Talk:Climate change/Archive 32

message: I did some tidying up -- or attempted to -- on the confusing Solar Variation subsection. There were all these multiple references to Svensmark's stuff, but in a very confusing way: his idea is that galactic  cosmic rays seed clouds, and the amount of galactic cosmic rays are modulated by solar activity, and this wasn't made at all clear. I know there are going to be some reverts, but do try to make it less murky and confused at the least. -BC aka Callmebc 23:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solar Variation Clean-up 

message: User:Callmebc asked me to explain my rationale for my edit to the following passage , in which I removed a remark that the opinions of conservative think tanks Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute are "described by some as climate change denial." My rationale for removing this remark is:
* As is explained in the Wikipedia style guideline Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms, use of terms like "some people" is to be avoided. Writing in this way makes it easy for editors to covertly add third-party opinions or underhanded jabs against this or that view. A much more concrete, encyclopedic writing style would require an attribution. Who says this is "climate change denial?" 
*I considered the fact that the positions of these two bodies is patent climate change denial by any meaningful definition of the term, and so it might seem silly to challenge the remark. But if it is really so obvious that Cato is a body of climate change deniers (damn the Man!), then what is added to the article by this remark? The reader should easily discern this for his or her self.
*According to the Wikipedia core policy Wikipedia:Verifiability, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and we are told "Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long." I believe that removing this remark follows the spirit of the rule, because (A) it added nothing to the article and (B) could not possibly be sourced.
--causa sui talk 19:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we want to label them that way we need to source it.  There might be a source for it in the politics of gw page.  I'll look into it later, unless one of you gets there first (my computer cannot load large portions of text, so I need to do it from home.) Brusegadi 22:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it would definitely be better if it were sourced. Still, I'm leaning toward the view that it would be best to just leave that out of the article entirely. It smacks of advocacy to me, since it should be easy for the reader to determine that for herself. --causa sui talk 06:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm...no. So-called conservative think tanks like the not exactly accurately named "Competitive Enterprise Institute" have been front and center in spreading disinformation about the true state of global warming, including running the disinfo site, Globalwarming.org. (It's been unnerving to see that particular site's high ranking in Google searches.) They are, by any definition, global warming skeptics/deniers, if not outright corporate toadies with zero demonstrable interest in presenting what the true science is actually showing and what the real climate researchers are actually saying. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe the purpose of an encyclopedia, paper or otherwise, is at the very least not to make people less knowledgeable. -BC aka Callmebc 14:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For future reference, providing one blatantly biased source to counter another is not a strong base for an argument. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 15:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Claim it's biased all you want - numbers don't lie. If they were false, somebody would have sued Mother Jones. They didn't. Raul654 15:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And that's another thing -- progressive media sites like Mother Jones tend to be meticulous in backing up their claims and in demonstrating verifiability, whereas conservative/right wing organizations/sites like the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Junk Science do anything but that. One side does not negate the other in this case, nor even balance or "counter" unless you want to put it in terms of knowledge versus ignorance, honesty versus duplicity, and such. -BC aka Callmebc 16:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be genetic... Count Iblis 00:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Described by some" 

message: I have looked at this article many dozens of times and always meant to bring this up. "Recent" should only be used around here in comparative descriptions ("...more recent than"). Might we change this? "Since the beginning of the industrial era" perhaps. Marskell 19:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed quite a bit before. I would not oppose "since the industrial era". This is technically when humans began affecting climate through emissions. ~ UBeR 20:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A pedant might argue for "since the development of controlled fire" :). Anybody else? Marskell 10:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This unsatisfyingly vague statement may be the best we can do given the facts as they are. We don't have a good handle on when anthropogenic warming began, and it's not a very meaningful question anyway as implied by Marskell's comment above. "In recent decades" implies a lower limit of about 20-30 years ("decades", plural) and an upper limit of about 100 years (where we cross from decadal scales to centennial) which is about right. Raymond Arritt 15:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In recent decades" 

message: This entry says that "most national governments" have signed and ratified Kyoto. Since something like 170 out of less than 200 existing countries have signed and ratified the accords, should this language be clarified? "Most" is vague to the point of misleading understatement. I won't change it till I hear from others...Maybe I'm missing something.Benzocane 19:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you could say something like "176 nations have signed ..." but I don't think most of our readers care for numbers like that and are unnecessarily specific for the intro of this article. If anywhere, that'd belong in the body or simply in another article. "Most" is both simple and correct. ~ UBeR 20:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is more accurate: "most countries are members of the U.N." or "All countries save Taiwan and Vatican City" are members of the U.N.? "Most" reads as indicating a majority; that indication would be misleading here.Benzocane 22:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither are appropriate for the lead of this article. Most is fine (so is majority). ~ UBeR 23:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: UBeR, it would help me understand your opinion -- which I respect -- if you supported it instead of just stating it. Why is a vague and very understated phrase more appropriate than, say, the exact number? Benzocane 01:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well your two example sentences are inappropriate because you're wanting to change the lead (I link to the guidelines because I want you read them). The lead is supposed to be a concise summary of the article, not a collection of facts not represented in the article. Like I said, specific information would probably be more than welcome on their respective articles. ~ UBeR 01:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I am of course familiar with the community standards regarding leads; the prior, question, however, is whether or not "most" is misleading. If it is, it can hardly be justified because leads are supposed to prioritize economy. I won't make any changes until I hear from others, but I agree with Ryan that specific numbers make the most sense (172 takes up no more space than "most" and it certainly isn't specialized language).Benzocane 04:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The standard should be to have something that's both accurate & clear to an assumed uninformed reader seeking info. And proper context is always a necessity, especially when dealing with numbers.   Saying that the DOW went up 100 points won't mean a whole lot to someone who has no knowledge of the stock market -- is that a lot or a little? Saying, though, instead that it went up .7%.  In the case of Kyoto, things are a bit more complex because of the politics involved. The bottom line is that only the US and Australia have refused to sign it outright. So whether this is 2 out of 198 (1%) or 2 out of 36 (5.6%), you still end up with at the least not just "most" but an "overwhelming majority" of countries signing the treaty. I think. You think? -BC aka Callmebc 14:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh, Callmebc, you would at least be slightly convincing if you ever got your facts straight. First, both the U.S. and Australia have signed the Kyoto Protocol. Neither have ratified it, however, nor has Kazakhstan, as this article clearly points out. Also, I'm not "overwhelmed," are you? Do you see the problem with using non-npov language? ~ UBeR 17:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ?? According to the list of Kyoto Protocol signatories wiki, it has only Australia and the US as "Not intending to ratify" and Kazakhstan as "Signed but not yet ratified". Perhaps you should correct that article if it's wrong. And wouldn't you say that for a situation where the majority is 94.4%, never mind 99%, a wholly, truly NPOV description would be "overwhelming majority" and not just merely "most"? 60% would be "most," maybe even 70%, but when it's over 90%.... -BC aka Callmebc 19:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Callmebc... Kazakhstan signed it in 1999, and both the U.S. and Australia signed it in 1998. If you don't believe me, take a look at what the UNFCCC has to say. Like I said, try with the facts first, then make an argument--not the other way around. ~ UBeR 23:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Nah.... See the my reply above yours. -BC aka Callmebc 19:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite an unconvincing post. I stand behind my position. Zoomwsu 03:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The weird thing is that Argentina and Kazakhstan once spoke of agreeing to voluntary restrictions... wonder what they get out of it (or think they'll get.) Brusegadi 19:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Overwhelming majority, or the actual number, or the percentage of signatories -- all would be more accurate than "most." I think we are all aware that what might lurk behind this discussion of a relatively minor point is the tendency of certain GW skeptics to consistently understate the existence of scientific consensus. I vote for putting the actual numbers in the entry and keeping editorial nuance out of it.Benzocane 20:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're wading in to assumption territory, and I would ask you assume good faith on the part of editors, regardless of their positions on broader issues.  I think "most" is simple and concise, and suitable for an introduction.  The numbers belong in a lower section. Zoomwsu 03:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: this issue has *nothing* to do with the scientific consensus.  This is politics.  137 countries ratified the treaty with no obligations whatsoever but with financial incentives for doing so.  How do their signatures reflect the scientific consensus?  There is in fact a fairly broad scientific consensus that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are directly enhancing the earths greenhouse effect and that the observed increases in post industrial temperature averages correlate well with the expected effects of those emissions.  The kyoto protocol however, does not in any way illustrate that scientific consensus.Zebulin 21:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm just saying the intensity of the tone that surrounds such terminology is displaced intensity from other debates.Benzocane 00:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: You're distorting the issue that way, in part evidenced by BC's post.  "Most" avoids the political football of which number to use and serves the purposes of brevity that an introduction demands.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoomwsu (talk • contribs) 03:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Because it would make the article misleading? In any case, even if we took your "36" number, did you not see the calc a little further up? 2 of 36 equals only 5.6%, meaning that 94.4% of those 36 approved it, with Australia and the USA being in the minority. -BC aka Callmebc 00:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That calculation is pointless, because neither the U.S. or the United States are apart of the 36 nations required to reduce emissions under the KP, because neither have ratified it. So, if I'm correct, I think Zebulin's argument is that 36 (wiki says 35) of 172 who have ratified the KP (i.e. ~26.28%), which is a minority, have any obligations under the KP. ~ UBeR 00:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about language in introduction 

