Talk:Climate change/Archive 21

message: *t = temperature: as in global t's (global temperatures) 
*ppm = parts per million: describes gas concentration. 300 ppm = 300 / 1,000,000 = 0.0003 = 0.03 percent
*kyr = kiloyear = 1,000 years
*IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
*GISS = Goddard Institute for Space Studies
*HadCRUT3 = "a gridded dataset of global historical surface temperature anomalies. Data are available for each month since January 1850, on a 5 degree grid." 
*FOIA = Freedom of Information Act (United States)
*NSF = National Science Foundation
Turn off that bot! --Uncle Ed 15:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Purpose? Most, if not all, are already explained the article. The rest are used on this talk page, not the mainspace. ~ UBeR 16:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For quick reference. I'm an old geezer, and I can't remember things like HadCRUT3, GISS, kyr and Dr. C's ideosyncratic use of t's even though they are all fresh in my mind at the moment. --Uncle Ed 18:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Abbreviations used on this page

message: Without having to read the all of the talk below you can see at the very top of this page that this section presents a completely warped and biased point of view. The graph to the upper right of the page is labeled Global mean surface temperatures from 1850 to 2006 and shows a huge increase over the last 20 years. However the index is labeled temperature Anomaly with a spread of -.6 to +.6 C. Which is it? To a high school student it looks like global temperatures are increasing wildly which is I'm sure the point of view that the hysterics would like to convey. Either show a graph with actual temperatures for that time period or label it correctly to negate the clear slant in POV. (This unsigned comment was added by User:Showman60)
: I noticed that too. I think :Image:Climatechange.png would be a more proper depiction of the temperature change. --Tjsynkral 20:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed text changes

message: This page is permanently semi-protected against vandalism (its open for debate if you must but it seems to be useful). I've just protected it against moves, since it seems to have suffered a few pointless moves recently and I can't see any reason to move it in the future. But if anyone cares to object, please do William M. Connolley 21:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems warranted enough by the recent move activity. Skyemoor 19:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is 176 kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage. See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page for guidance. --Uncle Ed 19:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to ask User:UBeR to do this, as he has past experience in moving to archives (and he carried out the move a competent and evenhanded way). Raymond Arritt 19:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the talk page is locked? As far as I can tell, archiving old discussion should still be possible. I think he block is only from moving the main article. ~ UBeR 19:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ambiguous antecedents. The first "this page" referred to the main page; Ed's "this page" referred to Talk. At least I think so... Raymond Arritt 20:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant it's okay to semiprotect Global warming. --Uncle Ed 20:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not think the main page should be semi-protected from editing. IP vandals are not such a big nuisance and easy to revert quickly. A move protect is fine, because there isn't any foreseeable reason to move the page. I've decided archiving the talk page during the start every month (of course leaving ongoing discussions) will probably work well. ~ UBeR 21:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On such a politically charged scientific topic, semi-prot makes perfect sense; if people want to make edits, then it would be better forthem to do so with full attribution, keeping the article churn down to a dull roar.  Skyemoor 22:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protect (and move) 

message: I have been asked to provide an authoritative source for a definition of the term that excludes the sense of recency.  So here it is. 
An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change. --The American Heritage Dictionary, 2004 edition. --Blue Tie 03:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: global warming: an increase in the earth's average atmospheric temperature that causes corresponding changes in climate and that may result from the greenhouse effect. Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. --Skyemoor 09:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: global warming:  An increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase great enough to cause changes in the global climate. The Earth has experienced numerous episodes of global warming through its history, and currently appears to be undergoing such warming. The present warming is generally attributed to an increase in the greenhouse effect , brought about by increased levels of greenhouse gases, largely due to the effects of human industry and agriculture. Expected long-term effects of current global warming are rising sea levels, flooding, melting of polar ice caps and glaciers, fluctuations in temperature and precipitation, more frequent and stronger El Niños and La Niñas, drought, heat waves, and forest fires. See more at greenhouse effect. The American Heritage Science Dictionary. --Skyemoor 09:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: An Authoritative Source for Non-Recent Definition of Global Warming

