" 
 == Proposed change == 

 I have been making general observations regarding the article and expressing my opinion that it should be made more general, less technical, and focus exclusively on what global warming is, using wikilinks to other more detailed articles to address the role of the IPCC, various climatic models, and proposed corrective actions. This proposed lede was taken largely from the current article lede, just generalized and heavily trimmed. Is there any support among the editors for revising the article in the same manner?   

 Although the terms ""global warming"" and ""global cooling"" can be used to describe cyclic variations in global temperature, the term ""global warming"" has been generally used since the mid-1970's to describe the current global warming event, which dates from the mid-1700's. Since the late 1800's, measured average global temperature has risen approximately 0.74°C(ref)NOAA Global Warming FAQ(/ref), and further warming is predicted by reputable scientific organizations including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC.  

 Predicted impacts of global warming include: rising sea levels; changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation; an expansion of subtropical deserts; the retreat of glaciers; permafrost and sea ice; more frequent occurrence of extreme weather events including heatwaves, droughts and heavy rainfall events; species extinctions due to shifting temperature regimes; and changes in agricultural yields. 

 The current rise in global temperatures has been fairly rapid, and is attributed in large part to the presence of human-produced greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Although greenhouse gases can be produced by natural events (volcanos, for example), the vast majority of scientists believe that the additional human sources such as burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and agricultural activity have created an imbalance in the global temperature-regulation system, and that corrective actions to reduce those human sources should be taken. 
     

 :I don't like it, and it contains several claims that are either wrong, irrelevant, or misleading. First, the initial hedge (""can be used"") adds no useful information. Secondly, global warming is overwhelmingly used not to refer to warming since the mid 1700s, but for the mostly anthropogenic warming in the 20th and 21st century. The 0.74 is since the late 19th century - it's easy to misread ""late 1800's"" as 1800. I'm not really happy by the ""warming is predicted by organizations"" - many individual scientists do so as well. ""permafrost and sea ice"" are not a predicted impact (changes to them are). ""Fairly rapid"" is a very weak statement - as far as we know, it's extremely rapid. Also, if it's current, it should be ""is"", not ""has been"". I like the ""attributed in large part"", but we should mention the rapid increase in human-produced greenhouse gases, not just their presence (they have been present, to some degree or other, for 200000 years). The natural sources of GHGs are a red herring here - the increase is clearly anthropogenic, and only a very small fringe thinks otherwise. I'm not to happy about the ""imbalance in the global temperature-regulation system"" - what would that system be?  Finally, I would clearly separate the corrective actions from the recognition of anthropogenic warming - you will probably find all combinations (""human-caused, no action"" (I think Lombog now falls into that group), ""human caused, action"" (many there), ""not human-caused, no action"" (strict deniers), and even ""not human caused, action anyways"" (e.g. from people who are concerned about energy resources).    

 :: Me either, for all of Stephan's reasons, plus (A) I dislike bulk changes and prefer you take smaller bites so we can zero in, (B) by starting this new thread you are sort of whitewashing the fact that you tried to win a consensus to do a major overhaul along these lines in your prior thread titled ""observations"", and you failed to win that consensus, (C) I'm unwilling to embrace bulk edits by someone who admits they don't understand basic terms and can't supply citations for the changes they wish to make, as you admitted in that prior thread.  Please beware of the Randy factor   
 ::::I appreciate your forthrightness , but feel compelled (again, that word) to point out that even your reply is loaded with jargon (GHGs, deniers) and insider referen