Talk:List of climate change controversies/Archive 4

message: Maybe old news to most of you - Last night on TV - which show I don't remember - it appears that some western state has been claiming that global warming was decreasing the snow pack in their mountains for several years - less ground water, skiing, etc. It appears that the data was cherrypicked - highest year ( 1995) compared with lowest year ( 2005). The assistant state meteorolgist was fired when he publically exposed the sham. Now this state is totally proglobal warming - one way to win an argument.159.105.80.141 11:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent source, "last night on TV" (which time zone? which network?) in a show you do not remember, someone (who?) claimed something about some "western state" (West of where? Peru, Canada, Ireland and Portugal come to mind). Do we have any long-term information about the snow pack? --Stephan Schulz 11:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vanishing Snowpack 

message: "...Among climate scientists there is little disagreement that global warming is primarily anthropogenic..."
Incorrect, actually -- this is still an issue of contention. Regardless of whether or not it is or it isn't anthropogenic, there is no "consensus." See below:
http://www.heartland.org/pdf/20732.pdf
: The report is fatally flawed, because it relies on the 2003 survey, which was itself flawed - there were no controls on who responded. Thats why you're not citing its publication in a proper journal, because sadly it wasn't William M. Connolley 22:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of whether the report was published in a peer reviewed journal or not, the fact is that controversy is mainly about the question of whether or not the gentle warming is anthropogenic. RonCram 05:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but that does not contradict the sentence. --Nethgirb 06:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  The term "little disagreement" indicates a degree of harmony.  No such harmony exists.  The number of climate scientists who disagree may be small but the disagreement is vociferous. The sentence has to go. RonCram 14:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with what you said that the controversy is largely about whether GW is anthropogenic.  But that controversy is almost all outside climate science.  You seem to be equating vociferous disagreement by a tiny minority with "more than a little disagreement", which gives undue weight to the small minority. The skeptics don't get more weight just because they're loud. --Nethgirb 16:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Brey and Von Storch studyhttp://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/Bray.htm has been "reported" to lack controls, but this report has yet to be verified as far as I know. Has anyone claimed so far that he was a respondent to the survey while not being qualified to answer? And no matter what, the authors of the study should be presumed to have worked properly, not the other way around. If this study would have ended up in supporting mainstream climate science, it would be cited at every corner just like the fluke Oreskes paper is. --Childhood's End 14:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nethgirb, I am not trying to give undue weight to the minority.  The sentence currently states there is "little disagreement."  That is not a true statement.  The minority is loud because the disagreement is strong, occurs against many points, is scientifically supported and picking up supporters all the time.  The term "little disagreement" does not accurately convey the situation and must be modified. RonCram 16:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking this response together with your previous one, you're saying the disagreement is strong because the objections are loud ("vociferous"), and the objections are loud because the disagreement is strong. Such rigorous logic is impressive. Raymond Arritt 16:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it was obvious that usually, a strong disagreement tends to become loud...  --Childhood's End 20:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With "The Great Global Warning Swindle" it seems that we have attributable (in English language mainstream media, featuring employed academics) disagreement, so it would seem that "little disagreement" seems in appropriate. How about, "some disagreement"? --Timtak 14:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for my enlightenment: which employed academics? I watched it but must have missed them? Specifically disagreeing that global warming is primarily anthropogenic that is...--BozMo talk 15:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I take issue with this sentence 