message: Per Raymond Arritt's request above, I opened a new section.
One of the criticisms of wikipedia is that articles are created and edited "piecemeal" and as a result they lose a sense of consistency and cohesiveness.  In addition, the overall structure is sometimes a bit hodge-podge.  This may be true here.  I believe that the whole article could be improved, not so much by re-writing as by re-organizing the current content and then filling in holes or (in a few cases) deleting extraneous material or moving it to a better page.  A HUGE amount of good work has gone into this already.  But perhaps a reorganization would help.  I have noticed in other articles that go through this process that some huge holes emerge that were previously overlooked. And a re-organizatation may be an appropriate improvement for a "top 100" article as I understand that this is. 
I would see a re-organization along the lines of:
*Introduction (Summary)
*What Global Warming is (and how it comes about)
**Factors that may produce Global Warming (The science of how it works)
***Greenhouse gases
***Solar Radiation
***etc?
**Factors that may mitigate Global Warming (The science of how it is reduced)
***Aerosols
***Volcanism & Disasters
***Clouds and Albedo
***etc?
*How Global Warming is Studied (and the history of its studies)
**Historical Global Temperature Studies 
**The (alleged) role of civilization on Global Temperature Variation
**Projections of Global Temperatures
*Possible effects of higher temperatures on other Climate and Environment factors
*Debates over Global Warming, forecasts and actions
**An explanation of the difficulty in developing and interpreting evidence
**Debates over the existance of the phenomenon
**Debates over the role of man in the phenomenon
**Debates over climate forecasts
**Debates over efforts to mitigate anticipated warming
Where there are separate articles that cover these sections, they should be summarized reasonably and linked.  The introduction should summarize these sections and should be written both first and then scrapped and re-written over again after everything is consolidated. 
In short, rather than just revise the opening, I think that the whole article could be re-organized and then the opening re-written.
But, having said that, I have previously provided an opening that might work with the article as it is.  I will reproduce my prior efforts, with any changes that seem right, below. --Blue Tie 18:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discusson on Copy editing

message: I have read an accusation that I did 5rr.  To be honest, I am unaware of violations of the 3rr rule, but if I did that, it was wrong and unfair to others.  It is possible that a lack of good understanding of the rule may have contributed to my error. I have not deeply studied it, I do not typically review it to accuse others and thus, and I have never run afoul of it before. So, I may not have it well entrenched in my mind.  However, I tried to avoid reverting the same passage or subject more than twice.  Perhaps I lost count.  In any case, if I did conduct myself badly in that regard (and some people are sure I did so particularly to them):
::::::::I apologize to all for such bad behavior 
in advance prior to being blocked for some period. --Blue Tie 12:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blue Tie, Thank you, that's fine. You should read WP:3RR for reference, and try not to revert the same article repeatedly at all (which is edit warring) certainly no more than 3 times in 24 hours. As it happens the "block" rule exists to protect articles not as a vengence or anything so once the article was protected you got off without a block. --BozMo talk 13:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have apologized to each person that I may have injured individually.  I am taking myself out of editing for 24 hours from the time it was reported, because I do not want it to be a matter of a technicality.  But I also sinned ignorantly.  I had read 3rr some time ago, but it has changed and is clearer now. Gotta run --Blue Tie 14:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Apology to all

