Talk:Climate change/Archive 16

message: What are general feelings on links to advocacy organizations as references?  My view is that links to groups that 'spin' the science to promote a particular viewpoint -- whether the Sierra Club on the one hand or the co2science.org on the other -- belong in a separate article on policy.  At the very least, links to such organizations shouldn't be under the general heading 'Scientific', which to me implies some attempt at objectivity. Raymond Arritt 01:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Advocacy links

message: Seeing as how it used to redirect here--172.162.149.247 15:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Anthropogenic global warming|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthropogenic global warming]] 

message: From reading the article, and especially from reading the discussion page, I have to come to the conclusion that this page needs an unbiased expert to review it.  The page appears to have a subtle bias towards those who claim global warming is either A. not caused by humans, B. a good thing, or C. yet to be proven.  Anyone with a high school level of experience in the Bio lab can show that bruning fuels increases carbon dioxide levels, so why are even the basics such as this still the subject of debate in the discussion page?  It's time the free time wiki-warriors got out of this fight and let some pro's revise it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.49.13.119 (talk • contribs) .
:Wow.  I am not sure which article you were reading, but, if anything, this article is, and this is being charitable, WILDLY biased in favor of those on the left who believe that global warming is a fact.  The statements, arguments, citations, sources, etc. are all VERY selective and TOTALLY biased in favor of one viewpoint -- the alleged anthropegenic nature of global warming. --The Outhouse Mouse 19:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why on earth should the scientific opinion be a matter of "left" or "right"? Policy reactions to it, sure, but why the facts?--Stephan Schulz 20:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: An unbiased expert is hard to find these days, and you certainly won't find one lurking in this discussion. But you sure read this thing different than I do; I see your ABC as the complete opposite as far as the main article goes.  72.129.83.116 07:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not. It's just that most of the unbiased experts, looking at the evidence, arrive at roughly the same conclusion. That is not bias, it is science. To the original remark: You should not judge the article by the least informed comments on the talk page. Fortunately, most of the article itself has been written by some of the most informed participants. --Stephan Schulz 07:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your definition of "Informed" seems to mean arriving at the same conclusions as those who wield the power in this article. Others, who after reading the same papers come to a different conclusion, are treated like witches in 1690's Salem; their additions reverted and their talk bullied into resignation.  66.81.20.197 10:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This kind of stuff will do you no good, its just whinging. If you can find a specific example that you want to discuss we might get somewhere. Remember to check that it hasn't been done to death already though William M. Connolley 10:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree it will do no good, which is why I didn't start the topic. I just answered it truthfully (which is why it will do no good.)  Specific examples??? Oh my goodness that's a deer-in-the-headlights response to a problem that's been ongoing since this article's inception. It's well written and deserves its accolades based on that fact but as far as its usefulness to educators and their students (at least in K-12) it's a little too one sided to be used in any meaningful way. 66.81.20.167 20:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  I should think that finding an unbiased expert is very near to an impossibility.  In the process of becoming an "expert" it is human nature to form certain opinions on a given subject, making it very difficult to remain unbiased.  Understand that in the strict sense, an unbiased expert should be possible but I believe it to be very, very unlikely. Patris Magnus 18:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you want? A balance between a well-supported sicentific theory acknowledged by all professional scientific organizations that ever spoke out on it, that has unanimous support in the literature and overwhelming support in the scientific community on the one hand, and a public relations stunt pushed by a few weirdos on the other? --Stephan Schulz 21:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Au contrare...there is FAR FAR from unanimous agreement. --The Outhouse Mouse 19:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what to admire more, your French or your reading comprehension... --Stephan Schulz 20:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, his French ain't much - it's "contraire" DMorpheus 21:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please dial it back and comment on content, not contributors.  Dragons flight 21:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  And that single sentence speaks volumes on why there is a problem with this article and why many have thrown up their hands in surrender when trying to add things of value. Remember, this is not a research paper and this is not a science journal or even a scientific encyclopedia; this is a free general encyclopedia for the masses. The heavy-handedness of the few in true power smacks of bias. Even in editing out postings in this talk section I see things written that are truly inappropriate from both sides of the aisle but far and away the ones that get expurgated or reprimanded are the ones written against global warming.  When I see the bias and rudness in the handling of this simple talk page how is an educator to believe that the same thing isn't being done in the main body? Believe it or not there is a Global Warming controversy out in the everyday world; away from climate scientist polytechnic. When reading something one is on the tip of understanding in the first place and "knowing" there is a controversy one wants to know why others believe in the exact opposite. True, some of the science may be fringe or bit dicey or for every good point brought up on "no" global warming there are two saying why that won't work, but without the balance this reads as a political mailing, and I get enough of those every November.  66.81.21.62 05:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article focuses primarily on the scientific case surrounding global warming, however we do have global warming controversy which is intended to cover the social/political/scientific controversy surrounding the subject.  How well this, or any other article, does at covering its subject matter is always going to be in the eye of the beholder.  Every reader (and editor) comes to this article with their own preconceptions that necessarily influence how it is percieved and written.  The best we can do is try to write fairly and use discussion to rectify disparate points of view.  Often we do okay, sometimes we fail, but as this is a wiki there are always opportunities to make it better in the future.  Dragons flight 05:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The members of the Left have taken every opportunity to denigrate, minimize, disparage, impugn, attack, and relegate to the "back seat," the opinions of erudite, notable, and well-qualified academics, members of the scientific community, and other members of the cognoscenti who disagree with the official Socialist line on global warming.  I am just surprised that they haven't yet used the article to break into an attack on conservatives.--The Outhouse Mouse 19:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is true but the article is entitled "Global Warming" not "The Scientific Case Surrounding Global Warming." Most people will type in just "Global Warming" so like it or not this "IS" the frontpiece of the encyclopedia. I expect more from a desk encyclopedia and I certainly expect better here.  Don't get me wrong, I'm glad this article is here and that the group is diligent in erasing graffiti; I'm glad it gets people talking about the subject and in seeing scientists actually taking a working part in building such a site. The students like that. At the same time we show the great disappontments we have with the article and the fact that the power hierarchy here, just as in world politics, corrupts.  66.81.21.36 08:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "I expect more from a desk encyclopedia"...well, in the great Wikipedia vs. Britannica shootout, global warming was excluded because the EB did not have adequate coverage of the topic. We do mention the (minimal) dissent in the introduction (and I've just put in a link to the global warming controversy article that was missing). If you're students are "disappointed with the article", they are welcome to improve it. They should be aware, of course, that a large amount of work by rather knowledgable people has gone into the article and "things I heard on CBS last night" are unlikely to be accepted as well-sourced and authorative. But since we actually have no corrupt power hierarchy, everybody who contributes in a constructive manner is welcome.--Stephan Schulz 09:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Freeman Dyson is skeptical of global warming. 65.95.41.136 00:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point? --Stephan Schulz 07:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I suggest you do read and digest not just one section, but our whole set of articles. The science is fairly solid. The fact that you confuse weather and climate, that you rely on anecdotal evidence, and that you blindly repeat a incorrect version of the global cooling story (even assuming that the pool of climate  experts has not changed in 32 years...) strongly suggests that your understanding of the topic is not.--Stephan Schulz 15:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pro-skeptics bias 