message: I changed the sentence in the lead paragraph regarding the scientists who oppose the IPCC consensus.  I used "There are individual scientists who disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC" instead of the previous instance which contained a weasel word ("few").  My thought was this was precise and avoids the weasel word.  Apparently Raul disagrees and I can't see why. Zoomwsu 04:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Few" is only a potential weasel word if it's inaccurate. If it is accurate, then it's the attempt to sidestep it that risks being POV. So the question is: are the dissenting scientists small in number relative to the relevant population? "Individual" is just vague; at worst, it risks the implication that only scientific organizations support the IPCC. I am not accusing you of bad faith, I'm just saying that the accuracy of the term must precede it's POV status. I certainly disagree that "individual scientists" is precise! Precision requires clarifying the proportion of dissenting scientists.Benzocane 04:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole problem, and the reason why countless pages have been written on the talk page is because reasonable people disagree on what the definitions of subjective terms are.  "There are.."  solves the problem by removing any of these subjective terms and sticks to a pure statement of fact.  It is also more encyclopedic.  Better to perhaps be a slightly more vague than to confuse the issue with subjective terms anyways. Zoomwsu 05:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: because your proposed language deemphasizes the fact that these contrarian scientists are a small minority. --Osbojos 05:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my view, "small minority of climate scientists" is better because it tells the reader what the relative ratio is of the non-supporters to the supporters (few does not necessarily communicate that). And qualifying "scientists" with "climate" is important to indicate that the opinions of climate scientists are, necessarily, far more relevant in this field than those of other types of scientists. - Merzbow 05:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. "small minority" seems most accurate. --Osbojos 05:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not completely opposed to using that wording, but that is something that would need to be cited with a pretty reliable source, which presents a whole host of other issues to endlessly debate on the talk pages.  The "There are..." doesn't emphasize anything--that's the point of the revised language.  If we can reach a consensus, there is less of a likelihood this battle will continue on. Zoomwsu 05:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats what was good about the version that had the nature article.  I agree that having too much stuff in the intro is not good, but it was mostly a footnote.  What you propose right now is not good because it removes the relative weights of the opposing views.  We need something that will convey that.  Using 'few' is appropriate here. Brusegadi 05:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the link to the nature article? - Merzbow 06:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Callmebc had added an editorial pub in nature.  See: diff and relevant link. Brusegadi 06:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "few if any will seriously question that what the IPCC delivers is as good a chunk of scientific advice on climate change as anyone could hope to get." - seems a reasonable source for the "small minority" characterization to me. - Merzbow 06:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is, the list of scientist linked is not a list of people who necessarily deny the existence of global warming; mostly they take issue with certain aspects of the IPCC's conclusions. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 07:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I beg to differ. One person used the term "small minority" above, and you said, hey that sounds good, and the other person agreed. That's hardly cause to change the lead. Further, contrary to your claim that the Nature editorial is a "reasonable source for 'small minority'," the source actually states "Few" scientists question whether the IPCC has produced the best advice on climate change. So, in fact, the source quite strongly supports the original sentence, which is "few." I strongly recommend a self-revert in this case. ~ UBeR 21:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "few if any" seems to appropriately support "small minority" to me, and I prefer the latter wording for the reasons above: it more clearly indicates the ratio of the number of scientists who support the consensus vs. those who oppose it. - Merzbow 23:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I beg to differ. The Nature editorial uses almost identical the previous AMQUA source, which used "few people." We obviously know the "if any" can be disqualified, so again, we're left with "few." Now, someone, such as yourself, can subjectively say, "hey, that looks like 'small minority' to me." But from a purely objective point of view, which is necessary under WP:NPOV, you can only deduce they in fact meant "few," because that's the wording they chose, so it ought to be ours (if we want to use that source). The obvious choice is to use "few" because it is both used in your preferred source and is what was suggest under the consensus. There is no consensus for small minority and there definitely isn't one for Callmebc's purely awkward and poorly written sentence that suggests randomness (which is appropriately ridiculed by Mr. Johnson). ~ UBeR 03:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I put back the Nature ref and "individual" scientists as before -- you can probably count on a maimed hand all of the scientists in the entire field of climate research who disagree with the IPCC in any significant way. To say even that a "few" disagree without context is like saying a "few" disagree that the Earth is round in an article about the planet -- there will always be people who will disagree on virtually anything you can bring up. Who here knows people who think the moon landing was faked? -BC aka Callmebc 15:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BC, I think you overly minimize the number of scientists who disagree with some of the IPCC's conclusions.  In particular, you're too prone to hyperbole (i.e. "count on a maimed hand").  There are scientists who disagree with the IPCC's conclusions; there are more than a single-digit number; and most are not being "paid off" by the O&G industry. Zoomwsu 23:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: so then you are actually claiming that there is no disagreement on this issue whatsoever? saying that any disagreement come only from a small number of souurces which are invalid and are only non-sources, is, by your own admission, the same as saying there is no disagreement whatsoever at all. --Steve, Sm8900 15:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, did I say there was "no" disagreement whatsoever? I'm saying that you have to put these things in context. Just because, say, your aunt and some random dude in a bar thinks the moon landing was staged doesn't mean you can then casually add "A few people disagree that we ever landed on the moon" in a encyclopedia article about the Apollo missions, especially in the opening introduction. Maybe much further down in an "Odd Myths" section or such, but it would be giving it way, WAY too much weight to bring it up right away as though it was something worthy of serious consideration. Same deal with this "few" or "some" nonsense going on here. -BC aka Callmebc 16:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a ridiculous comparison, as the moon landings are a documented historical event, whereas here we are dealing with uncertain predictions about the future. Iceage77 16:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's not so ridiculous, unfortunately, and it does indeed directly compares to Global Warming: on one side you have the scientific community; on the other you have a lot of confused or badly misinformed folk courtesy of a lot of deliberate disinformation. -BC aka Callmebc 17:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not ridiculous, as the point is that undue weight is consistently given to skeptics under the claim of neutrality. The skeptics are a radical minority and constantly referencing them creates an image of a divided scientific community when in fact there is unprecedented unity around these issues. But I think we should stay focused: what's at issue is not our beliefs about climate change, but the fact of consensus and the language such consensus demands from an encyclopedia. Even if editors dissent from the scientific consensus, that doesn't justify using language here that obfuscates the fact of that consensus. Little alterations like the proposed one -- dismissing "few" as a weasel word independent of its accuracy -- is POV wherever it subtly exaggerates the existence of dissenters. Even a self-declared skeptic should be able to separate his opinions from the encyclopedia.Benzocane 18:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm curious if there is a list of the scientists who support the IPCC, sorted by discipline.  I wonder how many of them you would consider "non-climate scientists" if you didn't know they were supportive of the inter-governmental panel. Zoomwsu 23:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: See my reply to your last post above. ~ UBeR 07:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More "Few" Stuff 