message: One of the major sources of argument over GW is future T rise. Currently the article does this very badly. Uber removed the entire section with an odd comment about "Not a real controversy", which is hard to understand. Various septics have said various things about how tiny the rise is, they ought to go in somewhere. Unless we're all that the IPCC *does* span the full range of opinion; in which case that should be reported :-) William M. Connolley 21:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps in the sense that people may argue 2-11 F temperature rise is insignificant, yes. Haven't seen any real papers that deny temperature rise, however. Burden of proof is on the author. For more details on this policy of which I speak, read WP:A. ~ UBeR 22:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Haven't seen any real papers that deny temperature rise - if this page was restricted to papers only, it would be much shorter. Most of the septic nonsense isn't publishable, of course William M. Connolley 14:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have no real evidence for what you're putting in articles, don't even bother. Wales makes this very clear, as does the rest of the Wikipedia community who've voiced their opinion on Wikipedia policies. There are bona fide skeptical responses to claims made by the by the IPCC. If you're interested in nonsense, try some other online encyclopedia.  ~ UBeR 18:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What are you on about? William M. Connolley 18:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pardon? ~ UBeR 21:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future T rise 

message: The entry currently (23 March 2007: 1325 UTC) reads 
"Claim: If greenhouse gases were causing the climate warming then scientists would expect to the troposphere to be warming, but observations do not bear this out [33]. Response: satellite temperature measurements do indeed show that tropospheric temperatures are increasing[34] ."
This imho is wrong. In the channel 4 documentary to which is linked it is claimed that the troposphere is warming less quickly(!) than the earth, not that the troposphere is not warming. Given that, the second reference does not disprove the true claim. I'm not that sure, but if I understand the abstract correct there too the surface warms faster that the troposphere. 
If my observation is correct, the last sentence of the original text should be removed or, if the article confirms the claim, it should reveal that.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nvdb (talk • contribs).
:The satellite data has been corrected a number of times as more and more issues (orbital drift, time drift, alignment problems, calibration issues) came up. The latest version now is in reasonably good agreement with surface temperatures and model predictions. The skeptics criticism usually lags 1-2 updates behind. --Stephan Schulz 20:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Stephan is (of course) correct. The *old* skeptics claim was no warming, though that hasn't been true for a while. The new claim is not enough warming, but since thats fairly subtle it doesn't make a good soundbite so they don't use it much. Ahem, anyway. The correct rebuttal to the correct claim is that there is no disparity between the sfc and trop trends; satellite temperature record has two good sources for this: the old CCSP report (which has the nice irony of having Christys name on it, a little in joke there for those paying attention) and the new AR4 SPM William M. Connolley 21:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temperature of the troposphere 

message: :typical within normal climatic variations
Thanks to User:Stephan Schulz for catching and fixing this  so quickly. --Uncle Ed 12:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ed, re item 3 -- at question is the extent.  Let's take a human example: blood pressure in a human body changes frequently, from lower than normal to higher than normal; at issue would be whether one ingested a stimulant to drive it higher the expected daily range or a depressant to drive it lower than same -- in other words, are the changes within a normal range?  Hence, the GW question would be best phrased, "is the present level of global warming in keeping with historical data?  The answer to that question would be no -- anthropogenic pollution has served as a stimulant (and, please, don't bring up the farting cows). •Jim62sch• 19:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: We have satellite data for 28 years. We have a reasonable complete instrumental temperature record for about 150 years. We have detailed proxy reonstructions for about 2000 years, and increasingly less accurate estimates for increasingly larger periods of time. See temperature record for an overview. --Stephan Schulz 11:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vague phrase in the intro 

message: Several sections above discuss the question of how much or little agreement there is among climate scientists, on various aspects of the global warming controversy. Perhaps we can summarize it all here. Anyway, the NPOV dispute tag needs a section to link to, so I made this. Look above for multiple sections disputing neutrality of this article. --Uncle Ed 18:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you refering to the article or the concept? •Jim62sch• 19:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amount of agreement among climate scientists 

message: The controversy is about five claims, positions or proposals:
*#  The claim that an increase in atmospheric CO2 from man's burning of fossil fuels is mainly responsible for increasing global surface temperatures. (Asks the questions: Is warming global?  Is it possible it is mainly regional?  If so, what does that mean?  What does the satellite data say regional warming?  What does physics say about atmospheric CO2?  What other climate forces could be at work?  How much is attributable to man?)
*# The position of the keepers of the temperature record that they do not need to archive and make available their data and methods  (making it impossible for other scientists to verify the extent of the reported warming or how the Urban Heat Island (UHI) is handled).  When Phil Jones of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was asked for archived data and methods, he replied: "We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"    (Asks the questions: Is the warming real or an artifact of instrument error or UHI bias?  Is the warming real or an artifact of errors in the handling and adjustments of the dataset?  Why haven't the data and methods been released?).UHI Esthameian 01:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the controversy about?