message: Sorry to add more fat to the fire, but I have just one question. Is it possible to add a section for "Arguments against global warming"? it would give a valid outlet to many skeptics here, and also for many of the extended discussions on this talk page. Does that sound good to people here? --Sm8900 14:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This still raises problems with WP:Undue weight also with the fact there is a lot of different uncertainty about Global Warming and many parts to it. At present there is a whole article Global Warming controversy which maps out the debate and is linked too. --BozMo talk 15:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like a bad idea. ~ UBeR 19:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Uber. I appreciate your feedback. However, sorry, but I thought you were a global warming skeptic? I'm not trying to be a smart-aleck here, just actually curious. Do you oppose that section on formatting grounds, or because of something else? thanks. --Sm8900 20:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain why Undue weight would apply in this case. Are we saying, on such a controversial topic, that to give the many views which dispute Global warming would be undue weight? Who decided Global warming as described by scientists, who say themselves they are only 90% sure, is THE VIEW, and all others are peripheral? Judgesurreal777 21:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would there be any requirement that the arguments against be published in an academic journal, or would an off-the-cuff remark on a TV show or newspaper editorial suffice? Raymond Arritt 21:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Undue weight would apply because of the dearth of a significant minority of climate scientists opposing AGW.  Perhaps you would want to visit Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.  Political or PR controversy is not the same as scientific controversy. -- Skyemoor 00:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: One idea: "argurments against global warming"

message: :The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 and was first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. It is the process by which emission of infrared radiation by atmospheric gases warms a planet's surface. On Earth, the major natural greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect (not including clouds); carbon dioxide, which causes 9-26%; methane, which causes 4-9%, and ozone, which causes 3-7%.
This needs citations--I assume this comes from the IPCC  Puddytang 02:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 31% and 149% respectively above pre-industrial levels since 1750. If this data goes back to 1750, why does our only graph only go back to 1960?  Puddytang 02:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because near-real-time measurements that show seasonal oscillations (see the figure caption) only go back to 1957. Measurements before then did not resolve seasonal fluctuations. Raymond Arritt 02:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: propose that solar forcing accounts for 16% or 36% of recent greenhouse warming.[27]
The use of the word greenhouse here is obviously a mistake.  Puddytang 02:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch!  Remember that when the article is unprotected. Raymond Arritt 02:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, its correct - see the reference. It doesn't need cites because those are in the GHE article William M. Connolley 09:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, I see its in Stott&Co, but what do they mean? Do they say GH warming is X, and solar is an extra 16% to 36% of X? That would make solar smaller (at most it contributes abour 25% to the combined warming). Or did they confuse the terms and solaar is 15% to 36% of the combined warming? The second is what most people so far have assumed... --Stephan Schulz 09:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  They claculate the warming from various forcings. Solar is then 16-whatever of the pure GHG warming; the pure GHG warming is larger than the observed warming William M. Connolley 10:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Greenhouse may be "correct" as the way used in the reference, but it could be restated for clarity to the novice - perhaps: recent warming due to the greenhouse effect. Those not used to the jargon need clarification. As for the uncertainties in meaning pointed out by Stephan - that possible confusion is more important and may need further clarification in the article. Vsmith 10:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs cites 

message: "There is a debate over the wetness of water" 
"There are scientists with published papers demonstrating that water is wet.  Other scientists have published papers describing it as dry and gritty".
::<I couldn't help myself> Some scientists content that at some temperatures ice is dry!Mike 16:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ignore the weight

message: "Weasel wording by proxy" is when we quote an authority that uses the weasel word.  It may result in disputations on the article, but at least it is a verifiable statement.  
When we use this approach, we should take pains to specifically ascribe the weasely opinion to the quoted source, in the article.  Otherwise it becomes wikipedia making a claim rather than reporting a claim someone else makes.  
For example we might write: "The Institute for Scientific Conundrums (ISC) says that many scientists in water research question the findings of other scientists".  Whether "many" scientists actually do question the findings of others or only a "few" do, is now irrelevant.  All that matters is that someone has said so (and we know who it was).  On the other hand, if we write:  "Many scientists disagree with one another", based upon that ISC statement, now we have not only engaged in synthesis but instead of reporting a point of view, we have now adopted a specific point of view as though it were true.  At that time the article becomes biased, even if we cite our source. 
As before, it is not a good thing to rely on weasel words by proxy -- it probably leads to arguments.  But at least it meets wikipedia standards and requirements.
*Aye! ~ UBeR 21:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel words by proxy

