Talk:List of climate change controversies/Archive 3

message: From what I understand, this page is for the "Global Warming Controversy" not for "Debunking" it.  The "Global Warming" Wiki section is pretty well set up for that.  Is it too much to ask to keep the sections and the politics between those who don't agree with one side or the other out of the respective section?  I have made some edits today, for example, that removed allot of the "yea, but..." junk from some areas of the "Global Warming Controversy" Wiki, because if everything has a "yea but..." on it, its not really "Controversy" is it?  If this article is in deed for “Controversy” then that’s what should be here, whether or not environmentalists agree with it.--Zeeboid 19:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See my explanation in the other section. Also notice that I left the "yea but" you removed out of the article...--Stephan Schulz 20:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Place for the "Pro Global Warming" arguement 

message: Connolley reverted edits with no explanation.  I put my edits back and would like to remind Connolley of a few things regarding reverts.
From the Revert policies and guidelines.
 "Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously."
Cannot say if this was done or not, but in light of the following items you can draw your own conclusions.
 "Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism."
The edits that were reverted were not in any manner able to be construed as vandalism.
 "If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it."
As I mentioned, there was no summary explanation and if an explanation of the revert was made in the talk page then I missed it as it was NOT its own subject and would have been buried somewhere else.
 "If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it."
This is pretty self-explanatory.  The revert was done to remove content that, prima facia, opposes the views of ONE side of the discussion on this page.  Nothing more than that.
Let us review some more from the Wikipedia policies and guidelines about revert wars (which, basically are 
Revert wars are usually considered harmful for the following reasons:
   1. They disrespect the work of the contributor. Being reverted can feel a bit like a slap in the face: "I worked hard on those edits, and someone just rolled it all back"
   2. They cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles
   3. They make the page history less useful, waste space in the database
   4. They make it hard for other people to contribute, and flood recent changes and watchlists
Editors are discouraged to revert because there is disagreement, or the edit is bad or problematic. Users are encourage to explore alternate methods like raising the objections on a talk page, or following the processes in dispute resolution.
Someone that is a member of the "Harmonious Editing Club should know better.
However, this is not an isolated incident.  Just going through talk pages one will notice [pattern] that [] to develop.
[reading].  --  Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 21:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: William W. Connolley has stated before he is unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies. This is troubling and often interferes with the normal processes which should take place prior to his edits.  I'm starting to wonder if this "admin" understands what a NPOV is.~ UBeR 04:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted some of William M. Connolley's big changes that pushed a spicific POV back into the intro of the article.--Zeeboid 19:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reverted the changes once again, this time from Stephan Schulz on Connolley's behaf.  ADMIN POV PUSHING. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zeeboid (talk • contribs) 19:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  It is time M. Connolley was reported for his edits which clearly contravene WP:NPOV. I am glad to find I am not the only person to have found him totally unwilling to listent to reason, intent on removing all other points of view and willing to use every underhand tactice at his disposal. (And I'm happy to say global warming has been caused by human action) Mike 13:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connolley's revert 

message: Interesting article in Human Events, a conservative weekly publication that has been around for decades.   I guess it should not have been news to me that Gore was such a poor science student in college, but it was.  According to one observer, now even the NY Times is telling Al Gore to "cool his jets."RonCram 14:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And this is relevant to the present article... how? Raymond Arritt 14:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it relevant?  It is relevant because Gore is controversial.  It is relevant because the Times telling him to back off is probably controversial.  As I understand it, this page is about the controversy. RonCram 18:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gore's bad science 

message: Do article abstracts say things like, "This article affirms/denies the theory of anthropogenic global warming?"
Or is it more like, "We examine the relationship of cosmic rays to cloud formation, and the consequent effects on global average air temperature. Changes in the sun's magnetism are found to affect the amount of sunshine which reaches the earth's surface."
Would the latter be counted as one of 928 abstracts not contradicting the GW consensus? --Uncle Ed 14:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good questions.  I'm interested to hear the answers.  I have a hunch the latter is counted as not contradicting.  Anecdotally speaking I have observed that articles with the word "skeptics" in it count as offering 'the other side'.  Even if all that is said is something along the lines of "Skeptics still have their doubts." --  Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 15:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Abstracts

message: *General public:: 50-50 (?)
*College-educated registered voters:
*:Democrats: 75% accept AGW (Goodman)
*:Republicans: 23% accept AGW (Goodman)
*state climatologists: largely natural (44% to 17%) (CSE )
*scientists: ? (Bray & von Storch)
::Are these figures accurate? Let's do some googling. --Uncle Ed 19:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Google is the panacea for all of our ails. ~ UBeR 21:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: We as Wikipedia editors aren't responsible for playing scientist and attempting to determine what's true. Our job is to be concerned with verifiability, not truth. And the numbers of scientists who support a given position has a huge amount to do with verifiability. MrRedact 02:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, regarding your comment "It is scary what direction this country is heading": You may not have noticed, but not everyone here is from your country. It's important to keep that in mind in order to try to avoid geographical and nationalistic bias. MrRedact 05:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Percentage of support and scepticism

message: Do we delete text if the beneficiary does not have an explicitly stated purpose of "global warming research" or do we leave it in the article?
This is not a vote.  If someone brought this page to your attention, or you brought this page to others' attention, please make a note of this fact here.  While widespread participation is encouraged, the primary purpose of this page is to gauge consensus of all Wikipedia; therefore, it's important to know whether someone is actively soliciting others from a non-neutral location to discuss.  Such contributors are not prohibited from commenting, but it's important for the closing administrator or bureaucrat to know how representative the participants are of Wikipedians generally.  See Wikipedia:Survey notification.
This is NOT an official policy determination.  It is to gauge from those who have been editing this page recently the standards that are to be applied to the page.  It is also to help users understand and follow a set of standards for this article, its text and the sourcing of those texts.  Discussion is open.  Thank you. --  Tony of Race to the Right 17:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll: Text relating to function of beneficiaries 

message: Do we leave in text making 2nd & 3rd degree links between parties (such as "benefactor" and "beneficiary") or do we require direct links between parties?
This is not a vote.  If someone brought this page to your attention, or you brought this page to others' attention, please make a note of this fact here.  While widespread participation is encouraged, the primary purpose of this page is to gauge consensus of all Wikipedia; therefore, it's important to know whether someone is actively soliciting others from a non-neutral location to discuss.  Such contributors are not prohibited from commenting, but it's important for the closing administrator or bureaucrat to know how representative the participants are of Wikipedians generally.  See Wikipedia:Survey notification.
This is NOT an official policy determination.  It is to gauge from those who have been editing this page recently the standards that are to be applied to the page.  It is also to help users understand and follow a set of standards for this article, its text and the sourcing of those texts.  Discussion is open.  Thank you. --  Tony of Race to the Right 17:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like the family tree chart that showed Kerry & Bush were related --  Tony of Race to the Right 20:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  Somehow (thanks to my ADD?) that reminds me of another question.  How old is too old?  Prof. Smith supports nuclear energy, and in 1985 quit his position on the board of directors at Three Mile Island Electric...is that relevant or is it too old to matter?  --  Tony of Race to the Right 20:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll: Text relating to Validity/Relevance of Associations between parties 