message: *The temperature has been rising abnormally since the late 1800's.  We have also been producing more and more carbon dioxide since the late 1800's, from the number of people breathing it out, from machines (like cars) and from processes (like agriculture and industrial production).  Since there's only two major places this extra CO2 can go besides the atmosphere (the oceans and plant respiration), and since the amount in the atmosphere went up from ~300 to ~400 during that time, and since carbon dioxide absorbs heat at various atmospheric wavelengths, the warming must be from the carbon dioxide, and if we don't reduce it, we'll burn up.  Especially since the oceans are warming too, due to them absorbing (sinking) CO2.  Although some of our pollutants and other materials in the atmosphere cool some, the heating is not as bad as it could be, lucky for us.  However, unless we do something now on a large scale to reduce and remove CO2, the temperature change will be disasterous in the future.
Sln3412 18:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What types of particular viewpoints might be controversial?

message: I have removed this article from
* 
and
*
since it is not an individual or organisation which can be considered to have any view in particular. Those categories are not for articles containing information on global warming skeptics, they are for the skeptics themselves to be listed in. QmunkE 13:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense. I thought they looked out of place on that category page. Note also that category pages can be edited to have some kind of intro explaining the category, I  believe. That might be a suitable place to link to articles such as this that both mention many of the people & orgs in the category, and talk about their views or positions.Birdbrainscan 18:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: *There have also been allegations that proponents of the theory may have been influenced by access to funding. Congressman John Linder analyzes the broad support that Eugenics enjoyed among scientists in the early 20th Century, and concludes that "researchers adjusted their outcomes to support the theory of those paying for the research." He then compares this phenomenon to the latter day scientists who support the theory of Global Warming. , "Global Warming theory and the eugenics precedent", 'Washington Times', February 19, 2007
Is an opinion piece by a U.S. Congressman sufficiently notable to merit this much space? His analysis appears extremely cursory. -Will Beback · † · 23:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There doesn't appear to be any analysis, only a hasty generalization crossed with an association fallacy.  --Skyemoor 22:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots of claims like this are covered in Global warming conspiracy theory.JQ 02:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Equally, a number of GW sceptics have links with the oil industry —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Esthameian (talk • contribs) 01:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Linder 

message: This brief new section is unattributed and uses weasely language "it is alleged" without saying by whom. I think there may well be some people saying this, but let's get some sources. The single sentence as it stands gives no context. Also I wonder how many people know what LEDC stands for?Birdbrainscan 13:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LEDC section 

message: Living in a city at -6C in the winter and +36C in the summer looking at the global average on that scale.  Sln3412 23:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  -6 to 34 

message: Is this article (and mostly to do about global warming in general) about man made global warming (MMGW) or natural global warming?  If it is about natural, is the debate (if any) on MMGW big enough for a Wikipedia article?  Some people may believe in global warming, but are skeptical about its being man made. 68.115.90.55 19:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...  I need to learn not to skim as much.  I swear I've looked over those articles numerous times. 68.115.90.55 17:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Man made or natural? 