message: How's this as a proposed new section? [this is only sample text, not the actual listings. 
'Current positions
NOAA - issued report dated ____ stating global warming is manmade.
IPCC - Major UN Group, stated that global arming is "likely manmade."
EPA issued report dated___ that warming is manmade. 
Freedom Foundation - issued statement that global warming is a natural cycle, dated ____/ 
what do people think? see you. --Sm8900 19:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, no. ~ UBeR 21:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible solution

message: DONE WITH THIS POLL. Now we know approximately where everyone stands, WRT consensus. It looks like there's still a small amount of work to be done, but the discussion seems resolvable. 
This is not to discuss other options it is to resolve the edit war which led to the article being protected. It is a featured article and has been protected too long. I won't vote. Please vote below. 24 hours: usual WP rules on deciding votes (no canvassing, only established editors, I won't vote but I'll close. --BozMo talk 08:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Convenience means nothing to policy. It might be convenient to not follow policy, but that still isn't the best option. ~ UBeR 02:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This comment brings up another problem with the pole: They don't know what exactly they're voting for or for what reason. ~ UBeR 06:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Uber seems right. if there is a valid source, I see no reason to not use it. --Sm8900 18:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: UBeR is often right. I don't quite get the proposal here though. Personally I am a big reluctant to turn particularly the introduction into a patchwork of sources (the convention in papers is not to give references in abstracts: I think it helps a lot not to cite in the intro provided everything in it is substantiated with references later). It would be very hard to get it to read well that way.--BozMo talk 19:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is not much problem with having numerous refernces and citations. For an example, see this article. --Sm8900 19:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or this one. You see, BozMo, one of the wonders of Wikipedia is that it is not a paper encyclopedia nor is it a scientific paper to be published in a journal. If this article is to be used as a "gold standard" as one observer proclaimed, then it should stand against the toughest scrutiny. While I agree, an overload of refs in the lead can be burdensome or ugly, policy trumps prettiness. I also agree that refs are not required in leads because they are summaries of what's in the article, UNLESS the article provides no reference to the original claim within any portion of the article. That is the current case. Again, my clarification still stands. However, at the current momenet it looks like the weasel words are gone, and doesn't need sources (that is, unless you know who undoes it). Also note the current intro has a grand total of TWO refs. That's hardly eye-soring. ~ UBeR 22:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw Poll 

message: First option revert to  which was the last version before the current run down.
# Aye. --Skyemoor 00:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Convenience means nothing to policy. It might be convenient to not follow policy, but that still isn't the best option. ~ UBeR 02:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This comment brings up another problem with the pole: They don't know what exactly they're voting for or for what reason. ~ UBeR 06:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Option 1

message: Second option: The "weasel by proxy" as describe above by Blue Tie. That is, verified and attributable to third party source.
CLARIFICATION OF OPTION 2: This is a clarification (I hope) that was discussed on my talk page: Option 1 is the option to go back to the original version and everything will still be willy-nilly, straight back to square one. It doesn't matter if there's a source that actually says "Most scientists agree that ... and few scientists disagree (...)" If there actually is a source, then use it! If there actually is a source, make sure you're stating what it is saying (that is, not verbatim--just don't change the context). If there actually is a source, attribute the claim to that source. HOWEVER, if there isn't a source, then that claim doesn't belong in Wikipedia. This option is the only supportable one under Wikipedia (of the two options so far). If feel so inclined to do so, feel free to change your vote. ~ UBeR 18:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uber seems right. if there is a valid source, I see no reason to not use it. --Sm8900 18:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: UBeR is often right. I don't quite get the proposal here though. Personally I am a big reluctant to turn particularly the introduction into a patchwork of sources (the convention in papers is not to give references in abstracts: I think it helps a lot not to cite in the intro provided everything in it is substantiated with references later). It would be very hard to get it to read well that way.--BozMo talk 19:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is not much problem with having numerous refernces and citations. For an example, see this article. --Sm8900 19:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or this one. You see, BozMo, one of the wonders of Wikipedia is that it is not a paper encyclopedia nor is it a scientific paper to be published in a journal. If this article is to be used as a "gold standard" as one observer proclaimed, then it should stand against the toughest scrutiny. While I agree, an overload of refs in the lead can be burdensome or ugly, policy trumps prettiness. I also agree that refs are not required in leads because they are summaries of what's in the article, UNLESS the article provides no reference to the original claim within any portion of the article. That is the current case. Again, my clarification still stands. However, at the current momenet it looks like the weasel words are gone, and doesn't need sources (that is, unless you know who undoes it). Also note the current intro has a grand total of TWO refs. That's hardly eye-soring. ~ UBeR 22:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Option 2

