User talk:RonCram/ClimateScienceDebateSandbox

Climate change is a controversial topic
Please be civil and please be informed. Read the supporting links before commenting on the Talk page. Consider the possibility the other person may be right. The article must be NPOV. This means we cannot write that one side is correct and the other is not. An encyclopedia presents the facts and allows the readers to make up their own minds. It is possible to write noncontroversial content about a controversial subject. That is our goal here. Please do your best.

Know Wikipedia's policies
Here are a few you should be aware of: WP:FIVEPILLARS, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:RF, WP:NOR, WP:VERIFY, WP:BLOGS, and WP:DISPUTE.

Code of Conduct for Effective Rational Discussion
One of the principle guidelines for Wikipedia is to be civil when discussing changes on Talk pages. Civility and rational discussion go together. Here is a fine explanation of how to conduct effective rational discussion. These are ways NOT to conduct a rational discussions.

Goal of this article
The goal is to put readers first by focusing on peer-reviewed papers central to the climate science debate. The narrative to be written by Wikipedia editors must be as brief and NPOV as possible. We want to include published comments by the scientists explaining or defending their peer-reviewed research as it appears in news reports or on blogs as long as the identity of the scientist is unquestioned. (If the scientist is the blog owner or is writing a guest post for the blog of another established expert, the identity is safely unquestioned.) This article does not mention papers supporting non-controversial aspects of the science. (Although this could change if it is determined it would be helpful for readers to have a paragraph or two on the non-controversial points of science to provide context). We think it is helpful to think of high school and college students as the intended audience of this article. Put readers first. If you keep their interests in mind, your writing will likely be more helpful and interesting.

Standards for the article
The article is intended to focus on the peer-reviewed climate science literature. This means references will be to the peer-reviewed papers themselves and to discussions and press releases about the papers by climate scientists.

News reports on climate change

 * June 4, 1999
 * “Warm Winters Result From Greenhouse Effect, Columbia Scientists Find, Using NASA Model”


 * Nov. 17, 2010
 * “Global Warming Could Cool Down Northern Temperatures in Winter”

————–
 * “…(CO2) in the atmosphere will slow the Earth’s rotation.”


 * “Global warming will make Earth spin faster”

———–
 * “…much of the North Atlantic Ocean has become less salty…”


 * “The surface waters of the North Atlantic are getting saltier,…”

———–
 * Avalanches may increase


 * Avalanches may reduce

———–
 * “Declining Coral Calcification on the Great Barrier Reef”


 * “Doom and Boom on a Resilient Reef”

———–

Is this intended to become an article someday?
I just found this user subpage, and I'm a little perplexed by it - it seems like an article being built in userspace. That's fine by itself, but only if it's going to be moved into mainspace at some point in the foreseeable future. Articles kept in a user's personal space indefinitely are not permitted per WP:FAKEARTICLE. Robofish (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is intended to be an article someday. Unfortunately, it is a rather large project that has already consumed many hours.  It will be a while before it is  ready for the mainspace.RonCram (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)