message: I am here responding to an RFC posted at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Maths%2C_science%2C_and_technology.  I cannot understand why links to evolution or smoking controversies are in this article.  Has some secondary source made this link, or just a contributor?  If a secondary source has made these links, you might have a case.  If this is the imagination of a contributor, I think these sections should be removed as original research.  ImprobabilityDrive 03:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted in the intro to the section, the link has been made most clearly by Chris Mooney in The Republican War on Science. As regards smoking/GW there are many other examples listed earlier in this section.04:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that this link is better for the specific case of smoking and AGW, where the connection is most clear-cut (and, as you say, rather surprising when you first encounter it) in terms of direct evidence on cash flows, organizational structures and so on. OTOH, Mooney covers the entire field better. I'd suggest a cite to Monbiot in the subsection on smoking. JQ 07:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good.  I also think the intro to the section should be reworded, from "Many of the critics of the consensus view on global warming have disagreed..." to "It has been alleged that there are links between many global warming skeptics and skepticism on other scientific issues..." or something like that.  I'm not sure on the exact phrasing but the point is to say that external sources have pointed out a pattern, rather than just listing some people who hold both views (which amounts to synthesizing a pattern and thus WP:OR).  And then of course those allegations of a pattern should be backed up with external links.  The Monbiot piece does that for smoking, and the Mooney ref might do that for the rest though I haven't looked at The Republican War on Science. --Nethgirb 08:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: So, since Mooney and Monbiot are "biased", shall we remove all the blatherings by the professional naysayers because they, too are "biased"?  Raymond Arritt 15:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Citing someone to report his opinions and citing someone to support a claim is quite different. I thought this could be obvious to a scientist. --Childhood's End 15:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External sources alleging link

message: Those who believe such a consensus exists express a wide range of opinions: some merely recognize the validity of the observed increases in temperature, while others support measures such as the Kyoto Protocol that are intended to reduce the magnitude of future global warming. Still others believe that environmental damage will be so severe that immediate steps must be taken to reduce CO2 and methane emissions, even if the precise results are unknown, and even if there are substantial economic costs to doing so. 
Interestingly enough, an author sought to put "some" people (scientists? policy makers? media? general public?) recognizing AGW into 3 categories; are these verified somewhere?  "precise" and "substantial" are WW.  Unless there is sufficient justification and attribution, these sentences will be clarified and reduced.  --Skyemoor 10:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Those who believe..." 

message: I think the assertion section needs to be reworked on. By saying "supports of AGW" think this and "disbelievers of AGW" think this is creating a false dilemma. For example, there are plenty of AGW supports who believe hurricanes intensity and frequency isn't the result of CO2 emissions. Or that deniers believe CO2 rise came after temperature rise in the ice cores. While this is true, many supporters of AGW also believe this. Or, for example, that temperature has risen over the past 100 years. Many deniers of AGW believe this too. I could go on, but I think it's clear the section is very misleading, or at least missing a lot of details. ~ UBeR 21:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Here's an idea—why don't we cut the section entirely (both the assertions by supporters and opponents). As UBeR says, it's somewhat misleading; some of it is unimportant or duplicative; the article is way too long; and in general, I don't see what good a big list of assertions does. I suggest cutting the entire section to the talk page.  The important bits can then be extracted and discussed in more detail, as some issues like Urban Heat Islands or Solar Activity already are. --Nethgirb 05:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with both. If an item is important enough to be listed, it should be explained in reasonable detail. Conversely, if it's not important enough to explain, it shouldn't be included. Note "listiness" is considered a negative attribute in evaluating Wikipedia articles. Raymond Arritt 05:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. Here it is for discussion. Hal peridol 12:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assertions section 

message: This is a good section.  I think this whole area can and should be given its own wiki page too, the link between funding by dirty industry, advocacy/propaganda and anti-environmentalism, anti-consumerism.  Lots of info out there.  Bring it all together, all of these groups and individuals.  Unfortunately I don't have the time to do it myself. 4.246.201.170 15:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And these links and schemes between all these evil entities have probably been demonstrated in a Michael Moore movie...? I presume this could support the article. --Childhood's End 16:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the same level, I note that TGGWS is quoted in this article. --Skyemoor 20:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related controversies 

