Talk:Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills

message: I've written this article fairly quickly and I freely acknowledge that I'm not an expert in climate science; there are a number of areas here that will need be improved, as follows:
* Citation format - the various newspaper articles are adequately cited but need to be in the proper format as given in Wikipedia:Citation templates.
* The nine 'errors' - I've summarised these from a layman's point of view, but they'll need to be checked. It would also be useful if we could give some kind of scientific POV on these issues (i.e. are they really errors?). Wired Science has published three articles which might be of use here (, , ). 
* Response to the judgment - pathetically short at the moment; we need more cited statements.
I'm sure there's more, so please have at it and leave any comments below! -- ChrisO 23:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Following up on my own comment, I've fleshed out the nine 'errors' section, based primarily on a New Scientist piece analysing the issues that the judge raised. Obviously this is just a first go at it, so please feel free to amend it as necessary. -- ChrisO 22:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Areas that need to be expanded

message: Time Magazine and others were taking peoples word that the cold weather
we were having at that time was the start of another ice age.
I was in college at the time and classes were talking about it as fact.
The same Science was use than as now,  Guilty by association,
What they want to belive is what they see.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.39.23.178 (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Global cooling. Basically it was a speculative idea which didn't have a fraction of the scientific support or evidence that global warming now enjoys. -- ChrisO 18:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It's also not relevant to the article. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 22:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The atmosphere may well have been cooled slightly by heavy particle pollution. In the 1970s we started cutting back on that pollution so whatever effect existed would have significantly diminished since then. Einztein 23:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the ice age in the late 1970's. 

message: "On the basis of expert testimony, the judge also pointed to nine statements...".
Which expert testimony is this statement referring to?  The case indicates only Bob Carter (a skeptic) had input resulting in the "nine statements" judgement.  This sentence should be clarified.  Unless otherwise indicated, I'd like to rephrase this as "On the basis of testimony from Dr. Bob Carter, the judge...".  See case: [] Gmb92 04:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Expert" testimony 

message: "Hurricane Katrina was likewise caused by global warming."
I'm hoping someone has the documentary or the book in front of them to verify these points.  From what I remember, Gore distinctly says you can't tie a single weather event to climate change.  His discussion of Katrina was in the context of an example of things to come with global warming.  The title of this section seems to be a strawman.
The "other views" section has some inaccuracies as well.
"At the time that An Inconvenient Truth was released, there was no definitive evidence for a link between global warming and an increase in hurricane strength or frequency."
As I recall, Gore, in the book at least, made the distinction between frequency and intensity.  There was no consensus on frequency and a growing consensus on intensity.  There also had been a good body of work in the intensity issue before the Gore film.
ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/NATURE03906.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/309/5742/1844.pdf
http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_gfdl.html
"Recent studies have suggested that there may be a link, but the issue remains unresolved.[21]"
One recent assessment was the 4th IPCC report, which stated that it's "more likely than not" that hurricane intensity has increased since 1960 from anthropogenic global warming and "likely" that it will continue to increase going forward.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf 
Gmb92 05:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hurricane Katrina section 

message: "However, a number of scientists and commentators[who?] (and Gore's own spokesman) have disputed this characterisation of the nine statements"
This attribution tag has been in the article since October.  We need attribution.  Additionally, we need to respect WP:AWW, meaning that if you find, say, two sources that dispute the characterization, you'd say that those two specific people dispute it, rather than "a number of" people (unless there's a source that uses similar language regarding some mysterious large number of dissenters to the word 'error').  I removed the sentence in the meantime (two months is long enough) but it was re-added (perhaps inadvertently while trying to undo another edit).  I'm removing it again until it has a source. Oren0 19:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: fair enough - your edit wasn't really the one i reverted. It was the one before - but your edit happened in between. Sorry. (it was the removal of the scare quotes that i opposed - since they are used consistantly throughout the judgement). --Kim D. Petersen 19:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "a number of scientists and commentators..." 

message: whose views are these, and why are they really necesary to the article? You have Gore's view and Burton's view, why weasel in more backup for Gore's view?All it does it try too discredit Burton, and reinforce Gore's oppinion on Global Warming, I personally think it should either reflect an UNBIASED alternative view, or none at all, since it really is insignificant to the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.158.111 (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not forget that neither Gore nor Burton are scientists. It's helpful to have a précis of what science actually says on each of the issues, as opposed to what the non-experts said in this case. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other scientific views? 

message: Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Article probation

message: This might be obvious to British editors, but who paid 2/3 of the 200,000 pounds?  What does it signify that this much of the costs, but not more, would be awarded? Wnt (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who paid the costs? 

message: I've attempted to separate the concept of what plaintiff's counsel called 'errors' from what the judge called 'departures from the scientific mainstream' (referred to as 'inaccuracies' in at least one reliable source).  If I've done it incorrectly, please revert, but the separation is required to avoid making misleading arguments.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  More 'errors' 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071128074419/http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~anders/publications/expert_elicitation.pdf to http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~anders/publications/expert_elicitation.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325193707/http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/press_releases/2006/pdf/iwtc_summary.pdf to http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/press_releases/2006/pdf/iwtc_summary.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified