Talk:Friends of Science

message: I have some trouble with the statement.
: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").
Of course, 3 decades of satellite data cannot show a "change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures", as three decades is to short for any long-term analysis. However, it can show a change in the temperature. It can show an increase in temperature (or a lack of the same). But what is a "no change in the rate of increase of temperature"? Are they claiming it getting warmer at a constant rate? 
I suspect they want(ed) to claim that the satellite temperature record shows no increase in temperature (it does, but some early interpretations failed to show this, as they failed to account for orbital decay and other problems). 
But given that parts of the statement are, read literally, nonsensical: Do we report what they say or what they try to say? 
--Stephan Schulz 15:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I originally added it, with This statement is curious, because the temperature trend clearly has changed over the last 3 decades, compared to, say, the two previous decades.. I think I'll restore that William M. Connolley 16:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the discussion on what is the most common interpretations of the temperature records belongs to pages such as satellite temperature record and such. This page remains neutral by focusing on what FoS says without supporting or criticizing it. --Childhood's End 21:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No: wiki is not a free platform for (in my view, nutters like) FoS statements. If they say something, then its fair to comment on it. The current wording is imperfect, but will do for me William M. Connolley 23:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Childhoodsend, "This page remains neutral by focusing on what FoS says without supporting or criticizing it." We need to express the views of the FoS, not those of others. Tynedanu 14:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note that the Friends of Science Church makes public assertions about their behavior which do not match their behavior; it indeed therefore proper to write ".. they have stated...." and "... they have claimed..." when writing about the cult, not about the science. As for satellite data, the data are not temperature records: they are used to run computer models that produce a temperature trend, with high error bars. The latest models that use satellite data show a sharp increase in clobal average upper troposphere temperature on par with land-based instrumentation. Desertphile (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  FoS statement 

message: Do you think that this sums up the goals of the FoS? "Friends of Science aims to assist the Canadian Government in examining the science and data behind the Kyoto Protocol, and the Global Warming debate." Tynedanu 13:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. This is at best their claimed goal. See WP:RS#Self-published_sources_in_articles_about_themselves for why it is not a good idea to report their claims without qualification ("According to the FOS website [proper ref here], ..."). --Stephan Schulz 13:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FoS Goals 

message: Obviously, this article should be renamed "Criticism of Friends of Science", as it now contains more stuff about criticizing it than describing it. Or should we add information about the claims made by FoS so that it becomes a bit more relevant to spend as much space on one single statement that they made? --Childhood's End 18:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it contains nothing criticizing it ... in fact it's a blatant white wash, omitting the fact that virtually every claim by FoS is scientifically invalid or misleading. -- Jibal (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of FoS 

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) 13:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Article probation

message: Why the heavy-handed attempts to link this group to the oil and gas industry?  It makes the article nothing but a WP:COATRACK.  Some of the sources used are obviously biased and highly questionable.  Worse, even if we accept their statements at face value, the entire organization's funding is a trifle (under $100K/annually), and its unclear if even a non-negligible percentage of that comes from energy firms.  Innuendo implifying conflict of interest here seems highly farfetched.  
Further, there's the issue of undue weight, when a brief article about an organization is overpowered by focusing on funding allegations.  FellGleaming (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone have comments on this section before I delete it?  FellGleaming (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The funding bit is important and relevant. LEave it in. Yilloslime TC 17:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Coatracking

message: There seems to be some effort to debate global warming within the lede of the article.  While some measure of this is useful within the article itself, a simple statement of the groups's view is encyclopedic and useful here.  FellGleaming (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede 

message: FOS say We have assembled a Scientific Advisory Board of esteemed climate scientists from around the world to offer a critical mass of current science on global climate and climate change to policy makers, as well as any other interested parties.   but this appears to be a porky . Should we mention this? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advisory board 

message: The graph shown at right does not seem to be from the FoS website, and AFAICS does not represent any data on that site. Additionally, the trend lines placed on this image are misleading in nature as they span two distict epochs with differing rates of change. The image's own wiki entry containg links to two other images of temperature graphs, neither of which seem to agree with the generally accepted findings of HadCRUT, BEST, GISS etc that aggregate land and ocean surface temperatures have not significantly increased since 2001. This arises mainly because these graphs are out of date, showing data to only 2000 or 2005, and that five year averages have been applied which effectively shorten the series still further. 
In summary, this image neither represents the opinions of the FoS site, nor does it represent the mainstream consensus of understanding of global temperatures, as of 2014.  
I would suggest replacing this image with 
GlobalTroposphereTemperaturesAverage.jpg
I also suggest that the other outdated and therefore misleading graphs be either updated, or deleted. 
Owing to controversy flag I have not performed this edit, but leave it up to admins to decide. --Anteaus (talk) 07:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate graph 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Friends of Science. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.cspg.org/CSPG_Climate_Change_Backgrounder.pdf
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/Testimony-baliunas.htm
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/guests/macrae.htm
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://search.barnesandnoble.com/textbooks/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=0674089227
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Friends of Science. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.cspg.org/CSPG_Climate_Change_Backgrounder.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070402110349/http://www.charlesmontgomery.ca/mrcool.html to http://www.charlesmontgomery.ca/mrcool.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121108112401/http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=3c955256-f327-465a-8135-778088f6131a to http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=3c955256-f327-465a-8135-778088f6131a
*Added  tag to http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=fdc3b6fd-ca3e-454d-9894-f9894a0ef4dd
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) 04:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified