Talk:The Great Global Warming Swindle/Archive 4

BBC article on editorial bias in scientific community against environmental sceptics
Interesting article on the BBC here: I'm not sure it's directly relevant to TGGWS, but it's certainly indirectly relevant. Basically a BBC environmental correspondent asked for evidence of bias against environmental scepticism when getting research published. After about a year and 100 emails, he summarises the results as follows: "The sum total of evidence obtained through this open invitation, then, is one first-hand claim of bias in scientific journals, not backed up by documentary evidence; and three second-hand claims, two well-known and one that the scientist in question does not consider evidence of anti-sceptic feeling.

No-one said they had been refused a place on the IPCC, the central global body in climate change, or denied a job or turned down for promotion or sacked or refused access to a conference platform, or indeed anything else.

If there is an anti-sceptic bias running through the institutions of science, it is evidently keeping itself well hidden."

--Merlinme 18:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

controversial - again again.
To the editors: Please first check out the various discussions that have been on this subject here on talk. (the latest one is here). This is something with a long standing consensus.

If you feel that this consensus, should have changed in the meantime. Then feel free to start up (yet another) discussion on it. --Kim D. Petersen 13:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "Controversial" makes the most sense for this film since it's broadly and thoroughly criticized within and outside of the scientific community. Gmb92 (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"other contributors to reports by the IPCC."
Who, specifically? Christy and...? Let's give specific names or numbers, not just a vague "other contributors." -- Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur. Saying "others" tends to give a misleading impression that the people featured in this film are reputable. -- Raul654 (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Internal TGGWS Discussion of the RfC
Lets leave the RfC section free of our internal discussions, although replies to the outside contributors seems acceptable. --GoRight (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but be aware of WP:FORUMSHOP. Unless these outside opinions introduce something new (and capable of changing the current consensus among the active editors of this page), I'm not sure how helpful they'll be. --Merlinme (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * How exactly am I forum shopping here? I am using only one vehicle, RfC, to ask for comments on two separate articles which both you and KDP have repeatedly requested that we keep separate.  The results on each article shall only apply to their respective articles, agreed?  Why are you beating me up about following the rules (i.e. by asking for RfCs when internal debate is stalled) and adhering to your own request (i.e. on keeping the articles separate)?


 * WP:FORUMSHOP does not say that the respondent opinions should not be considered in the determination of wikipedia community consensus as far as I can tell, is that what you were intending? I agree it says that asking the same question repeatedly or shopping different wikipedia communities is inappropriate.  Even so, since this topic remains in dispute I am simply following the recommended steps outlined in WP:DISPUTE --GoRight (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I said be aware of WP:FORUMSHOP. In other words, if you don't get the answer you want (and I haven't seen any startling new arguments yet), please let it drop. --Merlinme (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, that (i.e. be aware of) is a fair distinction, I guess. On the "please let it drop" comment I am not exactly sure why I should.  I clearly hold the view that the current situation is not NPOV.  Even if the current consensus is to leave the text as is, am I not within my rights to continue to try and change that consensus as long as I adhere to the rules in my attempts to do so?  An argument that states, in effect, that this has all been discussed before so let it stand seems unfair to new editors such as myself and others yet to come, does it not, since we have not had the benefit of having participated earlier.


 * This topic (i.e. the inclusion of the word "controversial") is clearly controversial in its own right given the disproportionate level of discussion it has received. I think that is a fair statement, or do you not agree?  If the current majority in the consensus insists on including clearly controversial text into the article then why should they be a exempt from having to continue to justify themselves in a controversy that they themselves have introduced?  They could simply avoid the entire discussion by agreeing to be less controversial (e.g. by withdrawing the controversial text) which, IMHO, also has the benefit of making the article better in terms of being NPOV.  While not the only goal of NPOV, I think that it is fair to say that one of its goals is to eliminate clearly controversial statements (i.e. perceived as biased by other involved contributors) such as we are discussing here.  --GoRight 14:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This ends up with circular argument - since it would be just as controversial to remove it. You have to at times accept that other people simply do not share your opinion, and respect a consensus. --Kim D. Petersen 16:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You are of course entitled to your opinion GoRight, and just because you are in a minority (well, minority against the compromise position, anyway), does not make you wrong. At some point though, although you don't have to accept the majority view, it surely becomes pointless to keep asking the same questions in a different way, when you already know people's answers. While 'let it drop' was perhaps a bit rude, I'm unconvinced how going round in circles is really helping. --Merlinme 16:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Responding to KDP above: Perhaps so. I agree that removing the text is just as objectionable to your side as leaving it in is to mine.  That's what makes it controversial.  On this very narrow point, i.e. leaving the word controversial in this specific article, if the RfC produces results that suggest that a wider Wikipedia community agrees with the current consensus then I intend to abide by that as the only argument for including it that carries any weight with me is Merlinme's argument that "controversial documentary" is the only compromise that seems to allow a stable article.


 * I do, however, reserve the right to pursue my larger concern regarding the concept of whether NPOV can or should apply across related (i.e. GW) pages. While the current RfC's serve as an example of that issue, they are by no means the sum total of it.  I do not consider my pursuing improvements to wikipedia policies and guidelines to address this wider concern to be WP:FORUM shopping on this specific issue.  I also reserve the right to pursue additional steps in the dispute resolution process with respect to the current AIT and TGGWS RfC topics at a later date, although I have no immediate intention of doing so.  I do not mean this as any sort of a threat of action, but rather as a simple declaration of my position in these regards. --GoRight 18:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Meta-question. WMC has criticized me for inserting my comments in front of others (which I usually do when I am trying to make it clear to whom I am responding).  I use the technique of including an extra level of indentation to make it clear that my comment is not part of what would be the following and pre-existing comment.  The above comment is a good example of such a situation.  I thought such a technique was common practice in talk pages so I was adopting it.  Is there a convention that is more prevalent for handling this case?  Simply appending my comment at the same level as Merlinme's makes them appear to run together.--GoRight 18:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Should the word "controversial" be removed from the opening sentence?
The relevant past discussions, as well as newly introduced points, can be found starting here.