message: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/04/eaclimate104.xml&page=1  --DHeyward 14:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting in the sense of being a useful compendium of septic nonsense. The first thing it mentions, global cooling, it gets wrong. They even manage to get the date of the first IPCC report wrong! (it was 1990). I think its fun that they seem to be blaming the entire thing on Gore William M. Connolley 14:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article says IPCC started in 1988 and the contradiction in the first report was obvious in 1991.  I didn't see where they actually got the date wrong about the release, just a parsing difference between when it was released and when it the problems with it were exposed.  There certainly was hysteria about 'global cooling' in the 1970's even if the science was misapplied by journalists.  I know they taught it in schools because we were taught that clear cutting the rain forest would lead to more reflected sunlight and catastrophic cooling.  That's anecdotal evidence but it's a gauge of how pervasive it was.  --DHeyward 14:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you're being very creative in re-parsing what they say, as creative as they are being in their history. If you can find a decent ref for your anecdotal stuff, do add it to global cooling - thats a new one on me, so it would be nice William M. Connolley 14:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wasn't going to nitpick them on the dates.  As for "blaming" Gore, I got the impression they were blaming Gore and IPCC equally, similar to the Nobel committee.  I don't have any intention of adding to the global cooling since it's bogus science.  The hype, though, was real.  I'm not sure what you think they got wrong on global cooling.   --DHeyward 17:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The obvious question is "what does this have to do with this article?" My assumption is "nothing." ~ UBeR 20:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's an article on the history of global warming in the context of other scientific scares.  It's a prelude to a book.  It's not an insignificant viewpoint. Why wouldn't it be relevant?  --DHeyward 07:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting read on the history of global warming 

message: Ok I've had some very bizarre edit summaries for the reverts of my recent contribution below )with the part I added in bold):
There is ongoing political and public debate worldwide regarding what, if any, action should be taken to reduce or reverse future warming or to adapt to its expected consequences. Most national governments have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol, aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions but as of 2007 most national governments have not accepted any treaty obligations to control those emissions.
This has been reverted twice.  the first time with this summary:
"v., misleading. Most _industrialized_ countries have, and they generate most CO2"
I interpret this to mean that the contributer user:Stephan Schulz means that it is misleading to say that most countries have accepted no treaty obligations to reduce CO2 emissions because he thinks the countries that have accepted treaty obligations to control CO2 emissions are all of the industrialied (annex I under kyoto) nations and that together these obligated nations produce most of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions.  This is untrue.  The US at the least has not ratified the treaty and currently has accepted no treaty obligations to reduce CO2 emissions.  The US plus all of the non annex I nations already contribute more than half of global CO2 emissions.  So my statement would remain true even in the sense that Stephen seems to be interpreting it in that most CO2 emissions continue to occur in countries that have accepted no treaty obligations to control them.  It also remains true in the simple literal sense that most national government have not accepted any such obligations.  So in what sense is my edit untrue or misleading?  It is simply informative of the state of progress in international efforts to tackle global warming through CO2 reductions.
My edit was reverted again!  this time with the truly bizarre edit summary of:
"rv: POV interpretation of most"  by user:BozMo
"POV interpretation of most"??? how is that even possible?  I'm at a loss to understand how that summary explains the reversion of my contribution.
I think I need help understanding why people want this edit removed.  The current status gives the impression that 172 countries have already accepted a framework that aims to reduce their CO2 emissions when in fact there has been nowhere near such progress.  Why is it important to remove that edit?Zebulin 22:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already given you my take here. First, it should be sourced. Second, the details are inappropriate for the lead of this article. ~ UBeR 23:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  please elaborate on the reversions of my contributions 

message: We know who they are and the intentions behind their edits. While the main page is fully protected yet again, I suggest we have a little discussion about what exactly "improving" the article should entail, especially one that is suppose to be based on science, and a rapidly developing one at that. The promoting and slipping in of fringe and politically-based nonsense keeps getting out of hand. Unlike some other politically charged wiki articles seemingly owned by, shall we say, people of a right wingish/anti-fact disposition, the Global Warming wiki does have more than a couple of people apparently genuinely interested in improving & updating it, as well as protecting it from people who would transform it into a right wing blog outpost. Any thoughts? -BC aka Callmebc 07:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the above is uncivil. while skewering those you perceive as biased, your own biases have leaked through like grease in a paper bag. quite offensive, and completely lacking in WP:AGF. please reconsider posting in this manner. Anastrophe 07:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  BC, you've betrayed your own bias on a number of occasions, including this one.  You are failing to assume good faith on the part of all editors, including the ones you disagree with.  BTW, I love how you lump "right wingish" in with "anti-fact". Zoomwsu 23:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dealing with the [[WP:TE]] and [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]] Editors 

message: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7081026.stm probably belongs somewhere but I'm not sure where - likely not in this article William M. Connolley 17:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should this have any more credibility than Milloy's survey of the IPCC? Check out the last question: "oh btw are you bought and paid for by big oil?"  Iceage77 11:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why is the BBC more credible than Milloy? Tricky one. I wonder if you can answer that for yourself if you think for just a little bit William M. Connolley 12:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Jeremy Paxman, "the BBC's coverage of climate change abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago".  Iceage77 12:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having said that, they have today published a good critique of the IPCC by John Christy . Iceage77 12:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: [Personal attacks removed -UBeR]. You know full well that JP's quote doesn't affect the BBCs cred. Why are you wasting our time with this nonsense? William M. Connolley 12:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is perfectly legitimate to point out which side of the debate the BBC is coming from. May I remind you of WP:NPA. Iceage77 13:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your comments are a waste of time William M. Connolley 14:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  I concur. johnpseudo 15:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: As do I. Anyone who starts out the conversation by putting the BBC on the same level as Steve Milloy isn't playing with a full deck. Raul654 16:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Delete per nom.  Raul's comment is especially apropos. Raymond Arritt 16:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: So what about using the other BBC article pointed out above () somewhere? Are we going to be consistent in our love for the BBC? :) - Merzbow 22:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One's a report of a survey and correspondence; the other is an opinion piece. We could use the latter as a statement of Christy's views, sure.  Why not hop on over to John Christy and add it? Raymond Arritt 23:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7081026.stm 

message: Neither this article, instrumental temperature record or average surface temperature seem to contain the absolute global mean temperature. All references are "anomalies" relative to some period, but the absolute value of the mean during this period isn't stated. Is this standard in climatology, an oversight, or not considered relevant for some reason? For what it's worth, I found "Best estimate for absolute global mean for 1951-1980 is 14C = 57.2F". Chris Bainbridge (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The absolute mean is much harder to determine than the anomalies. Consider two thermometers a thousand kilometers apart that have not been calibrated against each other. You cannot determine the average temperature at both places from them (as they may both be off to an arbitrary amount), but if both now show 5 degrees less than last year, you can indeed determine the average anomaly (and please substiture "two" by "very many", but you get the idea...). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: (conflict) Its a fair point, and far more entertaining than discussing "few". Your reference is a fair one. Anomalies are easier to calculate than absolute values, so people use anomalies; and the global absolute mean doesn't really mean very much. But it should be in the T rec page William M. Connolley (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec a-go-go) Climate change is almost always expressed as a deviation from some baseline rather than as an absolute temperature.  This allows us to factor out small differences in the absolute value between different data sets (as Stephan notes above).  The baseline period most often used is the mean for 1961-1990. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a side note, the baselines for various estimates are also different.  For example, when we chart the warming from the 1800's until now, and then also chart the computer models estimates, the use a different baseline.  I have no idea what would happen if you overlaid the two (or just corrected the offset from one to another).  Here's a previous discussion.  The article on the HadCrut3 methodology is very good and the more recent graphs from that office are better than the ones in the article.   --DHeyward (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absolute global mean temperature? 

message: Broken source link for reference 1, entitled "Summary for Policymakers (PDF). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change".
This link is quoted 8 times in support of scientific statements.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.217.114 (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.  I noticed a couple of days ago that IPCC had redone their site, so please report any other broken links. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) Indeed it has. Probably had to do with their various changes to the site in lieu of the Synthesis Report. The appropriate link is: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf. I also wonder if the publisher should be listed as Cambridge University Press instead of "IPCC." ~ UBeR (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WGI SPM link 

message: Hi editors. Recently I found the article Aviation and climate change - by chance, as I realized that none of the climate change/global warming articles link to it. I think, it would be a good idea to add a link to that article here, once the protection of the article is lifted. Where in the article, do you think would be a good place for that? --Splette :) How's my driving? 21:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably the glossary. Try attribution of recent climate change though. It might be a good article to get some details in. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the quick answer. Yes, that makes sense, I'll add it there. --Splette :) How's my driving? 22:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Aviation and climate change]] 

message: Because of the protected article status, there are some changes I've proposed. Some source URLs need to be changed because of changes to the IPCC Web site.
*In the "Terminology" section, "(AGW)" is superfluous because the acronym is not used anywhere else, so it should be deleted.
*Reference #1, WGI SPM for AR4, should have its URL changed to http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf
*Reference #2, Understanding and Attributing Climate Change, should have its URL changed to http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf
*Reference #57, WGII SPM for AR4, should have its URL changed to http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-spm.pdf
~ UBeR (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the broken links. I've left the AGW for now, as its a) generally useful b) might potentially be more contentious, thus should be left until protection is lifted. ---Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  AWG may not be used on *this* page, but it is used other places and, thus, adds value. On the other hand, under *Adaptation and mitigation* (and other sections), most references to "Global Warming" should be changed to "AGW" since nothing we can do will be worth anything UNLESS the warming is due to people. In this context, it is very important to make the distinction. Q Science (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats hoping that some of the proposed "geo-engineering" solutions do not mess up the world. This only applies if the geo-en stuff is seriously discussed in the article you link to. Brusegadi (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed changes 

message: Can we add to this page a section for the skeptics to voice their opinion? This article is basically one sided and the other side has no chance of changing this page as of now, too many people will just change it back. If we add a new section label something like "The argument against" or what ever, we can stop arguing about many things that we are arguing. It's possible that many of the skeptic will have very valid points to convey, with sources to back it up. This way most of the article will be for explaining/proving this theory but a part of it will be for people, including skeptical scientist, to show their own evidence. I believe this is a place to have a real discussion on the topic which means that both side must have places to say what they believe. I have done personnel research that have valid points, such as the lag between temperature and CO2 change throughout history, that are not addressed in this article. (for those who want a citation: http://icecap.us/docs/change/Greenhousegasesclimate%20map.pdf)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.24.156 (talk • contribs) 
:* See Talk:Global warming/FAQ #11.  Criticism sections are discouraged.  This article is about Global warming, not the Global warming controversy.  If you don't believe your arguments are notable enough to warrant inclusion in the main text of the article, they might belong there.  If you believe your arguments are actually relevant to the topic of Global warming itself, go ahead and present them here instead of assuming that we will reject them without a reason. johnpseudo 19:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * You are mistaken about the purpose of Wikipedia. We don't do original research, but rely on what reliable sources report. We strive for a neutral point of view without giving undue weight to minority and fringe positions. The talk page is emphatically not the place to have a general discussion on the topic itself - see WP:TPG - although many of us (not excluding me) fall for it over and over again. If you have notable, reliably sourced positions to include, by all means do so. It would be very helpful if you would understand the current state of the science, though, to avoid arguing strawmen. Your example point is well understood and fully accounted for in the standard view.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: There is a link to a complete sceptics article in the *lead paragraph* of the article.  That is more than most articles offer.Zebulin (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A place for sceptics 

message: For an article that gets as many edits as this one, I can't believe there was spam sitting in the Further reading section for 4 months! Congratulations to Andreisaioc for the improbable feat! Kaldari (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for finding it! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That--coincidentally, of course--coincides with the date someone took a much-needed break from overseeing the article. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam 

message: *I am wondering if some kind of agreement was made in the past about whether to link to a pdf or the html page of a given reference, as often both options are available. Or maybe even a WP guideline exists about this issue? To me it seems that in this article for most references a link to the pdf was given whenever possible. 
*Second question. I went through the references of the the section 'Causes' and find them quite messy. 1. There are references to two papers of Henrik Svensmark:  and . Does it make sense to cite both? I just had a quick glance at them but it seems the main point of the two papers is the same: the influence of cosmic rays on the climate. That brings me to the next point. Both papers were given as references for the sentence One such hypothesis proposes that warming may be the result of variations in solar activity. Are cosmic rays and the solar activity the same thing? From my understanding solar activity in the context of global warming refers to our Sun only? 
*Last question. The reference:  by the IPCC is given as a reference for the section In contrast to the scientific consensus that recent warming is mainly attributable to elevated levels of greenhouse gases, other hypotheses have been suggested to explain the observed increase in mean global temperature. In other words, the IPCC report (which represents scientific consensus) is given as a reference for 'other hypotheses' (such as solar variation) that are in contrast with the scientific consensus. That doesn't make sense to me. Yes, the pages of the IPCC report that are given as a reference here, deal with solar variation but they are part of the consensus and not conflicting with it. --Splette :) How's my driving? 01:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re solar/cosmic rays: After direct solar variations have been ruled out as the cause of recents global warming (the effect is to small and the distribution of warming is all wrong), the sceptics have now discovered Svensmark. His idea is that cosmic rays are important cloud condensation nuclei - more cosmic rays ->  more clouds -> higher albedo -> climate is cooler. For very long time periods, this has been linked to the sun's movment through the galaxis. However,  it is also claimed to be linked to solar activity via the chain high solar activity-> stronger solar magnetosphere -> less cosmic rays penetrate. Several of the links in either of the two chains have come under scrutiny and not held up well. But the theory has the advantage of being complex and impressive, and hence easily used to impress laymen. But I digress - yes, Svensmark belongs into solar.  --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I see. But do we need two of his references in the same sentence? --Splette :) How's my driving? 15:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The two references to similar papers was probably a bit of an overkill, which arose after a person came demanding for evidence that other hypotheses exist. One of them could probably be removed. Check with other people though. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Re: points one and three: There is no de jure agreement, that I'm aware of, or any stated guidelines that would suggest linking to PDF in favor of HTML or vice-versa (there may be though). De facto, however, it appears direct links to the PDF is favored in this article, which is also what I prefer personally. As for IPCC Chapter 2, that was given as a source to demonstrate that in fact solar variation is discussed in the scientific literature, where as the aforementioned person complained that it was not. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I don't see why the GWC gets quite such a high priority . I'm inclined to remove it William M. Connolley (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm undecided on this one. It could be useful to have something to the effect "this article focuses on the science; if you want to read about political babblings go somewhere else" but the GWC article is so weak that we probably don't want to point to it. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, take it out.  What remains of the Global Warming controversy decreases every day.  Even the Republican presidential candidates acknowledge warming, at least most.  The skeptics are going the way of the flat earth society.  Following this "While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC, the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change are in agreement with them.[4]" the article could have "See Climate change denial "  -SagredoDiscussione? 20:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably good to keep it in the see also links.  It's importance may actually increase as serious debate about mitigation continues.Zebulin (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its already in the navbox William M. Connolley (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Zebulin, I think we've decided to keep "See also" links in the glossary, because the section gets bloated otherwise. I do believe the article link is already in the glossary; if not, feel free to add it. The article is also linked to in the lead. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GWC? 

