Talk:Climate change/Archive 26

message: A perusal of the history would appear to show an unfortunate misunderstanding (at best) or perhaps even deliberate abuse (at worst) of the policy regarding revert/undo/rollback/what have you.  The policy is clear: you are not to revert contributions, barring vandalism, except as a last resort.  A revert should be seen as a revolting thing, to be avoided wherever possible.  Prior consensus, sometimes years old and established long before recent editors came on board, does not mean permanent consensus.  Every time a visitor loads an article in their browser, it is born anew and is fertile ground for editing.  That you or I may not like those edits is not grounds for reverting them.  It is grounds for further editing.
I don't think this is a misunderstanding in most cases; WP policy is thrown around quite freely here, which would seem to indicate that it is understood by most.  Therefore, I won't insult anyone by providing links you have already bookmarked.  I also don't think it is abuse in most cases, because I assume good faith.  What I suspect is the most likely scenario is simple laziness; it is easier to revert than to spend several minutes pondering a newly contributed sentence or paragraph, trying to reformulate it in a way that will incorporate it while remaining factual.  If new contributions are suspected to be factually wrong, every effort should be made -- by the editor who is considering a revert -- to determine the veracity of the content.  In other words, just because a new editor adds a sentence but doesn't source it, you should not delete that sentence.  It may be factual, but the unsophisticated editor doesn't understand the need to cite his or her facts.  You, as a sophisticated editor and in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia, should seek ways to incorporate that fresh material, rather than reasons to revert it.
That last bit is key: your instinctive goal should be inclusion, not exclusion.
If, after attempting to verify a statement, you determine that it is indeed unsupported, you should bring it up in talk, so that others (including, hopefully, the original contributor) might have a chance to verify it.  If this also fails, removal is of course justified.  This process seems to rarely take place in the GW article; it would appear that a large percentage of regular editors of this article could use a refresher course on reverting, in particular how and when it is to be used.  Maintaining prior consensus does not apply.
Thanks for your consideration.  --Triple-Deuce 22:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You just reverted the page - are you our kettle for today? --Tjsynkral 01:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that's not quite a revert. ~ UBeR 15:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Is it appropriate to include "few scientists disagree" without any good way to back that few up? --Tjsynkral 16:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did you reinsert the reference if you yourself admit the source does not verify the statement? ~ UBeR 17:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is attributable, but I disagree with the research (or lack thereof) in the opinion article. --Tjsynkral 19:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not even attributable to AMQUA. ~ UBeR 19:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you're saying that the source doesn't hold water, we shouldn't use the word "few" at all. --Tjsynkral 22:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The circle completes itself William M. Connolley 22:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have nothing constructive to contribute, you're free to abscond from the discussion. I rather prefer it if you did. ~ UBeR 22:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  OK, so what do you propose? --Tjsynkral 22:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Terminating this unprofitable discussion and working to improve the article in other ways; failing that, improve other articles or do something else productive William M. Connolley 22:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, having no source is original research. Completely against Wikipedia policy. --Tjsynkral 02:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Misrepresenting sources isn't a policy, sir or madam. ~ UBeR 03:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not flat-out misrepresentation (and your beef is with the GW side on that cite, anyway) - it's just a little flaky. But again, it is better than saying something with no source at all. There are only two acceptable ways for few or small or anything of that sort to appear: 1. with some kind of source to back it up, or 2. not to appear in the article at all. Uncited claims deserve to be deleted on the spot. --Tjsynkral 17:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Widespread misunderstanding of revert policy? 

message: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Study:_Arctic_ice_could_be_gone_by_2020
it states taht there would be no ice left in arctic by 2020.I edited the arctic article but some annoying users always reverts this and says it has no place here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic
manchurian candidate 10:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The models are known to have their worst discrepancies with the observations at high latitudes.  I will keep this study in mind.--Africangenesis 12:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I seem to recall an article I read about arctic circle nations investing somewhat more heavily in surveying and staking claims. I can't recall where I read that though. Does anyone have any sources for this? --Kim Bruning 14:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  why no arctic global warming topic 

message: http://spacegeek.org/ep3_QT.shtml
I was wondering if this video would make a good addition to external links which has no video resources.
It explains GW by comparing Earth to Mars and Venus.
The video is 8 min long and is very good; however, there is an ad at the end of it (for a book).
: Goldilocks and the 3 planets". Heh. That's an interesting introduction to the concept! :)  --Kim Bruning 14:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video explaining Global Warming 

message: Should the exact amount of temperature change at the beginning of this article have a citation?  I'm not pretending to be an expert or even a scientist but I am very interested in Global Warming and I think the efforts made on this page to be methodical and exact are to be applauded.  A citation for this exact amount of temperature change seems indispensable.Markisgreen 05:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are found, as Raul654 said, in the next sentence's citation, which is the IPCC's Summary For Policymakers of their Fourth Assessment Report. A link can be found here (PDF). Cheers. ~ UBeR 05:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read through the report.  Thanks for the link.  I still think the sentence construction is unclear.  Its a minor point I know, just trying to make it more compelling.  Anyway, I see you guys are very involved in this issue and this article so I'll leave it alone.  Keep up the good work.  Sorry for the annoyance.Markisgreen 06:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... how is it unclear? I've read it again and thought it was pretty clear. Any insight would be helpful. Thanks. ~ UBeR 16:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well the only real problem I have with your suggestion is the "consistently increasing temperatures" since there hasn't been much change since 1998. ~ UBeR 08:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no interest in getting into this with skeptics such as Uber who seem unpersuaded by hard facts, other than to state for the record that his statement is incorrect. Arjuna 08:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since 1998, not 1800. Watch (and read) your words more carefully next time. ~ UBeR 08:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You evidently did not bother to check the article I cited, the chart and graph on which demonstrates my point, as intended: post-1998. Arjuna 08:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and the data fully supports my conclusions. Your simple attacks are but unfounded and ignorant polarizations. I ask that you stop. ~ UBeR 09:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amusing. As I said, I had no intention of getting into this with you, and this is my last posting on this thread, whatever you may write in response. Suffice to say that you deliberately pick 1998, which as you well know was a major outlier year (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming), as your arbitrary baseline. This is a well known skeptic tactic of cooking the books. Remove that outlier year and the warming trend is not disputed. But nice try. Arjuna 09:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. Now you see you are diverging from my original point. I don't think anyone disputes that there's been warming since 1999 (I certainly wasn't), so I don't see why you're arguing for it. If you look at the past 10 years though, the trend isn't readily obvious. You can pick the nine warmest years on record (which is what I really did) and you get the same thing. Picking the two warmest years isn't arbitrary. This was simply to say the statement "consistently increasing temperatures" isn't necessarily true, otherwise we'd see a straight line in the anomalies, which we don't obviously. There's a clear upwards trend, but that's quite different. You're attacking something that isn't there, I'm afraid. ~ UBeR 09:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: UBeR, you are cherry-picking (and you know it). So ... there has been consistent warming since 1999 - how about since 1997? (how about every year except 1998?) Picking a particular outlier is cherry-picking. A reasonable approach is to pick 2 years that aren't El Niño anomalies - and then you'll get the nice slow upward trend that Arjuna808 is talking about. Look at the trend - please. --Kim D. Petersen 14:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already recognized the trend. You're arguing for something no one is arguing against. I've already differentiated between consistently increasing and upward trends. Why can't you? ~ UBeR 21:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then i suggest that you explain yourself clearly - instead of making comments like this - which started the whole thing. (imho that one was disruptive then). --Kim D. Petersen 23:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's two things, not one. ~ UBeR 00:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Over the most recent decades, numerous trends have been detected through careful measurement of environmental data suggesting that this phenomenon will continue. - this is wrong: there is no implication that the trends will continue just from what they have done in the past William M. Connolley 08:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, and that. I missed that. ~ UBeR 08:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: What suggests that the trend will continue is the global energy imbalance.  If that continues, the trend will continue, for awhile at least.  But that is a different from mere trend extrapolation.--Africangenesis 14:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, warming is expected even if we discontinue mass CO2 emissions. There's no clear sign that will stop any time soon though, so it's reasonable to expect future warming. ~ UBeR 21:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whose measure of exact temperature change is being used/cited? 

message: I note that Raymond arritt appears to have completely deleted two comments from this Talk page because, in his opinion, they were irrelevant. I thought that was not permitted.
He seems also to have deleted much content from his own Talk page without archiving the content. Again, is that permitted?
Please don't mis-interpret this posting as a criticism of Raymond arritt. I just want to know whether or not such deletions from Talk pages are permitted. - mbeychok 02:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both are permitted. In articles such as this, where many of the comments do not relate to improving the article content, removing irrelevant comments is a necessary way of keeping the size of the talk page down. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: --Akhilleus: Having just read WP:TALK, in the section on "Others' comments", it states Editing others' comments is not allowed. Exceptions are: ... and the following list of exceptions does not include irrelevancy as an exception. Are you sure that we are permitted to unilaterally judge someone else's Talk comment to be irrelevant and then delete it? - mbeychok 02:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have been told that deletions from talk pages are not permitted. I can understand if major vandalism or abuse is removed. Does anyone have a link to the relevant policy? rossnixon 02:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally what he did is frowned upon.  We don't want edit wars on talk pages.  Complete irrelevancies such as trolling or personal discussions are generally OK to delete.  Whether what he deleted was irrelevant was a judgement call, so probably should not have been done, I didn't feel strongly about it, but I will feel strongly if he insists upon these particular deletions, if someone restores them.--Africangenesis 02:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Talk pages should be reserved for discussing the article and how to improve them, NOT the topic of the article. See, e.g., . WP:TALK is a guideline that suggest we should discuss how to improve the article. Whether the two threads deleted by Dr. Arritt were just that or "irrelevant" is up for discussion. The key line I think we're looking for is the following, "Keep on topic: Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." P.S. there is no rule that states you have to archive your user talk page. ~ UBeR 03:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to explain my reasoning here, but Akhilleus and UBeR have already done so. It's hard enough to follow all the threads on this page without stuff like "WOW the size of california melted in antartica in 2005." But if community consensus is that anything goes, I'll not oppose it. Raymond Arritt 03:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the interpretation should be generous.  Science that may eventually make it into the article or help reach or change the consensus of the article should be open for discussion.  Dicussion should not always have to be about a proposed change.--Africangenesis 04:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I follow Africangenesis and RonCram, and thus disagree with Uber and Akhilleus. Relevancy is a subjective judgment call. From the moment that you give discretion to anyone to delete talk pages because they find comments irrelevnat, you open the floodgates to arbitrary deletions and edit wars. None here, not even Mr. Arritt, holds the truth about what is relevant or not, or is exempt from subjective bias, or can always guess what may come out from a discussion that seemed irrelevant at its early stage. Except for the obvious, deleting talk pages can reasonably be construed as forbidden by WP policies, for good reason. --Childhood's End 14:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, "Whether the two threads deleted by Dr. Arritt were just that or 'irrelevant' is up for discussion." I was merely answering the question of whether or not Wikipedia allows deletion of content from talk  pages. ~ UBeR 18:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I thought that Wikipedia policy does not allow deletion of content from Talk pages. 