 * No. But as we keep re-digging up old bones, we can get rid of the word "documentary" from the lead sentence and replace it with the more apt "propaganda".  R. Baley (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please. WP:POINT.  I can show you as many reliable sources as you desire that call it a documentary.  How many can you show me that call it propaganda? Oren0 (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Can I please have 144001? Thanks ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. Right after you give me 67,401 calling it propaganda.  See what I did there :P? Oren0 (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I second RB: replace doc with prop William M. Connolley (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the word "controversial" should be removed from the opening sentence per WP:NPOV. Whether or not the movie is in fact "controversial" is immaterial to this point. The facts presented within the article should be enough to establish that the movie is controversial and defining it as such in the opening sentence is unnecessary and POV. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No. "Controversial" is merely descriptive and NPOV. Arjuna (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the movie was ordered by, and created as a polemic for Channel 4. It was designed specifically to be controversial - controversy was the purpose for the film. That it has later been necessary to cut away a third of the content, because it was directly wrong, makes it even more controversial. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What Kim said. Raul654 (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Should "controversial" be reoved from the lead? No. There's nothing inherently non-neutral about calling a film "controversial", especially since it has it's fair share of critics and controversy.  Shouldthe word "documentary" be removed from the lead?  Yes.  Documentaries simply state the facts; this film tries to persuade the view to a certain viewpoint; ergo, it's not a documentary.  Replace it with "proaganda" if you like, but definitely take out "documentary". &mdash; EagleOne\Talk 22:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Seriously? AIT doesn't try to push a POV?  How about Sicko or Fahrenheit 9/11?  I guess none of these are documentaries either?  As a sidenote, the leads of the two latter links are perfect examples of how controversy should be handled in a lead.  Same as we should do for this page and AIT. Oren0 (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This discussion isn't about those films, it's about TGGWS; and this film clearly has an agenda to push, so it doesn't present the facts in a neutral manner. You needn't look beyond the title for proof of that.  I say the word "documentary" goes.
 * For the record, I wouldn't call any of those other films "documentaries" either, but as I said, this discussion is about TGGWS; let's try to stay on point here. &mdash; EagleOne\Talk 01:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe none of these titles fit into your definition of documentary films, but they're all widely regarded as such. There's nothing in the definition of a documentary that implies neutrality, in fact I can't think of many documentaries that are neutral about their chosen topics.  Oren0 (talk) 08:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record (and I think the comments so far are quite good evidence), I think "controversial documentary" is the only compromise which achieves a stable article. Some people object strongly to "controversial", but then some object strongly to "documentary". Nothing else (with the possible exception of "polemical documentary") has even got close to getting consensus. I also think "controversial documentary" is a good short description of this film. --Merlinme (talk) 08:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I don't think an RfC was needed here. Oren0 17:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * TGGWS is indeed controversial in that it has many scientific critics that argue with the points presented. But the same can be said also for AIT. No matter what your opinion of the "facts" presented in both of the films is, both films are controversial. However this topic we are debating is resolved (whether or not to have the word "controversial" in the beginning sentence) AIT should mirror it as well.--Lucky Mitch 04:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a well founded Wikipedia principle to present the facts rather than to state an opinion. therefore the film should be branded a documentary, but not controversial. 199.125.109.58 05:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, "controversial" should be removed from the opening sentence per WP:V and WP:OR. -- Vision Thing -- 14:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes - or just insert the same word with similar placement in the Wikkipedia entry for the controversial "An Inconvenient Truth" film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.57.52 (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, Other articles on the same topic with opposing points of view aren't labelled as controversial in the first sentence, how is that NPOV? Mad031683 18:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. The controversy and allegations of propaganda are both important enough to be mentioned in the lead, but not in the first sentence.  The only articles in which controversy should be mentioned in the first sentence are those for which the controversy is 100% of the reason for notability. Sarcasticidealist 02:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes per Sarcasticidealist. Except that I do think that the controversy is 100% of the reason for notability, but it still does not need to be said in the first sentence. A quote from the commissioning TV channel calls it "controversial" in the second para. Give the readers some credit for being able to work out where the film was coming from. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's worth noting that the usual anti-AGW editors have not cast "votes" in this RfC while the pro-AGW editors have. I count exactly two "no" votes from someone who isn't a regular in global warming articles, compared to several yesses.  And yes, before anyone says it, I'm aware of WP:VOTE.  Oren0 (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: NPOV dictates that this article should treat its subject in precisely the same fashion as the article An Inconvenient Truth treats its subject. At present, An Inconvenient Truth is not referred to as "propaganda" or "controversial" in the lede. I would be generally chary of the use of the word "propaganda" in any article unless it is cited to a published source -- there is still far too much blatant POV pushing at Wikipedia. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But treating both movies in the same fashion does lead to very different results. AIT has generally been acknowledged as as good a popular account of the issue as can be expected, with only very minor errors. TGGWS has provoked several scientific organizations to explicitly point out its flaws, and at least two scientists to protest against the misrepresentation of their work. NPOV requires that this difference will be reflected in the articles. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No. The word "controversial" doesn't violate NPOV; the channel that aired the film labelled it "controversial" themselves.  Geoffrey.landis (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Controversial is sourced, and also it should be characterized as a "documentary".  The fact that critics accuse it of being "propaganda" seems suitably handled in the article as well. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes the word just serves to spoil the well against those who do not accept the theory of man-made global warming. Is Al Gore's movie flagged as "controversial" in the first sentence of the Wikipedia article. I don't think so. The Noosphere (talk) 04:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just for relevant background, flagging An Inconvenient Truth as "controversial" in the opening sentence is where this whole thing started. Some editors believed that it was unfair to do so here but not there, so RFC's were placed on both pages.  In the end, a compromise was reached at AIT and this page has been left (for now) as is. Oren0 (talk) 06:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm impressed that you so decisively managed to solve problems we've been arguing about for nearly a year, The Noosphere! As the RFC has now officially ended, I've done a quick count, and I think it's fair to describe it as a dead heat for and against. If anything there may be one or two more votes in favour of keeping controversial. I've certainly not seen anything which makes me think we should change the longstanding consensus. --Merlinme (talk) 08:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wolfpatra's edits
Yes, Stephan, please do discuss your objections on the talk page. So, please list your concerns so that Wolfpatra can present his case. --GoRight 18:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wrong order of events. See WP:BRD. --Stephan Schulz 18:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * With an article which has been pretty stable for a long time, the onus is generally on the person making large changes to justify them (with references, and also with discussion on the talk page where necessary). --Merlinme (talk) 08:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I will let Wolfpatra defend his own points in his dispute with Stephan. As for my actions, they were not out of line with WP:BRD:
 * Was the edit a change or a revert? Revert (Raul's in my case).
 * Take it to the talk page. Here we are (although Raul should have been the one to initiate by your reading).
 * As I said, if Wolfpatra doesn't even bother to defend his edits or is unsuccessful in that endeavor, I have no problem with reverting his changes (as is currently the case). --GoRight (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you've reverted to Wolfpatra's version without caring about the quality of the edit at all - purely out of reflex. I find that very poor style. And while I was referring to Wolfpatra with WP:BRD, you might want to reread it again, and pay some attention to the spirit. In particular, "Wait until someone reverts your change or makes another substantial edit. DO NOT revert this change!" applies to the original edit, i.e. WPs large and rather low-quality (in both content and language) edit. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Refutation sentence in the lead not justified by its sources
The following sentence currently appears in the lead: "Several of the programme's scientific arguments have been withdrawn or modified since its original broadcast and most of the others have been refuted or criticized as misleading by scientists working in relevant fields.[3] [4]"

The references here are: and

The first reference is authored by John T. Houghton of the IPCC. Pretty much the only evidence he cites is the IPCC reports. So all we have here is that the IPCC's conclusions differ from the film's (which we knew already) and that one guy disagrees. The Australian paper is written by 4 guys without WP articles (and therefore, I assume 4 guys who aren't very notable in their field) and doesn't present any evidence of this supposed widespread refutation other than that these four not-very-notable guys disagree and can point to the IPCC and some other papers to back up selected facts of their choice. I'm tempted to put a tag on this sentence.

User:Maughamish attempted to change this sentence to: "Several of the programme's scientific arguments have been withdrawn or modified since its original broadcast and scientists critical of the film say many others have been refuted or are misleading.[3] [4]" This seems more reasonable to me because its claim that critics of the film claim that it is refuted is actually backed by these sources. This edit was reverted, claiming that "No reputable scientist concurs with this film." My responses to this are:
 * 1) Who are you to say that the people in the film aren't reputable?  I'd bet that several of the scientists over at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming would agree with many of these film's conclusions.  Saying who you believe to be reputable and who you don't is practically the definition of original research.
 * 2) Do you have a source that says that all (or even a very large number) of "reputable" scientists disagree with the film?  Perhaps a survey of some sort?  Otherwise, this statement is without merit.

I believe therefore that something along the lines of the change that User:Maughamish attempted to put be restored in the lead. Oren0 (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The BAS, the Royal Society, the letters from the scientists and at least 2 scientists who state that their research was misused to the extent of complete disinformation, and so on put a very large weight on the refuted side. As long as the "opposing" science side is so disconnected (as to be non-existing) - we have to adhere to WP:WEIGHT and assume that the "other side" is a  fringe view.
 * If you can find equivalent reliable sources to show the opposite - then feel free to add them. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not necessarily saying that major organizations have dismissed the film. But if they have, those are the refs that should be in the lead to support such a strong statement, rather than the refs that are there now. Oren0 (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't generalise by implying that all scientists in relevant fields have dismissed the film's arguments; it just isn't true. For example, televised debates on Australia's ABC and on Dutch TV featured scientists defending the film; there are many others out there. Do we need to reference what is so obviously true. There are many flaws in this film but they should be dealt with honestly - a perceived bias will undermine the rest of the entry. --Maughamish 10:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maughamish (talk • contribs)

User:William M. Connolley has just undone my changes on this with an explanation of 'I don't like it either'. That just isn't good enough. I'll agree with the line on this if people can include references. User:Maughamish (talk) 11:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.240.131 (talk)


 * who are critcal of the film is POV. Your request for refs is spurious William M. Connolley (talk) 11:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly, it is the POV of those leveling the criticism and should be included. You seem to be confused about whose POV we are discussing here.  --GoRight (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that those editors who want to change the intro should find quotes from qualified scientists defending the film. The Australian televised debate didn't have any (IIRC, the only person with any scientific qualifications on the pro side was Bob Carter, about whom Wikipedia notes ""Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community."). JQ (talk) 12:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think that you are confused on who has the responsibility for providing evidence here. The claim above is that the current statement of widespread refutation is not supported by the references provided.  Since your side wishes to include this claim it is incumbant upon YOU to provide adequate references in SUPPORT of your contention, not ours to refute your contention.  If the refutation is so widely held and widespread provide satisfactory references or allow the text to reflect the true nature of the situation.  --GoRight (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Dismissing Professor Carter with a flimsy POV quote from Wikipedia, one you may well have written yourself, doesn't carry much weight. George Monbiot dismisses the film and he's a mere journalist; Armand Leroi's correspondence criticims get a full section yet he's a geneticist. At the moment, there is an uncomfortable bias to this entry; Wiki is not supposed to be a political tool. William M. Connolley obviously misses the point of Wiki when he rejects a request for references. I'll expand this section at a later date to balance this out. And then if we can't sort this out I suggest we freeze the entry and commit to discussion. User:Maughamish (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.151 (talk)


 * "a flimsy POV quote from Wikipedia, one you may well have written yourself". Apart from the violation of Wikipedia policy inherent in this accusation, you're showing yourself up badly. Read the article. The quote is from a news report (ie, not an opinion piece) in a leading Australian newspaper. As you may or may not know, defamation laws in Australia are strict, so this isn't something that can be said lightly. More generally, I can only assume you are unfamiliar with Australia, or you would know that the report is well-founded. JQ (talk) 07:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What wikipedia policy is this supposedly violating? --GoRight (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Most obviously WP:AGF. JQ (talk) 06:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not even close to being a WP:AGF violation, IMHO. It does not charge that you are editing in bad faith in any way.  It merely charges that you are relying on a Wikipedia article (which is not considered WP:RS, BTW) and may in fact be echoing your own statements.  That does not imply bad faith.  --GoRight (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hang on a second- you implied that JQ might be guilty of libel, without checking the facts (i.e. that the quote was from a newspaper article). I would say that's quite a strong violation of Assume Good Faith. If anything, you seem to have Assumed JQ Was Making It Up. --Merlinme (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It is simply untrue to say that any of the scientific arguments in the film have been either withdarwn or modified. The film argued that CO2 had never driven the earth's climate in the past and that the notion that it was doing so now clashed with observed data. The scientific arguments at the heart of the film concern the ice core record, actual observed climate change (eg. the recovery from the Little Ice Age - which clearly was not CO2 led; and the post-war cooling - which was the opposite of what is meant to have happened according to GW theory), the disparity on the models and the behaviour of temperature in the troposphere over the tropics - in other words the compelling evidence that any recent warming was not caused by an increase in greenhous gases, CO2 or otherwise; and the remarkable correlation between solar acitivity and temperature change streching back long into climate history.

If anything these arguments have been further bolstered by additional testimony from scientists, included on the DVD.

This rubbish about 'withdrawing arguments' is mere wishful thinking on the part of those who hate the film. You may not like what the film says, but the authors have not retracted their arguments. By all means criticise the film, but don't lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.83.100.174 (talk) 11:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You may want to actually read the article - several parts of the original movie has been withdrawn - including the whole subsection about volcanoes and the Wunsch part. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * To return to the original point, I was always uneasy with the very strong claim "most scientific arguments have been refuted". On the other hand, it is certainly the case that I am not aware of any reputable scientist in global warming related research who supports what the programme says. To take just the people used in the film: 1) Wunsch says the programme says the opposite of what he was trying to say; 2) Friis-Christensen describes it as "inaccurate", in particular because it apparently fabricates data, and rules out any contribution to warming by greenhouse gases, which he never said; 3) John Christy has not said anything about the programme specifically that I am aware of, but it should be noted that he is sceptical in the sense he is sceptical that we can be certain exactly what is happening and what is the best thing to do about it; he is not sceptical that global warming is being caused by human activities. I am not aware of any other scientists working in the field who support the programme's thesis. In the light of this, the current wording seems reasonable, and the onus is on sceptics to provide us with references that support the programme's thesis.


 * As to the exact sources used; the most comprehensive critiques I am aware of are by RealClimate, the British Antarctic Survey, John Houghton, and AMOS. I chose John Hougton and AMOS as being relatively authoritative and uncontroversial. We can have all four references if you wish. If you are going to argue that anyone who is associated with the IPCC is not entitled to a view, you are going to be asking for the views of a vanishingly small number of scientists. The whole point of the IPCC (for all the faults associated with attempting to work by committee) was that it got as wide a range of views from as wide a range of scientists as possible. Scientists working in the field may disagree with matters of emphasis, but I am not aware of any who disagree substantially with the broad position taken by the IPCC, i.e. global warming is happening, and human beings are causing a large part of this warming. --Merlinme (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "I am not aware of any reputable scientist in global warming related research who supports what the programme says." I assume you mean other than those in the film?  --GoRight (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'd be very surprised if all or even most of the scientists on the program support most of the scientific claims of the movie. We know that Wunsch doesn't, Friis-Christensen and Rive have protested, and I bet Christy and Lindzen would not agree with the movie, either. Regardless of where you stand on global warming, if you have any scientific knowledge and integrity you will recognize this movie as badly in error and heavily spun.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Singer and Ball seems happy with it ;-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reinforcing my point! ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "the onus is on sceptics to provide us with references that support the programme's thesis" You too seem confused about who needs to provide support for assertions made in the current article. The burden of proof rest with those making the claim, not the other way around.  The current claim of refutation seems unsupported, as stated, by the existing references.  Either agree to bring the text in line with a view actually supported by the existing references or find better references.  We have nothing to prove.  --GoRight (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And you just ignore the references already in this article? The BAS, the Royal Society, AMOS, the letters from the 37 scientists and at least 2 scientists in the movie (or 10%). Can you find equivalent references (3 scientific societies, >37 scientists ...). Then go ahead. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * These references account for only a small fraction of the scientific community, no? --GoRight (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, only a small fraction of the scientific community bothered to answer this. But that really isn't the issue. You need to provide equivalent references to the article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're exactly right. Most of the scientific community hasn't bothered to comment on this movie.  That's why it's incorrect to say that the film has been refuted by the scientific community at large.  The current language ("has been described as refuted by scientists working in relevant fields") is correct.  Describing it as generally refuted (as it was previously) was incorrect.  Oren0 (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the language which we were originally arguing about (and which I did think was too strong) has changed significantly. Please suggest additional improvements if you wish. I think it now reflects reasonably well the public statements made against the programme by a significant number of scientists and scientific organizations, including at least two who are actually featured in the film. In terms of "a small fraction of the scientific community", you seem to keep appealing to a silent majority of global warming sceptics which I have seen absolutely no evidence for. I have yet to see even one public statement of support for the programme from any scientist who is not featured in the programme. Maybe there have been one or two and I've missed them, but so far we have a long list of global warming scientists (and scientists in other fields) who oppose the programme, and somewhere between zero and a handful who support the programme. Even the sceptics object to the way the programme "fabricated data" (to use Friis-Christensen's words). --Merlinme (talk) 08:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not appealing to "a silent majority of global warming sceptics" here because there is no such need. I am making note of the rather large "silent majority of global warming and other relevant scientists" who have not criticized the film.  Oren0 summarized the point rather well above.  It is basically a WP:WEIGHT argument similar to the ones used frequently in the other direction.  :)  --GoRight (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's more likely that there's a silent majority of scientists who don't bother to respond to polemical TV shows. If there was a TV show that said Venus was made of gruyere cheese, there'd likely be few scientists who responded to it, but it would be plainly misleading to state that only a tiny minority of scientists disagreed with the show. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite true, in fact we would be surprised to see any such commentary ... sort of like we have in the case of An Inconvenient Truth. --GoRight (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Its rather impressive that a film of this kind, can be so bad, that it elicit comments even from one scientific society. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not surprised that you would think so since many of your statements seem to be predisposed to fawning adulation for such groups, an affliction from which I do not suffer. --GoRight (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've no wish to get drawn into the whole An Inconvenient Truth thing, as I haven't seen it, for a start. However, I do think there's a big difference between scientists not bothering to comment on a pop science programme, and literally dozens of scientists, active in their field, independently deciding to criticise a pop science programme. Pop science programmes can be expected to contain inaccuracies; but for scientists to go on the record as saying something is so misleading it's downright dangerous- that takes something unusual. As for "fawning adulation" of scientific societies, you are of course entitled to your views, but I would personally give more weight to the views of the scientific societies of the eleven largest nations on Earth than the views of one film producer with a political agenda. For that matter, what I personally found interesting about the Armand Leroi correspondence is that Armand Leroi is not an environmental scientist; even within the genetics community, he's considered somewhat controversial, because of his views on race. He's not someone who you would expect to show "fawning adulation" to the work of other people. Yet after a very short review of the scientific literature, he wrote to Durkin: put bluntly: the data that you showed in your programme were wrong -- and may have been deliberately faked. So if a scientist who is outside the "environmental establishment" (if there is such a thing) doesn't agree with Durkin- who does, exactly? And where is the evidence? --Merlinme (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There was no 'subsection on volcanoes'.Volcanoes was in a list of things which produced more CO2 than humans. That is generally considered not true and so it was emitted. This was a correction. It did not effect the argument that CO2 is a small gas in the atmosphere, and it cannot be taken as read that it 'drives' climate. The fact remains that none of the arguments in the film have been withdrawn. Carl Wunsch was removed because he moaned about being in, but Professor Stott took his place making exactly the same points. Incidently, although Wunch said he regreted taking part in the film, he hasn't taken back anything he said in it. This 'withdrawing arguments' thing is simply scurrilous and is a deliberate attempt to mislead - suggesting that the films authors have now recanted - which they haven't in the least, and that they have been proved wrong - which Houghton and Co would like to have everyone believe. The film's authors continue to make the same arguments and the central mismatch between observed data and GW models has not disappeared. The troposphere data remains what it was, the ice core data hasn't changed, the postwar cooling hasn't magically disappered. If this entry is to be serious, this kind of nonsense has to stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.83.100.174 (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've now specified exactly what was changed. I think it's also worth referring readers to the extensive criticism of the programme by respected scientists, so I've added back in the Hougton and AMOS references. I'd be happy to also provide references to respected scientists supporting the programme, if I was aware of any.


 * Wunsch is on record as saying the way his interview was used was "diametrically opposite to the point I was making". He was trying to say that we should be aware that global warming could get worse through a feedback effect when CO2 was released from the ocean as it warmed. He certainly never meant to give the impression that CO2 levels were rising because of warming; he believes rising CO2 levels cause global warming.


 * The troposphere data does indeed remain what it does; see Satellite temperature measurements. Although there remain areas which we do not understand (and there may be issues with data and/ or models), I'd be surprised if you could find a reputable scientist who supports the conclusions TGGWS draws. In particular, (as with quite a large part of the programme), it relies on out of date research.


 * If you read the references, you'll find that climate scientists explain post-war cooling as a result of sulphate cooling. Again, if you can find a reputable scientist who disagrees with this, please give us a reference.


 * The ice core data is interesting, but it doesn't necessarily have any implications for the climate change we are seeing now. In particular, it doesn't change the fact that virtually everyone agrees that increases in CO2 in the atmosphere should cause temperature increases, and that we have seen temperature rises as CO2 levels have gone up. Whether or not CO2 is a large part of the atmosphere is a complete red herring; what matters is the effect on climate as its concentration increases. --Merlinme (talk) 13:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Maughamish edits
I actually quite like the changes. The introduction had got rather unwieldy. Having a short sentence about the criticism from a wide range of scientists (with references) probably gives it more impact. The Armand Leroi stuff is better handled as well (I never liked the section "Responses to scientists"). --Merlinme (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I was prematurely out with revert, i got fooled by the massive changes, and didn't take the time to look them over properly. (for which i'm sorry). I haven't had time to look at the entire picture yet - but in general it seems more coherent. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I think it's in far better shape with all the recent tidying.  And no worries about the knee-jerk revert.  --213.83.100.174 (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a thought: Merlinme says that "the criticism from a wide range of scientists (with references) probably gives it more impact". We shouldn't be aiming to create "impact"; we should be creating a fair and balanced entry about a television programme.  Most contributors on here seem to have an agenda: to portray the film in a very bad light which is why my changes (which on the whole try to add balance) are subjected to knee-jerk reverts.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maughamish (talk • contribs) 10:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You're entitled to your thoughts, but I personally think this was one of the most irresponsible pieces of film making of the last decade. However, I want to allow the programme to stand or fall on its own merits, which makes me relatively balanced as far as editors of this article go. If the article accurately reflects the very wideranging criticism of the programme by scientists (with virtually none in support) then I'll be happy. --Merlinme (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Friis-Christensen's views
The claims that Prof Friis Christansen criticised the film are incorrect. These were made by one Nathan Rive, whose correspondence with Friis Christansen has since been made public:

Original Message- From: Eigil Friis-Christensen Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 7:13 PM To: Nathan Rive Subject: SV: temperature and solar cycle length graph

Dear Nathan

I concur with your conclusion that the most plausible explanation is that the gap in the data was filled by just copying the temperature curve.

What the motivation should be is a little more difficult to understand because nothing is gained by filling that gap. Filling of this gap does not make any difference in terms of the scientific conclusions that may be drawn. In particular since various published temperature reconstructions differ quite a lot in particular during that period. See Fig. 10 in the L+FC JASTP paper.

My personal feeling is that the error might just have been caused by the person doing the graphics. He /she might not be aware of any Maunder minimum and perhaps just thought that when two curves were not seen, they might just have coincided. I also realise that publishing the gap needs some extra time to make a rather complicated explanation that is relevant in a scientific paper but perhaps not in the present context. Personally I would have cut the part with the gap, and shown a similarly convincing graph (from another author) demonstrating a relationship between solar variations and climate over a 8000 year period.

If the scientific conclusion would have been different and misleading by including the Maunder minimum period then one could have a suspicion regarding the method used but in this case the documentary concludes consistently with the authors' interpretation regarding the dominant role of the Sun in past climate changes. Even more so, because I think it is now generally accepted that the Sun has played a major role in climate change in the past - not just from this specific plot but from many investigations. The scientific question is now how much of the present warming can still be attributed to the Sun. Even IPCC in its two latest reports only attribute the last 50 years of temperature rise to greenhouse gases while the temperature rise during the first 50 years of the previous century is attributed to natural variations, including the Sun. In the IPCC report from 1992 (where I was present in the Danish delegation when it was formulated) it was said that the last 100 years of climate change was broadly consistent with climate models! So this is a big change in the interpretation, which - for obvious reasons - has not been very much emphasised.

_____

It is perfectly clear from this that Prof Friis Christansen is not a critic of the film. The rest of the entry should be corrected accordingly.

The top of this entry is totally unbalanced. It gives space only to the critics. The film was enthusiastically received by all those critical of AGW and remains the main media response to Gore's film. If this entry is to be anything but a hatchet job carried out by intolerant AGW zealots this must be addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.83.100.174 (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Very interesting - but only adresses a small part of Friis-Christensen's comments on the movie. The major critique (imho) was that (quoted) "However, they also explicitly concluded that after 1985 the temperature continued to rise while the sunspot cycle length flattened out, and thus no longer correlated with surface temperature. This point was not included in the narrator’s statement."
 * I don't know where the above correspondance is copied from - or from which context it is taken. But FC+Rive have made a public statement on the movie - and this is what should be referenced. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you could give us a link indicating where you found this "correspondence." Oren0 (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The other point to make is that the correspondence quoted is from March 27th 2007. The statement on Nathan Rive's website is dated April 27th, by which time Friis-Christensen's view on the programme seems to have hardened. In the statement it's the failure to allow for the possibility that greenhouse gases caused any warming in the 20th century which is particularly criticised. On May 8th the Independent quotes Friis-Christensen as agreeing that the programme is "inaccurate".


 * As far as I'm aware these two sources, quoted in the article, accurately summarise Friis-Christensen's current position. Please provide more recent or authoritative sources if you disagree. --Merlinme (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want further, and later proof of Friis-Christansen's position, here is a later email from him to the director, Durkin, confirming it. The original source is misleading, to put it very politely.

________________________________________ From: Eigil Friis-Christensen Sent: 17 October 2007 22:33 To: Martin Durkin Subject: RE: the 400 year graph

Dear Martin

I am not sure which views are referred to here, but I can inform you that I have never stated that my views were knowingly and fundamentally misrepresented by the film.

With best wishes Eigil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.83.100.174 (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read Wikipedia's policies on verifiability. We can't use private correspondence that is unavailable to others for verification (especially when provided with no context). Note also that the wording in the article is "misuse of data and out of date research," not the much more serious "knowingly and fundamentally misrepresented."  Finally, please  see Wikipedia's policies on conflict of interest. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's an interesting email, but I agree we can't take it into account without knowing the context (and being able to verify the contents). Assuming it's genuine, it's also quite carefully worded. Friis-Christensen says that he has "never stated that my views were knowingly and fundamentally misrepresented". This is actually not the same as saying "I do not think that my views were knowingly and fundamentally misrepresented"; he could think that but never have stated it.


 * Assuming however that he didn't intend to be so tricksy (and I assume English is not his first language), it still leaves open the possibility that his views were largely represented correctly but that there were other faults in the film; for example, the concentration on datasets which end in the 80s; the exclusion of the possibility that any of 20th century warming has a human component. As far as I can see therefore it does not contradict his other (publicly available and verifiable) statements. I am inclined to take the statement on Nathan Rive's website as the best source for his views, as it was written in a scientific way with all the caveats that could be expected. I am not aware of any later statements by Friis-Christensen which directly contradict what is said there. --Merlinme (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I was just having another look at the statement on Rive's website, and it's pretty damning, to be honest. If you look at the graphic, it's pretty obvious that there's a gap in the original graph. To cheerfully match the lines up for the 100 years where data doesn't exist (as was done in TGGWS) is just awful science.