message: Cut from intro:
Among the governments of developed countries, there is little debate about attribution of global warming to human activities.  As of December 2006, 166 states have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol, whose objective is to prevent dangerous anthropogenic climate change; and the administrations of both the United States and Australia—the only two developed nations not to have ratified the treaty—have acknowledged that global warming is anthropogenic.
There is, however, an ongoing political debate about what actions should be taken to mitigate or adapt to global warming.  
For example, the Clinton administration did not submit the treaty to the Senate, after that body preemptively rejected such measures unanimously (95-0).S. Res. 98 25 July, 1997
The Bush administration also has not submitted the 1997 Kyoto protocol for ratification by the U.S. Senate on the grounds that it exempts 80 percent of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and that it would damage the American economy.Text of a Letter from the President to Senators Hagel, Helms, Craig, and Roberts, George W. Bush letter 13 March, 2001 
The UK-sponsored Stern Review, commanded by Tony Blair's government in response to the House of Lords Economics Committee's report that had issued substantial scientific uncertainties about climate change,Economic Affairs - Second Report House of Lords, Session 2005-06 concluded that "the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting."STERN REVIEW: The Economics of Climate Change. Summary of Conclusions In addition to economic arguments, concerns include social justice for the adversely affected including likely climate refugees, need for intergenerational equity, and loss of biodiversity.
----
The above implies that the pro-AGW side is correct, and in the overwhelming majority. Both these points, however, are disputed by the anti-AGW side.
It would be better to lay out the points of contention first, and to say what the various sides assert about them.
If numbers of advocates are at issue, then let's describe the dispute over the numbers. For example, the pro-AGW side says that scientists are virtually unanimous in their support of AGW theory; while the anti-AGW side says that 25% or more of climate scientists doubt or disagree with it. --Uncle Ed 21:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm..Ed, what happend to your reading ability. This does not imply that the "pro-AGW side" is correct, nor in the overwhelming majority. It implies that the overwhelming number of governments hold this position. About the only thing that is neither sourced not common knowledge is the last sentence (which I agree could go). --Stephan Schulz 22:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Viewpoint of intro

message: :Global warming skeptics sometimes assert that not all of the IPCC authors support its reports.  However, only two of the 120 lead authors of the TAR are known to have voiced serious objections.  The adherents of a consensus say the statements of those who expend the effort to comment negatively on that consensus is moving in the opposite direction, toward more agreement.  Others dispute this.
None of the above 4 statements are sourced. Why have them in an encyclopedia article. Is there some sort of rush, here? I don't want to see pro-AGW or anti-AGW stuff in the article, if it's just some contributor's opinion.
This is not a blog. We are not debating AGW here. We are contributing to an article about the debate. If we can't remember where we read or heard something, why put it in the body of the article? --Uncle Ed 21:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for clarification...I added the 'citation needed' tags to those.  I agree, they should be removed.  Unlike some editors, I don't just delete unsourced content (or content citing sources I don't like); so I'm giving the interested parties some notice that those statements each need sourcing.  --  Tony of Race to the Right 21:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a good idea, Tony. In fact, I'd say that if one editor's response to another's tagging is a text move, then it's a good sign that the passage is "not ready for primetime". Cheers. :-) --Uncle Ed 21:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Filled out one of the quotes with the equivalent from the IPCC page. (Note - this source would normally not be acceptable - but i believe it to be acceptable because its from a contra- source - ie. because of the bias of the source the statement becomes acceptable) - it shouldn't be too hard to find the original quotes from Lindzen or Christy though. --Kim D. Petersen 23:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced back-and-forth

message: Vincent Gray is a long-time reviewer of IPCC reports.  He has published a critique of the AR4 SPM that has been accepted for publication in "Energy and Environment" and is available online.   I would suggest anyone interested in this controversy read Dr. Gray's critique.  He says: "I will therefore confine these comments to the aspects of the “2007 Summary for Policymakers” which I find the most distasteful. They come under the headings of unreliable data, inadequate statistical treatment and gross exaggeration of model capacity."  Enjoy! RonCram 18:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the link.  Just read it, now I have to do cross-referencing between it and the Summary to parse the distortions and accuracies.  Makes for a good bus ride home. --  Tony of Race to the Right 18:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Grays ranting about the CO2 measurements is funny, and well worth a read. Just don't rely on it William M. Connolley 18:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What a hoot! I wouldn't be surprised if someone did a SCIgen on E&E. Raymond Arritt 18:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice William and Raymond like to laugh and that's good.  I also notice neither of them have attempted to deal with any substantive points in Gray's assessment. :)RonCram 19:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Continued adding academic credentials to the people in the article and cannot find any for Grey.  Help would be appreciated.  --  Tony of Race to the Right 20:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, stop, as per WP:MOS. While this is a lousy source, it claims Gray (notice spelling)  has a Ph.D. in Chemisty. --Stephan Schulz 22:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: RonCram i see some social science papers (read: political) by Vincent Gray - but no climate science papers at all at Google Scholar. (all the hard science papers where by other V Gray's (fx. Vivienne Gray) --Kim D. Petersen 07:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not attempt an audit of the results from Google Scholar.  I did notice both a journal article and it mentioned a book I found on Amazon. I hope this is helpful.RonCram 12:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Critique of AR4 SPM by Dr. [[Vincent Gray]]

message: I fixed up the horrible section of betting on GW.  Once that was done I realized that it actually has no place in this article.  It is more along the lines of "trivia" and does not seem to fit the "important and interesting" criteria by Wikipedia.  Additionally, it is problematic in a POV prism.  It sets up the false impression that "skeptics" are not confident in their skepticism.  This actually is not true, in that the bet requires a premise of warming vs cooling.  The most widely held view held by the skeptics is, in a nutshell, that man is either not the cause of, or an insignificant factor in the warming.  The source for the section perpetuates this misleading facade (no surprise from that source, is typical and should always be treated with a skeptical eye).  --  Tony of Race to the Right 20:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point -- it is worthwhile to note that many skeptics do actually believe that the Earth is likely to continue warming. You removed one of the references; I'm assuming this was accidental and I put it back in. --Nethgirb 21:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Betting on GW section 