message: This page doesn't have a truly neutral point of view. It should use several different pieces of data from independent sources, not just from the same, bogus "hockey stick". --ChevyFanatic 16:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean it might be nice to have a picture showing different reconstructions, not just the hockey stick... oh... wait... William M. Connolley 16:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Like THIS ONE?  Please... --The Outhouse Mouse 19:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, like the one in the article actually based on observations. As for the one you reference... you've been lied to, see MWP and LIA in IPCC reports for the details William M. Connolley 20:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow.  So you're saying that the Wall Street Journal and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are lying to me? --The Outhouse Mouse 15:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The "hockey stick" is based on observations. I do not know of any datasets that suggest global (surface) cooling, or time series without positive interannual trends over the past 30 years. I would be interested to see such a dataset if it exists. LotR 18:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: What specifically do you propose?  --TeaDrinker 20:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Ed appears to be proposing that we confuse attribution of climate change with the HS . Since this is wrong, his entire premise collapses William M. Connolley 20:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are imputing Ed's intentions where none exist.  Perhaps if you were to ask him for clarification instead of making conclusions for him then we might have meaningful discourse on the subject. --The Outhouse Mouse 15:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The hockey stick says nothing about cause and is as consistent with natural causes as with anthropogenic causes.  The anthropogenic attribution is largely model based, and they are given credibility far beyond the current state of their science.--63.226.208.50 11:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true that the (mean surface temperature) "hockey stick" alone does not provide indication of cause. However, do keep in mind that there are "other hockey sticks." The observed concurrent positive trends in CO2 (1.5 ppm / year) (and CH4) are, in all likelihood, attributable to anthropogenic causes. In any event, this section asks for independent, "non-hockey-stick" datasets for NPOV, but the point is that practically all datasets (that I'm aware of, anyway) show the "hockey sticks." LotR 14:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  True. But the point oyu are missing is that the palaeo record - last 1000 y - has little to do with attribution of recent change, as the link I provided attempts to tell you. The idea that the HS, or others like it, underpins GW is a myth spread by the septics William M. Connolley 16:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The hockey stick did contribute to global warming alarm, since the rate of warming appeared to increase, but the rate may be an artifact of the better representation of high frequencies in recent data.  20th century solar activity is unusually high, and the interrupting episode of aerosol cooling contributes to the high frequency appearance of what may well be a longer term response to that solar activity.  Models are not yet accurate enough to tease out attribution of the recent warming.--63.226.208.50 09:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Time-scales are problematic.  Comparing the last 2 or 20 or 200 years with the last 200 thousand or 200 million is a very long and wide mine field. Sln3412 04:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, higher frequencies are damped due to the lower resolution of older paleo data, a period of warming as short as the recent one, may well be missed in the paleo data.--63.226.208.50 09:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The entire HS debate is just like so many others; it becomes a point of discussion in and of itself.  That takes attention away from the subject and into the abyss of discussion.    Sln3412 03:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion is where we have the space and liberty to clarify what we mean.  That seems more like a pinnicle than an abyss.  Do you have any remaining questions?--63.226.208.50 09:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not completely neutral 

message: cut subsection
===Global Warming Effects on the Future===
The potential effects of CO2 on climate become more significant as we look into the future. Estimated present day reserves of fossil fuels (mainly coal) should last for another few hundred years and will add far more CO2 to the atmosphere than has accumulated so far. Unless human technology or extreme conservation efforts reduces this, atmospher CO2 levels will increase within two centuries to levels at least two and possibly four or five times higher than those that existed before humans. Levels this high are comparable to those last seen tens of millions of years ago in warmer greenhouse worlds. This warming will cause environmental changes. As regional patterns of temperature and precipitation change, impacts on human populations will vary by season. Atmospher CO2 levels will remain high for 1000 of years or more, until the ocean absorbs the excess CO2.
----
I cut the preceding subsection, as it lacks sources and reads more like an argument for reducing CO2 emissions. Does it even belong here, or should it go to Kyoto Protocol or Emissions trading?
Anyway, we need more info about the relationship of air temperature and CO2 levels in the historical temperature record. Last month, I saw a graph illustrating the point the CO2 increases are caused by temperature increases. At least temp went up first, then CO2 went up; same for down. --Uncle Ed 17:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming? crandles 17:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just for once I agree with Ed. Sorry about that :-). The article *should* have something in it about future CO2 levels, but I think it does already, higher up William M. Connolley 17:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  crandles - At the end of the article you cited, it reads "CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms."  However, it has been stated more than once on this page that the oceans are currently absorbing large amounts of CO2.  Wouldn't this be indicative of an approaching ice age, rather than GW?130.36.62.140 16:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The oceans currently absorb CO2 because of a simple chemical imbalance. We add a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere, and part of this is absorbed into the ocean. Note that atmosperic CO2 levels still increase. This has nothing to do with an ice age. --Stephan Schulz 16:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The future within the next 500 years is that when crude oil runs out. After that there will be alternative fuels such as ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen, and many more types that come from the earths crust and return to the earth crust for a completely renewable cycle. When this comes then global warming will still be here but will start to decline slowly.
I agree that with the above statements that to the extent this information is correct and useful, it needs to be better referenced and presented.  Dragons flight 20:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I made that change because the IPCC scenarios are explciity based on 'what if' storylines that assume that nothing will be done about emissions because of climate change. Obviously, even with that caveat the emissions are difficult to predict so I did not see it as contradictory with the following sentence.  I still think it is useful to state this assumption up front though. 209.79.152.198 12:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This could be useful but probably best as a separate article.  The main entry is already bordering on too long. As a start maybe you could translate the Norwegian version. Raymond Arritt 02:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Predictions

