User:Tillman/A move toward agreement/Viriditas

A move toward agreement (???), redux
Well. we're making good progress towards attracting new editors to help improve the article, aren't we?

I don't quite know what to do to get this back on track. I started drafting a RfC, to reboot the lede to the last consensus version (as proposed a couple of times above). But it's disheartening to see almost nothing but old names, refighting old battles, while the article stays a muddled, biased, almost unreadable mess. Like so many others in the CC area. Sigh, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm in the process of collecting sources and I've provided many above. Arthur Rubin and yourself are welcome to read them at any time.  Every objection to the lead is based on "I don't like it" and "me too" which won't work here.  The article needs to be completely rewritten to reflect the new mainstream consensus on this subject, which is that the serious/major allegations/accusations by climate sceptics have been rejected by five/six/? investigations.  Most importantly, "at the conclusion of the inquiries, the scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity was reaffirmed by renewed confidence in the CRU dataset."  This is an undisputed fact supported by the sources.


 * The Russell report "finds, as have past reports, that others have independently arrived at results echoing the CRU research. The Russell report went so far as to reproduce the CRU results with publicly available data. In March, the U.S. National Research Council released three congressionally requested reports reconfirming that average global surface temperatures rose 1.4 degrees over the past century, with a likely rise between 2 degrees and 11.5 degrees by 2100, largely depending on greenhouse gas emissions. ("Probe clears scientists in 'Climategate'." USA Today 8 July 2010)
 * "There have since been several reports upholding the U.N.'s basic findings, including a major assessment in May from the National Academy of Sciences. This assessment not only confirmed the relationship between climate change and human activities but warned of growing risks -- sea level rise, drought, disease -- that must swiftly be addressed by firm action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Given the trajectory the scientists say we are on, one must hope that the academy's report, and Wednesday's debunking of Climategate, will receive as much circulation as the original, diversionary controversies." (Gillis, Justin. "Panel, in Report, Clears Scientists of Rigging Climate Change Data." New York Times 8 July 2010: A9)
 * Oxburgh panel said: "We are satisfied that the CRU tree-ring work has been carried out with integrity, and that allegations of deliberate misrepresentation and unjustified selection of data are not valid...Although we deplore the tone of much of the criticism, we believe that this questioning of the methods and data used in dendrochronological records will ultimately have a beneficial effect and improve working practices." (Skeptical Inquirer 2010)
 * "AP distributed the results of their "exhaustive" investigation last December 12. They found pettiness, especially in the climate scientists' disdainful attitudes toward critics, but no fraud. "The messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked," the AP reported. "The exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions." (Skeptical Inquirer 2010)


 * Again, Arthur Rubin removed the statement. Why? Viriditas (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

- Collecting reliable sources is good, and I agree with your earlier point that we should use the best we can find to support the article. At some point, it would be good to list the ones not presently used, by article section (and/or topic) -- so that everyone can read them, and comment as appropriate. I really think this process is only going to work if we can work cooperatively, and not constantly refight the Climate Wars.

That said, I see you (right now) as part of this problem. I expect (hope) that will change.

I'll attempt to rebut your points by quoting you, as breaking up a long statement with replies doesn't work well. Here we go:


 * V: "Every objection to the lead is based on "I don't like it" and "me too" which won't work here."

To be blunt, this is bullshit simply untrue, and I wish you would stop repeating (what appears to me to be)  patent nonsense. Your hectoring tone, and (what I perceive as) a "my way or the highway" attitiude don't help matters. To be fair, you're getting better (I believe) -- but not with this line!

Huh? I agree re the rewrite, but that's what the article already says!
 * "V: "The article needs to be completely rewritten to reflect the new mainstream consensus on this subject, which is that the serious/major allegations/accusations by climate sceptics have been rejected by five/six/? investigations. "


 * "Most importantly, "at the conclusion of the inquiries, the scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity was reaffirmed by renewed confidence in the CRU dataset." This is an undisputed fact supported by the sources. "

Viriditas: ask yourself why Richard A. Muller  started the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project and hired Robert Rohde, User:Dragons_flight and a very sharp cookie, to reanalyze the surface temp record? Hint: it's not because he (or anyone knowledgeable) expects any major changes...

Hint 2: Muller on "hide the decline", via Roger Pielke, Jr,. Worth 5 minutes of your time.


 * V: " In March, the U.S. National Research Council released three congressionally requested reports reconfirming that average global surface temperatures rose 1.4 degrees over the past century, with a likely rise between 2 degrees and 11.5 degrees by 2100, largely depending on greenhouse gas emissions. ("Probe clears scientists in 'Climategate'." USA Today 8 July 2010)"

[rewrite -- more commonly see 0.7 C


 * Lots of stuff arguing (by my reading): AGW is happening, the science is settled, CRU science is hunky-dory, "The Team" didn't commit fraud, the IPCC is wonderful, yadda yadda yadda.

You seem to have a touching faith that these august bodies were perfectly straightforward and extremely diligent in their inquiries -- but not everyone else is so convinced. Where these doubts are supported by reliable sources, they need to be included.

I'm certainly aware that we have differing views on this subject. I think you (and others) need to appreciate that I, Alex Harvey, and others here really are technically knowledgeable, aren't "deniers", aren't just blowing smoke -- and we aren't going away. And climate science has real problems, that aren't being addressed (very well). So far. In my opinion, and that of others.

I'll present my credentials, since we haven't previously worked together: I'm a consulting geologist, mostly retired now, based in northern Arizona and New Mexico. I earned a B.S. in geology and chemistry at Rice University, and a M.S. in geochemistry at UNC-CH. I've been interested in paleoclimates since student days, am well-read on the subject, and have considerable experience applying statistical analyses to geological data. I'm an experienced Wikipedia editor, and I have decades of experience working effectively with people I may not personally agree with, or even like very much. I also lose my temper, screw up, misread stuff... Eh. It's not like I'm getting paid for this.

We can do this job, and end up with an article we can all be proud of (or at least, live with). In my opinion, any worthwhile encyclopedia article has to be written with the general, non-specialist reader in mind. This one isn't yet(!), but it can be. We can do it! --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC), professional geologist, amateur climatologist