message: With the recent level of IP vandalism I've semiprotected the article for a while. I assume this will be uncontroversial but if anyone has concerns I'll unprotect. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good.  It should be indef... Brusegadi (talk) 05:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP edits may be interesting to social scientists studying the global warming controversy/denial, though. :)  Count Iblis (talk) 14:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semiprotection 

message: This article does not represent a neutral point of view.  However, I am not suprised since the topic is highly politicized, and spin is used to promote political decisions.  These two specific words should be mentioned as a disclaimer, and that its effects are only predicted by models and unknown, untested, and speculative in nature.  Buildings being built in wikipedia have disclaimers on them because they are "future projects", so claims about global warming are no different than fortune telling.  Since when has using scientists made speculation part of the scientific method?  I think this article superbly misses the point that pollution and waste of ALL TYPES are stupid ways to go about doing things where better ways are known, and we are making guinea pigs of all our planet's species.  However, destruction of habitat and environment isn't really a new phenomenon solely related to global warming, we have been doing this for centuries, again, not to excuse it.
Despite this, the effects are not adequately addressed, particularly in the "benefits" column.  All processes create problems as well as create opportunities.  Particularly important of note is that 11 million sq miles of land (Russia, Canada, Kazakhstan), or a fourth of the world total, if warmed sufficiently, will have the potential to be far more arable and economically active.  Of course, this may mean more destruction, but that is totally up to how we make it.  While its true that arid regions may grow, they currently don't support much population anyway.  Also, the idea that "tropical diseases" spreading are a bad thing is a Western stereotype.  These diseases have been long ignored by the West, and it's time they find cures for them.  Especially since ever greater numbers of Westerners now travel to the tropics because of globalization.  —Preceding  comment added by Doseiai2 19:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the main article on the effects, and note that predictions made by various models have indeed been tested. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 19:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Funny you should mention Science. Here is an excellent article by them that compares predictions to observations. If you don't have a subscription to Science, you can find the article in your local library. It's from the 1 February 2007 issue and titled "Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections". Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it would be best if the supposably offending "speculative" portions of the article were gathered together in a "future trends" section rather than tagging the entire article with a speculative "Disclaimer".  In any case there is nothing speculative about observed historical data on global warming to date.  Furthermore if the "future trends" section focuses on current models of climate change and their predictions rather than focusing on the predictions themselves then it would not be in any sense "speculative" either.  it would just be a description of climate models.Zebulin 20:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You were obviously unable to read the article. The article compares recent climate observations to past projections, this is not the same as matching "past trends" as you suggest. Yes, prediction itself isn't science. Who suggested otherwise? There is a lot of theory here (I assume you've read the article), and you were lamenting on the lack of predictions. Now that I've shown you where you can read up on how well past predictions have done, you're now lamenting that predictions aren't everything. I'm possibly mischaracterizing you, but re-read what you wrote to understand how it looks that way to me. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody appears to be lamenting a lack of predictions.  Rather they wanted to tag the entire article as speculative.  My comment was merely a description of how that would be inappropriate.Zebulin 20:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that comment was directed towards Doseiai2, who said "its effects are only predicted by models and unknown, untested, and speculative in nature". I would argue that was a complaint about the models being untested, i.e., having a lack of tested predictions. Are you suggesting that I read too much into that comment? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 21:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: my apologies! sorry to muddy the waters.  Your comment was well said.Zebulin  —Preceding comment was added at 21:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: encyclopedia articles are supposed to miss such points ;)  Wikipedia articles are not intended as vehicles for any sort of public service message however sensible it might be.  It doesn't matter what your views on "carbon spewing" might be or if readers of an article might not read an important relevant piece of advice.  If the article misses such points then it is working as intended.Zebulin 20:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Sure, while we're at it we can make sure that we mark quantum mechanics and general relativity as speculative, too. Is that what you're suggesting? (After all, scientists are just learners and not "know it all teachers".) We're presenting the science here in as neutral a way as possible. How is it different from other science-based articles on Wikipedia, or are you seriously suggesting this for all scientific articles? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 21:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: We here at Wikipedia are not interested in your points. If you have a suggestion for amending the article, then by all means we would be more obliged to listen. Rather than talking about the topic and making clearly false statements about science, try to focus on the article--otherwise we can't help you. ~ UBeR 21:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Request denied. --Stephan Schulz 22:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Now that you've listed some actual proposals, I would like to address some of them. First, carbon (dioxide) in itself isn't a pollutant, but I know what you're saying. We already list the other major greenhouse gases in this article and there's no need to go off on a tangent about other pollutants. About your earlier proposal about making this article simply about pollution--that isn't possible. The pollution, and even the air pollution articles are already too big. This is a separate topic that is deserving of its own article. Second, theories are based upon hypotheses, which are often times predictions and projections (because of x, y). See here for more on the scientific method. Third, our readers are typically not children; they can think and deduce by themselves. Fourth, I can't say I would disagree. ~ UBeR 22:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you have a specific suggestion for the article? Is there a specific claim made in the article that you disagree with and can provide a counter-argument against (with citations)? johnpseudo 00:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: "Remember that all models are wrong; the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful." Quoth the statistician George Box. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds silly.  What do you mean by "model" -- only complex climate models?  Every science uses models of all types.  A very simple energy-balance model produces much the same answer as a long-term climate model for the case of global warming.  Analogous models of different complexities are relied on heavily in economics, physics, even biology.  To evaluate which sciences used "models" at any given moment and tag those would constitute original research.  bikeable (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the intro, it says "Climate model projections summarized by the IPCC indicate that average global surface temperature will likely rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the 21st century". First of all there is the qualifier "likely". Second, there is a range, which is quite large. Thus the disclaimer that you want is effectively there already William M. Connolley (talk) 13:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highly Politicized 

