is guilt by association.

18) The theory that global warming is man-made was promoted by Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher as a means of promoting nuclear power and reducing the impact of strike action by the National Union of Mineworkers.


 * Might be true I suppose.
 * I very much doubt it
 * Why is that? GoRight (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

19) Claims that all sceptics are funded by private industry (such as oil, gas, and coal industries) are false and have no basis in fact.


 * Hard to refute because of the use of the word "all".

20)The claim that "2,500 top scientists" support the theory of man-made global warming mentioned in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report are false, and that in fact the report includes many politicians, non-scientists, and even dissenters that demanded that their names be removed from the report but were refused.


 * "Many" is probably false.
 * I have seen no evidence that there are *any* names on it who asked to be removed

21) IPCC reports misrepresent the views of scientists who contribute to them through selective editorializing. For example, when Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute complained that the IPCC did not take his professional opinion under greater consideration, the IPCC kept his name on the report as a contributor. His name was not removed until he threatened legal action.


 * No dispute about Reiter, don't know if there are any others.
 * Actually this can be disputed. We have no evidence other than Reiters for this
 * And Reiter is not a credible source on things related to Reiter? Also, in answer to the question above there is also Landsea (who complained his views were misrepresented, not that he needed to take leagl action).   GoRight (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Reiter has an obvious COI. And Landsea has not, to my knowledge, complained that the IPCC had misrepresented his views. Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and what is Reiter's COI here? What does he gain by making these charges? --GoRight (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I refer you to Landsea's open letter on why he resigned from the IPCC:


 * "It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth's role as the IPCC's Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current sc ientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.


 * My concerns go beyond the actions of Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues to how he and other IPCC officials responded to my concerns. I did caution Dr. Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC. Specifically, the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead auth or; I was told that that the media was exaggerating or misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference and interview tells a different story (available on the web directly); and that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection between global warming and hurricane activity. The IPCC leadership saw nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth's unfounded pronouncements to the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4."


 * I don't know about you, but while Landsea was obviously trying to be diplomatic here his primary complaint seems to be that the climate science says one thing and the lead author for the relevant section of the IPCC was saying something else while invoking the authority of the IPCC. Does that not count as having his views misrepresented? --GoRight (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As your excerpt clearly shows, Trenberth was not speaking for the IPCC and Trenberth was not presenting his opinion as Landsea's. Landsea has not complained about any published IPCC report, as far as I know, and Pielke, who supported Landsea, has explicitly endorsed the AR4 treatment of tropical storms.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand that this is the IPCC's position. However this statement: "I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC" shows pretty clearly that Landsea did not agree, and so much so that he resigned because of it.  So while the IPCC may put out a CYA statement, which may even be true, Landsea clearly believes otherwise which is what we said.  --GoRight (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It makes it no better that you shout... Landsea states that Trenberth (not the IPCC) was the culprit, what gripes he has with the IPCC is on them not taking action against Trenberth. There is a subtle difference - can you spot it? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not shouting, I am highlighting since this point seems to be escaping other editors. There is a subtle difference - can you spot it?  BTW, SHOUTING is generally accomplished by using ALL CAPS, not by introducing bold fonts.  There's a little net trivia for you, hope that helps clear things up.  :)  --GoRight (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

22) The concept of man-made global warming is promoted with a ferocity and intensity that is similar to a religious fervor. Sceptics are treated as heretics and equated with holocaust deniers. Retired university professor Tim Ball states in the film, and in subsequent press publicity that he has received death threats because of sceptical statements he has made about global warming.


 * Some of this may be true.
 * Its certainly true that he states he has had death threats
 * This is clearly true in general, or are you claiming to never have heard of skeptics being referred to as deniers? GoRight (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

23) Author and economist James Shikwati says in the programme that environmentalists campaign against Africa using its fossil fuels: "there's somebody keen to kill the African dream. And the African dream is to develop." He describes renewable power as "luxurious experimentation" that might work for rich countries but will never work for Africa: "I don't see how a solar panel is going to power a steel industry ... We are being told, 'Don't touch your resources. Don't touch your oil. Don't touch your coal.' That is suicide." An example is given in the film of a Kenyan health clinic which is powered by solar panels which do not provide enough electricity for both the medical refrigerator and the lights at the same time. The programme describes the idea of restricting the world's poorest people to alternative energy sources as "the most morally repugnant aspect of the Global Warming campaign."


 * Probably true but misleadingly presented.
 * Probably flase. Kyoto doesn't restrict developing economies.
 * But promoting carbon credits does by pushing solar into africa. GoRight (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Carbon credits have come about through Kyoto. Kyoto doesn't apply to Africa. There are no plans to apply it to Africa. The argument really is about China and India. --Merlinme (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the fact that Africa has done so incredibly well before Kyoto that it is unlikely any change will make things much worse. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I make that five claims out of nineteen that could be said to be refuted (even if they are the more significant ones), which is why I disagree with the statement that 'most' of the film's claims have been refuted. Could we change to something like "several of the films scientific claims have been refuted", for example?--Merlinme 09:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. I have added some commentary to the above but I am late to this game so feel free to disregard anything that is old news.  GoRight (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Out of 23? I disagree with several of your assessments, but agree with you overall William M. Connolley 10:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks- it was a 'quick and dirty' assessment, I didn't bother to check in detail. I was hoping someone who knows the science well would correct me where necessary. Anyway, the point remains that the existing wording in the article (which makes the very strong claim that most of the film's assertions have been refuted), is not correct. Many of the claims may be misleading, but contain at least a grain of truth- so refuted is too strong. --Merlinme 11:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What about "several of the films claims have been refuted, others criticized as misleading"? This would nicely map to Houghton, I think.--Stephan Schulz 11:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * How about most of the scientific claims? (i haven't fine-counted - but looking over it, it looks like it). Btw. on #6 - doesn't the ~800y correspond roughly to the ocean turnover - bringing more CO2 to the surface (ie. it takes 800y to get to an equilibrium?). --Kim D. Petersen 13:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Concentrating on the sci claims is more interesting. #6 - not sure - people tend to talk more in tems of wind stres and circ changes rather than T changes. Best regarded as uncertain William M. Connolley 13:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, well how about "Most of the programme's significant scientific claims have been refuted or criticised as misleading. [and reference Houghton and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology as two of the more comprehensive critiques by scientists]. Critics have also argued that the programme is one-sided and that the mainstream position on global warming is supported by the scientific academies of the major industrialized nations and other scientific organizations."[and reference the Royal Society as before]


 * Thoughts? --Merlinme 17:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The above looks like WP:OR to me. Where are the references for "most" and "refuted"? Iceage77 19:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * John Houghton, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, and the British Antarctic Society have all extensively criticised the science used in the film. I was suggesting we would reference the first two. It's hard to find a piece of hard science in the film which has not been discredited. For example, atmospheric temperature measurements, volcanic CO2 emissions, use of old and inaccurate graphs. The latter two Durkin has actually conceded were wrong. Wunsch and Friis-Christensen have both criticised the way their work has been presented in the programme. Even where broadly correct (e.g. drop in global temperature 1940-1980) the conclusions drawn from this have been heavily criticised.