message: I have an idea but am not sure how to implement it.
I think it would be very helpful to readers and editors if the academic credentials for each person listed was provided.  There is little room for POV complaints/actions regarding someone's level of degree and field of study.  This would also go a long way to eliminating POV problems regarding who is/is not credible, etc.
I agree that the article will get cluttered with the information.  So, if someone know how to make a "Academic Credentials" section similar to the Notes and References sections then we can simply put the information there.  Then we can also put the year & institution for each degree.
If needed, we could create a template for the in text tag so it would be something like:
::Joe Smith<cred>Joe Smith|BA|Basket Weaving|Univ of Minnesota|1992</cred> and Mary Contrary<cred>Mary Contrary</cred> claim that Pluto's gravitational pull is causing catastrophic global temperature rise.
...and the in text result would be something like:
::Joe SmithCr 1 and Mary ContraryCr 2 claim that Pluto's gravitational pull is causing catastrophic global temperature rise.
...and the Credentials section output would be something like:
::1. Joe Smith, BA in Basket Weaving from Univ of Minnesota (1992)
::2. Mary Contrary, no academic credentials
Help would be appreciated.
Thanks.  --  Tony of Race to the Right 20:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it is certainly relevant info to have somewhere in Wikipedia, so you could start by putting the info in the individuals' articles.  As for putting it here, maybe you could point out some of the edits in which there were "POV complaints/actions regarding someone's level of degree and field of study" -- has this really been a bone of contention here? --Nethgirb 21:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, we have Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28biographies%29#Academic_titles (also check the following sections), which says to not add titles and qualifications arbitrarily. There is a place for this, and the place is the biographical page of the scientist in question. If he or she is not notable enough for an article, then what he or she says on global warming is not notable, either.  If the article is bad, stubify or improve it. --Stephan Schulz 22:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The article from a NPOV and factual standpoint is horrid, but any effort to remove POV by balancing either inclusion or exclusion is undone.  The goal seems to be not a good, factual, relevant article about the controversy but an article that diminishes the con- and augments the pro- in any way possible.  There are blatantly-biased links that I have removed only to have them put back in within hours by the same people that delete news aggregating sources repeatedly for bias.  I put credentials on a person being used as an authority on the subject matter.  (See above to know who and how I edited that one first.)  It happened to be that person's academic creds were not in a field related to climate...and BAM, deleted.  Not once, but twice.  The article is bad and fixing it is not a goal of most of the people here.  Mitigating the avenues open to bias on this page is likely the only way to tame the destructive POV battle.  --  Tony of Race to the Right 05:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the link.  Two things from there: "Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name. Verifiable facts about how the person attained such titles should be included in the article text instead.  However, it also says "Adherence to the following guidelines is not required".  So, the benefits outweigh the harms, it is not contrary to any policies and the guidelines do say information about how a person obtained their title should be included.  The problem with relying on the individuals' pages is the many of them don't exist and those that do not really merit their own article.  71.215.220.197 03:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, did you see that big word "biographies" at the top of the cited MOS page?  The present article is not a biography. Raymond Arritt 03:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, saw that.  I did not want to point it out but wanted as if falls in line with how people provide links to policies and fail to quote what they are using to justify their interference.  Quite honestly I have read most all that I can find about cites/sources (both guidelines and technical how-to).  There does not seem to be anything prohibiting what I intend, latitude is granted to allow exceptions that aim towards Wikipedia's overall goals.  What I propose does that.  It is just a matter of how to do so in a manner that is not more complex than triple-embeded transcluded tables in wiki-code.   --  Tony of Race to the Right 05:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic Credentials 

message: If we had a section about how many people that graduate with a degree in climate-related majors keep whatever funding or grants they get aftwards if their research shows something different than the consensus view.  Sln3412 06:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Statistics on the above coupled with a breakdown of USA-based researchers versus non USA-based ones might be interesting also.  Sln3412 06:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even if you had that data, it wouldn't tell you what you want to know.  Suppose that more skeptics lose their funding than non-skeptics. The data wouldn't help you differentiate between the following potential explanations:  (1) Funding is judged based on the results, with legitimate anti-GW outcomes being unfairly penalized. (2) Worse scientists get less funding, and worse scientists are also more likely to come to erroneous anti-GW conclusions. --Nethgirb 07:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, that is not how funding typically works. A grant is given for one project (usually not longer than 3 years, followups are possible), and is extremely rarely ever canceled or withdrawn. Furher grants ar applied for independently. So "keep whatever funding they get" is near 100% for wither group. BTW, acceptance rates for competent grant proposals  vary between 5% and maybe 50%, depending on the subject and the specific funding agency. So you would need a very large sample for any statistically significant results.--Stephan Schulz 07:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Roger A. Pielke (Jr) pinned this down pretty well with the following comment on a Lindzen op-ed: As far as certain scientists who are disfavored in the grants process or in peer-reviewed publication because of their political views, I guess I’d say: prove it. I have no doubt that extra-scientific factors often play a role in the publication process and in proposal reviews. However, the nature of peer-reviewed publication and funding is so decentralized that if you can’t publish your work somewhere or get it supported, eventually, well, there must be a reason, and, hint, hint, it’s not an environmental conspiracy. --Kim D. Petersen 09:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What would be like totally way cool 

message: Kevin E. Trenberth has received $5.575 million ($6.804 million in constant 2005 dollars) in grant funding for the 17 projects which he was Primary Investigator.Constant dollars were figured using the end year of the projects which understates the inflationary adjustments since funding is usually disbursed either entirely at the beginning or in lump sums front loaded.  This understating is exaggerated for longer projects.  Using the ending dates when computing constant dollars for Trenberth's climate research funding totaled $6,804,862 compared with $7,955,621 when using the starting dates which would be more accurate starting dates.  Projects were conducted from 1978 to the present and the funding agencies were National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation, National Center for Atmospheric Research and NASA.  All 17 projects were related to atmospheric observations, global water cycles, short-term climate fluctuations, climate modeling and global drought in 1988. 
I've cut the above from the article - it is classifiable as WP:NOR (imho). Apparently the section was created to lead support to the statements by James Spann. Please give references to external (for Wikipedia) sources for these numbers and the allegation that these are all support for a climate change "theorist" viewpoint. --Kim D. Petersen 09:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed -- the text you removed, when placed directly after the Spann quote, is suggesting that Trenbeth has a conflict of interests by accepting money from the NSF or NASA because they desire a specific result -- which, even if it were true, is original research. (Hmmmm, does Richard Lindzen have a conflict of interests because he is a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at NASA JPL? ) --Nethgirb 11:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kevin Trenberth funding - WP:NOR - discuss. 

message: :Note: discussion on inadequacies of climate models previously found in this section was moved to above section titled "Inadequacies of Climate Models."
The article also needs a section discussing how Phil Jones at the Climatic Research Unit does not make his data and methods available for audit.  Neither does the National Climatic Data Center.  The article should point out that this is contrary to normal science which is built around openness and reproducibility.  How can other scientists check the work being done when the standards of science are being ignored?  The article also should point out that these groups will occasionally change the way data is handled so that warmer years in the past are downgraded to make it look like the 1990s are the warmest years ever.  RonCram 12:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Contrary to popular belief, given that scientists spend years of work to get a good dataset worth analysing and publishing, and that publishing on the basis of that data is the lifeblood of getting further funding, scientists are not required nor normally expected to make data and methodology that are the results of their own labors available to their competitors for grant money until they have milked all the publications they can out of it. Much as Coca-Cola is not expected to make their formula available for perusal by Pepsi-Cola, even though that might well improve the quality of soft-drinks overall. Gzuckier 20:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Climatology perhaps also looks like protoscience, not only pseudoscience... --Childhood's End 17:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Datasets and Methods Are Not Available for Audit