 * Also, if anyone is any doubt as to what Friis-Christensen thinks, while it is correct to say that he stands by his research, he also quite explicitly disagrees with significant parts of TGGWS. The main summary is clearly attributed to "We", i.e. Rive and Friis-Christensen. The addendum is explicitly attributed to Friis-Christensen. In it he concludes: So therefore, and in spite of the fact that the solar cycle length seemed not to explain the most recent temperature increase after 1985, solar variations still do have direct effect on important climate parameters. How large this effect may be on the global temperature is currently being investigated, and is outside the scope of this comment. But there is no reason to neglect a contribution from man made greenhouse gases. The question is how much. Only increased understanding of the physical processes can give us the answer. So in other words, he still believes that solar activity is important; he agrees however that it does not seem to match with the observed temperature record after 1985 (which Durkin never says); and he agrees that there may be a significant contribution from greenhouse gases (which explicitly calls into question the main thesis of TGGWS). --Merlinme (talk) 10:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thorough-going POV
The article keeps stating the Al Gore mantra that there is a "scientific consensus" on man-made global warming. The claim that there is "consensus" is disputed. The neutrality of the article is therefore disputed. The Noosphere (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A user unlilateraly removed the dispute heading while ignoring the talk page. I encourage the user to restore the dispute heading in good faith so that I do not have to report this violation to an administrator. The Noosphere (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? The disgreement of one editor, against longstanding consensus, does not make this a "dispute". It means you disagree with the consensus. You are welcome to change the consensus if you wish, but I do not see why you have the right to unilaterally say this consensus is incorrect. You are also welcome to bring this to the attention of an administrator; all I will say on the subject is that in a couple of years of active editing, I've never been involved in any such dispute before. People who talk to me generally find me reasonable.


 * Regarding the specific point of the scientific opinion on climate change; read the article. Follow the references. See WP:WEIGHT. The consensus is supported by essentially every scientific body which has ever looked at it. TGGWS article accurately reflects this, with numerous references. The disagreement of a handful of scientists (usually on quite specific points) does not alter the existence of the consensus. --Merlinme (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The Noosphere, I strongly encourage you to report the perceived violation. You have the right, nay, the responsibility, to do so if you think the violation jeopardizes the integrity of Wikipedia. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I will, thank you for the advise. I will just wait a few hours to allow the the user in question to demonstrate that he/she is working in good faith and will restore the dispute heading. The Noosphere (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I also engourage the editor with the 3 day old account to get more admin eyes on this "problem". R. Baley (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As much as I hate to say it, there is a consensus among scientific institutions on anthropogenic global warming. The position among individuals varies more (depending on which petitions and Senate Reports you want to listen to), but the position of academies of science, etc is pretty clear. Oren0 (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, there is not. I merely pointed out one very prominent publication The Wall Street Journal that disputes this so-called "consensus." There are many more. Given Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy, we cannot be slanted in favor of one side or the other. The Noosphere (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * An opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal trumps the statements of over two dozen national academies of science??? Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you do not understand NPOV. No opinions get trumped. Wikipedia is supposed to report all POVs without endorsing any particular one. Readers can make up their own mind. The Noosphere (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry No. Please read WP:NPOV specifically the section WP:WEIGHT. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The Noosphere, as I said on my talk page, I have absolutely no intention of "restoring" the dispute heading. I personally think you are missing the point of Wikipedia, which is using discussion to achieve consensus. You are not discussing; and you are certainly not achieving consensus. All you are doing is saying that you are correct, and the numerous editors (and references) who disagree with you are wrong. Unless you can provide us with an argument which is more persuasive than "you're all wrong; and so are the references you've provided", I'm afraid you can't expect to be taken very seriously. The whole point of WP:WEIGHT (as I understand it) is that just because you can find one reference does not make you right. On a controversial subject, you can always find one contradictory reference. You have to persuade other editors that your reference has more weight than the references they have provided. Just because you say "This is so" unfortunately doesn't make it so. --Merlinme (talk) 04:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As a piece of advice, if you want to lay down the law on Wikipedia policy, don't do so the day after you create an account. At best it comes off as bumptious, at worst people will start trying to work out whose sock you are.JQ (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The Noosphere, who exactly are you? If you will forgive my curiosity, this edit: demonstrates an amazing knowledge of out of date requests for arbitration for someone who's been on Wikipedia for five days. Would you like to clarify who you've been editing as before? Thanks. --Merlinme (talk) 11:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your allegations that I have had a previous account are hurtful and poison the cooperative spirt of a community-built encyclopedia. It is not suspicious that I would have known about an arbitration against a user dating back before my first edits. Many stories about Wikipedia arbitration have been picked up in the mainstream media. This is one of many from the past week. Please stop reverting my work and please start treating me with the civility expected of all of us as Wikipedia contributors. The Noosphere (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that a denial that you've edited on Wikipedia before? If so, could you please say so clearly? Also, could you let us know exactly what the article was in the mainstream media which you read as a non-Wikipedian which detailed WMC's sanctions for a two year old Arbitration Committee ruling? If you'll forgive me for my scepticism, I didn't even know what the Arb Comm was after five days on Wikipedia. Thanks. --Merlinme (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You could be waiting a while for a reply. link. R. Baley (talk) 08:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Archiving Jan 2007
I've tried to archive anything more than three months old to archive 2 (October 2007). I may have missed something, as the page wasn't in strict chronological order. I've tried to keep the stuff on "controversial" as it comes up so often. If you think I've deleted something which is particularly important, please add it back. --Merlinme (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Excessive use of bold-face
Is it really necessary to bold-face that much? It ruins the reading experience. Bold shouldn't be used excessively in articles iirc from the manual of Style. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about the changes. Bullet point and precis in bold of each point seems a bit over the top. The precis of each point seems reasonably accurate, but I'm not sure it's really necessary for information which is in bullet point format already. It's essentially a list, I'm not sure we need an additional highlighted summary of each item in the list. --Merlinme (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The Noosphere
I've just checked and The Noosphere has been blocked indefinitely as a sock. For the reasons discussed on this page, I can't say I'm particularly surprised. But if anyone wondered where the Noosphere went- that's where. --Merlinme (talk) 08:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It's important to always tell both sides of the story:
If you read this article the conclusion you come too is very different to the main Wikipedia Article:

Carl Wunsch: I should never have trusted Channel 4 http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2359057.ece

What Carl Wunsch says, in my opinion, is that there is universal truth to this issue.

Well that's what the documentary is out to prove too and people should be given both sides of the story and choose for themselves. It tries to show that environmental fanatics are the 21th Century religion. Like a religion it rejects any other scientific proof that they might be wrong. In a lot of instances, they "preach the word" by lying, distorting the truth, exaggerating and calling anyone who does not agree with them: Heretics!

Uninformed people then join them in spreading this "Convenient Lie"...

The documentary DOES not deny there is a problem, but rather that the way it is being debated by the fanatics is definitely not scientific. -- (Redirts) 13:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you actually seen TGGWS? In what sense does it attempt to present both sides of the story? At what point does it acknowledge the existence of global warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions at all? Wunsch says he doesn't like the more extreme pronouncements made about global warming, which is fair enough. But he thinks it exists. Durkin does not, which is also fair enough, but the way he presents the evidence is grossly distorting. For example, the context Wunsch's interview was shown in gave the impression that CO2 rises were being caused by temperature rises, which was essentially exactly the opposite of what he was trying to say: that as the oceans warmed (because of increased atmospheric CO2, i.e. man made global warming) we could expect a dangerous feedback effect where even more CO2 was released. If you saw the original programme you were left with the impression that he was supporting the thesis that CO2 rises were a side-effect of temperature rises, and CO2 rises did not increase temperature; which is essentially rubbish, as Wunsch (and every other reputable scientist who has ever looked at it) knows. There must be at least half a dozen other ways in which TGGWS distorts the available evidence. I think the Wikipedia article correctly reflects this. -Merlinme (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I saw it, and frankly it depends on how you interpret the documentary (as anything in life).
 * In my opinion, environmental radicals that deny any other alternative, will always see the documentary as heretic and wrong and simply stupid (and any other adjective you want to use at it)...that's because it challenges the basis of their theory.


 * Well, the way I interpreted the documentary was: Look there are other possibilities here that must be considered. In fact one of the interviewed, says "It would be wrong to deny there is a problem".


