Talk:List of climate change controversies/Archive 2

message: If you check Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Bad Form, it states:
::Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact - the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate.
::Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should attempt to write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into a separate section.
It strikes me that this was precisely what was done in the separation of global warming controversy from global warming.  I think this warrants consideration about reorganization.  If the size of the global warming article needs to be regulated, then it would perhaps be more meaningful to break things off in terms of subject, rather than to separate controversy.  This is what the style guide tells us.   — Cortonin | Talk 23:50, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The style guide is often pissing into the wind.  These kind of controversy separations occur as a natural result of the wiki method, if a minority wants their view in, they are more likely to get it in if they will allow it to be labeled "controversial".  Forcing things into the style guide straight jacket, just makes their uphill battle harder.  wikipedia will never be an "encyclopedia", the best it can hope for is to become what happens when wiki meets lofty encyclopedia goals.  In some ways this is more valuable.  Certainly more of the controversy is found in wikipedia while standard encyclopedias lag behind, presenting only the undisputed.--Silverback 05:33, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The style guide doesn't instruct us to remove controversial elements, it instructs us to integrate controversial elements throughout the other articles for the purpose of making the other articles more complete in their coverage of human knowledge.  I think there is great wisdom in this approach, and we shouldn't be discouraged in attempts to make a better encyclopedia by those who would remove controversial elements.  We should instead push forward and try to get closer to the ideals of the style guide.   — Cortonin | Talk 06:42, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, I completely agree, and that is what I try to do all the time, but what I was pointing out, is that this is what we end up with.  When it is hard to agree within the text, it is better to get the information in labeled as controversial rather than left out completely.  You should try editing a page where you are in a distinct minority, and see if you don't end up making similar compromises.  People, including me, are going to resist your integration attempts if they come at the cost of losing information.  Note the term that was chosen for the analogy in "Wikipedia Form Guide" was the "guide", not the "hammer".--Silverback 07:06, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Style Guide: Bad Form 

message: Good edit, SEWilco.  That better encapsulates the essence of the controversy.   — Cortonin | Talk 22:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue rephrase 

message: SEW phrases the various viewpoints as "Those who believe..." and almost immediately guess who shows up as "Some organisations were formed to further the opponents' views:" - the "Institute for Creation Research".I knew the word believe had religious connotations, but this is hilarious! And, now we know why that institute was formed. This is great! If we edit out the believes will the link go away? Gotta have a little fun :-) Vsmith 02:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I support a description of that form because at the core, what it is trying to do is divide people into categories, and the people are divided into categories on a controversy based on their beliefs or thoughts, not because of anything to do with scientific evidence.  Now if you want to examine, lower in the article, some of the reasons why people prefer to believe or think a certain way, then scientific evidence comes into play for some of the people in each group (but certainly not all of any group).  I say that there are people who believe in global warming for non-scientific reasons, and there are people who believe there's no global warming for non-scientific reasons.  There are also people who believe in global warming for scientific reasons, and people who believe there's no global warming for scientific reasons.  Part of this controversy involves people flinging mud back and forth at each other saying that the other side isn't being scientific, and it would be POV endorsement (not to mention wrong) to imply that one side is correct in this assessment.  The truth is, each group of the controversy has people using science, and each group has people who are hopelessly biased with no regard for reason.  Beware of the logical fallacies of people who try to stereotype any group one way or the other.   — Cortonin | Talk 18:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's good, for me, to have such a clear picture, although I was suprised you thought my suggestion was more convoluted than SEW's change. (I hope I am not miscommunicating and giving the impression that we should advocate in the wiki one way of arriving at a conclusion over an other.) So VS and WMC, what do you think of having a section devoted to explaining why people may think what they think (I do prefer "think" or "consider" to "believe" for VS's reason; again, there is social baggage with the words we choose)? Although I would recommend, like other Wikipedia pages, that the introductory section indeed includes reference to this polychotomy prior to its fleshing out. Daniel Collins 21:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You had a useful analysis, but it was leading toward a matrix of selections which produces too many specific classifications.  I kept the existing structure which was focused upon a few requirements for belief in GWT, and "other" seems to not need to be as specific unless discussing a specific issue.  The "belief" phrasing doesn't care about individual reasons but rather upon the conceptual result.  And just now I fixed the mistake in the first issue of "how much change" rather than the meaning of "more change than usual" (we wouldn't care about 1% change if 90% is usual); I intentionally did not specify "range" nor "trend" as those are details in deciding what is unusual.  Details belong after the generalities.  (SEWilco 05:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: As you mention Vegetarianism, you might look at that article.  It is a list of lists of beliefs.  What is the goal here?  (SEWilco 05:31, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we somehow include the fact that, according to Thomas Kuhn, during a period of scientific consensus, most opposing opinions will tend to be shut out by groupthink?  Scientific consensus =/= truth.  Tristangreer 15:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this a comedy - or psychic forces at work? 

message: I tired of the look of the page (and lack of scrolling landmarks).  Pleasantly interesting now? (SEWilco 05:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty pictures are fine, but they need a tie in to the article (relevance) and a caption or else they'll go. Do we need mere decoration? -Vsmith 14:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but these "pretty pictures" need to go.  If they don't tie into the article, they just don't belong. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work</span> 20:43, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely.  I mean, I'm sure we all appreciate the effort to add some aesthetic appeal to an otherwise dry article, there is an insurmountable problem with using imagines that don't relate to the subject at hand.  We had the same problem with the Kyoto Accord page - certain people kept trying to add decoration where it didn't belong.--JonGwynne 22:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pretty pictures 

message: WP:POINT.  I assume that's what this bizarre edit is?
: You don't think I'd have a suitably bizarre edit summary if that were the case?  Actually, Wikipedia gave an error message when I first submitted, and apparently produced or was presented that mess during resubmission.  (SEWilco 19:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I was wondering if it had something to do with how ridiculous this revert war is?  I was looking for something logical.  Sorry about that (I have never had WIkipedia do anything stranger than refuse an edit - had no idea something so odd could happen).  Guettarda 20:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  SEWilco's edits 

message: Here's another way to look at the article. (SEWilco 06:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As in any debate, I would add the case where language use differs among the debaters. The use of "belief", as argued above, is a case in point - it means different things to different people. I suggest either (i) adding a paragraph that explains what is meant by "belief" or what other word is used, or (ii) tightening up that phrases themselves. It is more involved, but in light of the current debate, quite possibly necessary. Daniel Collins 13:57, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, I chose "belief" because its ambiguity includes those whose thinking is based on facts and/or values.  The purpose of the early article section is to classify people's thinking and behavior, not cataloging literature.  Does the desired classification require identification of all facts and values, or where is painting with a broad brush appropriate? (SEWilco 02:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contentious 

message: What meaning of "correlation" is not the basis of the assertion that GHGs cause global warming? (SEWilco 05:56, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 22:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  GHG strawman 

message: Copied here from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/William M. Connolley and Cortonin#Temporary injunction:
Since revert wars between the Cortonin and William M. Connolley have continued through this arbitration, both users are hereby barred from reverting any article related to climate change more than once per 24 hour period. Each and every revert (partial or full) needs to be backed up on the relevant talk page with reliable sources (such as peer reviewed journals/works, where appropriate). Administrators can regard failure to abide by this ruling as a violation of the WP:3RR and act accordingly. Recent reverts by Cortonin
 
by William M. Connolley
 
 
 
Additional reverts by others involved in these revert wars may result in them joining this case. 
--mav 22:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporary injunction 

message: Curious about Beland's recent edit.  Can you provide a source that details the other active members of SEPP (ie, proof that it is not a one-man show from Singer?)  Thanks.  Guettarda 03:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 08:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  SEPP edits 

message: Any comments on the merge proposal (with scientific opinion on climate change)? Rd232 3 July 2005 22:36 (UTC)
:The controversy spans more fields than just science - politics, policy, fiction, religion (Eg. non-scientist novelists have nothing to add to the scientific opinion on climate change, but they do to the controversy). And the controversy doesn't solely consider the observations of climate change, but also the policy responses to it, which is not a scientific endeavour. Thus, don't merge. Daniel Collins 3 July 2005 22:52 (UTC)
::Fair points, but as the article stands, it doesn't consider policy responses, and almost all the discussion is about scientific opinion or about the science itself. The amount of duplication from other articles isn't justified, IMO, just to be able to mention Michael Crichton. It looks like most of the article could neatly slot into the scientific opinion one, some into the Public controversy section of Global warming (I assume the science material already exists elsewhere in the appropriate articles). I say do those merges, and leave the possibility of creating a new article at some point in the future if someone wants to put material here which would justify the article's existence - eg the history of how global warming became a political issue (article doesn't even mention Margaret Thatcher) and how the politics and public opinion and debate has developed. Rd232 4 July 2005 08:39 (UTC)
::: Traditionally, this article has been a place to dump stuff too controversial for the main GW article. As the main article, and this one, has improved, that becomes rather less true. I think Rd232 is probably correct... if the only purpose of the article is to allow skeptics to list Crichton on their side, what is the point? Arguably, however, the article *could* have a point in discussing the political/popular responses to GW. There is room for such an article, and this could be it. If it was, then all of the sci discussion could go from this article - there is no point in repeating - and this article can talk about, eg, US policy on GW, which is sadly unreported on wiki. William M. Connolley 2005-07-04 10:12:23 (UTC).
:::: On the policy front, I forgot to mention the (potential) overlap with the latter section (currently rather crappy) of Mitigation of global warming; there's also related material in Kyoto Protocol. I'm not sure where the best place is for it, but I'm inclined to think it best to separate discussion of the science of global warming from policy action details. Under Mitigation there's also an incipient distinction between technological/economic issues and political ones. Perhaps thinking in terms of a History of global warming (primarily political, economic, public opinion aspects, but some short and nontechnical summary of development of scientific opinion) would be useful. Rd232 4 July 2005 11:31 (UTC)
::In fact, nearly all of the "controversy" comes from outside of the scientific community. Nearly all the arguments against global warming are pseudoscience at best, and thus not highly regarded by actual scientists. RedXIV 05:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I echo both the benefit of moving the scientific element of this page to the sci page, and of creating new, appropriately binned pages that deal w/ subsets of the issue - like effects, like mitigation, like politics, like policy, like popular culture. There is much one could contribute to each, and they would be far better focused than this general controversy page, which I suggest remains even if it becomes a source of links to the other, more refined elements. Daniel Collins 4 July 2005 14:55 (UTC)
The controversy is not always based on science.  In fact, many opponents of the global warming theory use methods disputed by many scientists.  Therefore, it would be POV to put all references to controversy under the label of 'scientific opion.' Tjss 17:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Agreed. The "global warming" contreversy indicates that global warming has been caused mainly by man. It is political in nature and should not be confused with science....unless you guys consider The Day After Tomorrow a documentary Barneygumble 14:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Anybody interested in this subject, please see my comment on Talk:global warming. I realise my thought on a possible merger of climate change with GW isn't likely to fly (though the amount of overlap should give pause for thought), but how about the rest of what I said, in terms of developing the topic structure? Anybody out there? Rd232 18:30, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Developing a schema 

message: Considering the way most other articles on other controversies are formed, this one would be better if it started by stating what opponents of global warming say, countered by what the majority of scientists say. --chad 09:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordering strange 

message: In my opinion the new section on volcanic activity is not stated as an NPOV report on the dicussion, but as a series of facts and hypotheses.  Moreover, it is at least misleading. For one, the climatic influence of Mt. Minatubo (and Krakatoa and Tabora) are short-term climate signals. Note that 1816 was the "year without summer". The 1820 were not knows as "the decade without summer". Similarly, the Mt. Pinatubo signal has long vanished. CO2 induced warming works on much longer time scales (centuries to millenia). Thus, the sentence "one massive volcanic eruption in one year offset a putative temperature rise over the past hundred years" is plain wrong. It only caused a very short term drop in the temperature signal.  
Of course, if the Yellowstone supercaldera explodes with full force, global warming will be one of our lesser problems for some time. But "may be overdue" holds on a geologic time scale. If we talk about millions of years (and up), then the current global warming trend probably is irrelevant. But that is a straw man. We are talking about the next decades, centuries, and maybe millenia. 
Anyways, is this a serious argument used in the controversy? If yes, can we find a source? And can we state it in NPOV style? Or is it original research?--Stephan Schulz 21:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the section. I fully agree with you. There are two big problems with it, as you point out: (1) its badly biased (2) its not really an argument much used in the controversy. The actual topic of volcanoes is briefly present in climate change and thats probably where it belongs. Ive briefly noted there that Pinatubo had a short-term effect. William M. Connolley 15:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a point to be made that the amount of CO2 released by humans is minuscule compared to that from natural sources, volcanoes being one of them.--Quadalpha 23:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you make that point or do you claim it is being made? In the end, all carbon comes from supernovas, which is natural, I guess. Currently (i.e. for the last few millenia or millionenia (? (attached to the newly invented word, not the sentence ;-))), the amount of CO2 released by volcanoes is miniscule compared to the current release of CO2 by burning fossil fuels. The gross CO2 production of the bisophere likely is bigger, but all that carbon comes from atmospheric CO2, so the net contribution of the biosphere is more or less 0. --Stephan Schulz 23:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fossil fuels come from atmospheric sources as well, though I admit that is a rather lame point. Alright, that point isn't defendable without solid data on my part :) --Quadalpha 23:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 
Say the biosphere produces 100 ppm CO2 in a year and absorbs 100 ppm (these are guesses, I don't know the true figures). Say humans produce, from fossil fuels, 6 ppm (I think this is a reasonable estimate) and absorb 0. The fact that only 6% of CO2 is produced by humans doesn't mean anything since 100% of excess production over absorption is due to human activity. It does, though, have some relevance to what we do about it - since there may be scope for increasing natural absorption, or reducing natural production, of CO2. Perhaps, planting more trees than we fell.
Exile 12:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Trees will die and rot, releasing the stored carbon in the form of CO_2. So, you would actually have to fell trees at the same rate as you plant them and then store these felled trees so that they don't decompose. Given the enormous volume of trees you would have to store, it's more practical to build nuclear power plants and store the radioactive waste. :)  Count Iblis 18:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volcanic activity and global warming 

message: In one section, there is a parenthetical statement, (See: Global Warming Skepticism). "Global Warming Skepticism" currently redirects back to this article, "Global Warming Controversy". Will there eventually be a Skepticism article, or should this link be removed? Juansmith 00:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its an old article that got deleted. I'll remove it. William M. Connolley 10:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Global Warming Skepticism"

message: Well, I was "bold" and extracted the "adaptation" text from the Mitigation of global warming article into a new article Adaptation of global warming as suggested by others in the Talk:Mitigation of global warming page.  Within minutes, the new article was put up as a candidate for deletion on the grounds that it was a "how-to" article which violated WP:NOT or that it was original research which violated WP:NOR.  Other people said that it was not encyclopedic.
I have addressed these issues by expanding the article significantly and providing references to sources.  Hopefully, this will convince those who voted for deletion to change their minds.
Just in case it doesn't, would you take a look at the Adaptation to global warming article and then vote to keep or delete the article?
If the vote is to delete the article then I will bring much of that text back into the Mitigation of global warming article which will make it longer and harder to read (which is why I created the new article in the first place).
Thanks.
Richard 05:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request review of [[Adaptation to global warming]] article 

message: I think this article needs to have a clearer division between the controversy over the science and over the responses. This would also help show how weak it is on the responses part (which I think is a much more open ended and difficult issue). I have tried to do this in my sandbox. Apart from adding a little linking text I have not changed the content. If people like this I will copy it here.--NHSavage 09:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the article could clarify the politics/science split. Its hard to compare your sandbox thing... perhaps you could copy it into the article so we can diff it, and keep it if liked? William M. Connolley 10:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I don't like to make edits this significant without asking permission usually.--NHSavage 10:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split controversy over science and policy? 

message: see here. Count Iblis 14:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Documentary this evening on BBC 1 

message: I've changed the lead-in to the "reasons given by opponents" section from There are many reasons given for opposition to the global warming theory to Some of the assertions made in opposition to the global warming theory include: It seemed to me that explicitly using the word "assertions" in the "supporters" section, while not doing so in the opponents section is unbalanced. "Assertions" are pretty clearly statements that may or may not be fact, while the softer "reasons given" wording implies a series of true reasons. I tried to write the sentence to be consistent with the fact that there are many, possibly contradictory, assertions against the global warming theory, without explicitly saying it as it used to a year ago or so. PenguiN42 22:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "assertions" vs "reasons" 

message: I edited the following sentence by/about Patrick Michaels:
:"Some, such as Patrick Michaels, propose that human influence has warmed the atmosphere yet dispute the conclusion of the IPCC TAR, which says "[t]here is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities"."
...by inserting a "not" at the obvious place. --ChrisWinter 01:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooops! Belay that — I saw "dispute" and read "despite". Time to take a break. --ChrisWinter 01:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Patrick Michaels statement

message: * Opponents maintain that mankind's emissions of CO2 are irrelevant, since volcanoes contribute 97% of the CO2 entering the atmosphere. They say that volcanic activity cannot be predicted so there is no way to know what the CO2 level will be in the future.
* Supporters point out that on-site measurements of volcanic gases show them to be mostly sulfur dioxide and steam. In fact, a study by (whoever) found that the 13 eruptions of the past decade contributed only 1% to the increase of atmospheric CO2.
</blockquote>
: I made those numbers up, but I trust you see what I'm getting at. If the article were rewritten following this pattern, it would be a lot easier for the reader to determine what's fact and what isn't. --ChrisWinter 20:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What bothers me most about the CO2/volcano thing is that I can't source it.  The only references I've been able to find point back to this article!  So I wonder if AGW opponents did in fact claim this.  I'll  lgo through theists and put {fact} tags on the ones that I don't recognize and can't readily find mentioned elsewhere.  After a while I'll delete those points, then we can figure out what to do with the rest. Raymond Arritt 01:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Need a cite for this.  Pielke and... ?  Note also there were a LOT more than 120 contributing authors to the TAR
for the 2/120 bit. The 2/120 is my count (I counted 120 lead authors; people have found 2 of them who complained). Trouble is I can't find where this was originally said... it is elsewhere on wiki I think... William M. Connolley 08:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I thought it might be related to the whole CLA/LA/etc. heirarchy in IPCC.  It's your baby...  The point is not all that important, so if you can't find the details it's probably best simply to delete the statement. Raymond Arritt 18:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is that 120 distinct authors, or 120 totalled by every author listed in each part?  Which might be overlap.  I don't know.   I know Lindzen complained some, is that it, Pielke and Lindzen?   Public statements are a bit difficult to track down, if anyone involved even takes the time to say anything.   Just an observation, I have no idea.  I don't know if it needs to be deleted if nobody can find dissention from the figures, but if there is another source it would be better.  I think the only two places I myself have seen it on Wikipedia in different articles, but I don't believe either was cited.  Sln3412 06:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Volcanic contribution to CO2 levels

message: ::* Proponents maintain that mankind's emissions of CO2 are not just 88% of the total and are often ignored, but given that the number of humans alive is 350% greater now than it was just one thousand years ago is key, and that every decade has produced 3.5% greater a concentration.  They point out that every human produces carbon dioxide and CH4 that has a larger impact than industrial production, solar activity, vehicles, the building of cities, ozone depletion, fishing activities and everything else combined.   Their solution is to send 60% of everyone born back to the sea, and to cease any activity that adds to human life-spans.     www.prisonplanet.com]
::* Opponents point out that on-site measurements of fast food restaurants show the businesses produce 223% more CO2 and 3% more methane than the patrons do. In fact, a study by the NSF found that a simple majority of the US Senate is not enough to override a presidential veto, even discounting the role of the US House in the process.  Clearly, they say, something must be done.  However, the most vocal of these they have been funded by Walt Disney, and those they have gathered over nine hundred trillion Euros in IOUs for their research.   The those they conclude the solution is that 95% of the proponents are clearly totally doo-doo heads and should be eaten by rats, cats, bats or dogs.    
::* Sln3412 07:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Breathing contribution to CO2 levels

message: The essay (I suppose 'opinion essay' is a bit redundant) reports the analysis of certain abstracts (the essay didn't analyze anything; the analyzer did), and the essay lists the results of the analysis as "the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities." per paragraph 2.   
The essay specifically states this was a survey/study to see if any of the abstracts "might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions" by the "societies' members" of the societies' statements that "the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling" per paragraphs 3-6.
I don't know if something about this needs to be in two sections, though. Sln3412 00:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science Essay changes 

message: Citing the "worst case scenario" to found an argument about mitigating anthopogenic forcing of "global warming" accompishes nothing. We should rework the reference in Paragraph 2 of this article. Conventional scientific procedure would be to calculate expected values for costs and benefits of such efforts as cutting down on "greenhouse emissions" along with calculating the precision of those estimates. In other words, rather than attempting to bludgeon one's opponent by citing some extreme figure for what it would take to slow the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide by 25 percent, a reasonable presentation would give a sort of average estimate along with, say, an error range; and this could be compared to the estimated expected benefit of so doing. Of course, our poor understanding of the science makes the error range huge, but the probablistic distributions can be calculated and reasonably applied to cost-benefit comparisons. Absent this, much of the "controversy" is nothing but polemic or propaganda. I don't know how to word all of this neatly and make it a perspective on the remainder of the article. Maybe some discussion here would generate usable text? Myron 09:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you be a bit more specific about which paragraph and which reference you are talking?--Stephan Schulz 10:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Paragraph 2 starting from the very top of the main article on Global warming controversy where the phrase begins with the word "worst". :-)  Myron 21:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I must have been blind. Yes, that paragraph sucks. It's  full of unstated and unclear assumptions, and mixes opposition to the science with objections to the politics. It also adds little real information. We need something on the public and political debate, but as far as I am concerned, this paragraph can just go. I don't think I agree with the rest of your comment, though. While the climate projections have reasonably well-known error bars (but depend on assumptions on carbon emission), the political and economical effects of both global warming and mitigation are much harder to quantify. Assume we spend a lot of money on reducing fossil fuel dependency. Will this increase or decrease tension in the Near/Middle East? And how do we put a monetary value on that effect? --Stephan Schulz 22:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worst case scenario 