message: Note that this article is "GWC" - *not* "criticisms of GW". At the moment, its hopelessly unbalanced - all the IPCC section is anti, for example. Per undue-weight, that section (for example) should primarily consist of praise and endorsements of the ipcc, since that is the scientific balance. politically it might be otherwise William M. Connolley 14:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this is about the controversy, not the praise. If you're looking for IPCC praise, go to its respective article. There's not much controversy surrounding their praise. (Well, may there is, but I don't know about it.) Additionally, if you want to talk about improper criticism, look at the "Related issues" section. ~ UBeR 16:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with UBeR.  This is about the controversy and so it has to be about the controversy the IPCC has raised by not following their own policies and for pushing a political agenda that is contrary to the science. RonCram (again on a borrowed computer) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.173.189.138 (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your interpretation is unacceptable, unless we rename all this "criticism of...". Clearly, if there is controversy, there are two sides to report. This page will remain unbalanced if it is all crit William M. Connolley 17:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So start with removing the ad hominem criticisms. ~ UBeR 17:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: UBeR - why should he? The ad hominem criticisms are part of the controversy and debate - so it should be mentioned and covered. Or are you of the opinion that it shouldn't - and on what grounds do you base this? If it had been radical or extremist sources that this was based upon - i'd agree that it should be removed for reasons of undue weight - but the critique is fairly common in mainstream media. So it belongs there (imho). --Kim D. Petersen 17:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I haven't a clue wot Uber is on about. Why doesn't Uber remove these things himself, whatever they might be? William M. Connolley 17:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Ron, unless this article is Criticism of the IPCC, then by all means support for the IPCC belongs here as well, at least to show both sides of the controversy.  --Skyemoor 18:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, there is a reply from IPCC to L. Various societies have weighed in favour of the IPCC... we list them on the sci opp page; they should be included here William M. Connolley 19:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance 

message: Controversy concerning the science
[]
Thalionrin 09:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, a complete 180 degree shift.  Time to update the appropriate articles.  --Skyemoor 12:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peiser retracts statement 

message: . An additional issue is whether the current warming trend is unprecedented or within normal climatic variations. What exactly is this supposed to mean? Obviously, throughout Earth's history, it has been warmer and colder.  Is there a sensible timeframe to be considered, such as since the dawn of civilization or do we start 4.5 billion years ago?  Just because this is an article on a controversy does not mean we toss out WP policy and guidelines. --Skyemoor 01:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact that's quite a common skeptic argument: "It was this warm N years ago, so obviously it's all natural and you can forget this greenhouse stuff made up by a bunch of greedy scientists flown in on the UN's black helicopters." The fact that it's a specious point doesn't stop it being used as an argument. In an article about the controversy (not about the science) we have to deal with the fact that people say such things, though I'm slightly uncomfortable with the wording as it stands. Raymond Arritt 03:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood, I also have an issue with it is currently in the lede, as it ignores carbon sequestration from earlier high CO2 eras, and what significant climate changes will have on relatively recently established patterns of agricultural activity. Indeed, the argument is specious if stretches much beyond the timeframe noted by the NRC, which assumes the point is primarily about the 'MWP'. --Skyemoor 11:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: In fact, this "additional issue" is simply a rephrasing of the previous statement, certainly not how a lede should be constructed per WP:GTL. --Skyemoor 15:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it's an additional issue. In fact in two parts. (a) Are current temperatures unprecented? Mann et al claimed that the 1990s were the hottest decade of the last 1000 years. The NAS report says "Even less confidence can be placed inthe original conclusions of Mann et al". (b) Is the current rate of increase unprecedented.  These questions are part of the controversy, and quite separate from the question of causes. Paul Matthews 17:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And the NAS panel have also stated that "less confidence" (for the last 1000 years) is around 66% confidence. (Pf. Bloomberg at the pressconference at around 00:44:00 ) --Kim D. Petersen 20:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pointless? 