message: :The global warming controversy is a debate about the existence and causes of global warming---the observed increase in global surface temperature beginning in the early 20th century---and what steps, if any, society should take in response.
I added a link to global surface temperature, because I thought I might redirect that to something like global average air temperature, but that is an empty page too.
Are we talking about air temperature as measured by thermometers near the ground? Does this include satellite and balloon data? Not arguing, just asking for clarification of the term. --Uncle Ed 13:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Global surface temperature is the average temperature of the air near the ground (although in some cases ocean surface water temperature is preferred over the oceans, as it is more stable and easier to measure). This term does not imply how it was measured. Both satellites and ballons have some difficuly isolating surface temperature from the overall temperature profile of the atmosphere, leading to some debate about the results. But it does not matter very much - they currently all seem to be in rather good agreement. --Stephan Schulz 13:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You might want to link to Instrumental temperature record. --Nethgirb 13:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is silly. Must we redlink every random phrase for which there is no article with the objection that if there is no article, it must be unclear? What about basic scientific description , ongoing debate, virtually unanimous support, and passive acceptance - are those also "unclear" because we have no articles explaining plain English? Going down this path is disingenuous at best and disruptive at worst. If a phrase is unclear to anyone, discuss rephrasing on the talk page, don't redlink it to prove a point. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just the sort of disruptive nonsense that landed Ed in probation, I'm not surprised he's still at it. If this continues just report it at Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Ed_Poor. FeloniousMonk 23:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: While we're looking at the sentence, I think it should say "average global surface temperature" or something similar, just to be clear that this a mean value. Mishlai 01:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: While concern over clarity of phrasing is reasonable, Ed's statement that it is not a clear term, if it's a red link is nonsense. Redlinkling it anyway is disruptive. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tweaked it a bit: added "globally averaged" in line with your suggestion; added "and lower atmosphere", since that's a fundamental part of the issue as well; removed "observed" because the issue is as much (or more) the projected future increase as the observed past increase.  I'm not completely satisfied with it (the sentence is getting a bit long and twisty), so if anyone can clarify or smooth out the wording please dive in. Raymond Arritt 02:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm soliciting opinions on the "early 20th century" begin point.  The clearer trend begins there, but global warming is often discussed as now versus pre-industrial.  What do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mishlai (talk • contribs) 02:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I split it up into 2 sentences and lifted the definition directly out of Global warming. --Nethgirb 02:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I liked it better as surface and lower atmosphere.  Whatever we decide, the Global warming article should probably be consistent.  Or, perhaps we should not be defining it in two locations.  Earth's surface, oceans, and lower atmosphere? The entire atmosphere is not warming. Mishlai 02:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree we should be consistent if it is duplicated.  It's possibly reasonable to remove the definition altogether. People can click on the link to global warming if they don't know what it is. --Nethgirb 07:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No harm done. You just didn't think it all the way through. :) KillerChihuahua?!? 20:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Temperature in the Intro

message: This article has clearly had issues for years regarding POV and dispute resolutions are in order.  Please to not remove the bias tags until this article has been through the entire review processes that it has submitted through. 15:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Some experts have questioned the presumption underlying most predictions of global warming, namely that fossil fuels are effectively unlimited within the timescale of global warming predictions. For example, in a controversial paper from Uppsala in Sweden. The authors warn that all the fuel will be burnt before there is enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to realise predictions of melting ice caps and searing temperatures another paper from the Journal de Physique  reported that:  a possible "modified medium scenarios", with an energy consumption or population that would not rise as quickly as assumed, but that would call massively on coal after oil becomes expensive, ... leads to a couple degrees increase (in global temperatures)Energy and climate change : discussing two opposite evolutions Article published in Journal de Physique - proceedings, volume 121, January 2005
The the Hubbert peak theory, is a model predicting the output from a natural resource such as an oil, gas or coal field and is used by most oil companies and governments. According to Matthew Simmons, Chairman of Simmons & Company International the peak oil model indicates that global oil production may have peaked in December 2005, http://www.energybulletin.net/21696.html however the US government are more cautious and estimate  world supply of oil will peak in 2015. As burning oil is a major contributor to Greenhouse warming the peak oil theory predicts that the contribution from burning oil will decline after the point of peak oil production has passed and therefore the contribution of crude oil to global will also decrease. 
The model has also been used to predict the size of world coal and gas with similar conclusions. According to Bentley, world gas production will peak anywhere from 2010 to 2020Global oil & gas depletion: an overview, R.W. Bentley, Energy Policy, 30, 189–205, 2002 . Since compressed natural gas powered cars are already available in North America, peak oil and peak gas are related for transportation usage. Gregson Vaux has analyzed the expected peak in U.S. coal production (the world’s largest reserves of coal) and predicted peak coal taking place sometime between 2032 and 2060, with earlier dates more likely if coal is used as a partial substitute for plateauing or declining global oil supplies and North American natural gas supplies  .
:I've copied this section over from the main article due to its overall poor quality. There are numerous grammar errors and run-in sentences, it is too long, and, as far as I'm concerned, too prominent. It's not a major part of any discussion I have seen. "Searing temperatures" are not part of any serious prediction, anyways. "Bentley" is mentioned before any reference...is it a person, a car, a company? Peak Oil itself is a fairly disputed theory, especially for global resources.  The connection between Peak Oil and global warming is extremely esoteric. I know of no serious publications predicting Peak Coal in the forseeable future. News group postings are not a reliable source...and so on. 
:If you want to introduce this topic, try to write a short piece, demonstrating the actual controversy and keep out unrelated details about the Hubert Peak (which has its own article), please. --Stephan Schulz 16:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I love the way people criticise for not using quotes, then criticise when words "searing"  taken directly from an article. Before deleting this again please read the three good articles on the subject:  .  Mike 16:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fossil fuel availability (cut from article space)

message: :"We cannot predict the weather, therefore we cannot predict the climate"
Can we make a list of advocates who employ this argument? Weather and climate are two different things. Connolley can't say whether it will snow 12 days from now in any particular place or region, but he can predict the average amount of annual snowfall with considerable accuracy. --Uncle Ed 18:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what is "considerable accuracy"?  Depending on what it is, weather predictions can also be considerably accurate and thus be as (in)accurate as climate predictions. As for your first question, you need to look for specialists in modeling. Hendrik Tennekes is among those who would say something like that. --Childhood's End 19:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds rather like arguing, "We cannot predict whether these two molecules will collide with sufficient energy to react, therefore we cannot predict the rate of this chemical reaction." SheffieldSteel 21:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Weather vs. climate