message: I am particularly concerned with the science links.  I see much pseudoscience in there so, is there a particular reason for that??  Should we make a distinction on the links between what is considered mainstream and whats not?  Brusegadi 22:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, there's a bunch of stuff under "Science" that should be under "Politics."  A more important point is that the article contains waaay too many links, period. See WP:NOT. At least two-thirds of them should be removed. Be bold and get out your pruning shears. Raymond Arritt 23:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks much for your work on this.  AntiEcoHype and Greening Earth Society belong under "politics" or "other".  (GES society is dead at the moment.) Raymond Arritt 04:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: all throughout the topic, it is attempted to point out how wrong those who don't believe in the Church of Global Warming are.  If we are talking about controversy here, it shouldn't be one side writing about the other.  For example, the article points out funding from Exxon, but doesn't point out where the funding for the Pro-Human-Caused-Global-Warming scientists is comming from.  Even the idea of human caused global warming, much like creationism or evolution, is only "Theory" as it can not be proven (according to the scientific method).  Why is it not stated as a theory? Even the whole CO2 thing is in question: This image for example shows the history of the earth's temp, and CO2.  this makes me ask a couple of questions:
1. If the earth's temp has been going up and down and up and down, how is it our falt this time when it wasn't our fault in the Precambrian, Silurian, Premian, and Cretaceous peorids?
::If people die all the time, how is it that Timothy McVeigh is a murderer? In both cases, because we understand the process by which things happen to a reasonably good degree. We do not rely on correlation alone.
2. If the earth has been warmer then it is now, for most of the earth's life, why do people think our current temps are normal (when it looks as if current temps are lower then the average/norm)
::Because we have a short attention span. For the last few thousand years, the temperature has been very stable, and we would normally expect this happy state to continue for a few thousand more. Nothing siginficant in geological terms, but rather important on a human time scalse.
3. Is it possible, that perhaps, the last 100-150 years of temperature records are no enough to base any opinion? after all, time and NYTimes have gone back and fourth allmost as often as the temperatures have in earth's history.
::Time and the New York Times are not scientific publications, and are rather irrelevant to the debate. Luckily, we (well, the scientific commjunity) do not primarily base our opinion on the last 100-150 years of temperature  records, but on the laws of thermodynamics, long term climate studies, and a fairly good understanding of the underlying processes.--Stephan Schulz 20:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That depends on what you want to do with them. They seem kinda ok for a parody...--Stephan Schulz 20:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There are no "Pro-Human-Caused-Global-Warming scientists", there are just scientists who look objectively at the observations. Science is not politics. Therefore, if almost all scientists agree on something it is because the facts are so compelling. Count Iblis 13:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right, scientists are not human, they're robots. They never make subjective interpretations.  (I don't agree with Zeeboid, but I couldn't resist this) --Spiffy sperry 14:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Mu--Stephan Schulz 18:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why does this always have to include something about evolution or creationism.  Then it automatically becomes a big mistake.  Evolution is one of the STRONGEST Theories in Science.  Also, look up the defenition of theory.  Dont bash something if you do not know what it means. Brusegadi 20:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Nonsense. There is no "Theory of Creationism". And no scientific theory can ever be "proven". The singular form is phenomenon. Of course scientific theories can and do exist with different levels of validation and support. This is different from the "strength" of a theory, which refers to the breadth of explantions and predictions it offers (although these are often confused). "Scientific proof" is always within the framework of accepted scientific theories.  Have a nice day. --Stephan Schulz 22:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but wrong a gain. A "law" is a conscience statement that is part of a well-supported theory. Scientific theories are never provable (otherwise they would not be falsifiable, and hence not scientific theories). The confusing term "scientific proof" refers to proofs within the framework of an accepted theory.--Stephan Schulz 20:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: A law is not an "action", but a statement. And a scientific theory is not a "guess". Sorry, but unless you get the basic terms right, I don't think this discussion is useful.--Stephan Schulz 20:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This topic is FAR from balanced. 

message: Since we seem to be having an argument about one ext link... this section tends to become a dumping ground for things people want others to see, but which don't appear to belong in the article. How about going through the list and trying to fit them in, or getting rid of them if they really don't fit? William M. Connolley 15:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed a much stuff that was just taking up space, but I dont know what has been going on lately since I have been having much work in my non-cyber life...  Brusegadi 20:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The ext links 

message: I think this article has evolved into a mess, with lots of irrelevant tangents and other verbiage.  Anyone care to join me in being bold and trying to prune it down? Raymond Arritt 09:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major rework? 

message: This Wiki is filled with bias and slant, which unfortunately brings the credibility of the entire page into question.
One small example: the statement that many opponents claim that there is no consensus, while other opponents claim that science should not be decided by consensus.  Then the snide comment that the belief that science should be based on science rather than public opinion polls may be a tacit admission by the opponents that there is a consensus.
One could just as easily write that most supporters say there is a consensus, while other supporters say that it doesn't matter whether there is a consensus because the evidence for global warming stands on its own merits.  Then state that the fact some supporters say it doesn't matter whether there is a consensus is an admission that there is, in fact, no consensus on global warming.
The language used is thoroughly biased, and the Wiki is filled with condescension and diminishing of the "opponents" arguments, even going to far as to suggest that anyone who disagrees with the author's opinion is bought off by the oil industry.  It's Michael Moore in a suit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TruthfulScience (talk • contribs) 16:23, 28 November 2006  (UTC)
:yup, I'd agree. the showing of the "other side" is worryingly missing in not just this but all the other related page to global warming as well. although this page is the best of the worst i'd say in keeping it "balanced" of what i've seen here. Mathmo Talk 07:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't agree. It depends what you mean by "balance". On mainstream pages like global warming the balance is to the state of the science; which naturally enough marginalises the non-science skeptics. Here, they get somewhat more say William M. Connolley 09:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I can see that you are not into science if you fall for obvious pseudo-science/conspiracy theory stuff like the "photoremediation--Hypercon process". Remember Bozo the clown...--Stephan Schulz 23:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I suggest you lookl through the archives of global warming and the various arbitration cases. Especially the main article has been very carefully balanced. It is based on reliable published sources. Yes, pseudo-science like the "photoremediation--Hypercon process" will not find its place here unless it first found its way into the peer-reviewed literature. Likewise, we don't treat opinion pieces as scientific literature. If you have any example where a concrete, relevant, sourced statement was reverted, please show it. --Stephan Schulz 08:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias is disturbing 

message: Apparently someone proposed this article for NPOV check. Well, fine... I think that the article gives too much preference to the views of marginal skeptics and needs rebalancing in favour of the consensus view William M. Connolley 09:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I am sure if it was up to you this article wouldn't even exist. The machine512 20:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Notice Connolley's use of the phrase "marginal skeptics". This will no doubt pass over the head of most who agree with the infallibility of "scientific consensus", but the American Meteorological Society is listed as a supporter of human induced global warming. Yet many, if not most, meteorologists who are certified by the AMS do not believe in human induced global warming. Now what? It puts a whole new meaning into "marginal". Likwidshoe 03:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV check 

message: I removed from the list of "Reasons given by supporters of the global warming theory", the argument:
"Our existence is poised within a fluid-dynamic, ocean-atmosphere-biosphere system, where non-linear feedbacks are common and where climate states are only relatively stable (i.e., "metastable").  Unknown unknowns are likely to surprise us, particularly if they trigger a non-linear, positive feedback that flips climate to a new meta-stable state."
because it was buzzword filled, unreferenced and in itself not an argument. 
(Basically all it says is:
- The climate is complex and only relatively stable.
- This means large unpredictable climate changes might occur.
- This might be caused by things we don't know about.)
Frostlion 19:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed buzzword supporters argument 

message: Many of the "assertions by supporters and opponents" do not include cites.  This is especially the case for the assertions by opponents.  If we can't verify that anyone actually made a given assertion, it should be deleted. I'll tag them for now and if no one steps forward within a reasonable time I'll start trimming. Raymond Arritt 18:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been trying to clear this up a bit - but I think some of these anti-GW points should go. Correlation doesn't imply causation is a very basic point, but it's so basic that maybe it shouldn't be in there. Almost every disputed wiki article seems to make this point - and as you pointed out, if it can't be sourced, WP:NOR. The stuff on cloud formation, and global cloud chambers I think should also go - it's citation is a broken link to the Danish space centre and it sounds like a cutting edge theory that really may not be relevant - I don't really think it's persuasive. The tone of the other "opposition" points is now highly assertive, as I think is appropriate. --Dilaudid 22:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cites for assertions

message: Is Svensmark really a skeptic regarding AGW?  He's proposing the cosmic ray stuff, but I've not been able to find any statement where he explicitly repudiates the role of increased CO2 in warming. Raymond Arritt 00:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Svensmark

message: The supporters of global warming theory have access to more than $120,000,000 in U.S. federal grants regarding climate change (ea. Program number 11.432 OFFICE OF OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH (OAR) JOINT AND COOPERATIVE INSTITUTES)[]. Increasing funds for research based grants are driven by political considerations and lobbying having nothing to do with the scientific validity of the issue at hand.
71.211.241.40 03:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be as much emphasized as the fact that some global warming skeptics benefit from industry grants. That is the danger lurking when the State decides a course of action (i.e. Kyoto) according to a scientific theory (i.e. IPCC). Once in it, politicians have more interest in maintaining the theory as being valid than science has.  And the truth gets more and more edicted by the State (even indirectly through propaganda and money) rather than established by science. And The End of Truth awaits. --Childhood's End 21:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Follow the Money - it is about grants, not facts 

message: From wikipedia's own "think tank" page:
" The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition has also worked to cast doubt on the scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming, as have a number of conservative think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Hoover Institution, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute--all of whom receive large contributions from petroleum industry companies like ExxonMobil and the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. "
(go to the Think Tank page and you will see several citations)
This certainly deserves a mention on this page. Such think tanks are a big force in this ongoing debate and its worth mentioning where they get their funding from. Any ideas on the best way to work this into the page?
160.39.208.20 18:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Think Tanks

message: This article seems too long, unfocused, poorly organized, and as a result not very useful.  One way to begin to fix that would be to cut way down on the discussion of the scientific consensus here, including in the introduction and section 2.1 --- except of course for a brief overview.  The "Assertions by supporters of the global warming theory" is much better handled at Global warming, Attribution of recent climate change, etc., while the fact that there is a consensus is better handled at Scientific opinion on climate change. --Nethgirb 09:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to me reasonable. --Childhood's End 13:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cutting down on size 

message: When the supporters and opponents of global warming are listed, shouldn't a list of prominent supporters from outside of the scientific community be listed to equalize the sides and keep the arguement as unbiased as possible?
: Not really. Given the list of prominent organistations, who needs a few individuals? William M. Connolley 09:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias by juxtaposition? 

message: This link was removed - http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming011807.htm - because it is "POV heavy"??? C'mon, it's in the politics section! Politics is always POV heavy. And this wiki-article is about Global Warming *Controversy* - I am convinced that the above mentioned link belongs here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.82.78.88 (talk • contribs).
:Here is a government source for the same thing: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528 Better? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.82.78.88 (talk • contribs).
::Well, it's not really a government source; it's Mark Morano's personal blog which happens to be hosted on the EPW's web site.  If it is included, it should be paired with a link to Heidi Cullen's original post .  I could be convinced otherwise, but it didn't seem to rise to the level of import necessary for inclusion -- there are too many links there already, and the article mostly just shows that Mark Morano is a skeptic. --Nethgirb 22:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In summary form it's "conservative blogger supports global warming skeptics", which is not exactly an earth-shattering insight. If it were, say, the director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research criticizing Cullen then it would be worth noting. Raymond Arritt 23:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. In summary form it is "global warming believers look to silence dissent", which is not exactly an earth-shattering insight. It's not surprising that you would want to silence this bit of insightful information into the behavior of the believers. After all, you're a believer. The link also describes some of the big money that flows towards the global warming alarmists. You couldn't even be truthful about the contents of the link Raymond. Your credibility is already weak, and it's over the insertion of a simple link. This says a lot about you and how you operate. But don't let me stop you. You and Nethgirb have censoring and whitewashing to do. Likwidshoe 18:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying your perspective. Everyone is entitled to their own view; I'll not challenge you on it. Raymond Arritt 18:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If setting the record straight is somehow baiting you, then so be it. It just needed to be pointed out that you were being less than honest. Also of note is that you employ some of the same tactics as described in the article. Likwidshoe 18:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics 

message: Is there any particular reason why the S+A book is in the "printed media" section? It isn't particularly notable; on any trawl of 10 best books on the GWC it wouldn't be included. Singers argument is so unimportant it isn't even on this page... William M. Connolley 19:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea, but an argument could be put up that Singer is one of the front-line sceptics who is setting the "scepticism of the week" agenda :-) --Kim D. Petersen 19:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: My guess is that the books where added because of a press-release/review from Hudson Institute  --Kim D. Petersen 19:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Quite likely. But article bloat with misc ext links is always a problem, why not just delete it as NN? It can go on Singers page if anyone cares William M. Connolley 19:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singer and Avery 

message: Wikipedia's left wing mod-squad won't allow any counter-points to the global warming alarmists on the global warming article itself. If that's not 100% pure evidence of the bias, I don't know what is.Ymous 08:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been called many things in my life but left-wing is a first, thanks :). Actually "alarmist" is a first too. The main global warming article gets a lot of editing from people who read an article "from our science correspondent" sandwiched between "Elvis Prestley seen in Birmingham" and "aliens made me fat" in a local newspaper and want to include the viewpoint. Serious counter points from peer reviewed scientific sources get discussed in the talk pages and put in. Its a bit like Scientists called Steve though: the scientific consensus is extremely strong on the issue and WP defaults to scientists determining science since (as Feymann said) "nature cannot be fooled" --BozMo talk 11:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I share Ymous Ymous's concern. Global warming has been politicized to the point where the debate is no longer scientific.  Left-wing squads do have the upper hand on Wiki, although I suppose this is legitimate since the real world left-wing squad, the UN politicians, have the upper hand on science right now.  It seems to be the fate of freedom that is has to be fight for again and again...  Socialism changed the meaning of the word "democracy" in the 20th century, and will now use the 21st century to do a similar thing to science. --Childhood's End 14:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You need to distinguish the scientific and political spheres. The politics is... politicised. Oddly enough. The science isn't. All this "squads" stuff is just... pointless. You're ranting, without making any effort to improve wiki William M. Connolley 16:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Coming from you, this has to be quite an awkward accusation. You are actually policing all climate-related pages on Wiki, with an openly admitted strong belief in global warming.  And please allow me to quote your last statement : You need to distinguish the scientific and political spheres. The politics is... politicised. Oddly enough. The science isn't.  You are perhaps trying to tell us that the IPCC is not under the control of the ultimate polcitical machine that the UN is, but that is untrue, unfortunately. You are perhaps trying to tell us that the scientists who produce the global warming science are not hugely funded by governments, that is also unfortunately untrue.  You may believe that all the scientists who support the IPCC do it on an honest scientific belief, but in fact we do not know the extent to which some or many of them are afraid of losing their fundings or positions if they dont follow suit. You are perhaps forgetting that the IPCC's Summaries for Policymakers are written out by UN government representatives, but that is just reality.  Sorry for these sad facts, but that's what they are : facts.  And these facts do not call for believing that the science is not politicized, and I am not only ranting on this. --Childhood's End 17:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  More science-free stuff, and more errors. For who writes the SPM, see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/the-ipcc-fourth-assessment-summary-for-policy-makers/ . The *science* of the reports is not under control of the UN. If the SPM is inconsistent with the science, I'm sure lots of people will queue up to tell us, but so far the efforts have been rubbish . However, I'm sure *you* wont want to talk about the science :-( William M. Connolley 18:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sorry William, but I see no point in talking about politicized science, because it's politicized (and anyway, whenever someone brings forth a scientist in disagreement with the IPCC, you label him as a non-scientist or as an oil-industry-puppet). I'll talk about reliable science anytime. You may have a valuable point about how the SPMs are drafted, but it remains that the mainstream climate sience is mostly under the direct or indirect influence of the UN or of national governements. Perhaps they're right, I'm not saying they cannot be, but there's too many reasons to doubt it.  If you cannot trust politicians most of the time, there's no reason you should trust them when they get involved into science. --Childhood's End 20:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Childhood's End, maybe your time would be better spent helping out Ymous in the fight against the evil communist evolutionists. But why not go to the root of the problem and attack heliocentrism instead?JQ 20:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may not be willing to believe it, but the anthropogenic aspects of global warming are not as certain as the fact that the Earth circles the Sun... --Childhood's End 20:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the conspiracy-theoretic arguments probably apply just as well in that setting. --Nethgirb 20:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean, just like when Copernicus first spoke about the Earth not being at the centre of the Universe? --Childhood's End 21:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This is the kind of thing shrinks refer to as projection. Just because global-warming-deniers behave in such a fashion, they assume that those they oppose must be equally guilty. Gzuckier 20:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here's another one 