message: The potential effects of CO2 on climate become more significant as we look into the future. Estimated present day reserves of fossil fuels (mainly coal) should last for another few hundred years and will add far more CO2 to the atmosphere than has accumulated so far. Unless human technology or extreme conservation efforts reduces this, atmospher CO2 levels will increase within two centuries to levels at least two and possibly four or five times higher than those that existed before humans. Levels this high are comparable to those last seen tens of millions of years ago in warmer greenhouse worlds. This warming will cause environmental changes. As regional patterns of temperature and precipitation change, impacts on human populations will vary by season. Atmospher CO2 levels will remain high for 1000 of years or more, until the ocean absorbs the excess CO2.
----
I cut the preceding subsection, as it lacks sources and reads more like an argument for reducing CO2 emissions. Does it even belong here, or should it go to Kyoto Protocol or Emissions trading?
Anyway, we need more info about the relationship of air temperature and CO2 levels in the historical temperature record. Last month, I saw a graph illustrating the point the CO2 increases are caused by temperature increases. At least temp went up first, then CO2 went up; same for down. --Uncle Ed 17:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming? crandles 17:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just for once I agree with Ed. Sorry about that :-). The article *should* have something in it about future CO2 levels, but I think it does already, higher up William M. Connolley 17:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  crandles - At the end of the article you cited, it reads "CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms."  However, it has been stated more than once on this page that the oceans are currently absorbing large amounts of CO2.  Wouldn't this be indicative of an approaching ice age, rather than GW?130.36.62.140 16:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The oceans currently absorb CO2 because of a simple chemical imbalance. We add a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere, and part of this is absorbed into the ocean. Note that atmosperic CO2 levels still increase. This has nothing to do with an ice age. --Stephan Schulz 16:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The future within the next 500 years is that when crude oil runs out. After that there will be alternative fuels such as ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen, and many more types that come from the earths crust and return to the earth crust for a completely renewable cycle. When this comes then global warming will still be here but will start to decline slowly.
I agree that with the above statements that to the extent this information is correct and useful, it needs to be better referenced and presented.  Dragons flight 20:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I made that change because the IPCC scenarios are explciity based on 'what if' storylines that assume that nothing will be done about emissions because of climate change. Obviously, even with that caveat the emissions are difficult to predict so I did not see it as contradictory with the following sentence.  I still think it is useful to state this assumption up front though. 209.79.152.198 12:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Global Warming Effects on the Future

message: Half the Norwegian Wikipedia article on global warming is a list of misconceptions about global warming, with discussion/refutations. The choice of misconceptions seems biased, but mentioning in the article that there are numerous common misconceptions, and listing and discussing them, seems like a good idea. As it is now, several issues that preoccupy many people are represented only on this discussion page instead of in an article. I suggest someone makes a separate article called "Common misconceptions about global warming" that lists and discusses claims that are unscientific, very improbable or poorly founded in science. It is rather obvious that misconceptions are abundant amongst laymen - and I guess laymen are the main target group for the Global warming article. Notice that pro-science advocates seem to forget that a huge number of people seem to hold an unrealistic and often scientifically unfounded sense of impending apocalypse, mainly due to sensationalist tabloid newspapers. This should be addressed, as should a lot of the refuted claims on this discussion page. On the other hand, a list of misconceptions - this is a too strong concept, perhaps? - may end up too black-and-white, showing a disregard for the subtleties that the article in its present form has. I'd welcome viewpoints on this. Narssarssuaq 12:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This could be useful but probably best as a separate article.  The main entry is already bordering on too long. As a start maybe you could translate the Norwegian version. Raymond Arritt 02:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common misconceptions 

message: How is an external link decided? If there is a site that is updated many times a day with global warming news is that a good external link to have? It provides something extra on top of what Wikipedia offers. Some of today's news, after it has been verified and quantified, will make it here as substantiated information. So a good external link site would offer news that has not yet been covered here? Yes or no? Webchat 00:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The link in question has Google ads. It's been my WP:SPAM experience that the more someone objects to a link's removal, the more likely it is that the intention of adding the link is to generate traffic and revenue to that site. Wikipedia's external link policy discourages non-notable, ad-heavy sites. Also see Wikipedia's policy on external links and Webchat's contribution history.  OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Alright. As I have done here - I will place any sites (mine or others I think should be linked to) up for discussion. My only remaining question is what is wrong with Google ads? Does every site have to be without advertising before it has merit? Webchat 00:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ceteris paribus, I tend to prefer sites with no ads, although will link to be-aded sites when there is nothing better.  A subject like global warming will likely have hundreds of potentially relevant links, so there is a good reason to be picky about the sites linked to.  The look of the site, with the look of the appearently parent site robinnixon.com, leads me to think this is a single person's website project, and is a relatively new one at that.  I think I would hold off on linking to it until it is better established as a source. By no means is it a bad site, just a bit too limited and new for linking.  --TeaDrinker 01:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Furthermore, the  states, Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links.  You've already admitted that this is your site (and I'm guessing the other sites you linked to are owned or managed by you). If your site becomes notable enough, other (non-affiliated) people will add your site. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you've made your point here. But there *is* a dilemma when you yourself are certain you have a good resource that other people will find useful but you aren't supposed to create a link. Whatever. It will stand the test of time. It would be nice to have it linked to in Wikipedia - maybe one day someone will :) I've decided to take ohnoitsjamie up and revise a few articles that need a little work instead - so I won't be bothering you here for a while :) Webchat 01:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Here's what I'm going to do instead. I found an article that didn't exist mashup (video) something else I know something about. I'm going to try and make a good article here, but it'll be the first I ever started from scratch. So if any of you would care to offer any advice it will be more than welcome. I'm sure it'll start off messy but will get into shape quite soon. Thanks! Webchat 01:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: globalwarminginthenews.com

message: This material would have a good home in the Global warming controversy article but not here.  The main article already is long and is in danger of becoming unwieldy.  The main article needs to stick to the science.  Raymond Arritt 16:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for suggesting a suitable place. Wavelength 17:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Publicity''' section

message: Just to be sure, if I want to edit the Spanish version of this article, is it ok for the references to be in English or do they have to be in Spanish?  In general, can an article written in X language have references in Y language?   I am trying to avoid getting in trouble :)  I have seen that being done but I am not sure if it is right.  Thanks a lot guys and sorry for the diversion.  Brusegadi 23:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most original research is published in English nowadays, so I think you will have a hard time to come up with Spanish references for the current state of the art. In this situation, it's certainly ok to use English references. --Stephan Schulz 23:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: I think the Wegman Report should have an article of its own. --Uncle Ed 17:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics and arguments 

message: The following was posted in the article:
* The warming is the result of an imbalance between ambient levels of sulfurous or nitrogenous aerosols and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7346 
If you look at the reference provided it says that smog clearing has 'accelerated' global warming but it says nothing about it being a cause of global warming.  Thus, with the source provided, I dont think it makes sense to place this under alternate theories.  Brusegadi 04:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IMBALANCE

message: I've been starting to cite using < ref > because it says that is in the todo section but the problem is something glitched, when I preview the cites start at 1 but when I actually save it they cites start at double however there are.  So if you check the references section it doubles up does anyone have any idea how I can fix this.  Reverting doens't seem to help.  SirGrant 00:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I'm not sure if it is a local problem (like with my account) but I see this but the thing is if I log out everything shows up fine.  I tried logging in on my roommates PC and I still have the problems so I know it isn't computer specific.  I don't know why it would work when I'm not logged in but not when I am.  If anyone could let me know how it shows up for them that would be a big help thanks SirGrant 01:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Side note: Before hitting SAVE PAGE, use SHOW PREVIEW, it will save you much aggravation and many versions.
Please review the discussion on references styles for this article, now preserved in Archive 9 . This has been a problem issue in the past. Vsmith 02:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok so was there a general consensus cause after reading that it seems pretty split if there was and I'm citing it wrong I'll go back and set everything back to the way it was. SirGrant 02:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure about a consensus (guess I need to reread it), but if no consensus is reached, I think policy is that the current style remains. There was an Arbcom case over this last Nov/Dec - got kinda messy. I know that ref systems have evolved and improved since then. But, discuss before unilaterally changing please. My preference is for a Harvard style alphabetized reference section - which I think is now an option for the note style you are using. Maybe with improvements a concensus can be reached now ??? Vsmith 03:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok makes sense, and if again anyone wants me to undo the edits I was doing I will.  Hopefully we can possibly get a third voice in here on what to do.   SirGrant 03:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh also I wasn't trying to be unilateral in my editing style it just at the top it says Pending Tasks:    * Set up HARVARD inline citation system.  * Note first scientists to study Global Warming. so that is what I thought I was doing.  SirGrant 03:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References Broken