message: In my view the controversy is about five claims, positions or proposals:
*#  The claim that mankind (CO2) 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 have to say on this issue? What other 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 how the UHI is handled and the extent of the reported warming).  (Asks the questions: Is the warming real or an artifact of instrument error or UHI?  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?)
*# The position of the IPCC that (contrary to McIntyre, the Wegman Report and the NAS) current temps are the warmest in 1300 years. (Asks the questions: Why did the IPCC reaffirm this position without a thorough examination of the Hockey stick controversy?  Is there evidence the IPCC is driven by politics instead of science?)
*# The claim that warming will continue at least until 2100 resulting in catastrophic consequences, including extinctions and increasing weather catastrophes. (Asks the questions: Is it reasonable to conclude the current warming climate regime will continue without interruption for nearly 100 years?  Have any observations been made or peer-reviewed articles published that indicate a coming change in the climate regime?  What does the science say about global warming causing increasing number of hurricanes?)
*# The steps society should take to prevent, mitigate or adapt to global warming. (Asks the questions: Is the Kyoto Protocol economically viable?  Is the Kyoto Protocol politically viable?  What other steps have been proposed for either mitigation or adaptation?)
In my view, the article should be organized into an outline that discusses these five issues.  Regarding the satellite data, it is possible it fits better under point #2 rather than #1.  If I have left out any other main points, let's discuss them. RonCram 18:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The questions of human responsibility from warming and whether warming is occurring are completely separate and should be treated separately.
* Is the planet warming globally?
**Is it regional?
**Is it instrument error (Urban Heat Island or other)?
**Do satellites or other methods contradict the surface temperature record?
* Warming as compared to historical record
** Hockey Stick controversy
** Criticism of data, methods, and proxies.
** What significance does the historical record hold for the debate.
* Causes of observed warming
** Human contributions
** Solar variation
** Solar variation with Cosmic Ray cloud formation
** It's just natural.
* Projections for the future
** Model limitations (not falsifiable, state of science is limited in some areas)
** Model accuracy in the past
** Alternate projections
* Effects of projections
** Will increased CO2 cause a greening of the earth?
** Will warming be mostly good for humanity?
I don't think Kyoto or other policy steps are relevant to this article.  We should stick to controversy about the science.  Kyoto can be discussed in the Kyoto article. This isn't a forum to advocate nuclear power, solar cells, carbon taxes, giant mirrors, or drought resistant crops as an answer to these problems.  Mishlai 19:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you, Ron and Mislai. The two of you have laid out the key elements of the controversy better than anything I've seen in 5 years, on or off Wikipedia. --Uncle Ed 19:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mishlai, your outline is good but leaves out the important question of why data and methods are not archived and made available to other scientists.  This is an important aspect of the controversy that will soon be the subject of a least one and possibly multiple lawsuits.  It also leaves out the issue that the IPCC is driven by politics rather than the science. Kyoto is certainly part of the controversy.  You cannot discuss the controversy of warming without discussing the controversy around proposals to mitigate or adapt to it. I would agree that the section on Kyoto can be kept short by referencing the longer article. RonCram 23:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the controversy about?

message: This article often fails to identify who is saying these things and instead resorts to a "some people say" statement. -Vcelloho 20:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Need to cite more sources

message: Although it seems reasonable to suspect that the compound noun "global warming" is a generic term and that the present warming is merely a special case, the use of "global warming" in a generic sense is exceedingly rare.  (Actually I haven't been able to find any such uses but am leaving the door open for the possibility.) Accordingly I've removed the generic definition from the intro as it serves only to distract the reader from the topic at hand, which is the controversy or lack thereof with regard to the present warming. Raymond Arritt 01:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Global warming" as a term 

message: Scientific organisations that have expressed opposition of the current scientific opinion on climate change include:
*Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
*Competitive Enterprise Institute
*Cooler Heads Coalition
*George C. Marshall Institute
*Fraser Institute
*Friends of Science
*Heartland Institute
*Heritage Foundation
*International Policy Network
*Ludwig von Mises Institute
*Western Fuels Association
Scientists who have expressed opposition include:
*Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon, astrophysicists (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics)
*William M. Gray, tropical meteorologist (Colorado State University)
*Richard Lindzen, atmospheric dynamicist (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
*Frederick Seitz, solid-state physicist (former president of the National Academy of Sciences)
*Kary Mullis, Nobel Prize in Chemistry (1993), biochemist and inventor of PCR
Opponents from outside the scientific community include:
*Ann Coulter, American syndicated columnist
*Michael Crichton, science-fiction novelist, author of the global-warming themed State of Fear
*Andrey Illarionov, former economic advisor to Russian president Vladimir Putin
*Ross McKitrick, economics professor
*Václav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic 
*Patrick Moore (environmentalist), a founding member of Greenpeace
Organizations skeptical of global warming include:
*Competitive Enterprise Institute
*Cooler Heads Coalition
*Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Former skeptics include:
*Richard Branson, British entrepreneur
*John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia
*Pat Robertson, televangelist
Conclusion Just to try and summarise - it seems the final concensus was to reduce the size of this section to a link to the pages "lists of people who support/oppose ...."  Mike 14:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opponents of the global warming theory

message: My gut instinct seeing the puny nature of this section is that it is far too short and doesn't relate to my everyday experiences at all. E.g. our heating bills should be reducing shortly because of global warming - we even moved house to the North partly in the expectation that global warming will make this a more desireable area to live in a few decades - so there clearly are benefits. Do others agree this ought to be boosted! Mike 12:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a fairly recent topic. Up until very few years ago the main line of defense for the "sceptics" was "it's not warming, it's all UHI, look at the satellite data". Now, that this position has become completely untenable, some have moved to "yes, but it's good for us". There is not too much published material out there (yet?). If you find good sources, by all means expand it. But have an eye on NPOV. As far as I can tell, the majority opinion is that there will be winners and loosers, but, since agriculture and settlement patterns are adapted to the current state, a change will on average be negative. You might get a lower heating bill, but 14 million Bangladeshis will be less pleased if their land is flooded.--Stephan Schulz 13:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any idea where one would start looking for an authoritative source on winners and loosers which isn't strongly biased to one point of view? Mike 13:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The IPCC WG2 reports (and, if you wish, the papers they reference). --Stephan Schulz 13:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I followed your advice, I've skimed the IPCC report - a lot of information on how to assess the "damage", but next to nothing on what the damage will be (and it was strangely focussing mainly on damage!) I presume the IPCC as a group of scientists probably doesn't go into this kind of speculation - what we need instead is something from a political commentator who does! Mike 16:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: He asked for unbiased...of course, it is not human nature to recognize bias when it favors one's own POV. --  Tony 15:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony, let's see if we can work together to improve the article! The IPCC are only scientists, as far as I'm aware science is neutral on all issues so there isn't any scientific dogma on what is "good" or "bad", so clearly the IPCC is just one of a range of opinions to include. Mike 16:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony, your big mistake is the assumption that the IPCC is one end of the spectrum. It isn't. It is the currently best scientific opinion. There is as much on the other side of the spectrum than on yours - Venus-like runaway greenhouse (feared by Stephen Hawking, no less), 30 meters of sea-level rise, permanent hurricanes, The Day after Tomorrow-like freezing of Europe, US$ 350 billion in anual hurricane damages by 2025. But I'm aware of your scepticism. That's why I suggested the original papers - if you are able to even read them. If you think all of the scientific literature is biased, I suggest consulting the I Ching or a copy of Nostradamus. However, these do not count as reliable sources yet.--Stephan Schulz 16:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stephan, can you stop being argumentative! Have you got sources for all those assertions and if so where are they - lets get them in the article Mike 16:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Just as a sidenote, the full IPCC third report itself (not the summary for policymakers) lists a series of possible benefits that can be expected from the Earth's warming. It although comes to the conclusion that the possible damages will outweigh the possible benefits. But that's still interesting that even the Kyoto-driven IPCC expects some benefits from the Earth's warming. --Childhood's End 14:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Childhoodsend - it would be useful to have a copy of that list here if its not too long - I notice someone has already added some benefits and harm. Mike 15:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is global warming beneficial or detrimental? - Too short 