 * It's not about denying there is an issue but defying those that insist in claiming their "truth" and unchallengeable.
 * For centuries (starting circa the 12th century) many where burned as heretics simply because they "challenged" any other alternative to Christianity or simply for stating "it might be possible" that the earth is round, not flat...well, apparently they were right, but they were a minority then and perished for that. -- Redirts. 13:10, 11 January 2008 (EST)


 * If all it did was attempt to present the other point of view, I would have more time for it. This was originally what I thought it was doing, and some of the political arguments were quite persuasive. However, the more I investigated the more I found how little there was to back up the scientific arguments used in the film. Science is advanced by evidence based arguments; TGGWS essentially missed out the "evidence" part. Two of the graphs used in the programme were demonstrably wrong, and they were wrong in ways which made global warming look less likely. The progamme essentially ignored all data after about 1987, which is in fact when the evidence on global warming has become a lot clearer. Up-to-date research which disagreed with the programme's conclusions was ignored (for example, the atmospheric temperature evidence; criticism of Friis-Christensen's research). I could go on. It's all very well "showing the other side", and I realise that TGGWS is a polemic; but it gives the impression that it is based on scientific research, whereas it is actually extremely misleading in describing the current scientific arguments.


 * (Incidentally you would be on stronger ground if you talked about the heretical belief that Earth was not the centre of the universe, rather than the Earth being flat, which very few people who have thought about it have believed since at least Greek times.) --Merlinme (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you read my sentence, I was talking about Heretics burned for challenging Christianity (that was circa 12th Century). Those called Heretics for stating that the earth was not flat was of course much earlier in history. As you probably know, till this day there is still debate whether the earth is round, some even come to say it is mentioned in the bible (also rejected by most)...but anyhow :-)
 * Regarding TGGWS, I also did some research at the time and found some interesting things. Some newspapers were quick to interview some scientists appearing on the documentary and then painting the idea that in fact they don't identify themselves with the documentary.
 * Many environmental radical activist were also quick to promote contra-propaganda to disprove what the documentary claims. So when you say that you found lots of articles demonstrating that the documentary claims are wrong...it does not surprise me.
 * In fact that's not what they say, they just make sure that people understand that they do not reject any theories but rather support the idea that there are other theories (less studied, less invested in) that are also plausible.
 * Bottom line is, you can go on forever finding articles disproving what TGGWS claims but in the end the same can be done regarding the current "accepted" global warming theory...so...the correct approach for me on this one, is simple: We are not sure which theory will prove itself to be true. We can only be preventive and choose one and study it. But what we cannot do is evangelize the theory we believe in as "the undeniable truth". That would be mistake, in the same way that claiming there is not a problem is wrong.
 * To summarize, the Wikipedia article should be revised to present a more neutral point of view and to incorporate some of the opinions expressed in this talk page (not just by me). Just my opinion. -- Redirts. 20:00, 11 January 2008 (EST)
 * You're wasting your time attacking strawmen. the way it is being debated by the fanatics is definitely not scientific - well of course; thats what fanatics do. But it has no relevance to the issue at hand. But what we cannot do is evangelize the theory we believe in as "the undeniable truth" - also trivially true William M. Connolley (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Bottom line is, you can go on forever finding articles disproving what TGGWS claims but in the end the same can be done regarding the current "accepted" global warming theory - no, you can't. And if you think you can, you're welcome to try, but somehow I think the thousands of climatologists who spend their lives studying this stuff are right and you are not. Raul654 (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, give a couple of scientists millions to invest in studying an alternative theory and making it a bit more coherent and I can bet that the current "Global Warming" theory will shake. See, you can go on forever. It's part of our history.
 * Galileo was called an Heretic of his time by those who at the time had power and influence over society...but today is remembered one of the greatest scientist in part for his support of Copernicanism...and not so long ago the Pope even apologized to the way he was treated!
 * Maybe, just maybe, a different theory on "Global Warming" will be subject to the same story....we cannot know, that is why we have to be preventive. -- Redirts. 21:43, 11 January 2008 (EST)
 * Scientists already have been given millions by the oil industry and similar in the 1990s to find holes in global warming theory. So far, to the extent that they've been able to come up with any holes at all, they have failed to persuade the rest of the scientific community that the theory is significantly wrong. If anything some of the sceptics now accept that anthropomorphic global warming exists, because the evidence is so strong. That's why there is a scientific consensus.
 * The big difference between Galileo and Martin Durkin is that Galileo's theory better described the available data than the previous theory. Durkin's does not, in fact it's significantly worse in a lot of ways. Just because someone is contrarian doesn't make them right; what makes them right is evidence. Durkin has little or no evidence, beyond theorising about political pressures and out of date research. --Merlinme (talk) 07:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