message: The text of the Heidelberg appeal is here: 
I don't see any mention of any specific environmental issue here, which is consistent with what I wrote.  It only talks in generalities about environmentalism impeding economic progress.  I'm reverting the revert of my edit unless someone can point to a specific environmental issue in the appeal that I'm missing.  Oren0 21:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. First, it's hard to see how the contention that no other issues were mentioned is somehow relevant to the indisputable fact that climate change is not mentioned at all, which is the subject of the present article. Second, to argue that statements such as "We fully subscribe to the objectives of a scientific ecology..." "resources must be taken stock of, monitored and preserved..." "major problems like overpopulation, starvation and worldwide diseases..."  are not environmental issues seems rather an unconventional interpretation.   Raymond Arritt 21:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I personally fail to see what Jerry Taylor's "opinion" on the HA is of interest here? Would it be of interest if he had thought the Moon was a Green Cheese? The text is rather clearly not what he thinks... So why is his "opinion" included? --Kim D. Petersen 22:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: I'm not saying that Taylors opinion isn't part of the controversy - or shouldn't be mentioned... But why here? Either its to try to fool people into thinking that the HA is something its not - or its to make Taylor look foolish. Both POV's aren't (imho) in agreement with NPOV. --Kim D. Petersen 22:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heidelberg appeal and specific issues 

message: While browsing I found the US senate website of the subcommittee - chaired by Boxer and Inhofe. They have a list of climatologists,professors, etc - experts, MIT, institues, so on - who have recently changed their view on global warming. Interesting to see that the major reasons appear to be sun related - natural cycle - and away from human causes. Some see good reasons to reduce pollution, smaller cars, etc but see those goals as unrelated to climate change. Their concern is that so much money has been spent pushing a bogus theory ( I had the feeling that several of these scientists suspected bogus science for some time before they spoke up ) that the public is being stampeded in a nonproductive direction. 159.105.80.141 11:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the reversals on that list  are neither new nor even compelling. Some of the sources used are atrocious. See our own Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming for a much better list, and see the discussion there. Also see Scientific opinion on climate change to get some perspective.--Stephan Schulz 11:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, right. For reliable accurate information on any topic, the first place to look is wikipedia?? Paul Matthews 12:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  No, but better than the US senate by a mile. When did the last flat-earther retire as a senator? --BozMo talk 12:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all are retired, yet.  --Skyemoor 18:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Euhm, the Wikipedia list does not show scientists who do not have an article about them on Wikipedia... I guess that's enough to not really consider it. --Childhood's End 17:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Senate subcomittee web page list 

message: Exposed: The Climate of Fear Special by Glenn Beck.--Zeeboid 18:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been dozens if not hundreds of reports in newspapers and television about global warming science and controversies. One hour of one CNN channel is not notable. Hal peridol 18:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, "Glenn Beck Climate of Fear" already has 166 000 hits on Google. It seems to be notable, and about global warming controversy. --Childhood's End 18:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of which the vast majority is blogosphere reactions. --Kim D. Petersen 19:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, "Glenn Beck Climate of Fear" returns 297 hits. "Glenn Beck" + "Climate of Fear" returns 22,800. Eliminating the word "blog" reduces this to 540 hits. For comparison, "The Great Global Warming Swindle" returns 356,000, and "An Inconvenient Truth" returns about 1.3 million hits. Hal peridol 19:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And all of which are notable.  perhaps you should search for the show title: Exposed:The Climate of Fear which returns ofer 1 million hits--Zeeboid 19:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't, and you don't know how to use Google.--Stephan Schulz 19:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently you don't know how to read.  I didn't search with the quotes.  Would you like to tell us, Stephan, how many hits there were with the qotes?--Zeeboid 20:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know what the quotes do? Raymond Arritt 20:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: From what i've read, and seen on the show - WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #1 and #2 applies. Its not a unique resource - and it is giving misleading information as well as factually incorrect ones. (example of factually incorrect one: Denmark is set to meet Kyoto, and has never said it won't meet the target, contrary to what the movie say).  --Kim D. Petersen 06:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note btw. that i think that the notability issue is quite alot more important that the above. --Kim D. Petersen 06:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added to See Also section 