message: Both these sections come across as petty point scoring by one or other of the parties and must leave any sensible person reading this article stone cold.
Big companies fund scientists in all manner of fields, governments put pressure on scientists .... it isn't news. If these sections are to remain, then there needs to be a lot more background. Why are the big companies/government funding, what result is it having. As far as I can tell these two sections are simply "oh look someone's paying someone to do something" .... "you know what that means .... I can't tell you because we don't have any evidence, and I can't find anyone willing to say it in print .... but nod, wink ... there's no smoke without fire". Unless someone can find some evidence of wrongdoing, or even some quote saying there is something special then this funding/pressure isn't novel and isn't worth keeping. I vote to scrap these two sections and do something more useful with the spaceMike 13:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree...but I guarantee that the actively GW pushing crowd will either revert such changes now or will wait a few weeks and revert it then.  100% of the warming pages (including those about other planets) read more like IPCC worshiping and position papers.  In fact, this whole article is so strong in showing the invalidity of the controversy's other side that I support it being deleted as unnecessary. --  Tony 15:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony, as someone who is firmly convinced of the scientific evidence, I may be biased, but I would like to hear your point of view. Can you tell me how the article needs improving to properly detail the alternative point of view? As you may be aware, I think the other pro-global warming people here are totally biased and unable to see anyone else's point of view. If you would like to work with me to put together some sections I would be more than happy to help! Mike 16:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about, among other things, the controversy over whether human beings are the primary cause of global warming. If you delete these sections, please be thorough and consistent and delete the entire article. Though these sections may be imperfect, they detail arguments by both sides which at least seem plausible and which appear with remarkable frequency. If wording, evidence used, or other issues is a problem, let's address that problem by improving the sections, not by removing them entirely.  Dicksonlaprade 17:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dicksonlaprade ... positive comments (mostly). But obviously it's going to be contentious, is there any way to do this without ending up in a scrap? Mike 18:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need more discussion on this topic! Mike 15:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funding for opponents / pressure on scientists 

message: Let's all avoid personal remarks like:
* came to falsely insert
* find it bizarre that you can 
* if you're so good at reading
* know you have seen it
* missing the point
* not very good at reading
* ranting
* stick to the point
* stop just telling us your views
* totally biased 
* your claim is simply untrue
I would prefer that we use comments like:
* (Blank) needs to be described in the article
* According to (blank) ...
* Can you tell me how the article needs improving?
* How about the following?
* I agree that (blank) should be replaced, could you suggest better wording? 
* I disagree with (blank). 
* I disagree with your insertion 
* I think it is better to phrase the question ...
* I would be comfortable with an entry that ...
* I'd like to hear why it was removed ...
* I'd like to try to find a better way to ... 
* I'm a little unclear what you are trying to say? 
* If wording, evidence used, or other issues is a problem, let's address that problem.
* Is this a fair summary of (blank)? 
* It shouldn't read as (blank)
* My point was ...
* Please suggest an alternative
* This article should let the reader know 
A hot fudge sundae to the first 3 contributors who can point out which personal remark *I* made, but who are tactful enough not to mention it on here! :-) --Uncle Ed 12:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or mention it at all? Does that get me cherries as well :)? More seriously personally I am comfortable with comments about my contributions or edits and don't mind if someone accuses me of ranting, or says that any comment I make is biased, or that I have broken a policy etc. What I object to, and I think the WP:NPA actually forbids is personal comments about me (e.g. you are biased because...). Now I'd be happy if we were all as gentle as you suggest we should be but I can live with direct criticism of my actions or statements. --BozMo talk 13:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See also WP:SPADE. Raymond Arritt 14:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I would expect, of all people here, Connolley to be above all of that.  None of those quotes should be from him since he is a member of the Harmonious_editing_club which has as its first 4 guidelines: "Always aim to end edit wars by helping editors reach a compromise", "Never revert more than once — always take it to the talk page", "Avoid triggering edit wars — discuss major and/or controversial changes on the talk page beforehand", "Request input from the wider community when necessary (e.g., at Peer review, Requests for comment, Requests for page protection, Village pump, etc.)".  Also, I was not sure what part of WP:SPADE Arritt (since there was again only a link and no quote) was referring to so I'm guessing it is the "While we must remain civil, calling a spade a spade is part of a reliable editor's job" part.  In that light, I would like to ask editors to review a semi-related page's recent edits.  Before and After with the reason being, "(rv; its not great but its better than the alternative...)" and the justification on the talk pages being, "    " (nothing).  I'm just sayin'.  --  Tony of Race to the Right 17:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Civility check

message: According to the article only those who disagree with AGW get funding.  And there also is the perception presented in an undisputed manner that "skeptics...are lobbyists more than researchers".  
So, there is no money whatsoever being used to fund research for those who have a stated position or lobbying function agreeing with AGW?  No person agreeing with AGW is a part of a group or organization which received money in any fashion from those also pushing the AGW viewpoint?  --  Tony of Race to the Right 18:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony there are probably scientists and research(?) that is/was funded by Greenpeace/Sierra Club/<insert favorite lobby org here> - you could try to find out by seeing which scientists that are usually being quoted by these - and seek for a WP:RS source to document the connection and dependency. Personally i'd find this kind of bias interesting.  --Kim D. Petersen 19:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Tony raises one of the major problems of this article. First, the funding accusation is an ad hominem sophism which should not deserve so much importance in an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is not a blog or a magazine. But since it's there, at least, there should be a comparable section regarding criticisms raised regarding the issue of fundings for pro-AGW scientists, or, more importantly, the threat of lost fundings/positions for scientists opposing the AGW theory. I could find a few sources on this. --Childhood's End 19:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, when reading the article I assumed the "funding for political opponents" (anti) was balanced by the "pressure on scientists" (pro).I can't see any problem with adding sources for funding of pro, or pressure on anti - but these two sections are already fairly long. I can see how they are part of the controversy so clearly they need to stay, but if anything (given the tag "too much like a list" or whatever) I would be inclinded to reduce their length not add more to them. Mike 20:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see the whole funding section deleted altogether, or drastically trimmed down. I tried to delete the Exxon stuff at one point but it got put back and I didn't argue it further. My experience is that most of the skeptics are not motivated by money (there are a few who probably are, not naming names in light of WP:BLP). But unfortunately the topic is prominent enough in the public eye that it should be mentioned. Raymond Arritt 20:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I think the funding bit should come out. I am sure industry money follows opinions but I am not sure it changes them. It is a bit gossipy to mention it.  --BozMo talk 20:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There's obviously an agreement that the article focuses too much on the ad hominem argument regarding funding accusations. I'll try to trim it down. Comments welcome, of course. By the way, I took the liberty of changing the name of this talk subsection. --Childhood's End 14:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Umm. You (or "Conservatives", although I don't see what is conservative about ignoring reality) confuse a-priori and a-posteriori. If you hand out 10 grants to analyse the same problem, and the scientific method works and 9 of the 10 studies arrive at the same given result, there is no undue funding of one side. This is the expected outcome. If you had ever written a grant application, you would no that you do not apply for money "to prove global warming" (or, indeed, to fund "research seeking to discover whether global warming has a natural cause"), but for money to analyse a certain specific aspect, i.e. the influence of clouds on heat exchange, or the stratification of ocean temperatures, or the C12/C13 signal in atmospheric CO2. Look e.g. at the work by Solanki (frequently misquoted by the anti-side). His work is funded by the German gouvernment via the Max Planck Gesellschaft (and, in all likelyhood via extra DFG grants). He looked at the activity of the sun and found it variable, currently high, but unlikely to be the primary cause of current global warming. Is that "funding pro-AGW-research"? --Stephan Schulz 13:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Last I checked, Bush was still president.  Is Ed seriously contending that the Bush administration is steering funds toward "pro-AGW research"? A problem with this approach is that the accusation can be made, but refuting it is much tougher -- it's hard to prove a negative, as Ed is doubtless aware. Raymond Arritt 14:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, just as a sidenote... As you all know, when a President is elected, he brings with him his executive team, but he does not and cannot rebuild from scratch the whole governmental apparatus. And for any politician, it's always easier to create and fund programs than to close them or shut down their funding. --Childhood's End 15:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funding accusations 