AEB added
(Outdented by RBaley)When you say "Just because someone is contrarian doesn't make them right"...precisely why I named this TALK section "It's important to always tell both sides of the story", because the "anthropomorphic Global Warming theory" is contrarian to what others believe does not make it right either. Precisely my point. A consensus does not give you the right to deny other theories or call "crazy" anyone that disagrees with yours. This is my point from the beginning. This is a scientific discussion not a religious one. It's not about who is right or wrong, but rather about knowing the whole story and that there are in fact certain doubts...and in case this theory is wrong we don't want a lot of people turning around and saying "Hey, these bloody scientist swindled me...I didn't know they had doubts...so now they say something else!" "Scientists already have been given millions by the oil industry", do we have references to this? Or is this a conspiracy theory created in our heads? Unfortunately this debate is going the same way most I have seen on the Internet. It seems that it's hard for some people to understand that there are people out there that simply want to know both sides of the story instead of blindly following just one of them. I include myself in that group, even if I am a minority (although I don't believe we are so few after this documentary). Again, and I include myself in that group, you don't have to accept what is same in the documentary is right and the other as wrong. It's just about understanding the alternatives and the truth. A lot of people (I included) did not realize a lot of what we have learned today from this debate and that to me is the importance of the documentary. -- Redirts. 15:01, 13 January 2008 (EST)
 * Yes, but you haven't actually answered my point about evidence, have you? We're not talking about something subjective, like "who is the best writer of music today". We're talking about something scientific: is the world warming, and if so, are humans the cause? That's "a scientific discussion". You examine the evidence and see whose theory is the best fit to the evidence. TGGWS adds virtually nothing helpful to that debate. I guess you could say it stimulated me to go out and find out more about global warming, but once I did, I became quite angry at the level of misinformation in the programme. In any case, what exactly are these scientific doubts you're referring to regarding global warming? I mean, it's sensible to argue about what will happen if temperature rises by two degrees centigrade (and what should be done about it), because no-one's sure exactly. I'm not aware of significant scientific doubts that humans are causing global warming though. --Merlinme (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This phrase from your talk page really sums it up "I'd like to believe we can write a good article on the programme. As someone who initially found it quite convincing, I think it's important that we write as accurate an article as possible- respecting Durkin's right to start a debate, but also pointing out to the reader that he's talking utter tosh a lot of the time. Hopefully we'll get there in the end."
 * Well exactly. Regardless of the many inaccuracies of the TGGWS, it brought on a debate which was useful to many people to start questioning what they have being told up until today. And that to me is it's importance. If the theories he states in the documentary will reveal to be correct or not....well neither me or you can say that for sure.....and we probably wont around to confirm this... -- Redirts (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding the specific point of funding for global warming scepticism, it's reasonably well established; see: Global_warming_controversy
 * That contains references from, amongst others, The Guardian, and clearly there is material there which would be libellous if it were not well backed up. The most salient quote would be: 'The Union of Concerned Scientists have produced a report titled 'Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air'[134], that criticizes ExxonMobil for "[underwriting] the most sophisticated and most successful disinformation campaign since the tobacco industry" and for "[funnelling] about $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of ideological and advocacy organizations that manufacture uncertainty on the issue."' --Merlinme (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You will always find people who believes in conspiracies and will write about it or make one up or exaggerate. Maybe it wasn't $16 Million, but rather $1 Million, but what the heck, who will notice a little inflation. We can't be sure who is behind who so in the same spirit of the "man-made Global Warming theory" I say: Be preventive. That also means being preventive (accepting other's views) on what I what I believe on...because down the line, if I am wrong I won't get people saying "See, we where right and you were wrong". They won't say that to me because I respect that their theories my be right or vice-versa.
 * It's important for me that you understand that I am not against those (including scientists) that believe and stand by their theories of the man-made Global Warming theory in the same way I respect those that attempt to challenge it. -- Redirts (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is fine, but you seem to show remarkably little interest in even attempting to weigh up the evidence. Why don't you follow the link to the Union of Concerned Scientists, and see what they have to say, and see whether it's convincing? They're obviously a pressure group, so it would then be very sensible to go and see who has criticised them, and see whether they're still convincing after reading their critics. Don't just say "Maybe it wasn't $16 million". Why don't you attempt to find out if it was or it wasn't? --Merlinme (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well right now I more interested in learning more about other theories/possibilities (and advising others to do the same) opposed to the "man-made Global Warming" theory because I am already bombarded everyday with the latter. Opposing debate is good and should be harvested in my opinion. My intuition guides me to believe that blindly following one theory might just blow up in our faces and so we should give more chances for other theories to be investigated (even if nothing near as conclusive is found in the next 10 years compared to the widely accepted current theory).
 * How can I find out for sure that all that I read on either side is not falsified, exaggerated. It could even have been written in good faith and have valid reasoning, but it does not make correct...because it's a "theory" and theories can be wrong.
 * There is no certainty in life, so we just have to be neutral, respect others opinions. It does not mean you don't make decisions based on your faith or intuition but never by criticizing those that do not follow your opinion. -- Redirts (talk) 12:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well then I guess we have the core of the problem; you believe there is no certainty in life, and that decisions should be made based on faith or intuition. I believe decisions should be made based on evidence. Now I'm not saying that the evidence will always allow you to reach the right answer; but I'd suggest it's far more likely to work, especially about things far removed from your everyday life, than guessing based on your intuition (which seems to be what you are suggesting). I don't think TGGWS is presenting an alternative point of view; I think it's provably wrong. As such I don't see any need to be any 'fairer' to it than we already have been, which is to state what it's thesis is, and report criticism and support of it in proportion to the relative authority of those supporting or criticising it. Where the the film makes scientific claims, it seems very reasonable to me that we report scientific criticism of those claims. --Merlinme (talk) 13:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Core of the problem". Why should you judge on what is right or wrong? I was either not clear on my statements or it could be that this conversation might be becoming too emotional to continue. I did not say that you right and I am wrong or that you should not believe in the current "man-made Global Warming" theory as near fact based on evidence. That is fine with. What is not fine with me is people imposing this on others as certainty.
 * I guess we have different opinions on how we operate and act and how we formulate our opinions. That's fine. But getting down to the reason I started this debate. I did get the sense (like others, even if a minority) that the main Wikipedia article includes certain sentences that are too emotionally written and are accusatively formulated. They could be restructured to sound more neutral and respect that there are people that can choose to believe in other theories and not be condemned for it. This is possible since I have seen it in other articles. If one day they might be right and we don't want to look like fools for what we wrote, do we? -- Redirts (talk) 13:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We are not judging who is right or wrong, the scientific community is (well, for scientific topics). And it has overwhelmingly declared TGGWS a piece of crap. Even several of the scientists on the program have complained about misrepresentation of their position. And several scientific organizations have issued official bulletins debunking the program - something very nearly unheard of. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well by calling the TGGWS a "piece of crap" you are judging that it is wrong. Well it's your opinion. What about giving others the choice to decide that. Yes, apparently several scientists complained about the program. Why that was, we will never probably know. Contra-propaganda possibility. Who knows. -- Redirts (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, no. We can know with some certainty what their primary reasons were for complaining about the programme, because they've told us. For goodness sake, read the references! Stop guessing. --Merlinme (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I can say your guessing too. Your going by what you read. You can't be certain of the reasons why some of the participants in the TGGWS complained about it after. So that to me is guessing. That's fine. We all guess, it's not wrong. What I do witness sometimes is that people are terribly afraid of not being certain of things as if that makes them indecisive or unable to make choices. Well I don't agree, you can be unsure but inclined to one option and choose it. Nothing wrong with that. Makes you look less stupid when you do make a wrong choice that you have been evangelizing to others. -- Redirts (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're not going to argue based on the available evidence, then I'm afraid you're going to struggle to convince those of us who believe in the scientific method. --Merlinme (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You are also in trouble with Wikipedia's "Verfiability, not Truth" policy. If you have reliable sources not adequately covered in the article, bring them on. Otherwise, please use your time reading the relevant Wikipedia policies and stop wasting ours. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, we can't argue on scientific facts, because I believe none of us are scientists. In fact I would say a lot of people that contributed to this article are not scientists and are just writing based on what they read. I also understand this is not an easy debate that is why I am having it :-) Anyway we are debating a highly probable theory, not a fact/certainty. -- Redirts (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Umm...I'm a scientist. From the editors I know the real life identities, Raymond and William are climate scientists and John Quiggin is an economist. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * From what I gather your speciality is Computer Science, correct? I also graduated in Computer Science (Eng.) but humbly admit that climatoligy (one of the sciences most appropriate for this debate) is definetly not my area. Are you a climatologist? -- Redirts (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, but Raymond and William are. This is surely another good example of not checking your facts and not reading what people write, Redirts. For what it's worth, I'm a computer programmer with a philosophy background. I don't really understand though why you think those of us without a scientific background should not even attempt to follow fairly straightforward scientific arguments. Global warming affects all of us, and I think we should make our best efforts to try to understand it, not adopt the "everything is subjective and might be wrong" approach. --Merlinme (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Moving the goalpost, are we? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How can you be sure what is in the article is the truth? If in 10 years scientists come to the conclusion that they made a mistake, then this article might be re-written in a totally different fashion. If you feel I am wasting your time, it's simple: Don't pay attention to what I write. Your posts are also exposing some aggressiveness which I think are not very necessary. There are a lot of people who read these comments that might be interested in the debate. In fact, that was how I started contributing: by reading some previous posts that I felt needed support. -- Redirts (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you actually read what I write? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. I always interested in what others have to say. -- Redirts (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you might get more out of it if you read for understanding, both my comments and the article. You seem to be insisting on "Truth" - I point out that Wikipedia's inclusion criterion is verifiability, not truth. And the opinions in the article are properly attributed and sourced. "Opinion X" may change in the future, but "Y said X" is fixed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's own explanation of what is "verifiability" is, in my opinion, vague. Statements or publishings by "Extermist groups" today are not reliable but if those extremists are no longer called extremists in the future then the picture changes. But I guess this is a topic of discussion in another forum.
 * Well, reading for understanding goes both ways I guess. It's not the "Truth" that concerns me (only mentioned in the context of the discussion with Merlinme), but rather the neutrality of the text written in the article. -- Redirts (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Time for a de-indent, eh wot? Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Stephen is correct. Some of the film's statements are so wrong that it's painful to read them; e.g., "But the biggest source of CO2, by far, is the oceans." The oceans aren't the "biggest source" of CO2 because they aren't a "source" at all! They're a strong sink of CO2 as we know from multiple lines of evidence. This is something that everybody who has any knowledge at all of climatology (or oceanography) is aware of. It's not in dispute. Inclusion of this statement can be explained only by (a) lack of knowledge or (b) as argued by Wunsch, an attempt to misrepresent and mislead. I'm not sure which, and I'm not sure it matters. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope your right and they are wrong. If not, this might come back and bite you (metaphorically speaking of course) :-) -- Redirts (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The game is given away a bit, I feel, by the publicity materials; films described as "polemics" don't tend to be too concerned with strict factual accuracy. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Should you really publish articles of this kind?
The global warming theory is a hypothesis - it is still being discussed between scientists. The proposition that the discussion is over is incorrect - like it is, for instance, about the earth circling the sun. So why should an encyclopedia, with high and scientific ambitions, publish an article where the focus is that one side of an ongoing discussion discredits the other? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.11.48.102 (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * See scientific opinion on climate change for the current state of the discussion. And this movie is outrageous crap whichever way you sway on the larger issue of global warming. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Aside from industries whose profit margins would be hurt by curbing carbon emissions, and paid shills thereof, there is no real dispute that global warming is happening, and very little dispute that human activity is the main cause. The "ongoing discussion" is occuring in the media, not in actual scientific circles. The reason for this is simple: it's easier to deceive people who don't know much about a subject than to fool those who are experts in it. 71.203.209.0 (talk) 04:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The truth of global warming does not matter. This documentary is noteworthy, even if it is wrong.  Wikipedia has articles on polywater and n-rays.  Paul Studier (talk) 07:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"Intentionally" controversial
Jmc has repeatedly changed the long-standing "controversial" to "intentionally controversial". The controversy may or may not have been intended (Channel 4's spokesperson is an after-the-fact SPS), but that is irrelevant. What is important is that the movie was indeed controversial, as shown by the large amount of criticism discussed below. There is nothing POV about this, its a simple observable fact, and one that has been observed by any number of reliable sources:,, ,,. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is pretty ridiculous. Unless you find an article in which Durkin states that it was his 'intention to make a controversial film' the change to 'intentionally controversial' is without doubt POV.  Jmc has to prove this was an intention of the filmmaker and back it up with a reference.  81.145.240.51 (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Stephan Schulz and anon, for airing your concerns about "intentionally controversial" here on this Talk page.