message: Lord Monckton has a very readable analysis.  Here are some excerpts:
:FIGURES in the final draft of the UN’s fourth five-year report on climate change show that the previous report, in 2001, had overestimated the human influence on the climate since the Industrial Revolution by at least one-third.
:Also, the UN, in its 2007 report, has more than halved its high-end best estimate of the rise in sea level by 2100 from 3 feet to just 17 inches. It suggests that the rate of sea-level rise is up from 2mm/yr to 3mm/year – no more than one foot in a century.
:UN scientists faced several problems their computer models had not predicted. Globally, temperature is not rising at all, and sea level is not rising anything like as fast as had been forecast. Concentrations of methane in the air are actually falling.
:The Summary for Policymakers was issued February 2, 2007, but the report on which the Summary is based will not be published until May. This strange separation of the publication dates has raised in some minds the possibility that the Summary (written by political representatives of governments) will be taken as a basis for altering the science chapters (written by scientists, and supposedly finalized and closed in December 2006).
:The draft of the science chapters, now being circulated to governments for last-minute comments, reveals that the tendency of computers to over-predict rises in temperature and sea level has forced a major rethink.
:The report’s generally more cautiously-expressed projections confirm scientists’ warnings that the UN’s heavy reliance on computer models had exaggerated the temperature effect of greenhouse-gas emissions.
You can read the full report here.  RonCram 01:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or better still, read why its hopelessly wrong here William M. Connolley 19:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, given what a low bar being better qualified than someone whose only claim to fame is cyncism about global warming is, I have to concede you are better qualified that Monckton to discuss the issue ... --BozMo talk 21:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And now I've read both I am happy to add rather more convincing... --BozMo talk 19:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh thank you. I'm still waiting for RC's rebuttal. And I haven't forgotten your stoats William M. Connolley 20:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Monckton's analysis of 4AR

message: Paragraph two: "Scientists, critical of some aspects of the discussion and their donors, dispute the validity of this guilt-by-association argument. These same critics are, themselves, part of government, state-college, and university systems; the scientific organizations listed in the proponents section; or some mix." So anyone who is funded  by the (anti-Kyoto-protocol) U.S. Government, institutions of higher education (including science education), or scientific organizations like the National Academy of Sciences and the American Meteorological Society are untrustworthy? Come again? The deletion of this passage would greatly benefit the section as a whole, particularly since no citations are provided in support of this point.
Paragraph three: "Other criticisms of funding are made by groups known to be in direct opposition to either corporations in general or energy ones in particular, such as the Mother Jones criticism of ExxonMobil donating to groups such as the American Council for Capital Formation." So Mother Jones is anti-corporation? What on Earth does that even mean? And how does this passage enhance the utility or completeness of the entry?
The last paragraph, of course, is practically word salad. A sentence about Steven Milloy and TASSC is followed by a non sequitur about "these editorials." In essence, this whole section has been leavened with stuff that has no bearing on the entry and which adds no new information. 
In keeping with the above points, I'll be doing a bit of spring cleaning on this section about a week from today, if there are no objections.        Dicksonlaprade 21:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this whole section is an embarrassment. There's a little bit of useful information in there, but it needs to be severely pruned and brought up to an intelligible standard of grammar. Hack away... Raymond Arritt 21:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The sooner the better --Nethgirb 21:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: "Some opponents to the anthropogenic view of global warming have also been criticized for using incorrect information or flawed analyses in support of their opposition. For example, in April 2005 David Bellamy published a letter in the journal New Scientist in which he claimed that, of the 625 glaciers being observed by the World Glacier Monitoring Service, 555 of them were growing, not shrinking--a statement which, if true, would cast a good deal of doubt on the existence of global warming. It turned out, however, that Bellamy's figures were incorrect: the vast majority of the world's glaciers have been retreating for the last several decades. A journalist for the Guardian tracked down Bellamy's original source for this information and found that it was Fred Singer's website. Singer claimed to have obtained these figures from a 1989 article in the journal Science, but to date this article has not been found.[41]"     Dicksonlaprade 21:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I see your point. I used this example since it also mentioned Fred Singer, but I think that a much shorter version of this paragraph with a link to the Bellamy article would work better. Thanks for explaining your rationale. Dicksonlaprade 14:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Funding of Skeptics" Section a Mess