message: From a recent change:
:There is little if no public debate on the existence of anthropogenic global warming among climate scientists -- almost all of the debate is occuring in the popular media and on a policy level.
The three possible positions, for those who are "sure" about what causes warming are:
#It's all natural
#It's a combination of natural and anthropogenic
#It's all anthropogenic
As far as I know, there has yet to be a single scientist outside of position #2. I can't even think of a pundit who's claimed #1.
The question is not "Is any of the warming human-caused?" but rather "How much of the warming is human-caused?" --Uncle Ed 21:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Several of these are more in the nature of recognized uncertainties ("known unknowns", per Donald Rumsfeld) rather than controversies. Raymond Arritt 16:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For a climate scientist that may be a valid point. But from the point of view of anyone trying to determine policy it's a controversy. A policy maker must decide the relative importance of global warming, the fact it exists isn't very helpful because it isn't actionable. A statement of the form "unless we reduce fossil fuel consumption by 50% within 50 years the world will end up like Venus" ... is clearly something that politicians can act on! But this clearly is a controversial statement. Some maintain that we can live with global warming, others that any warming is too much and should be stopped (which is obviously unsustainable - since we have warmed without major problems). Mike 12:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The degree of the human contribution

message: Some scientists have complained of media bias. Here's an article mentioning Roger Pielke:
*Pielke said Friday that the models used in the latest IPCC report have no “predictive skill” when it comes to regional climate projections. “To rely on the numbers they predict on a regional scale I think is overstating the capabilities of these models,” said Pielke, now a senior research scientist at the University of Colorado. “I don’t think it’s supported by scientific literature.” But the report’s authors - some 600 of them from 40 countries - disagree with Pielke. 
Here's Pielke's response:
*On my quote (which should be “there is no peer reviewed support in the scientific literature for the claim of skillful regional multi-decadal regional forecasts”, Jim Erickson did not follow up on this conclusion with other climate scientists that I recommended to him. Rather he chose to present me as an outlier from the mainstream of climate science on this issue. This is journalism with a politically biased slant. 
I've read a lot of these in recent years. How shall we mention this in the current article? --Uncle Ed 21:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Complaints of media bias

message: Can we remove these tags?  The article doesn't appear to me to be anything but as neutral as anything about a controversy, and well listed.  What are the issues?  If there are problems, I can try to clean up what is perceived as such; but I don't really see what the issues are. Sln3412 23:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not responsible for the tags but I do think the list of supporters and opponents is against Wikipedia policy and should be removed or modified.  Go to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and click "Wikipedia is not a directory" in the Table of Contents. I think the editors are working through the neutrality issues and trying to make the article better. RonCram 02:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, those lists were removed a while back -- it's pretty much just another "see also" section now, and in fact maybe it should be moved so that it's a subsection of "see also" --Nethgirb 03:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was responsible for the original list cleanup template. Its current version looks fine. However, the "Miscellaneous" section could probably use a cleanup. ~ UBeR 04:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done some slicing and dicing of that part. A title of "Miscellaneous" is not very informative, so I retitled it "Assertions by supporters and opponents" and moved the bits not related to the pro/con statements to a more appropriate section. I've also added some references, tried to reduce usage of the word "theory", and so on. Raymond Arritt 05:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had seen those earlier, I think it's much better and more concise.  Sln3412 00:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality and Unencyclopedic Lists tags?

message: I created a page specificly for this theory, and put the a link to it in Assertions by opponents section, where the theory is spoken of. However, I could not find a way to fit it in there to where it looks and feels like it belongs. I'm guessing it needs rewording, if it is to fit in there. Well, do as you like; but I think it should be left, if at all posible. SadanYagci 20:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your page is just about empty. Fill it in a bit (if you can - there is nothing to fill it in with, but you can try) then come back William M. Connolley 21:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Solar system warming]]

message: Looking at the article for places to shorten, I found this to be a good candidate.  All of the petitions referenced are 1998 or older, which makes them pretty irrelevant to the present level of consensus.  In 1998 there was a great deal more question than there is now.  Alternately, the four of them could be summarized with a few sentences. Mishlai 00:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken, but they're still mentioned from time to time in the popular press, and so should be covered. Raymond Arritt 02:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mishlai's suggeestion of summarizing seems good to me --Nethgirb 02:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, a carefully worded summary would be worth a try. But I fear that any such summary will be met with continuing demands for justification, and we'll eventually end up back where we started. Raymond Arritt 03:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: SEPP List of petitions

message: There is a section for politics links, and a section for science links. No way is prisonplanet any kind of source for science. I move we cut this link out as just WP:SOAPBOX Birdbrainscan 05:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why prisonplanet.com link under "Science"?