 * My insertion of 'intentionally', following the removal (by Hermoine Gingold) of 'controversial' and the threat of the renewal of "the great 'controversial' war" (William M. Connolley's term), was my well-intentioned attempt to demonstrate that the editorial use of 'controversial' was a simple matter of NPOV reportage based on the comment by the (unnamed) C4 spokesperson quoted in The Independent article. ("The film was a polemic ... This is a controversial film ...") and to safeguard 'controversial' against continued removal.


 * Sadly, it appears that 'intentionally' is just as controversial as 'controversial'.


 * -- Jmc (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As I recall, the argument trumpeted again and again in the "controversial wars" was that the film was intentionally controversial, calling itself a polemic, etc. (speaking of which, wasn't there a compromise to use polemic instead of controversial at one point?) But now you guys no longer believe that?  The show's own promotional material calls it controversial. Oren0 (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oren0 there is a difference between "created as a", and "promoted as a" - we have no idea whether C4 intentionally asked for a polemic/controversial documentary - but we do know that once they got it - they deemed it a polemic/controversial documentary. So the intentionally is original research. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC) (add: iirc C4 later said that it was to be part of a series of polemics, but other documentary makers (of the supposed series) claim that this wasn't the case. (see Monbiot)). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with this. Unless we have a source that quotes the producers saying "we made this film to provoke a controversy", it's plainly original research to state that it was intentionally controversial. No doubt Durkin et al expected that it would provoke a controversy, but we can't say they intended that from the outset unless we have some good sources to back that up. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm. "The film was a polemic" (C4 spokesperson quoted in The Independent) sounded to me - and still sounds, I must say - pretty well equivalent to "We made this film to provoke a controversy". -- Jmc (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That's Channel 4's subsequent gloss. What we lack is a statement showing prior intention. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The par assumption about a polemic is that it is intended to convince people, not merely to stir up controversy, even though a realistic polemicist would anticipate controversy rather than conversion. I'd be comfortable enough describing, say, Germaine Greer, as "intentionally controversial", but that's by the bye.JQ (talk) 08:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is all missing the point a bit. The notable issue is the controversy, not the intention. We do give the actual quote two sentences later, so the reader can make ny deduction from it that we could - but we are bound by WP:OR. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought adding "intentionally" was quite a good compromise. But with or without it, "controversial" should stay. Could we possibly add that it was a pile of dingoes kidneys, or would that be considered POV? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfair to dingoes. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I support the intention to try to find a compromise with "intentionally controversial", however I always thought it was on shaky ground in terms of verifiability. I'm not sure Durkin's main motivation was to create controversy; the main intention was probably to make the most persuasive film possible. He does seem to be the sort of person who likes to create controversy, so perhaps that was a secondary aim. Anyway, without a statement from Durkin along the lines of "I deliberately set out to make a controversial documentary", I don't see how "intentionally controversial" can be supported. --Merlinme (talk) 08:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hermione blocked as another Scibaby sock (along with another Sprint PCS /16 network). Raul654 (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspected as much - same M.O. Thanx. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

90% POV
This article is 10% a semi-objective description of the film and 90% an attempt to dismantle the arguments therein--the increasingly infamous Wikipedia loophole you could drive a truck through...and which many people do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.254.236 (talk) 08:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So are you going to suggest constructive improvements? --Merlinme (talk) 13:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed there's a problem. Given the ratio of obviously false to defensible arguments in the film, 5 per cent exposition and 95 per cent rebuttal would be closer to NPOV. But, as the unsigned IP user mentions, we can't rebut obvious falsehoods ourselves, but have to wait for a reliable source to do so. JQ (talk)

Link to global warming denial
I've been reverted twice for removing a link to the global warming denial page. Does this film—which questions the cause of global warming (and mind you, I'm in no way an avid adherent of the conclusions presented by the film), while admitting the fact of global warming—fit with a reference to those who actually deny the fact of global warming? I personally don't think it does. 64.234.1.144 (talk) 07:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Global warming denial takes several forms - there are those who deny that warming is taking place; there are those who accept that it's taking place but deny that it will be bad (that is, they say it will be good); there are those who accept that it's happening and that it will be bad but deny that it's man-made; and there are those who accept that it's happening, that it will be bad, that it's man-made, but say that doing anything about it will cost too much money. For many years all of the big deniers - Lindzen, Singer, Monkton, Michaels, Milloy, etc - all held that there was no warming. Now that mountains on top of mountain of evidence have rendered that position utterly untenable, many of the deniers are slowly shifting to the yes-it's-warming-but-it's-natural position.
 * The common threads between them are (a) all of these arguments are designed to cast doubt on the scientific underpinnings, (2) discourage any attempts to mitigate the problem, and (3) the funding for all of them can be traced back to energy companies. You should read the article - it would clear up your misconceptions. Raul654 (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In the end, we're just talking here about a link to another article in the same general area of interest and, as such, it's entirely appropriate to include it. There's no implication that this article "fit[s] with a reference" to the linked article (whatever 'fits' means).


 * And in any case, 64.234.1.144 risks violation of the 3RRule, and I've posted the apptopriate warning on his/her Talk page. -- Jmc (talk) 08:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm on here now. I wasn't logged in. But as you notice, I brought it to the talk page *before* I made a third revision (too bad for you, you wanna-be WP police--argh matey,I'll not be walkin' the plank this eve'n). Regarding the topic, one might just as easily turn the tables: the attempts to "mitigate the problem" amount to presumption and conceit on the part of western nations; take for example: Foreign Aid—"Please Just Stop!". Also, I take umbrage against the implicit accusation that I have not read the article. I have read it. And further, I doubt your blanket statement that all who question whether global warming is entirely the fault of humans, must be on the payroll of big industry. I could just as well say that all who support anthropogenic global warming are the lap-dogs of special interest groups. But that doesn't really advance the debate; but neither do smears in the other direction.
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by MonkeeSage (talk • contribs) 10 March 2008


 * the attempts to "mitigate the problem" amount to presumption and conceit on the part of western nations - this is not Lilliput and Blefuscu. We're not talking about two equal-yet-different positions in which the western governments have chosen one and are attempting to force their arbitrary policy on the rest of the world. There is one objectively correct position. And the only presumption in action here is that it is the presumption that it is not in anyone's interest to wreck the environment.
 * Your claim - that those who believe global warming is anthropogenic are doing so because they are being paid by special interest groups - is a canard that gets repeated a lot. It overlooks the rather obvious fact that the ones who stand the most to benefit if anthropogenic warming is proven - the energy companies that produce energy in environmentally friendly ways like solar, wind, and hydro - are tiny and have basically no money to influence the process, especially when compared to big oil. It's like comparing an 800 pound gorilla to a field mouse. There is simply no comparison. So what it comes down to are the real scientists on one side (because all the objective skeptics were won over a long time ago) and the shills tied to the oil industry on the other, to the point where whole websites have been set up to document this. Raul654 (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, I want to apologize to Jmc if my comments above were offensive (wrt, "wanna-be WP police"). I intended them as satire, but on a second reading, it is not clear that I intended them that way. I apologize for any offense I may have caused. I appreciate that you were just trying to help keep WP an open and friendly place for discussion, and I'm sorry if I gave the contrary impression. (Though I was honestly perturbed by Raul654's implication that I hadn't read the article.)
 * Raul: I'm not for or against the idea of anthropogenic global warming. I see problems with both sides, and I really don't think that either side can make a conclusive scientific case--as with many questions of science, it ultimately comes down to which paradigm you believe best explains the evidence (imho, at least). My counter-examples where just that: counter-examples. I don't necessarily believe them to be true, but someone who does believe they are true could pose them just as easily as you pose your arguments. Exxon has funded the studies of scientists who dispute anthropogenic global warming; fine. And how many studies have been funded by Green groups that endorse it? The point is that the conclusions and methods of any scientist should be at issue, not where they happened to get the money to purchase their electron microscopes.
 * On thinking about the matter, however, I really see nothing wrong with including the link. All global warming deniers are by default anthropogenic global warming deniers (even though the inverse is not necessarily true); so linking to global warming denial is valid as a related article. Thanks for your time. » MonkeeSage « 12:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted, MonkeeSage. I really took no offence; indeed, I was a little amused by your talk-like-a-pirate remark. And I'm gratified by your acceptance of the link as valid. I do believe that much too much has been made of this matter. As I've already said, it's simply a link to another article in the same general area of interest with no implied comment on the arguments advanced in TGGWS. -- Jmc (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)