message: Someone added this:
: CLARIFICATION OF OPTION 2: This is a clarification (I hope) that was discussed on my talk page: Option 1 is the option to go back to the original version and everything will still be willy-nilly, straight back to square one. It doesn't matter if there's a source that actually says "Most scientists agree that ... and few scientists disagree (...)" If there actually is a source, then use it! If there actually is a source, make sure you're stating what it is saying (that is, not verbatim--just don't change the context). If there actually is a source, attribute the claim to that source. HOWEVER, if there isn't a source, then that claim doesn't belong in Wikipedia. This option is the only supportable one under Wikipedia (of the two options so far). If feel so inclined to do so, feel free to change your vote.
Since they didn't sign it, I've no idea whose talk page we should be looking at. But you cannot possibly add a "clarification" that asserts that only one option is supportable, or that option 1 represents return to square 1.
William M. Connolley 08:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of option 2 

message: The talk page is too large. We do archive old talk, but that doesn't help much because there are too many topics that are still being discussed. Count Iblis 13:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I would work on it but I have no time right now. --Blue Tie 13:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Some topics should be archived at some point. --Sm8900 13:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not know either way.  Normally I would think that chronology is best.  But that area is somewhat huge and takes much space so your proposal would help in that regard.  On the other hand, separating it has the effect of closeting it off. So I do not know. --Blue Tie 14:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's possible to make a subpage to discuss specifics, but I have already prematurely archived the discussion of March 2007 of any discussion not taking place within the last 10 days or discuss that is uncontroversially dead. ~ UBeR 02:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Prematurely?--Blue Tie 03:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, just a bad choice of words. Premature in the sense that the talk page is usually archived once a month. The month hasn't ended yet, so I used the word prematurely. It doesn't really mean anything other than I archived old discussion sooner than I would have originally, given the large amounts of new discussion recently. ~ 03:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page should be split 

message: Right, once that's settled, we can get on with the problem regarding the scientific opinion on climate change. This is not mentioned in the article, only linked to. This is as I see it 1) because the article is already too long; 2) possibly to avoid the issue, the article Wikipedia:Content forking is mainly irrelevant here, but not entirely; and 3) because the issue is irrelevant in a scientific context (though it's not irrelevant in a public and political context). I think everyone would agree that a little information on the scientific opinion should be included here, if only the piece of information I cited above: that the IPCC consists of the "world's leading climate scientists" (see for example ). That single piece of information is in my opinion precise enough for this article's purposes. Narssarssuaq 10:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats not really correct. Para 2 of the intro is it, in substance William M. Connolley 10:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, I didn't see that. Does Wikipedia approve of mentioning something in the abstract/introduction but not in the article? It's taboo in science of course, but I guess encyclopedias are a different cup of tea. Narssarssuaq 10:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But that material does need to be in the intro. Conversely, I don't see why the intro needs to go into who IPCC is William M. Connolley 11:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK. Looking at the article again, the controversy is of course mentioned both in the introduction and in the "Terminology" section. It seems a bit strange to mention more in the introduction than in the rest of the article, though. Also, the brevity of the introduction treatment could at present be giving undue weight to the "few scientists". Narssarssuaq 11:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientific opinion on climate change