message: I am more then sure that a few of the posters here have a zealous desire for proving Global Warming as being through and through fact, but there are just to many flaws right now for it to be considered as such.
With that in mind I tried to read this whole article without trying to express my own opinion but when I see right off the bat that it is stated that only a few scientists, most being un-credible, think that it is false is just outright false and more annoying then anything else. A large number of scientist (mainly prior supporters or (in some cases) some of the origional founders of the theory) have now left the alarmist camp and are now saying that Global Warming has now been greatly exagerated. It is not just a 95% majority in the scientific community that believes in Global Warming, it is closer to 60%-75%. Saying things like "a few" and "uncredited" scientists gives the impression that if you believe Global Warming is a misinterpentation of the facts then you must either be on your own or stupid, or both. To say such things is not only ignorant, but biased. --Joshic Shin 21:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you re-read it and pay special attention to the sources used. Also check scientific opinion on climate change. This article is well-supported, while your claims seem to be without any source. And scientific theories are not "proven" is a strict sense, although many may well be considered "fact" in an every day meaning. --Stephan Schulz 21:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect Joshic, your statements are vastly exaggerated, incorrect, and contrived beyond belief. A strong and notable majority of the relevant scientific community firmly believe that global warming is real and that humans are an integral part of why it is happening.UberCryxic 22:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well, I shall cite sources for you to read.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200702/CUL20070208c.html has an article talking about how many climatoligists are having their jobs threatened if they do not go with the consensus.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id= talks about several prominit scientists who were once alarmist and are now critics. A very intresting person to note in this article is Dr. Claude Allegre, one of the first to sound off on Global Warming. (The person I was refrering to earlier)
*You do realize that this article was authored by Marc Morano and posted to the blog of James "Global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" Inhofe, right? And that those two people don't exactly make the most objective sources of Global-warming related information. Raul654 03:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the objective, neutral and authoritative sources.  Raymond Arritt 03:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased or Lacking Evidence in Article 

message: Spotts, P. (May 22, 2007) "Global carbon emissions in overdrive" Christian Science Monitor
:CO2 emissions from cars, factories, and power plants grew at an annual rate of 1.1 percent during the 1990s.... But from 2000 to 2004, CO2 emissions rates almost tripled to 3 percent a year – higher than any rate used in emissions scenarios for the reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)....
75.18.208.222 17:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's good news. Unfortunately, as science has found, CO2 has a diminishing influence on temperature. The curve rapidly tails off once you get a bit past 150ppm. rossnixon 02:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not good news! ~ UBeR 02:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CO<sub>2</sub> emissions 2000-04 worse than IPCC worst-case scenario 

message: Quote from article:
:On the much-debated topic of global warming, Colorado State University's Scott Denning called the Wikipedia entry "a great primer on the subject, suitable for just the kinds of use one might put to a traditional encyclopedia. Following the links takes the interested reader into greater and greater depth, probably further than any traditional encyclopedia I've seen," said Denning, the Monfort Professor of Atmospheric Science.
:Denning said he was pleasantly surprised how the main articles "stick to the science and avoid confusing the reader with political controversy." Students who want to study up on the controversy, however, find plenty of links if they want them. Denning wishes Wikipedia offered better links to basic weather science. "Apparently there is still a role for real textbooks and professors!" he said. 
--BMF81 18:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. This is a few weeks old, and was duly noted back then. ~ UBeR 02:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External review 

message: Novel ways to decarbonize our economies need to be discussed because this promotes more efficient use of fossil fuels and  lower amounts of all atmospheric pollutants including greenhouse gases.  There are a variety of ways  to finance the decarbonization process.  Please see the entry "Global Premium Carbon Bonds".  I would like the following statement added to the "Mitigation and Adaptation" section of the Global Warming page at the end of the discussion of emissions trading:   The market for tradeable carbon economic instruments will be in the hundreds of billions within years.  A novel approach to carbon financing is through Global Premium Carbon Bonds.
Jimmyookpik 00:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must respectfully disagree. What might seem novel to one person might be complete rubbish to another. Without a reliable source (which unfortunately is not much because of some people), I doubt you'll be able to get anything included. ~ UBeR 02:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats strange advice/text UBeR since you know that it doesn't belong on this page, both because it would be undue weight here - but mostly because it belongs on the Mitigation of global warming page. (what does "some people" mean?) --Kim D. Petersen 05:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's strange advice at all. It's been Wikipedia's policy since the get-go. If you don't have verifiable or reliable sources for information, it cannot be included in an article. And by some people I mean people who arbitrarily and foolishly felt it prudent and acceptable to use shoddy sources for scientific material in this article, despite a fairly long and logical de facto trend that was just opposite of that for this grandiose article. ~ UBeR 06:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Uber. Arjuna 04:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: First discuss this on the Mitigation article; the section here is a summary of that article. Once (and if) included, then if it is appropriate at a summary level, it can be included in this article's Mitigation summary section.  --Skyemoor 19:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For some useful details on this topic, try this search  for the phrase "Global Premium Carbon Bonds." Raymond Arritt 19:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global Premium Carbon Bonds 

message: What is the point of all these "TEXT" comments?  johnpseudo 16:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed those and assumed they're a workaround to get the graphs to align properly on the right. Anyone know for certain? Raymond Arritt 16:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: They are to make the editing of the source easier.  The source is pretty hard to read with the long references interleaved.  By placing the text macro at the end of a reference, before starting the text of the article again, we can separate the text at the beginning of a line, yet still have it separated from the preceding paragraph flow by only a space.  Note that for references at the end of a paragraph, there is no need for the text macro.  It is only needed for references in the middle of a paragraph.  It makes finding where the text of a paragraph picks up again, easier.  BTW, I don't know for "certain", I've only inferred this from usage.  It works and it helps if we adopt this practice. --Africangenesis 16:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If find the the "text macros" rather unhelpful and perhaps a bit worse than before. ~ UBeR 08:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes using and sometimes removing them is making diffs rather hard to read.  I went ahead and removed them since that seemed they were inconsistently used and removal seemed to be the direction folks were leaning here.  I don't think they are a big deal, although I too lean against their use.  --TeaDrinker 07:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You and UBeR form a consensus?  The prior state was that they were sometimes used and sometimes not.  I upgraded it to fully consistent use, until UBeR did a piecemeal removal.  BTW, they are not really macros, just comments labeled in such a way that makes their mere formatting use consistent.  Perhaps if we went through and made the citation formats into a consistent one field per line, we could achieve the same effect of making finding the text easier.  I am just surprised that you two cannot adjust.  I didn't introduce the text, I just made it consistent. --Africangenesis 10:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't misunderstand, I have no strong feelings either way.  Thanks for taking the time to reformat the citations.  My primary concern was having people revert to versions which used them differently. Since your version prior to my removing the hidden text did not use them, and Arjuna808's revert re-introduced them, I thought it would be reasonable (and uncontroversial) to simpy remove them from Arjuna808's version.  Let me know if there is more I can do to address our concerns.  -TeaDrinker 17:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanx, I think it was all for the best, because just formating the citations is cleaner.  I'm learning this as I'm going along.  I don't know who came up with the text idea, but we need some kind of formating to help with the citations so tightly interleaved with the text.--Africangenesis 18:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text Macros? 

message: I have added the roesch and stroeve cites, showing all the AR4 models getting the surface albedo and ice-albedo feedbacks wrong.  Arritt has done a revert of properly cited material that has been discussed.  He should assume good faith.  He assumed these would be non-consensus, when the community has not evaluated them.  If the community is  intellectually honest (I am assuming good faith), they will have no problem with these additions.  I am open to having them either in the intro or in the model section, but they should be with the projection numbers so they are in proper perspective.--Africangenesis 21:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be rather contradictory of WP:BOLD to have request permission to add content every time. ~ UBeR 22:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a point where WP:BOLD runs head on into WP:TEND.  Raymond Arritt 02:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As Africangenesis surely knows, such large, substantive changes should be properly discussed first. Although some/many/all (?) of Africangenesis' edits may be perfectly acceptable, given the complex nature of the material, in order to continue to assume good faith, incremental changes, rather than such large-scale revisions, should be the approach here. I second Arritt's comments. Arjuna 03:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The changes would not have seemed large scale in the diffs if UbER had not shifted the material into the model section.  The material added was neither bold nor tendacious, it was cite material that had been discussed here above and in the material just archived.  No one has pointed out any problems with the cites.--Africangenesis 10:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only content change I made was moving Africangensis' new content to the "Climate models" section, which was something like two sentences. ~ UBeR 21:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In one edit  You moved text, deleted several text "macros" and lost the "increased warming feedback" footnote, which is why in a subsequent edit summary I asked "UbER, you deleted a footnote, I'm restoring, can you check your work to make sure you didn't delete anything else? -- thanx" It is easier for  you and others to check your work if you do it in simple parts.  Separate text moves, from macro deletions, from footnote deletions.  It is also the reason substantive contributions should not be immediately removed.  The full edit may still be in progress, being done in parts to make it easier for the community to follow.--Africangenesis 10:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what I did. I moved you text to climate models section, where it belongs (I actually suggest you begin working at the article titled climate model). I also deleted your note you were using as a reference. You're free to make a notes section if it really warrants it. I deleted the text macros, but like I said, it wasn't a content change. ~ UBeR 17:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You did not disclose the deletion of the note, there are other notes in the reference section.--Africangenesis 21:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where? ~ UBeR 06:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad.  It must have been on a different article.  Deleting a note is still a content change.--Africangenesis 12:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  assume good faith 