 * I could change this to "Many of the programme's scientific arguments have been disputed by scientists" if you prefer. The article currently reads "Most of the film's arguments have been refuted". I was actually trying to get that altered, because I think it's too strong. --Merlinme 08:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Your change watered it down to something even weaker than it was before. "Disputed" is insuffecient - they have clearly been refuted. And on the few points they haven't been refuted on the basis of facts, their interpetation is wrong (and have thusly been refuted). -- Raul654 (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I Disagree with your use of "refuted" here. Disputed is more NPOV.  GoRight (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Disputed is not the correct word - since most of the scientific arguments are directly wrong. To state that they are "disputed" is not NPOV - its direct POV. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "since most of the scientific arguments are directly wrong." A claim which seems to have itself been "refuted" given the analysis provided above by editors other than myself.  Disputed should be the preferred usage here.  --GoRight (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No in fact the above supports this. Here is the list of science claims - where nothing is noted it is a wrong statement, when misleading its (m), when correct its (c), when both error and misleading (e+m): #2, #3, #4 (m), #5, #6, #7, #8 (m), #9 (m), #10 (c), #11 (e+m), #12, #13 - that would be 7 refuted, 3 misleading, 1 error+misleading and 1 correct. That is "most of the scientific arguments". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In what sense is this a discussion?? You say nothing for two days, and then revert my edit in two seconds to something which is provably wrong (see above). Could you please suggest something which is not incorrect. "Most arguments have been refuted" is incorrect. Merlinme (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The article previously said "Many of the programme's assertions have been disputed " - this is true, in the same sense that standing on the middle of the Titanic as it's sinking is a "problem" - it's a vast understatement. I changed it to say "Most of the programme's assertions have been refuted" - which is true, as TGGWS was refuted on most of its scientic claims, and even on ones that might be factually true (like CO2 leading temperature) their interpretation was refuted. You then came along and changed the sentence to read "Many of the programme's scientific arguments have been disputed by scientists." which is weaker than it was to begin with. REFUTED, not disputed. Most, not many. That's why I reverted. -- Raul654 (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "I changed it to say "Most of the programme's assertions have been refuted" - which is true" "Most" is clearly over stated given the analysis above.  "Refuted" in what sense as I ask below?  Just because you say so?   GoRight (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed but we might still want to specify "scientific arguments" since the political stuff (motivation for Thatcher's actions, etc.) is harder if not impossible to prove one way or the other. -- Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is all editors' opinions. I appreciate certain people feel very strongly about his film, however we need to bear in mind WP:NPOV. The best solution is to go back to the original version which I think was "Many of the programme's arguments have been disputed by scientists". -- Iceage77 (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree but I think Merlinme has made a good faith effort to be more precise. I don't object to that wording either.  GoRight (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that you're wrong on all counts. We have multiple sources refuting the claims made in this documentary, therefore it is out our opinions. Therefore, changing back to the old wording would be to leave this article with a misleading statement, which is a violation of our policy that Wikipedia contains contain true (not misleading) statements. . -- Raul654 (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We have multiple sources disputing the claims made in the film. But to take a couple of examples, the point about solar variation has not been refuted, as it is an ongoing area of research eg. . And a new study supports the film's claims about the MWP . -- Iceage77 (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh look, it's Energy and Environment again. But why do you bring this up on a scientific topic? Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Disputing" implies that there's something is disputable. That is not the case here. One side - TGGWS - is objectively wrong, with numerous point-by-point refutations available. These refuatations include solar warming: 'Further, variations in the output of the Sun cannot explain the large warming that has occurred between 1950s to the present (as demonstrated in published scientific results, conveniently ignored by Mr Durkin). It can only be explained by increased greenhouse gases due to human activities." Indeed, the ramp up of solar activity through the first half of the 20th century probably did contribute to global warming at that stage. However, it is equally clear that it could not explain it all, especially in the last two or three decades. Perhaps 30% of 20th Century global warming is likely to be solar."  -- Raul654 (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a list of blog postings one of which supports TGGWS! Not very convincing evidence. -- Iceage77 (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (a) Look more carefully - some of those are blogs, some are not. Claiming that they all are is false. (b) Re:the blog that supports TGGWS - look harder. Specifically, the 2nd comment in the blog, which includes a point-by-point refutation of the film. (c) More generally, that you cannot be convinced by a mountain of refutations says more about you than it does about the evidence. -- Raul654 (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This one also supports TGGWS. All you have proved with your google search is that there is a diversity of opinion about the film, which clearly backs up my original point. -- Iceage77 (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I challenge the applicability of the word "refuted", especially in a scientific sense. Arguments posted on blogs are hardly evidence of refutation. They ARE evidence of individuals with an axe to grind which calls into question whether they are WP:RS. As far as I can see we have some credible scientists saying one thing on these points, and other scientists saying another. There is no determination of which group is "right" in these controversial areas, only bald assertions that there are by those seeking to push their POV. GoRight (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read the article? BAS, 37 climate scientists, 2 actual contributing scientists, The Royal Society and so on. And who exactly are these other credible scientists who are saying another thing? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We should note in the intro that quite a few claims have been withdrawn or modified by Durkin, as well as that most of the remainder have been refuted or characterised by relevant experts as misleading half-truths. I'd also be happy to note that, despite (or because of) this, the film has received enthusiastic endorsement from scientifically unqualified rightwingers (this talk page illustrates the point, but there are plenty of reliable sources we can quote for it).JQ (talk) 09:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's please not get into a left/right thing, and instead keep focused on the film's self-styled "science." Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"Most claims have been refuted" is a very strong claim to make. Putting together random blogs who disagree with various points of the film and coming to this conclusion is synthesis. We can only make a claim like this if we have a reliable source that says that most of the claims have been refuted. Not that one scientist disagrees, and not that some claims have been refuted, but that most have been scientifically refuted. I don't think language like that is going to be likely, so we can't use it either. The language of "many claims have been disputed" is agreeable and verifiable. Oren0 (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Refuted suggests a very strong level of proof. I think it's particularly inappropriate because having it in addition to the "several claims withdrawn" suggests that there are lots of other claims which have been refuted. Actually the three most obvious areas (volcanic emissions, bad use of graphs, use of Wunsch's interview) were all withdrawn in later versions. This leaves the solar activity stuff (which is hotly disputed, but you can find a few scientists who support it), and the atmospheric temperature readings. I think it's misleading to suggest that there are lots of refuted arguments in addition to the withdrawn ones. Most of the arguments are actually misleading rather than easily falsifiable. --Merlinme (talk) 07:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There's still the nonsensical argument that the current CO2 increase is a result of warming, and probably a few others. I don't know what's in the current version of TGGWS so it's hard to say. It would be useful to have a summary of what's left in TGGWS Mk. II. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've not seen the DVD version, but going by what was said here and what other people have said, I'm assuming Durkin gave the correct time axis on the graph (and removed the attribution to NASA) and modified/ removed the provably wrong claim about volcanic CO2 emission vs. human CO2 emission. In at least one other version of the film he also omitted the Wunsch interview, however I'm not sure if that's just because the film was cut down; the Wunsch interview may still be in the DVD release. --Merlinme (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)