message: Perhaps those who voted in good faith in the straw poll above would be interested to read this discussion between William Connolley and BozMo, who orchastrated that said poll... --Childhood's End 13:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In which I suggested protecting the page myself during the edit war? Perhaps this one User_talk:William_M._Connolley#I_owe_you_an_apology is even more shocking :). --BozMo talk 13:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything problematic with the WMC/BozMo discussion.  I wonder why people would want to raise suspicions in a manner that appears to be 'poisoning the well'. At some point, we have to stop feeding the trolls.  --Skyemoor 14:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, yeah... WMC keeps saying that about people in disagreement with his climate views. That's getting old. You should elevate yourself above that kind of immature personal attacks/derogatory comments. --Childhood's End 14:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok ok! Enough of that! Let's all assume good faith here, please. --Kim Bruning 14:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except when you have plenty of evidence to assume the contrary. ~ UBeR 18:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It was unlocked when I edited a couple of hours ago? :-) --Kim Bruning 15:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Take it easy for a day or two, just to be sure, eh? --Kim Bruning 15:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that sounds good. thanks. --Sm8900 15:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the last straw poll... 

message: Just to be clear, the above straw poll does not change the fact that this article may still be freely edited by registed users. If you feel that a user has inserted weasel words into the article or otherwise compromised its NPOV, you are free to edit the article as you see fit to improve it to Wikipedia Standards. I intend to do so until my WP:3RR are up. --Tjsynkral 22:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, just keep in mind that straw polls are non-binding (it's a shame this one was used to stifle debate) and the article is still subject to all Wikipedia policies. ~ UBeR 22:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep in mind that WP:3RR limits distruptive editing, whether or not 3 reverts have been reached.  I think if the edits are something which has been extensively discussed here, and most people are against, you would be better advised to find compelling reasons for your edit and convince other editors on this talk page before making the change.  Making the same changes every day, full in the knowledge it will be removed, will get tiresome very quickly and may be taken as distruptive (in my view at least). --TeaDrinker 22:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is considered to be pre-meditated disruption.  Note that 3RR is not a privilege.  Interesting that you are taking this stance during mediation. --Skyemoor 02:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a matter of fixing the page, within the rules, from POV pushers who insert weasel words beyond the rules. I'd almost be willing to claim reverting vandalism on it but I don't think it meets the WP standards of vandalism. --Tjsynkral 06:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Your right to edit this page 

message: When will the trial start?  Count Iblis 21:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no trial.  Medcab mediation is unofficial and non-binding.  A skilled mediator may help people communicate.  Guettarda 21:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see, so I don't need to consult with my lawyer :)   Count Iblis 21:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  TINC O:-) --Kim Bruning 22:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-25 Global warming]] 

message: The current statement in the reads as follows: "Other phenomena such as solar variation and volcanoes have probably had a warming effect from pre-industrial to 1950, but a cooling effect since 1950." I originally inserted the former part of the sentence (prior to the comma) with the SPM cited, as this is what the source states. I also noted that volcanism "likely" (66%) had a cooling effect since 1950, per SPM and other IPCC reports. William added solar variation also had "a cooling effect" and blanketed it under the same source. Looking at the SPM, nowhere does it state solar variation (either with or without volcanoes) has had a cooling effect since 1950. Fig-4 does not imply it either. In fact, solar variation has positive radiative forcing. ~ UBeR 22:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference is to fig 4 (haven't we been round this loop already?) which shows (bottom row) cooling since 1950 from runs with sol+vol forcing William M. Connolley 22:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand William and Fig. 4 in the SPM, solar and volcanos combined probably result in a net cooling effect. The claim is not "volcanos have a cooling effect and solar variations have a cooling effect". --Stephan Schulz 22:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, Stephan. That was a bad point made on my part. However, less warming than if combined with GHGs is not equivalent to cooling. ~ UBeR 23:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Interpreting the graph is original research. --Blue Tie 21:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence on solar variation causing cooling...