message: I have just completed a section of citation formatting for readability and ease of finding the end of a citation.  I know it make the differences look screwy, so I took care to do all the formmatting at once,without any other edits for a one time transition.  The formatting takes advantage of two characteristics. 
* Within references, we can have a space at the beginning of a line, and within the text we cannot. So I leave the ref at the end of the text and begin the first line of the reference with a space.
* Paragraph spacing requires two newlines.  Therefore, at the end of ref, which is a /ref, we can have the /ref on a line by itself.  The text can resume at the very beginning of the next line
Therefore we can find the next ref by looking for the <space> at the beginning of a line.  We can find where the text resumes by finding the /ref by itself on a line, and the very next line is the resumption of the text.  The only exception is where there are two references in a row, in that case, I put the /ref and the new ref on the same line, and then also make sure to being the next line of the new ref with a space as usually.
I do NOT suggest that we enforce this on editors, just that we fix it, for our own benefit when we see it.   -- regards,--Africangenesis 14:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a horrible idea, in my honest opinion. It was fine as is (i.e. before the "text macros"). ~ UBeR 21:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And actually, looking at it now, it's even harder to read! ~ UBeR 22:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you should share your techniques, how is having to only look for markers the beginning of lines, "harder" than having to search through blocks of text for the markers?--Africangenesis 10:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because looking at a properly formatted article for long enough, you're used to the proper format. It's quite a bit more difficult looking at sentences that break after each full stop. Could you imagine writing a paper with a break after each sentence? Probably not, so there's no reason to with this article, which hundreds of people seemed to edit just fine, except for you. ~ UBeR 17:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  citation formatting completed 

message: Regarding the holocene maximum (which occured approximately 6000 years ago); how come there is no mention of this in the current article? It seems like a very significant piece of information in relation to global warming, and there already exist other graphs in the article which deal with time periods before the holocene maximum. Perhaps some mention of this, plus this image may improve the article? --Rebroad 15:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The holocene maximum has little relation to present global warming. See e.g., this reference. As an aside your graph looks like it was taken from The Great Global Warming Swindle, which cannot be relied upon for factual information. Raymond Arritt 15:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Raymond, thanks for the link, but unfortunately it's rather too much to read. Fancy quoting the relevant section please? Many thanks, --Rebroad 16:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps a more up to date image using a wider range of more recent reconstructions from diverse sources would be better than the outdated chart that was picked up and re-used for The Great Global Warming Swindle. You'll note that exact temperature reconstruction over this time range is sketchy, but averaging globally over the various local proxy records gives a relatively low Holocene maximum, with which modern temperatures (2004 is labelled in the chart) are on par with. It also shows how current warming compares with the general trend of the last 6000 years. -- Leland McInnes 15:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Rebroad, The Great Global Warming Swindle doesn't exactly have a good record on graphs. At least two of those shown in the movie where either fakes or manipulated. (see the article). The graph "might" be from the IPCC - but in that case its from a very old report, at a time where the proxy evidence was rather small. Arritt might chime in on this. --Kim D. Petersen 16:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not certain but I think it's a schematic cartoon from the first IPCC report back in 1990. It's not based on data as such, but is more of a conceptual illustration that "we believe this is roughly what the temperature record looked like since the last glacial maximum."  (Notice how smooth the curve is. Real geophysical data tend to be noisy.) One might ask why TGGWS didn't use a modern reconstruction but chose to use an obsolete graph that -- by pure coincidence, of course -- happened to support the point they were arguing.  Raymond Arritt 17:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Holocene maximum]]