message: The writing style in this article has grown more and more awkward. I'm going to attempt to straighten it out here and there. Needless to say, if anyone disagrees with my edits then join in with your own. But please try not to make the writing style any more tortuous than it already is. Raymond Arritt 03:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the writing is neutral, I'm fine with any changes. It's a really messy article. ~ UBeR 05:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Would you like to take pruning shears to the "changing nature of skepticism" section?  It's very wordy, and has some POV/OR problems. Raymond Arritt 07:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: General cleanup

message: Rameses would like to add:
: There have been cases where scientists have been wrongly listed by the IPCC as supporting its summary. Professor Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, one of the world’s leading experts on malaria, explained publicly how he had to threaten legal action against the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to have his name removed from the list of ‘2,000 of the world’s leading scientists’ who apparently backed its summary published February 2007. The problem? Professor Reiter didn’t back it, instead arguing that it was a ‘sham’. "The IPCC ‘make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed, but it’s not true’, he said."    
Having seen the film, Reiter does indeed make some ambiguous claims. But its not at all clear that he is talking about the SPM or the WGI report. Given his specialism, the WGII or III reports are more likely (even granting there is some basis to his claim). So we cannot say "summary" here, cos that means SPM. Also, as Stephan pointed out, "There have been cases where scientists have been wrongly listed" is wrong, in Reiters case, because even he says he was removed. Reiter claims others, vagule, but names no names. None of this is reliable enough to be included William M. Connolley 10:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, he was listed (erroneously, of course). But anything to make the fallacious appeal ad populum more appealing, I suppose. ~ UBeR 17:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not in a released report, at most on draftsPossibly not on a released report, but on a draft - to which, of course, he did contribute. Denying him credit without his explicit request would be against all principles of scientific attribution. Similarly, if he wants to disassociate himself from the result, that is his right. However, note that there is only one source - the tv program -, while all the ones that Rameses cites are just reporting about (or even commenting on!) this one program. Given what we know about the tendency of the film maker to misrepresent positions to push his agenda, the fact that at least one interviewed scientist says he was massively misrepresented, and that even the broadcasting station calls the piece "essentially a polemic", I think it is a safe bet that the case was presented in as bad a light as possible.  We simply don't know how hard it was for Reiter to get off the list of contributors. Maybe his first letter was "take me off or I'll initiate legal proceedings". Also note that it's still month until the WG2/WG3 reports are in (and Reiter would most likely not be a contributor to WG1, as William pointed out)[Struck out as irrelevant, as it seems Reiter contributed to an older assessment report]. --Stephan Schulz 21:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I dont see any evidence that he was listed on anything to do with WGI or AR4. If Uber has any evidence to back this up, then I think he should present it. Even an exact quote of R's word from the film would do, but from my memory he was rather vague about which doc it was William M. Connolley 21:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a reference to what is likely the same incidence here (see item 8). It looks like we are talking about one of the earlier reports (as such, it is at least possible that Reiter was listed as an author on a released report). However, from John Houghton's perspective, it sounds a lot different. --Stephan Schulz 22:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reiter 

message: At present the article does not discuss a very large issue in this controversy, data withholding by climate scientists.  Mann withheld code and has tried to stonewall on a number of data sharing issues. The source code was one of the most difficult, but eventually Mann turned over the code.  The actions of Phil Jones are also very much an issue and may result in a lawsuit (although recently Pat Frank of Stanford has been arguing to just reconstruct the temperature record in a full and open manner in order to shame Jones into releasing his data and methods).  I have put together a few links for you to peruse to get a better handle on the issues and the amount of discussion and controversy that has been generated so far. Please take a look.  The first three involve Mann. Then one on Jones and several others on the issue at large.
:Mann on Source Code 
:Title to MBH98 Source Code 
:MBH98 Source Code Status Report 
:East Anglia (Phil Jones) Refusal Letter 
:Nature’s list 
:An Open Letter to Science 
:A Reply from Science 
:Reply to Science regarding information request 
:Mass General Hospital on Data Withholding 
:Scientific Misconduct 
:Replication Policy 
:More on NSF Data Archiving Policies 
:Some Thoughts on Disclosure and Due Diligence in Climate Science 
I am attempting to create a new outline for this article that will include this issue along with several others.  Please take a look at User:RonCram/AGWControversySandbox and help me make the outline better.  Once it gets to a certain level, we can bring it back here for further discussion. Thanks! RonCram 18:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is a wide issue, I'm sure you can find sources other than a single blog William M. Connolley 22:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure there's any "there" there.  The list is primarily about two studies out of thousands - MBH and Jones - and MBH is resolved (I don't the the status for Jones).  The rest is pretty vague (see the Reply from Science).  Any discussion of this should include discussion of whether researchers have any legal or ethical obligation to share their data (it'll vary according to situation, journal, and funding) and whether maintaining publicly available data is any more of a problem in this field than in any other academic field.  There needs to be some proof of "controversy" here, so far it's pretty thin.  Brian A Schmidt 00:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, lest it be considered pseudoscience by the real scientists. Also see philosopher Karl Popper. ~ UBeR 00:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are proofs being challenged, not disproofs being cited.  Reading Popper is an excellent idea, I encourage it.Brian A Schmidt 04:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In the interests of NPOV maybe some that doubt the validity of these sorts of things it could go find them.  Or debunk them.  Sln3412 23:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This is exactly the tedious sort of POV war that makes this article one of the worst scum buckets on Wikipedia. If there's a beef with a particular scientist, then put it on his own page, not here. Deliberately extrapolating from one guy's lack of open information to a "very large issue in this controversy, data withholding by climate scientists" is rather silly, unless you can provide a larger sample of examples (and even then, this article needs drastic cutting, not expanding).Loxlie 04:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Loxlie, you obviously haven't read the links I provided.  There is more than one or two scientists involved.  Read the section below on "More on Data Withholding in Climate Science." RonCram 23:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No I most certainly haven't. But has anyone read all the 205 references provided on this page? Have you? That's really my only point - this article (and certainly the talk pages) has become entirely unusable, and the only good solution is a complete rewrite, but that's obviously not going to happen - or if it does its not going to be kept. At the moment its a prime example of Wiki not working at all, which is really sad. Not a very helpful contribution perhaps, but there you go. Ho hum. Loxlie 02:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Data Withholding in Climate Science

message: They laughed at Copernicus. They laughed at the Wright brothers. Yes, well, they also laughed at the Marx Brothers. Being laughed at does not mean you are right. --  Michael Shermer
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- Carl Sagan
1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way to discover the limits of the possible is to go beyond them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
--Arthur C. Clarke
To wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough to be persecuted by an unkind establishment. One must also be right. --Bill Clinton
: Sln3412 23:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite nice, but this isn't a discussion forum for irrelevant quotes. ~ UBeR 00:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   Thank you for saying 'quite nice'.  (really)  I don't think it's irrelevant though; it's a comment that either  time bears out the skeptics being incorrect more than correct, or that the minority might be correct this time. Sln3412 17:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Being Laughed At

message: Does anyone know where I can place bets of a few hundred pounds on Global warming not happening? 88.111.137.110 22:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly. But you need to be non-anonymous William M. Connolley 23:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll take you up on that 88.111.137.110   That's easy, the globe is warming on average.  When can you send me the check?  Sln3412 17:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd bet with any global warming fanatic - but given their propensity to be very conservative with the truth, why should anyone believe they'd actually pay up! Mike 18:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am willing to bet Phil Jones that over the next five years temps will not exceed the record set in 1998.  There's just one condition: Jones has to make his data and methods public so we can make certain it is an honest bet.  I am willing to bet only because I think Bratcher and Giese are right about the PDO. RonCram 06:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Bet on Global Warming