message: Ignore the above the problem got fixed I think it was just some sort of browser error.  Regardless I was wondering what we should do about the citations, I would be happy to go about changing all the links to this format:
However I do abide my wikipedias rules and if the current ruling was to leave it as was I'll go back and undo my edits.  Sorry about not going through the archives there is just so much stuff it's like a book to read of just talk pages.  So if anyone has any oppinions on what I should do I would appriciate it.  I would also like to note that I do think the < ref > system is better than having the links in brackets like [ www.whatever.com ] because I think by doing that firstly it is not asthetically pleasing and doesn't contain information about the source you are citing.  However I will say it again I will follow the rules and if people decided that it should stay the way it was I'll revert it.  Thanks SirGrant 19:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was only acting to caution you, before you did a lot of work - as some would disagree. User:William M. Connolley, one of the major contributors to the page is currently on vacation. I am aware of his feelings regarding references and inline links as they are quite similar to mine. I like inline links that take you directly to the referenced page (I typically open the link in a background tab for reference as I continue reading). The note system that you started to implement is quite cumbersome as it requires a complicated three clicks to do what I want. It also produces an essentilly useless numbered list at the bottom of the article. I prefer a reference section arranged alphbetically with Harvard style ref links in the text. Standard for science works. I would like a system using a Harvard style link which links to the ref section for text works and gives a dual choice for online links: a direct link to the website with a secondary link to the reference in an alphbetized reference section. I haven't kept up with the newer Harvard styl ref linking system - need to investigate it more, but am quite opposed to the simple note system you started working on. Cheers, Vsmith 23:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I read about William M. Connolley and about the arbitration that is why I haven't been citing any more sources till I can maybe get some instruction on what to do because honestly the only person who has even responded to me is you Vsmith and you kinda seem unsure and I don't want to continue until I get some sort of official word Thanks.  SirGrant 23:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, here is my opinion: I don't mind too much either way. A good reference system is certainly worth having, and your work seems to be on the way towards it. On the other hand, the status quo works ok, too. Given that William seems to have the strongest opinion, we should probably wait till he's back. --Stephan Schulz 23:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Stephan that sounds reasonable.  I'm gonna leave a message on William's talk page hopefully he will respond fairly soon.  If not I'll go back and revert my edits but hopefully he can give us some sort of judgement in a reasonable amount of time SirGrant 23:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: ok, I'll change it back tonight SirGrant 20:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I was doing my weekly reading of realclimate, and I saw the Ritson links.  Mainly:
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/house06/RitsonWegmanRequests.pdf
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/house06/RitsonLetterWaxman.pdf
I feel that if we include the Wegman we should at least be entitled to:
1) Place the links above in the 'Other' external links part of the article, since they bring into question the credibility of the W report in a scientific manner.  
2) We could simply remove the W report altogether for the reasons in 1.  
3) we could make an article about the wegeman report as someone suggested above.  The article would mention the controversy surrounding the report.
If my view is accepted, then I vote for either of the first two options.  Also, if most prefer option three, we would have to mention the report in the main article (in order to provide a link) and remove it form the 'other' external links.  Thanks and have a lovely day,  Brusegadi 03:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote we give it it's own article, so that it can be exposed for what it is. Skyemoor 11:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On Wegman and Ritson

message: I know the point of an article on "global warming" is largely to talk about the recent climate warming and how it might have large affects on human civilization, but isnt the article becoming political and non-sientific by totally omitting just what this warming means in terms of the history of the planet over geological time? Temperature and CO variation over millions of years is an order of magnitute greater then what is measureable since the industrial revolution.
Also the biomass section is not up to date it was just in the mainsteam news recently that there were studies showing biomass increasing with increased CO2 INDEPENDENT of other factors like soil and water.
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N33/B3.jsp
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.112.122 (talk • contribs) 
:This link seems to be about reproductive responses not about biomass balance. Hmmm. an order of magnatude over a period 5000 times longer; do you reckon the current change is at a normal rate of change? crandles 23:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A few clarifications:  (1) co2science.org is an advocacy site, not "mainstream news"; (2) the cited article does not say what you claim it does; (3) the cited article does not say what co2science.org claims it does.  The article concludes that "development rate is inversely correlated with life span across tree species (Govindaraju, 1984; Enquist et al., 1999; Loehle, 2000, 1988; in conifers). If the responses obtained in this study result in allocation tradeoffs, and these trees reproduce early and die young, then CO2 enrichment may increase population turnover rates rather than stand biomass."  In other words individual trees will grow and die faster, but the net biomass accumulation will not necesasrily change. Raymond Arritt 00:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: the whole story

message: I seem to remember hearing a while back that the theory of global warming was disproven. Several times I think. PowderedToastMan 08:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, in fact it is generally considered to be accurate, according to the best science we have.  --TeaDrinker 08:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And therefore you call it "consensus"? Three men make a tiger. --NimNick 08:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The world's scientific academies calls it consensus. Other references with more endorsements as well, including the American Meterological Society, and so forth. Skyemoor 10:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is the connotation of "consensus" which you are using? You are not aware of it. Quote of Scientific consensus: "Scientific consensus is not, by itself, a scientific argument, and is not part of the scientific method". Of course, the using of this term is very new and political correct; and it is similar to [Argumentum ad populum]: "(Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it;". Maybe there is a relevant men made effect in global warming. Maybe not. But science can't know it. How can there be a consensus on things you don't know? That makes a religious believe and politics will establish an Eco-dictaturship to overcome state failures, war costs and state debt. --NimNick 11:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of scientists in a particular field of science at a particular time. Scientific consensus is not, by itself, a scientific argument, and is not part of the scientific method; however, the content of the consensus may itself be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method."  The full quote answers your question, doesn't it? If not, visit the links above.  If you want to change the minds of the world's scientific bodies, go right ahead. And come back here once you do, so we can update WP. Skyemoor 11:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it answers no question. The "consensus" may itself be based on both scientific arguments but this doesn't mean that it is. And then, you tell me that I shall fight against a reglious believe. You act the fool. The world's scientific bodies must not be changed. They must only be fairly adopted but there are powerful interests to control peoples behavior and their economical ressources. --NimNick 12:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, Mr. Skyemoor, you'd be surprised to find out, how many sicentists share NimNick's sane point of view but keep silent, because they are afraid to lose their jobs. "Global warming" alarmism is a religion, not science, and this Wikipedia article is outrageously biased against facts, one of the worst I've ever seen. Alas, prejudice always prevails in scientific circles -- until the next superstitious fad replaces it. Arvin Sloane 07:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well yes, we would be surprised - if they've kept silent, how do you know? Intuition? William M. Connolley 08:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr. Connolley, what if I am one of them, and know many more? Do you seriously believe that I would continue to hold my tenure if I would have made a statement against the global warming hysteria, and sign such a statement with my real name? What is happening now over the alleged climate change is feeding frenzy, not science, and this Wikipedia article is a clear reflection of this craze, a typical argument from dishonest intelligent design. A stampede of cattle can be defined as a consensus of cows but the existence of such consensus proves neither that cows are running in the right direction nor that they have any reason to run in the first place. Arvin Sloane 08:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know Mr Connolley, but hopefully he won't mind if I answer for him :-). The asnwer is, of course you would keep your tenure (if you were one of them, which you aren't), just like Lindzen or Spencer. Now... we can try to sort out some of your confusions. A consensus proves nothing of itself other than that a lot of people agree. Which is why the article doesn't say: "There is a consensus, therefore...". Instead, it describes the state of the science and says there is a consensus over it. Notice that you, like many septics, can't quite decide if there is a consensus over GW (but that it proves nothing); or that there isn't even a consensus (in which case your previous para makes no sense) William M. Connolley 09:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you want to say that "scientific consensus" is a weasel term, and the doctrine of "scientific consensus" is not vulnerable since nobody can know the real meaning of "scientific consensus". --NimNick 09:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nope, scientific consensus makes perfect sense. You just need to remember to get things the right way round: there-is-a-consensus, *therefore* the science says... is wrong. The-science-says-and-people-agree, *therefore* there is a consensus is right. Fairly simple, but many people seem to find it hard to understand William M. Connolley 19:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, and therfore scientists like Lindzen are writing, there is no consensus, and therefore you must misuse a real name for your user-acount. Troll. --NimNick 20:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This is the same state as it already has had. So what do I have lost? --NimNick 21:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  William M. Connolley (whoever you are), I admire your chutzpah. What makes you think that "I am not one of them"? Intuition, perhaps? There has been an article in WSJ recently by Sharon Begley (Has String Theory Tied Up Better Ideas In Field of Physics? June 23, 2006; Page B1) that explains how scientists sceptical about prevailing fads are left out of their jobs. Lindzen and some others made their names long before the global warming scare followed the equally meaningless global freezing scare. For young scientists, however, sceptical attitude toward this subject is strictly taboo. As for non-existing "consensus," any article on "global warming" that doesn't mention works by Ross McKitrick, Robert Balling Jr., Randall Cerveny, Oliver Frauenfeld, or Robert E. Davis, to name a few, is no more than ideological propaganda (aka "brainwash"). Arvin Sloane 18:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am who I say I am. Unlike you, who are a nameless anon. You're not one of us (not them) because your ignorance is too obvious. Just to prove it, you make the obligatory septic reference to global cooling. Incidentally, you have the wrong Mc: McI has the better reputation. I'm not aware of Randall Cerveny, Oliver Frauenfeld, or Robert E. Davis as skeptics, but who knows? One might equally well assert that an article that doesn't mention Mann is odd... before remembering that this is the overview page and looks at temperature record of the past 1000 years William M. Connolley 19:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just out of curiosity, do three misspellings of the apparently intended word "skeptic" as "septic" all in the same talk page constitute a string of personal attacks, or are we to believe that all cases were in fact independent of each other and quite innocently made?  Afterall, the difference in meanings between the words 'skeptic' and 'septic' leave a strong suggestion almost too ironic to overlook. --68.163.70.14 21:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: William M. Connolley does this on purpose, and for the reason you suggest. --Spiffy sperry 22:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The same Randall Cerveny from Arizona State University, where Robert Ball runs the Office of Climate, a well known climate change skeptic who has accepted funding from Exxon?  That's who you hang your hat on?  Sorry, out of 120 climate researchers working on the IPCC report, only two disagreed with the summary statements.  Provide the 'proof' of Mann's tampering, and I don't mean the disreputed M&M damage control rewrites.  We'll let the climate scientists determine the consensus, not Faux News adherents. Skyemoor 21:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: As soon as "Exxon funding" is mentioned in a climate change discussion, everyone following it knows that there is no point to continue: we are dealing with the environmentalist religion here, not environmental science. Very sad that such zealots seem to have taken over "climate change" section and many other sections of Wikipedia. In itself, Wikipedia has been a great idea. However, like most great ideas, it is being actively perverted by fanatics and ax-grinders of all sorts. Nothing is new under the Moon, as Copernicus would say. Arvin Sloane 21:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I have noticed that the 'Exxon funding' tends to end many of these pointless discussions.  Curious fact!  It took me a long time to join the 'religion' of global warming.  I really did not want to believe in it, because like most religions, joining it would mean that I would have to make great sacrifices.  Catholicism could not convert me, the church of the WMDs could not convert me, but Global Warming!  They were the first religion ever to offer belief based on fact, throwing the concept of faith and the 1% doctrine out the window!  Horray for the MODERN RELIGIONS!Brusegadi 22:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I have recently added the  tag to the top of the page.  I recommend that everyone take note of its advice. —AySz88\^-^ 22:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disproven

message: There is new ice core data from the British Antarctic Survey, showing carbon dioxide levels as higher than at any point in 800,000 years. Does this constitute reliable enough information to replace the existing figures in this article? I'll leave that up to the experts on this page, but it seems to deserve consideration. 130.195.86.38 12:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It turns out that... the 650 kyr CO2 is published. The 800 kyr was presented at EGU (last April) but is not yet published. If it exists on the web in "pre-pub" form I don't know where William M. Connolley 19:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The release from the BAS is here  and its been widely republished in the popular media in the last few days, eg , which is why I stumbled accross it. Best wait for publication then... 125.237.74.41 23:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: As you say, you are not reading enough, or carefully enough.  Your first two questions are directly answered in the Global warming article itself.  Your third question is a bit vague, but there is indeed a correlation between human population increase and CO2 increase in that both have been increasing at an increasing rate since about 1750.  A basic discussion is given at  http://www.prcdc.org/summaries/climateupdate02/climateupdate02.html Raymond Arritt 05:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Ice Core Data

message: Global Warming – An alternative Theory
Introduction
There can be little doubt that global warming is occurring. The current wisdom is that this is due to the Greenhouse effect of global emissions, hence the Kyoto agreement. However there is a simpler and potentially more worrying possibility.
Energy usage
Mankind has become a huge consumer of Energy. Well, physically speaking, this is not possible, because, except by nuclear power, Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It is simply converted from one form to another – usually heat.
So when you are burning fossil fuels in your car, you are releasing energy stored in the fossil fuels as heat (and kinetic energy – movement, which also ultimately gets converted to heat). Where does this heat go? It would be tempting to think that it is radiated or released into space, but lets think about that. The temperature of space is close to absolute zero, and the rate of heat loss is proportion to the difference in temperature. Historically we have been in approximate equilibrium, which is to say that the heat coming in (from the sun) equals the heat going out (due to difference in temperature). We are not changing the size of the Earth, nor its mass, so any heat we add to the equation must result in a temperature rise until a new equilibrium is reached. So if we are generating say 1% of the sun’s heat, the global temperature must also rise by 1% (nearly 3 degrees Celsius) in order for us to successfully get rid of it into space as fast as we are generating it. That is regardless of any Greenhouse Gas effect (which only makes matters worse).
More bad news
This means that controlling Green House gases will not save us. What is more, it doesn’t matter what the energy source is, unless it is the sun itself (and not historical sun, such as in fossil fuels). Nuclear energy is just as bad as fossil fuels. Wind and Wave energy are just as bad too. The only safe energy in this regard is plant energy, so bio-diesel, plant oils, solar panels and wood burning are all OK, but that is about it. All of this energy has been provided by the sun in its recent history, BUT, of course, we must not reduce the total plant mass, so it must not just be a renewable, but a source that has been renewed. There is no way to cheat.
The good news
The good news is that this is not runaway global warming. If we mend our ways and use the right sources of energy (and that means more forests, albeit farmed and managed), the earth will eventually return to the old equilibrium, except for the effects of greenhouse gasses.
OOO - Own Opinions Only
Dave Mear.
:(A) Wikipedia is not the place for original theories, and (B) the amount of energy beamed to earth by the sun is many orders of magnitude greater than all the energy usage of mankind; man's use of energy is nowhere near what is necessary to affect change on a global scale. Raul654 16:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) Sorry, this page is not for discussing global warming itself, but for discussing our article on global warming.  Please feel free to discuss your theory further, but this isn't the place to do so; I'm sure someone will come and suggest a place where people would be happy to help, though. In the meantime, you've also got a few inaccuracies; for example, the amount of heat radiated away from an object is not proportional to its temperature (see black body for some equations).  You may want to work on your theory a bit more.  —AySz88\^-^ 16:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sci.environment newsgroup would be a great place to propose your theory. Raymond Arritt 16:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well it would be except its been done before :-) See-also http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/05/global-warming-is-not-from-waste-heat.html (and the earlier post) William M. Connolley 17:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 
Just a thought. Is this REALLY original? 
I have seen this in a (factual) book by Isaac Asimov - that is, the idea that
all forms of energy used by humans end up as heat, which must be radiated into space - so the more energy we generate, the hotter we'll get. Think of one possible energy source - solar energy stations in space, beaming the energy to receivers on earth. Now surely if the total energy we receive from the sun increases - shouldn't we get hotter, as the energy is converted to different forms and eventually becomes heat? And wouldn't this also apply to increases in energy conversion on earth - eg from nuclear sources, or fossil fuels? If it's true that "the amount of heat radiated away from an object is not proportional to its temperature " (I don't know, I'm not a physicist) then Asimov seems to be wrong in this case. Just thinking out loud! -- Exile 11:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The amount of heat radiated is proportional to T^4 (see Stefan-Boltzmann law), not to T (and I'm certain Asimov knew that ;-). Yes, any form of latent or external energy we use (space mirrors, nuclear, anti-matter, fossil fuels...) contributes to the Earth's heat budget. But all these sources are so miniscule compared to solar irradiation that they can be essentially ignored for now. --Stephan Schulz 12:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global Warming - an alteritive hypothesis 

message: There seems to be unusually high vandalism.  Perhaps it has to do with the debut of An Inconvenient truth in Australia?  Anyhow, should we place an anti vandal tag?? Brusegadi 15:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced the vandalism level is that much higher than what it is normally but if you think it is getting that bad I can semi-protect the article. JoshuaZ 15:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Vandalism (SEPT 12)

message: I read here that there shouldn't be a space :)  Count Iblis 17:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody seems interested in this sort of thing. I'm always annoyed by being forced to add this lousy secured empty space between the X and °C. I was told once there was a Wikipedia policy that says to keep the empty space, but I can't quite see the reason why. Hardern 07:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  space before °C ? 

message: Maybe include stuff from the new NASA survey that is talked about at the BBC website recently -- 217.42.3.37 15:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ice Coverage Section

message: Rambling essay? moved to User talk:Beroccaboy
Vsmith 13:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Global Warming inevitable? 

message: I reverted the link added because besides not belonging here, it is misleading.  We should try to improve the article and stop misleading the reader. WMC has shown much evidence that scientific concensus on global cooling during the 70s was non-existent.  Scientists made it clear that they were not sure and that they did not have the tools to be sure, etc.  Thus, comparing global warming with global cooling is unfair to the reader.  Brusegadi 16:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Cooling World

message: --- Begin cut container
By far the biggest contributor to the natural greenhouse effect is atmospheric water vapour, which accounts for 98% of the effect seen. Again here there is clear evidence of a feedback mechanism at work, with greater evapo-transpiration rates and greater atmospheric water holding capacity. Some models of climate change miss out the water vapour effect, but although this helps simplify the maths, it leaves the validity of the model in question. The nay-sayers quote this repeatedly, attempting the discredit the climate models , and disprove the anthropogenic origin of the current trends, but it can clearly be demonstrated that human activities are contributing both directly and indirectly to the increased loading of this overwhelmingly important contributor to climate change.
--- End cut continer  --Rednblu 21:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "It is wrong from beginning to end," said the Caterpillar decidedly. (Lewis Carroll, Alice In Wonderland)  Don't bother trying to find references to support this stuff.  Raymond Arritt 21:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A simple google search for "greenhouse effect" "atmospheric water vapour" yeilds this which states "Though water vapour is not anthropogenic in origin, it is the most important greenhouse gas" in the first paragraph. —Memotype::T 13:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Further, this states that about 60% of the obvserved greenhouse effect is contributed by water vapor. —Memotype::T 13:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, as already is summarized in the Greenhouse gases article.  Guess I'm not following what point you're trying to make, so it would be helpful if you could clarify. Raymond Arritt 13:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I figured the OP was looking for sources which showed that water vapour was a major contributor to GW... —Memotype::T 22:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, reasonable enough.  A simple link to the Greenhouse gases article would do for that point.  If they want the primary sources, there are a couple of oldish papers by Graeme Stephens that I'd be willing to look up (don't recall the journals off the top of my head). A lot of the other stuff -- "98%...", "some models of climate change miss out the water vapour effect..", etc. -- is either flat wrong or so poorly worded as to be meaningless. Raymond Arritt 22:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cutting an argument for citations to published sources 

message: This seems interesting.  Is it addressed in the article?  How long will it take someone here to vilify him & "discredit" him? --LoudMouth 13:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "In particular, the relationship between global warming and hurricanes is still being debated.  A draft statement by the World Meteorological Organization acknowledges the differing viewpoints on this issue [29]." Have you ever actually read the whole article or do you fear ritual defilement?--Stephan Schulz 14:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this addressed in the article? 

message: I am not sure if this is the right place to present this, but perhaps it would be a good idea to present the facts surrounding the "controversy" over Global Warming.  I myself am quite convinced of Global warming, but to present the anti-warming arguments together with the pro-warming arguments might serve to enlighten those who are uncertain.  I realize this is a political debate more than it is a scientific debate, but perhaps that will be evidenced by the realities at hand. Just my 2 cents. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.184.52.69 (talk • contribs) .
See Global warming controversySkyemoor 10:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Political Controversy

message: I've expanded Rudimann's explanation of neolithic global warming, and separated out the effects of methane and carbon dioxide, as outlined in his Scientific American article.  His argument is based on what he sees as anomalous behaviour in the current interglacial.  As such the previous criticism (which was original research) didn't seem relevant (since Rudimann does not claim that we would be in an ice age without this effect) so I've commented it out for the moment.  If no one objects I'll remove it at a later date.  --Michael C. Price talk 09:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've re-instated the bit you left commented out. I'm not sure how a link to Nature counts as OR. I think this section does need something to point out that most people don't actually believe Ruddiman & found the Schmidt paper William M. Connolley 10:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just knew someone would say that the link isn't OR.  It's not the link that's OR but the stated implication.  Rudimann does not say that we would otherwise be in an ice age (as I previously stated), which was the point of the Nature link being inserted.  --Michael C. Price talk 10:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not really. R says we'd be in an incipient ice age. But the point is about GHG's - R says we need something to explain them (preindustrial). If we were to be in a long interglacial anyway, no explanation is needed William M. Connolley 11:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rudimann says his hypothesis accounts for ~2C rise in temperature whereas an ice age requires 3-4 C drop -- we might well be on the way to an ice age but we wouldn't be in one, as you acknowledge with your use of "incipient".  The Schmidt paper is fine, although it only addressed the methane issue and not the carbon dioxide.  Also I note it does not dispute the correlation between methane and solar radiation levels but only questions the mechanism, which is a much weaker counter argument since the correlation still requires explanation.  The length of the interglacial is not really the issue: it is the anomalous behaviour within the interglacial that needs addressing.  --Michael C. Price talk 10:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The point is about GHG levels. If this would "naturally" be an extended interglacial (as most people seem to think) then there is no need to "explain" non-rising preindustial GHGs William M. Connolley 11:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to read the entire Scientific American article.  The preindustrial GHGs were rising, according to Rudimann, based on ice core data -- that's the issue that needs addressing. --Michael C. Price talk 11:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I've corrected the link format for the graph, which Rudimann reproduces in more detail in the SciAm article, so there's no problem there.  Rudimann explains some of the last 2ky ups and downs in terms of plague outbreaks reducing human population and hence lowering argicultural activity/ increasing forestation.  For a balanced article we need references for a counter view: the Schimdt ref is a good start but the Nature ref one isn't, since it doesn't address Rudimann's hypothesis. I'm quite happy to say that Rudimann's view is a minority view.  --Michael C. Price talk 13:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-industrial global warming? 

message: I do not think that it is appropriate to discuss what global warming MAY do (NB: "Spread of Disease" section in the article).  Rather, it would be more appropriate to discuss the scientific observations made along those lines -- to the extent such observations exist. --The Outhouse Mouse 13:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say its appropriate to mention it, briefly, together with the counterarguments William M. Connolley 19:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spread of Disease?

message: I wonder if it would be possible to have Messrs Connolley & Schulz develop a rule for what they believe appropriate links are so there will be no confusion over this issue. --The Outhouse Mouse 19:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There can be no fixed rules. But as a general principle, these links need to be pruned fairly regularly as people add them rather at random. So the links have to be those few that are really important to (the science of) global warming. Individual states committees would rarely be appropriate, particularly if they haven't done very much William M. Connolley 19:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who makes those determinations? --The Outhouse Mouse 19:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its the same as any other wiki-thing - consensus does. But you'll find that talking about any particular link you want in is better than reverting it back in William M. Connolley 19:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Appropriate Links

message: Raul654 made the following comment when deleting one of my edits (NB: it was a link to the homepage of the US Senate Environment & Public Works Committee): "...the EPA is interested in the real facts and isn't funded by the gas indutstry, unlike half the enviromental committeee."  I cite this as a prime example of his bias. --The Outhouse Mouse 19:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he's done a good job by deleting your POV. Hardern 07:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you can explain to me how a link to a Senate committe -- not a Senator's own -- homepage is POV; especially when that committee has oversight of agencies such as the EPA. --The Outhouse Mouse 14:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to imply that Senate committees are nonpartisan. Such a notion would surprise a lot of people, not least the senators themselves. Raymond Arritt 14:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Editorial Bias

message: Guys, I don't even take a stance on this issue, but removing the  template is absolutely ridiculous. Someone (and in fact, several someones) happen to think that the article has a bias, and that needs to show at the top. This issue shouldn't even be up for discussion. Is your opinion of the article show fragile that it will be hurt because someone's claims that it's not a neutral point of view? I don't even care if you add all sides in, but the  needs to stay. -Patstuart 18:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If a significant number of significant contributors wanted it, it would stay. As it is, adding it is just trouble making. Adding the POV tag doesn't help anyone. There is no policy that says that a POV tag, once added, needs to stay until everyone is happy for it to be removed: for the obvious reason: it lets people hold the article to ransom William M. Connolley 18:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who decides who is "significant"? --The Outhouse Mouse 18:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: More relevantly, if there was any substantial discussion on talk (as promissed by the template), I'd be happy to leave it in until the issue is resolved. --Stephan Schulz 18:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who decides what discussion is substantial? --The Outhouse Mouse 18:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If the article represents the best research available and a wide consensus of scientists in relevant domains, then a POV label would be pointless.  Persons can always contribute to Global warming controversy.  Skyemoor 18:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I've talked to many scientists on the issue, and while they think the link is probable, very few maintain it is certain. And, at the risk of maligning and annoying some, I'm not even talking about evolution, which is a set science. But this debate is certainly not over. Could a POV tag really hurt that much? Thanks. -Patstuart 19:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Evolution???  What does that have to do with anything???  Ohh, I see...you are from the US. Brusegadi 23:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Did you talk to these scientists by chance?  Skyemoor 19:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being a scientist myself, I can tell you that that there is no certainty outside mathematics. Scientists use tentative language because they are aware of the tentative nature of science. Newton's law of gravity is wrong, we know that either General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics (or both) are wrong, but we still use these laws every day, e.g. for ballistics, GPS, and computer chips, and often to "prove" things "beyond reasonable doubt". In the same way, we have a high degree of certainty about the core findings of global warming theory, but we have not, and likely will never have, absolute certainty. --Stephan Schulz 20:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: But the contents is not volatile. Indeed, this article has been rather stable for the last few months. It also not seriously disputed. Your comments are, seriously, nothing serious. "We should rewrite this whole featured article confusing the established science with stuff not even Crichton claims anymore" (or words to that effect) is neither useful nor compelling. If you are unhappy with the state of the article, do the research to improve it. Of course, if you do it honestly (which I assume) and well (which I rather doubt), you will come to the conclusion that the current state is just fine...--Stephan Schulz 16:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, the original sources seems to be here. At least this one links to the original sources - two things that look like more or less ordinary blog entries by ordinary weenies. What does that have to do with the science or the debate? --Stephan Schulz 20:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of POV template 

message: *Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
--Jayson Virissimo 02:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extra Information and Sources 

message: I tried to claim there was uncertainty, I was shot down; I claimed there is a debate about whether there is uncertainty, I was yelled at; now I claim there is a dispute about whether there is a debate about the uncertainty, and I hope at least this I shall be granted.Nufacion 09:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted. Your last "attempt" at this page was 9 days ago - hardly an active contribution. It was  and it was absurd. You added "There's an active dispute on whether global warming of other planets should be referred to in this opening. See the talk page" as a comment - no such "active" debate exists. You added "purported" to "observed increase" - this too is absurd, since only the wild fringes dispute that the temperature has actually gone up. In the middle of the *scientifc* intro you added Still, many digress and believe that the "threat" of global warming is merely a tool of environmental agencies to gain funding for their research and frighten the world into yielding them political and economic power. - is it any surprise you get reverted? If you want to try to add seriously to the science, you'd be welcome. If you're just dumping your own POV in and raiding tags, you're not William M. Connolley 10:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Nucacion made questionable assertions that he could not back up, then he simply left the debate.  If he wants to achieve acceptance of his points, then he needs to sufficiently support them.  Skyemoor 10:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not "questionable" but flat wrong.  For example, charitably allowing that his "60 particles per million" increase was a typo for parts per million, the actual increase of CO2 since the pre-industrial era is nearly double his value (about 110 ppm). Most of his other contributions shared this level of scientific rigor. Raymond Arritt 13:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   Also, the circular logic is a bit strange (read, confusing).  Debating about a debate about a debate about a debate...  The only thing that can be achieved with that is the confusion of those who are new to our talk page.  If you are reading this, and got confused by that, I advice you to simply ignore it.  Brusegadi 17:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: I haven't been active on this page for a while now (I occasionally revert vandalism, not much else) and I'm a bit disappointed it seems to have deteriorated. In fact, I'm pretty tempted to take it to WP:FAR. Reasons: the lead needs quite a bit of work to conform to WP:LEAD, using direct external links as refs makes it look extremely unprofessional (meta:cite would be much better), several of the sub-sections under Predicted effects are stubby, as are those under Other related issues. Mikker (...) 18:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Direct links was thrashed to death during the FAC discussion so is irrelevant. The lead section is largely unchanged since it became a FA so I can't see that as important (or so I thought... actually its been shuffled around a bit ; but most of the rest is largely unchanged). The "relation to" sections are deliberately short William M. Connolley 19:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fully aware WIAFA doesn't require inline cites to be in any particular format, but suggesting having external links for cites is "irrelevant" is going a bit too far IMO. The article would look much better and be far more usable were the meta:cite template used. Secondly, I'm not much concerned whether the lead has changed or not, I'm concerned that, as it stands, it is not adequate. (maybe this point slipped past people of FAC). Lastly, are section stubs a good idea? Either the info should be included (in which case it should be done properly) or it shouldn't be (in which case it should be deleted)... Mikker (...) 21:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The FA process was fairly thorough, I don't think that would "slip past". As the diff shows, this article hasn't changed much since FA, si I don't see any grounds for de-listing. I find inline refs more usable than refs; I don't understand your point about section stubs. These are things that often come up; they need brief coverage here but are more fully done elsewhere. What exactly are you referring to? William M. Connolley 22:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I think I didn't make myself clear then. I'm not suggesting the article ought to be FARC-ed, I'm saying it should be fixed. The FAR process (it's fairly new) is designed to "facilitate a range of improvements to FAs, from updating and relatively light editing—including the checking of references and their formatting—to addressing more involved issues" (See WP:FAR). I'm not suggesting GW is bad enough to be delisted, I'm saying it's bad enough to need some improvement. I'm fairly regularly on FAC & I'd most certainly vote (weak) oppose to GW on its lead and I'm referring to sections containing only a couple of sentences... Mikker (...) 00:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this FAC quality? 

message: User: 64.201.7.190 has added a merge tag to suggest merging climate change with global warming without any discussion. The merge suggestion also does not seem to be listed at  Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. I don't think this suggestion has any merrit - one article deals with climate change in general, the other one with the ongoing episode of (mostly) GHG driven global warming. Unless there is significant support, I'm going to remove the tags. --Stephan Schulz 22:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kill! William M. Connolley 22:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, agreed. Mikker (...) 22:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, right. But I normally prefer to hand out some rope for self-hanging. Thanks for getting rid of this.... --Stephan Schulz 08:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Climate change]] 

message: Larry Sanger, as most everyone knows, is one of the original founders of Wikipedia.  When asked about Wikipedia, he had this to say: "The latest articles don't represent a consensus view - they tend to become what the most persistent 'posters' say." Daily Mail article
: So much for all the skeptics who claim this article over-represents the "consensus" - now we have n less than Larry S to say otherwise ;-) William M. Connolley 17:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Quite to the contrary, Sanger's quote supports the skeptical contention that this article misrepresents the existence of a consensus view. 130.36.62.140 20:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, Sanger left this project because it gives a person with no knowledge and an agenda the same editing powers as a world renowned expert in their field. Politicised topics tend to become wars of persistence. It is to the great credit of WMC, Stephan, and a few others that this article has survived countless attempts to include misinformation. Mostlyharmless 00:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well on the articles I monitor, the "winners" in these "wars" tend to be those who follow NPOV, with a high degree of verability and in articles like this, based on the most up to date science. So I think the system by and large works. But then I might be biased. --Michael Johnson 00:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I won't labour the point, but this serves to express some of my concerns. Mostlyharmless 12:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote from Larry Sanger 

message: This  is wrong (its in response to the Svensmark cloud chamber stuff, which doesn't demonstrate it anyway, but...) because the GCRs is just a subset of the solar variation (GCRs themselves don't change; they are modulated by solar variation, which is then supposed to change the clouds William M. Connolley 13:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GCRs 

message: Can somebody please show the difference between the North atlantic drift and the Thermohaline circulation. It appears in the article as if they are the same thing, but I thought they were different. Also, i think more needs to be added to altrnate theories- it is still not completely proven that it is global warming. i think this should be mentioned --Chickenfeed9 12:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  clarification