message: Recently we had a source concerning possible implications of global warming on mortality in the US removed from the article as too detailed and region specific to deserve mention here and being more appropriate to the effects of global warming article. I found and also removed a specific reference to possible contributions of global warming to the extinction of a particular species of butterfly native only to california. However this edit  appears to highlight the need for some clarification of what place if any country specific information has in the article. The text removed and then reverted back into the article did indeed relate only to specific countries and indeed it appears in the main kyoto article. When is it appropriate to insert information specific to certain countries in this article and when is it not? I perceive the need to establish some guidelines here to avoid rampant edit wars of people including region specific details because other specific information has a long history of being in the article or removing country specific information simply because other country specific information was removed simply for being country specific.Zebulin (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also try to weight in the importance of something regional to the world.  The golden toad is sometimes mentioned as the first specie to go extinct because of gw.  Although confined to Costa Rica (and maybe Nicaragua) it would be appropriate to mention because of the significance of being first.  This is just an example, so dont take it too seriously, but my main point is that if you can find notability in some other aspect, then its regional confinement can be overlooked. Brusegadi (talk) 02:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above, if certain information is going to be removed for being U.S.=centric, at least be consistent throughout the article. This should also for anything that's overly-specific when it's not important for such a macro-level article to do so (e.g. the butterfly). I recall that the toad information was already tried to be added, but was promptly removed. ~ UBeR (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has to be kept general.  Even if we tried to include one specific effect per continent, there would be a never ending war over which effect got included and which did not.  The other problem is that it's nearly impossible to conclusively attribute events to being caused by GW.  The golden toad  is a good example.  I got mighty tired of breathing smoke from forest fires last summer and think the blame is primarily GW.  The evidence is, I think, fairly strong, but there are still other possible causal factors for fires.  The cause section of the killer 2003 European heat wave  has several citation required tags and only one reference.  A reference that says, "global warming probably contributed.  Emphasize probably.  20,000 to 50,000 dead, and I don't think we can even go there.  - SagredoDiscussione? 04:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  country or region specific information in the main GW article 

message: I think that this article could be merged with climate change becasue they are pretty much the same thing. Global warming is basicly the climate changing in an upward trend.Chessmaster3 (talk) 00:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite. In fact, read the "Terminology" section of this article. Climate change is quite a bit broader than global warming, and WP:SIZE would have us have separate articles, as the scopes of each topic are quite different. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate Change 

message: If the carbon dioxide level from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ is plotted on the same time scale as fossil fuel usage from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm it is discovered that the carbon dioxide level started to increase about 1750, a century before any significant fossil fuel use. If average earth temperature from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html is plotted on the same graph as fossil fuel use it is discovered that there is no correlation between rising fossil fuel use and average global temperature to 1976. The hypothesis that since 1976 increasing carbon dioxide level has caused the temperature to rise is refuted by the carbon dioxide level and earth temperature determined from the Vostok ice cores. If these are plotted on a precision time scale it is discovered that the change in atmospheric carbon dioxide level lags earth temperature change by hundreds of years. See e.g. http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/Climate_Change_Science.html. Also, if average global temperature from C. R. Scotese and carbon dioxide level from R. A. Berner are plotted on the same graph as shown at http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html it is discovered that 440 million years ago carbon dioxide was over ten times the current level while earth temperature was about the same as now for over two million years. Many may have the ability and initiative to evaluate these historical data and if they do, the number of people who question that human activity is a significant contributor to the planet getting warmer will increase accordingly. Dan Pangburn (talk) 09:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is for discussing the article, not the concept of climate change itself.  As I'm sure you know, it is not acceptable to add your own original research to article pages.  Instead, all facts on this encyclopedia should be verifiable.  If and when this analysis is published in a peer reviewed source, then it would make sense to discuss where this information might go in the treatment of global warming in this encyclopedia.  However, what you have posted here is not currently relevant to the article, and so this is not the place to discuss it.  Enuja  (talk) 09:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The material does not address the concept of climate change. There is no original research but simply presenting legitimate data sources. All facts are verifiable at the data sources given. It is relevant because it refers to cause which is a section of the article. Dan Pangburn (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe WP:SYN is more apt. If the material does not address climate change, then it would be synthesis to present it in a way that did (unless a reliable source did so first). Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Friends of Science and mysite.verizon are not reliable sources. Sorry. Your best bet is sticking with the peer-reviewed research published in scholarly journals. ~ UBeR (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Data 

message: *This annual UN Report on Human Development was publicly presented this week in Brasilia and this year theme is "Fighting climate change: Human solidarity in a divided world". You can find the pdf version at . At least take a look at the Executive Summary. I think it does have valuable info, that at least ts worth mentioning in the 5.1 Section on Economic effects or perhaps in the Climate change article. Eventually it might belong to any of the controversy articles, since the UN is making a very strong political statement here and providing an answer for those asking to give priority to the third world problems, as now this report presents global warming/climate change and poverty as one problem. Anyway, it does have very smart figures regarding carbon related themes by countries. Because this is quite a sensible subject, I leave to you guys who have been working very hard on this article to decide where this new info belongs to, if it deserves any space at all.Mariordo (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion: Take a look at the new "UN HDR 2007/2008" 

message: I reverted a recent change  by User:Samsee because I don't believe it belongs in the lead of this article, and, after reading the linked article that Samsee added, I think the sentence used was misleading.  I couldn't find the source used in this article, but I haven't checked related articles yet.  It does look like a good reference to use in the Climate models section of this article, in the main article Global climate model, in IPCC or IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.  The article link is .  Samsee, for future reference, please add cited references as inline citations.  If you have trouble with the format, please ask for help on the article's talk page.  Enuja  (talk) 04:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That edit seems to extrapolate from the source and a little wishful thinking... Brusegadi (talk) 06:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  July news in Science