message: 2 references on a blog authored by Tim Lambert (who, according to this AfD is non-notable) are currently on this page re:Benny Peiser.  Per WP:SPS, he would need to be a "well-known, professional researcher" for these to be reliable sources.  Why are these refs included? Oren0 23:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are a compromise - since Peiser himself is unpublished and an SPS. People want Peiser mentioned - so the compromise was to include the Lambert things as well. --Kim D. Petersen 00:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Why you say Peiser not published?65.12.145.148 01:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because his critique of Oreskes hasn't been published - except on his own website. He originally sent it to Science but they rejected it. --Kim D. Petersen 03:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Peiser barely registers on Google Scholar search author:"benny peiser" with a book on natural disasters in the Bronze age, an article or two in the non-peer-reviewed POV organ "Energy and Environment", and one in "Journal of Sports Sciences". There is also an "unpublished letter to 'Science'" (but picked up by "Energy and Environment"). He's also written a bit on how we think about asteroid impact. The material in question here is not in the scholastic record; it's all from Peiser's web pages.Birdbrainscan 03:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is Tim Lambert? 

message: The secion "Predictions of temperature rises" contains only three sentences. The following section, "Predictions of greenhouse gas rises" runs several paragraphs, but ends with a tag saying "This section is a stub." Surely that tag should be attached to "Predictions of temperature rises" (3 sentences) sooner than to "Predictions of greenhouse gas rises." While we're on the subject, logically the order of these two sections would seem better to have the GHG prediction section first, followed by the temperature prediction. Birdbrainscan 16:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section marked as stub 

message: A while ago I had an abortive attempt at editing this argument - sorry I mean article. So, I came back assumming I'd find the same very biased resume by one side. In contrast what I found appears to be a fairly rounded resume of the main issues it what seems to me a fairly neutral tone.
From my own experience here such neutrality cannot have been achieved without a horrendous amount of work by a moderator of great experience and patience. As, I've not been around to know who it is, I thought I would simply say that however it has been achieved well done to all involved!Bugsy 20:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well done! 

message: Why does the section on urban heat islands reference John Daly? 
"Skeptics, including both nonscientists (such as John Daly) ..."
He is not mentioned in the main article on urban heat islands.  It seems the opinions of celebrities should be removed. Royalbooksnap 23:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to remove him but one of the skeptical editors insisted he should stay. I didn't press the issue because there are bigger fish to fry. As a non-scientist with no demonstrated technical competence (quite the opposite, if anything) he doesn't belong here. Raymond Arritt 01:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have you confused this with an article about science?  (SEWilco 02:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is partially about the science, and most of Daly's stuff was centered on the science (or his misunderstanding of it). Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Daly's material, or you have not read the present article. Raymond Arritt 02:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Daly 

message: I changed "Scientific Analogies" to "Analogies by Skeptics."  This is because:
1) Not all the analogies mentioned were done by scientists.
2) I agree that the analogies were done towards scientific theories that have now been discredited, thus in this respect one may think that placing the scientific label is fine; but it is not since there is an inherent bias since we cannot know whether global warming will be discredited or supported by time.  Thus, if we only compare it to failed theories we misguide the reader.
Furthermore, "Analogies by Skeptics" is not misguiding since only skeptics would use such analogies.  Brusegadi 19:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific Analogies 

message: What was it exactly that was wrong with this statement:
"Chris Mooney has noted the similarities in strategies and the close political connections of critics of mainstream science on the issues of evolution and global warming." Brusegadi 22:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal