Talk:Climate change/Archive 22

message: Most global-warming arguments end up with squabbles about facts, or the lack thereof, so I went looking for some actual facts.
Every morning for the last 103 years, the Cape Naturaliste lighthouse keeper (Western Australia - not in a city) measured the temperature at 9am: All these readings are published 
graphing them looks like this:
Where is the global warming?
What *really* worries me, is that every time I try and find the source of data that supports Global-warming arguments, there is either (A) never enough information to actually get it, or (B) the data includes (or is derived from) readings taken in the middle of cities.
Please - people - if you want to make sweeping generalizations or hint that there is consensus or agreement about this topic, do so ONLY with verifiable sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cnd (talk • contribs) 05:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The increase in temperature is a generally acknowledged fact even among sceptics now. See instrumental temperature record and, since you hit at it, urban heat island. A single site record (and that of a subtropical site with oceanic climate) is irrelevant. --Stephan Schulz 06:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: After all, the topic is "Global Warming", not "Western Australia Warming" --Munchkinguy 12:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact or Fiction

message: I believe that we should change the title of the page to Global Warming Theory, since it is just that; a theory.Also, as you already know, the article leans very much towards the "Global Warming is because of People" crowd, and fails to mention many of the controversies surrounding the topic itself. These controversies should be included in this page, so it is known that human-caused global warming is not a proven  or unchallenged fact.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Awaiting (talk • contribs) 22:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have been over this before. For the title: WP:COMMONNAME. The Googlewhack is roughly 400:1 for "global warming". Also, relevant scientific questions are discussed, and the controversy is mentioned and linked in the lead. See the archives. --Stephan Schulz 22:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it should be called "Global Warming Theory" unless it only focuses on speculative matters. --Blue Tie 11:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The issue isn't with "speculative material," since that isn't what distinguishes a theory from other scientific constructs.  The issue is that this article deals with global warming, both theory and observations.  So "global warming theory" is inappropriate, except when describing a particular explanation of the experimental observations. --Clt510 06:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Avoid the word "theory" whenever possible, because its meaning is ambiguous.  See WP:WTA#Theory. Raymond Arritt 12:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Change of Title and High "Opinion Content"

message: i believe that the wording of glacier retreat should be changed to glacial retreat, glacial describing the word retreat, whereas glacier which is the noun form of the word. Kyt3 20:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Glacier retreat" is a compound noun, denoting the retreat of glaciers. "Glacial retreat" has the double meaning of "very slow retreat" and "glacier retreat", so I'd prefer (not by a large margin) the current version. --Stephan Schulz 20:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glacier retreat implies the retreat of glaciers. Glacial retreat modifies retreat. Glacier retreat > glacial retreat. ~ UBeR 22:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ok, i stand corrected thanks for the clarification 64.222.101.214 00:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar on this page 

message: WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court rebuked the Bush administration Monday for its inaction on global warming in a decision that could lead to more fuel-efficient cars as early as next year.
The court, in a 5-4 ruling in its first case on climate change, declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
MARK SHERMAN, "High Court rebukes Bush on car pollution", Associated Press/Yahoo April 2, 2007
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070402/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_greenhouse_gases Kgrr 00:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly, the really irresponsible people are those that exhale. --Don't lose that number 14:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CO2 is now a pollutant 

message: I've added more material to the chart showing CO2 levels over 100s of millions of years.  Pertinent to the subject of GW is the combustion of sequestered CO2.  --Skyemoor 20:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical CO2 Chart

message: N has bloated this section - it has a see-main, it shouldn't be this big. I've cut it down somewhat. I regard the graph added as misleading and have removed it. For newbies, we've had similar wars over this in the past. The section needs to be trimmed further, IMHO William M. Connolley 08:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you please kindly refrain from characterizing this debate as a 'war'?  You have in the past agreed to portions which you deleted, and for the reasons below I am restoring the removed passages and ask that you try to remain civil towards practitioners and advocates of actuary.  Just because some stupid mob deleted your gambling page is no reason to suddenly start implying that actuary isn't science.  James S. 09:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry - I'm quite happy for actuary to be science if you like. I meant, *natural science*. And we had an edit war in the past over this, where you kept trying to insert an inapproriate graph against everyone else. Please don't do that again. The section you have added is too big, and inappropriate for this page, and misleading/wrong William M. Connolley 09:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your use of warfare as a euphemism for editing disagreements is upsetting to me.  If you want to continue using that terminology, then that will be your decision, but don't say I didn't try to warn against it, please.  I believe that my application of a trend line and confidence intervals has been proper, and I reserve the right to continue.  However, as a courtesy to you and those who agree with you, I have decided to refrain.  I am sorry that you feel that a concise summary of the best available actuarial reports from the past five years is too much.  I do not.  I will continue to replace about the same amount of material.  I also intend to establish a survey of how many paragraphs should be devoted to expected non-financial and financial effects, voting 4 and 3.  James S. 12:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attributed and expected effects 

message: I strongly disagree with this edit, and I ask that it please be restored.  However, what really bothers me is the edit summary; in particular, "Financial effects - rm section. too big, not very good (too much stern), too far from page focus (science)"
Actuarial science is a science, and has been recognized as such for many centuries.  I think the suggestion that Global warming can not afford seven paragraphs for it shows serious issues with WP:OWN from the climatologist who has the most edits on this article.
I have seen far too much mollycoddling of those who do not think twice about spouting lies if it serves their preconceived notions or their party line. If this behavior continues, I will ask for a third opinion about whether actuary should be excluded from the article because some climate scientist says that it isn't really "science" while at almost the same time supporting a detailed graph of an extrapolation to 220% CO2 which seems contrary, by the way, to several other studies.
And what exactly does "not very good (too much stern)" mean?  Stern is the most recent actuary to address the issue, and his 2006 report is only given half the space of the leading reports for 2005-2002.  If there is a critique of Stern's work, I have not been able to find it.  If editors want to bad-mouth a respected scientist, I would respectfully request that they cite sources instead of putting such rubbish in edit summaries where they can not be removed or tagged.
And then there is this edit, which asserts, "may be partly due to increasing severe weather" in the face of several peer-reviewed authorities to the contrary, and deletes this vast swath:
:"Kerry Emmanuel in Nature writes that hurricane power dissipation is highly correlated with temperature, reflecting global warming.Emmanuel, K. (August 2005) "Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years" Nature 436: 686-688. Hurricane modeling has produced similar results, finding that hurricanes, simulated under warmer, high-CO2 conditions, are more intense than under present-day conditions. Thomas Knutson and Robert E. Tuleya of the NOAA stated in 2004 that warming induced by greenhouse gas may lead to increasing occurrence of highly destructive category-5 storms.Thomas R. Knutson, et. al., Journal of Climate, Impact of CO2-Induced Warming on Simulated Hurricane Intensity and Precipitation: Sensitivity to the Choice of Climate Model and Convective Parameterization, 15 Sept. 2004. Retrieved March 4, 2007."
Again I object and although I see much good faith, I see substantial elements of bad faith, probably due to being worn down by those who are paid to lie.  I recommend a wikibreak. James S. 09:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The evidence for inc in disasters due to population is strong. Due to weather is weaker - I'm not really sure. Actuary is science (perhaps) but not natural science. If there is a critique of Stern's work, I have not been able to find it - then you haven't looked very hard. Try Nordhaus or Tol. Or stoat :-). Your section is far too long for something with a see-main William M. Connolley 09:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this were the Wikipedia of Natural Science, I would agree to exclude the finance section.  As for the critiques which focus on inflation adjustment, storm damage is a recurring cost causing depreciation of durable goods.  If you were to use a 5% per annum inflation adjustment year-over-year, it wouldn't make much of a difference because the bill for storm damage isn't a balloon payment at the end of time, it's a recurring cost paid periodically.  However, the greenhouse gas pool in the atmosphere is elastic:  If we overspend on mitigation, we can recoup our losses by spending less on mitigation in the future. Have any of Stern's critics achieved peer review of their critique? James S. 10:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No - I mean this page primarily focuses on the natural science. Re crit of Stern - are you now saying that yuo *have* read the Nordhaus/Tol stuff? Either you have (in which case your original comment is deceptive) or you haven't (in which case your reading around this is woefully inadequate). I disagree with your reverts - but will allow others to comment before editing further. Your refusal to admit that societal changes are primary, and your insistence on putting weather first, is unpromising William M. Connolley 10:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I read a few summaries of them after you pointed them out.  If you have any actual evidence that "reading around this is woefully inadequate" then please state it.  When have I denied that societal changes are a major source?  Since we have no way to predict future population growth with any accuracy, I can not say whether population growth will always be the primary determinant of financial losses to disasters.  When have I ever said that it hasn't always been that way?  This "much/most" distinction is interesting, but I think reacting to a disagreement with deletion shows an inability to edit well with others.  If your deletions were based on the weakest evidence, then I would agree with them, but you are apparently trying to delete information about artificial sciences of global warming instead. James S. 11:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The wind measurement system was change some years back and that resulted in more storms being put in catagory 5. Whether there is a financial impact depends on whether a storm hits a high-property value area, which has nothing to do with global warming. Katina hit a major city, so everyone heard about it. Meanwhile, a series of catagory 5 storms in the 1960s go unremembered because they didn't hit land. Kauffner 10:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you detail what changes you understand the wind measurement system to have undergone, and provide references?  I don't doubt the first part of your statement, though it is overly broad. And what is remembered is not as important as what the trend is.  Let's be careful not to gear this article to the perception but to the evidence. --Skyemoor 11:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check this out. The Weather Service got some new toys in 1997 so they can measure higher wind speeds now. Andrew, a financially significant 1992 storm, has been reclassified as a catagory 5. (This article has one cool satellite photo of Andrew. Blow it up -- It makes a great desktop.) Kauffner 18:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  I think the section should stay, however I would like to see it improved over time with more facts on existing effects and less speculation. But to say this article is already without speculation is completely wrong. The machine512 10:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Financial impacts should go into Effects of Global Warming, and must take into consideration not only population growth, but growth along coastlines.  Yes, increased violent storms will increase damage, and insurance companies view this as a high risk, but higher valuation of exposed properties makes a difference in total financial risk, as Kauffner mentioned. --Skyemoor 11:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't find the section about financial effects too big. Well, maybe a little (Tony Blair's opinion seems not to be that important to me there). We have a small paragraph about the Kyoto Protocol, which is surely not dealing with natural science, but with politics. We have a quite big section about the relation to Ozone depletion, which I think is a minor topic compared to possible financial losses. While I recognize that this article needs a strong natural scientific pillar, for me this does not necessarily mean everything else should be excluded. To make my point, I'm in favor of cutting a few sentences out of the contended section and put it back into the article. Hardern 12:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: PS: This basically calls for a separate article Financial effects of global warming, or what do you think? Do we have something like that already?? I'm only aware of Effects_of_Global_Warming#Economic... Hardern 12:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guys, you're right. A section on financial effects is pertinent, and there is no reason a general overview like this article should not encompass a wide variety of subtopics. however this article is currently under the control of a small group of users who have decided they alone can decide the scope of the article. Since they have decided that, any other opinions count as peripheral and non-important. So that is a problem which we are facing. There seems to be little we can do about it. We currently have a mediation open, but it seems likely to accomplish little. So we're not sure. If anyone wants to put in a complaint, please feel free. Thanks. --Sm8900 13:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the mediation open or archived? I am a bit confused about that??--BozMo talk 14:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it is unresolved, and still pending. Apparently the mediator did archive it, just because they felt they had sufficient input from all parties.--68.164.203.41 15:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I need to look at the financial stuff.  I think the article should emphasize science but should not be solely about the science. On the other hand, without seeing the information, I think financial impacts would have to be shear speculation at this point.  If it is, wouldn't that sort of demand a bit less space and a note to the effect that it is speculation?  --Blue Tie 14:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter what any of us think. Users do sometimes have the right to try out some new ideas, without having a few people veto them for no solid reason. --Sm8900 14:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on, don't worry. As for what any of us think, I think you use the word "few" rather flexibly. But I also tend to agree with the ?few ?majority that the article is too long and the financial stuff is largely effect... --BozMo talk 14:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at the financial stuff, it seems to be relevant. (I note that risk is a combined measure of probability and cost so this is not a terrible addition).  I agree users should be able to contribute without too much stress, but sometimes that means proposing on the talk page first. --Blue Tie 15:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not an expert but doesn't the answer swing too much on discount rates, which is arbitrary, and isn't that too much for this article? --BozMo talk 15:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe. I just surveyed without going into detail.  I don't think the biggest problem is discount rates.  The problem here is that we are talking about *forecasts*.  One forecast is about the temperature rise. Another forecast is about the general climatological effects of that temperature rise.  And now, a forecast about the financial effects of that forecasted climate change from the forecast tempera--ture rise. Do we say that 3 forecasts are too many?  Based upon what critieria?  If 3 are not too many, what about 4?  If 3 are too many is 2 too many?  Why is 1 not too many?  and so on. --Blue Tie 15:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Blue Tie, if you feel something should be included, you should just recommend that. I have yet to see any major revisions accepted which did not align with the people controlling this article. With a major mediation under way, we should not be clouding the issue with these side-discussions, which we already know will never result in any new sub-topics being included. --Sm8900 15:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I *think* I have not edited the article in a while.  (Because I think it clouds things) I am letting others do that. I do not mind commenting on the edits. I have already said that I have proposals for changes but I think the mediation should proceed first. --Blue Tie 16:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The financial information looks relevant, but some is redundant (e.g. first and second sentences repeat the same information), and there are significant criticisms of the Stern report, which should temper the use of it as a source for economic effects. Also, I think that the Risks and Impacts image thumb|right is more informative overall than the glacier thickness image in this section. Hal peridol 16:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The graph on the right is weird. It has the appearance of some sort of quantitative analysis but it is really just opinion overlayed on numbers.  I cannot detect any methodology for arriving at those conclusions.  It just looks like a way to convey a belief, not a graph of objective information. I like the concept of the graph and would like to see something like it in the article but I do not think this one is right. The correct way to evaluate risk is to have P(scenario) X (delta) Cost of Scenario.  Both may be subjective evaluations but there should be a methodology and transparency to the madness. --Blue Tie 18:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You misunderstood me. I think you are absolutely entitled to edit this article. :-) I only meant that since we know there is a major conflict going on now regarding people's ability to edit this, then if something is cut which we feel should be included, we should call for its inclusion more simply and directly, and not get bogged down in minor points, since this is the major issue of dispute right now. --Sm8900 16:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "Major" mediation, "major" conflict, "major" dispute but involving only a "few" people outnumbering you. Hmm. Anyway, BlueTie, on nested assumption my rule of thumb based on the essay "fernseeds and elephants" (by C.S.Lewis) is 0.7*0.7*0.7=.3 or put another way three pretty likely outcomes are unlikely all to be true so a theory based on three nested assumptions is rarely worth talking about. As I say these kind of broad scientific principles are the ones which entitle some degree of cynicism. --BozMo talk 18:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea what you are talking about with "Major" mediation, "major" conflict, "major" dispute but involving only a "few" people outnumbering you., But I tend to agree about nested assumptions.  However, we get into a question of original research, particularly about how likely the issues are.  0.70^3 is a different number than 0.90^3.  With just .70, even a single nest is questionable and the original topic is not so sure as to be legitimately uncontested. Just what level of probability do you ascribe to the first level here -- temperatures are rising?--Blue Tie 18:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First bit I was just being flippant to Sm8900 so ignore it. On the probabilities what is the 90% spread of estimates of financial impact in 2100? Narrower than the difference in changing the discount rate from 0% to 4% I think. I am not in solution mode yet, just kicking ideas around. --BozMo talk 18:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Interestingly enough, I have some specialized software and experience in evaluating answers when inputs are ranges and vague, but that would get to original research and I would need lots of help with the "understood" inputs.  Having said that, I think that the probabilities of temperatures rising is well over 90% and approaching 100%.  As for the consequences, I believe that these are presently speculative and I think 70% is about as high as you can go.  Once you assume a consequence the financial impacts are relatively much easier to evaluate, subject to what are probably reasonable assumptions -- including discount rates to bring the numbers into net present value, which can be estimated based upon the last 100 years history or something like that. Some of the financial impact is not even related to discount but rather to percentages of aggregate GDP which does not lend itself to discounting properties.  A key issue for financial impact is the cost of a human life.  This is very political.  Courts tend to rule that an average life in the US is worth about $3 million. In the USSR, its about $118,000. They might both be right, but that is a minefield and I doubt any investigative body is going to openly walk into an industrial fan of that wattage.  But, bottom line is, that in this case, I think the weak part of the nesting is more in the nature of the consequences rather than in the cost of them. --Blue Tie 19:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Temperature rising? Well, over 50% chance... the question is how much. Probability of at least 3C by 2100? God (or some of his self-appointed representatives on this talk page) knows...--BozMo talk 19:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship of Financial effects 

message: ::Guys, you're right. A section on financial effects is pertinent, and there is no reason a general overview like this article should not encompass a wide variety of subtopics. however this article is currently under the control of a small group of users who have decided they alone can decide the scope of the article. Since they have decided that, any other opinions count as peripheral and non-important. So that is a problem which we are facing. There seems to be little we can do about it. We currently have a mediation open, but it seems likely to accomplish little. So we're not sure. If anyone wants to put in a complaint, please feel free. Thanks. --Sm8900 13:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the mediation open or archived? I am a bit confused about that??--BozMo talk 14:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it is unresolved, and still pending. Apparently the mediator did archive it, just because they felt they had sufficient input from all parties.--68.164.203.41 15:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I need to look at the financial stuff.  I think the article should emphasize science but should not be solely about the science. On the other hand, without seeing the information, I think financial impacts would have to be shear speculation at this point.  If it is, wouldn't that sort of demand a bit less space and a note to the effect that it is speculation?  --Blue Tie 14:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter what any of us think. Users do sometimes have the right to try out some new ideas, without having a few people veto them for no solid reason. --Sm8900 14:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on, don't worry. As for what any of us think, I think you use the word "few" rather flexibly. But I also tend to agree with the ?few ?majority that the article is too long and the financial stuff is largely effect... --BozMo talk 14:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at the financial stuff, it seems to be relevant. (I note that risk is a combined measure of probability and cost so this is not a terrible addition).  I agree users should be able to contribute without too much stress, but sometimes that means proposing on the talk page first. --Blue Tie 15:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not an expert but doesn't the answer swing too much on discount rates, which is arbitrary, and isn't that too much for this article? --BozMo talk 15:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe. I just surveyed without going into detail.  I don't think the biggest problem is discount rates.  The problem here is that we are talking about *forecasts*.  One forecast is about the temperature rise. Another forecast is about the general climatological effects of that temperature rise.  And now, a forecast about the financial effects of that forecasted climate change from the forecast tempera--ture rise. Do we say that 3 forecasts are too many?  Based upon what critieria?  If 3 are not too many, what about 4?  If 3 are too many is 2 too many?  Why is 1 not too many?  and so on. --Blue Tie 15:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Blue Tie, if you feel something should be included, you should just recommend that. I have yet to see any major revisions accepted which did not align with the people controlling this article. With a major mediation under way, we should not be clouding the issue with these side-discussions, which we already know will never result in any new sub-topics being included. --Sm8900 15:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I *think* I have not edited the article in a while.  (Because I think it clouds things) I am letting others do that. I do not mind commenting on the edits. I have already said that I have proposals for changes but I think the mediation should proceed first. --Blue Tie 16:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The financial information looks relevant, but some is redundant (e.g. first and second sentences repeat the same information), and there are significant criticisms of the Stern report, which should temper the use of it as a source for economic effects. Also, I think that the Risks and Impacts image thumb|right is more informative overall than the glacier thickness image in this section. Hal peridol 16:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The graph on the right is weird. It has the appearance of some sort of quantitative analysis but it is really just opinion overlayed on numbers.  I cannot detect any methodology for arriving at those conclusions.  It just looks like a way to convey a belief, not a graph of objective information. I like the concept of the graph and would like to see something like it in the article but I do not think this one is right. The correct way to evaluate risk is to have P(scenario) X (delta) Cost of Scenario.  Both may be subjective evaluations but there should be a methodology and transparency to the madness. --Blue Tie 18:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You misunderstood me. I think you are absolutely entitled to edit this article. :-) I only meant that since we know there is a major conflict going on now regarding people's ability to edit this, then if something is cut which we feel should be included, we should call for its inclusion more simply and directly, and not get bogged down in minor points, since this is the major issue of dispute right now. --Sm8900 16:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "Major" mediation, "major" conflict, "major" dispute but involving only a "few" people outnumbering you. Hmm. Anyway, BlueTie, on nested assumption my rule of thumb based on the essay "fernseeds and elephants" (by C.S.Lewis) is 0.7*0.7*0.7=.3 or put another way three pretty likely outcomes are unlikely all to be true so a theory based on three nested assumptions is rarely worth talking about. As I say these kind of broad scientific principles are the ones which entitle some degree of cynicism. --BozMo talk 18:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea what you are talking about with "Major" mediation, "major" conflict, "major" dispute but involving only a "few" people outnumbering you., But I tend to agree about nested assumptions.  However, we get into a question of original research, particularly about how likely the issues are.  0.70^3 is a different number than 0.90^3.  With just .70, even a single nest is questionable and the original topic is not so sure as to be legitimately uncontested. Just what level of probability do you ascribe to the first level here -- temperatures are rising?--Blue Tie 18:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First bit I was just being flippant to Sm8900 so ignore it. On the probabilities what is the 90% spread of estimates of financial impact in 2100? Narrower than the difference in changing the discount rate from 0% to 4% I think. I am not in solution mode yet, just kicking ideas around. --BozMo talk 18:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Interestingly enough, I have some specialized software and experience in evaluating answers when inputs are ranges and vague, but that would get to original research and I would need lots of help with the "understood" inputs.  Having said that, I think that the probabilities of temperatures rising is well over 90% and approaching 100%.  As for the consequences, I believe that these are presently speculative and I think 70% is about as high as you can go.  Once you assume a consequence the financial impacts are relatively much easier to evaluate, subject to what are probably reasonable assumptions -- including discount rates to bring the numbers into net present value, which can be estimated based upon the last 100 years history or something like that. Some of the financial impact is not even related to discount but rather to percentages of aggregate GDP which does not lend itself to discounting properties.  A key issue for financial impact is the cost of a human life.  This is very political.  Courts tend to rule that an average life in the US is worth about $3 million. In the USSR, its about $118,000. They might both be right, but that is a minefield and I doubt any investigative body is going to openly walk into an industrial fan of that wattage.  But, bottom line is, that in this case, I think the weak part of the nesting is more in the nature of the consequences rather than in the cost of them. --Blue Tie 19:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Temperature rising? Well, over 50% chance... the question is how much. Probability of at least 3C by 2100? God (or some of his self-appointed representatives on this talk page) knows...--BozMo talk 19:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: State of article

message: Sm8900 has been busy recruiting an army of POV pushers see here and here   :(      Count Iblis 21:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Full disclosure: You're no stranger to bending the rules to push POV. --Tjsynkral 22:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: All Republicans and conservatives are POV pushers! ~ UBeR 21:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As are all Democrats and Liberals.  Who cares? --Blue Tie 21:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: First of all, those notices were posted a week ago. So I don't think an armada is coming. They're probably bottled up in the English Channel. For an explanation of what I mean, see here. If that makes you Sir Francis Drake, so be it. Hope you're good at bowling.  Now, as far as why I posted it, you'll notice that I was extremely open with the reasons I was requesting help. Here is my request: "Please help us with the Global warming article. there is currently a small number of editors who are continually refusing to allow any dissenting views. thanks." I did not try to recruit an army of marauders. I stated exactly what I felt to be the case. besides even if I did try to recruit a band of banshees, there's no reason to think they would come. I'm not close to most of those guys. However, I reiterate my main point; my message was quite clear as to what I considered the main issue. Thanks. --Sm8900 01:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sme8900 could you also explain exactly what the reasons where for asking at those specific pages? I mean seen from my viewpoint your request seems to indicate that you want a specific "type" of help. If you really think that the page needs help - then better places would have been somewhere scientific, neutral politically, somewhat corresponding in type of content and so on. Correct? Could you also try to explain how this helps with regards to the current mediation? --Kim D. Petersen 01:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Kim. thanks for your message. The reason I asked at those pages is that they seemed like good pages to ask at. They seemed like a good place to get some alternate views. I don't have much more to add than that. I think they speak for themselves. Thanks for your message. See you. --Sm8900 01:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sm89000, sorry? I'm really trying to assume good faith here - what exactly is your thinking behind "I asked at those pages is that they seemed like good pages to ask at" - why did they "seem" to be good pages to ask at? --Kim D. Petersen 02:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess our main difference is that I don't view this only as a science article, but as a societal/political topic as well. Anyway, if it's any reassurance, that canvass was the last that I planned to do. I did it a week before this became an issue, and have not done any since then. So it was simply a way to get some diverse views. Most articles do not suffer when alternate views come in. And I did not expect an onrushing horde; at most i figured we might get two or three fresh viewpoints. And, in the end, we got none here, and, possibly, just one at the mediation. So that was my main thinking. Thanks. --Sm8900 13:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  We may see an Armada of POV pushers here 

message: What kind of crap is. there aint no such thing as global warming. its just a democrat scandal to get money
:This isn't a discussion forum. ~ UBeR 05:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No such thing

message: Picofluidicist's most recent pair of edits, I believe, among other problems, go beyond the scope that WP:SUMMARY asks of us. Also, given his recent misinformation and unattributed statements, I'm not exactly sure of the accuracy of the most recently added detail. ~ UBeR 18:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a quick look at the diffs you gave and his/her facts on temperature change, sea level rise, and so on look OK.  (The mixture of U.S. and metric units ought to be sorted out but that's another issue.) What do you think is "misinformation"?  Raymond Arritt 19:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I hope WMC weighs in on Picofluidist's description of the adequacy of water vapor models. James S. 19:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes by Picofluidicist 

message: I have solicited opinions from economist editors on Wikipedia to evaluate whether the discount rate critique is valid against Stern's analysis of recurring costs. James S. 20:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A good suggestion. --Kim D. Petersen 21:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note that James directed them to t:Stern not here William M. Connolley 21:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal re Stern Review critiques 

message: U.S. negotiators managed to eliminate language in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers Friday that called for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions according to Patricia Romero Lankao, a lead author from NCAR.  The original draft read: "However, adaptation alone is not expected to cope with all the projected effects of climate change, and especially not over the long run as most impacts increase in magnitude. Mitigation measures will therefore also be required." But the second sentence does not appear in the final version of the report.
China objected to wording that said "based on observed evidence, there is very high confidence that many natural systems, on all continents and in most oceans, are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases." The term "very high confidence" means researchers are at least 90 percent sure of their findings.  When China asked that the word "very" be stricken, three scientific authors balked, and the deadlock was broken only by a compromise to delete any reference to confidence levels.
Boo!  Hiss! James S. 07:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  US conspires with China against climate scientists 

message: Cited in case its useful to the article:
: "The scientific work reviewed by IPCC scientists includes more than 29,000 pieces of data on observed changes in physical and biological aspects of the natural world. Eighty-nine percent of these, it believes, are consistent with a warming world." 
FT2 (Talk | email) 12:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits to consider when unprotected 

message: I vote for (1). But even in the present version there is too much about finance. So, I suggest getting rid of that and moving some of the real science that was moved to the more specialized articles back into this article. Count Iblis 21:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support a very brief summary-style section with a link to the controversy article, though. By very brief, I mean a short paragraph, just a few sentences. No junk science or anything of the like, just mention that there is some controversy, which is largely limited to the lay, about the causes and effects of global warming. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 02:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Did the poll close or is it still open? The machine512 12:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still open. --Mel Etitis  (Talk) 13:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Option 1:

message: *Strong support. I favor restoring the ability of good-faith editors to add new subtopics as they see fit, and for other editors to make changes to those sections if they feel they need work or improvement. I don't feel this straw poll is binding, as I feel this ought to be an unconditional right, at this article, or any other Wikipedia article. However, I am voting in this poll because I believe it to be a good-faith effort by WMC to create some better communication. Thanks. --Sm8900 21:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Known to be away" as in "blocked from editing for WP:SOCK and WP:POINT" . I know of no provision on Wikipedia that demands action be delayed until users blocked for misbehavior are able to return. Raymond Arritt 01:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Option 2:

message: Honestly, I think my ideal world is a lot closer to Option 2 than Option 1.  Ideally when someone comes to "Global warming", I think they should get an overview of the whole issue, which includes: science, economics, future impacts, policital controversy, and proposed ways to address the issue.  However creating such an article is hard for many reasons.  One of which is that many of the core contributors here are scientists, and while they can write about the science well, would find it much harder to write about the politics, etc.  Another problem is that a true summary article has to be throughly predicated on a foundation of the widely accepted science.  A discussion of impacts and mitigation doesn't even make sense if one doesn't presume anthropogenic responsibility.  So writing such an article could well stir even greater resentments over consensus science and the marginalization of alternative views.  To say nothing of the fact that delving into politics, economics, etc. touches on a range of issues that are in themselves even more controversial than the core science.
My ideal world would move much of what this article covers to a new Scientific understanding of global warming and develop "global warming" as a true summary with political and economic sections, but without topics such as pre-human global warming, solar variation, or even most of the current discussion of causes.  As I said, writing such an article is hard, perhaps impractically so.  Though if someone wants to try creating such an article in a space like Global warming/Rewrite, I would be interested to see what you can come up with.  However, I don't think incremental additions of new topics, in the absense of substantial restructering and farming out of more material to other pages, would be a viable way to improve the current article.  So I don't agree with an Option 2 that consists primarily of just dropping in new non-science oriented sections into this (currently science orientated) article.  Dragons flight 01:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having just read this entire talk page, I can say that this is the most rational comment herein.  It is also clear to me that this is exactly what the non-skeptics do not want.  When someone searches "global warming" @ Wikipedia, they will most likely be taken to this article, and the non-skeptics want their viewpoints to be what the reader is presented with.  They have fought hard to have the skeptic viewpoints branched off to sub-articles, but I suspect they will fight equally hard to prevent their own views from being similarly split off.  Since both sides want the main article to contain their views but not those of their respective "opponents," the only logical answer is to make the main article a summary in itself, with all the various sub-topics and opposing viewpoints branched off to their own pages.  To summarize: let the viewer decide which path of further reading he/she will pursue.  Oh and, I really should make an account....  And I just have to add that I find William M. Connolley to be incredibly abrasive and rude, which is not only unnecessary, but offensive.  A perusal of his comments on various other articles show this to be a pattern (e.g., Global Cooling discussion).  I'd recommend a ban, but I'm afraid he probably has too many Wiki connections (indeed, he seems comfortable enough recommending the banning of others that I have to assume he feels safe from banning himself).  --70.105.253.147 17:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Support! You took the words right out of my mouth. --Hardern 14:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally some rational thinking and a good compromise... and from a non-wiki member to boot! Fyunck(click) 06:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely support Dragons flight's suggestion and also agree with 70.105.253.147's supporting comments.  I believe that this idea is not only the best solution for the viewer (allowing him/her to choose what to read), but is also the solution that is least-likely to result in edit wars.  Super_C 00:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My view

message: I'd like an article that broadly followed the structure adopted by the IPCC, with three parts - climate science, impacts and mitigation/adaptation. All of these are relevant to anyone wanting to follow the issue. This would be a longish article. There's no need, in this context, to give any space, apart from links to fringe science, attacks on science and so forth. As an aside, "financial impacts" should be "economic impacts".JQ 22:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this approach, which matches up with sections 3, 4, and 5. Climate models could go under section 3 potentially.  --Skyemoor 23:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually do not like that approach for several reasons.  First of all, it immediately brings howls from people who are suspicious of the UN.  Second, it expands the topic beyond science (but then artificially limits the expansion by a non-wikipedia standard).  And finally, if it is just a reiteration of the IPCC document (as suggested by no need to give any space apart from links to other views) then it becomes a POV Fork and is not going to in accordance with wikipedia guidelines and it will not remain stable. --Blue Tie 01:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The IPCC and Option 2

message: This yet again another poll with only two bad options. We saw something very similar with BozMo's poll. The problem with the article, it appears, is with the inclusion of material that is not related to the natural sciences involved in global warming. What was nominated to FA was an article on the natural sciences and one tiny political part (Kyoto). Having sections that relate to global warming but are not natural science, such as finance, means that this article isn't about the natural science, but rather a broader topic on which all aspects of global warming are considered. That is, societal topics, politics, etc. Denying that there are other topics outside of natural sciences relating to global warming would be a mistake. The question, however, is whether they should be included in article on the topic of global warming. A purely natural science article on global warming would not included the blurb on Kyoto and would be named Global warming science (or the likes), but that's neither here nor there. If you're willing to include topics that are not natural sciences, that's fine, but be prepared to allow other similar topics. And as always, straw polls are evil. ~ UBeR 19:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the Kyoto stuff (indeed the whole Mitigation section, imo) should chopped out and replaced with a pointer to the main KP article and/or GW controversy article. The current situation with mitigation-related articles is strange. There's an oddly-named Individual and political action on climate change as well as a Business action on climate change. These could be merged and cleaned up into a comprehensive article on climate change mitigation, with a prominent pointer added in the main GW article. Raymond Arritt 19:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (later note) I just found yet another article on the topic, mitigation of global warming.  Gee, what a mess! All that stuff ought to be merged and treated in a coherent way. Raymond Arritt 17:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. ~ UBeR 23:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  I'm happy to chop out Kyoto. As to polls: I don't see any other proposals for ending the current war/prot William M. Connolley 19:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Arritts comments. Mentioning the Kyoto Protocol, in the manner we do the controversy and politicos, would suffice to mention an arguably notable subject, while keeping the article on natural science. I also agree with cleaning up all these mitigation/action articles and also mentioning them in this article in a similar fashion. I do not believe the current "poll" convey this. We need to consider as many options that logically make sense, not just two haphazard ones. ~ UBeR 21:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget, UBeR, that when you claim that this is yet another 'bad' poll, that you had the choice of 1 of the 2 options in the last one.  Self criticism is admirable when it is stated as such. --Skyemoor 22:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't already forgotten that I made one of the options. That doesn't change anything from the fact it was a bad and unfair poll. But I'm not here to delve on the past. Lets focus on this article.  ~ UBeR 00:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  I agree with removing most of the Kyoto stuff as well. Much of what is in this article now about KP seems definitely out of place. A brief mention pointing to the KP article and possibly other relevant articles, should suffice. Also, there are other mitigation efforts which should maybe also get a brief mention and pointer, such as past and pending legislation. --MoxRox 01:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  I agree to remove Kyoto and everything which is not natural science from this article. There is largely enough interesting material with the science not to clutter the article with other aspects that can very well fit in connected article like Kyoto Protocol, etc ... (with appriopriate linking of course) --Galahaad 22:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why This Poll Sucks

message: A frequent solution among FAs is to use summary style with a paragraph and link to daughter articles on relevant subtopics. DurovaCharge! 21:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that general solution, as long as the sub-articles are not obvious POV forks, likely to get lots of editing attention.  --Blue Tie 01:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like the sound of this too, but can you point to a couple good example articles, preferably similar to this situation? --MoxRox 01:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's AIDS, which certainly sees its share of controversy, that uses summary style for AIDS#Alternative_hypotheses and AIDS#AIDS reappraisal. DurovaCharge! 05:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, that's a good example of what I was thinking about upthread, in my comments on Option 1. There are about 5 sentences in AIDS#Alternative_hypotheses, but giving it it's own section heading makes it easy to find, and thus easy to find the daughter article AIDS reappraisal. Having a completely separate article for AIDS reappraisal allows that topic to also have well-organized and comprehensive coverage.  In short, I think it is a good example of how to handle the Global Warming article. --MoxRox 02:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the standard solution at FA level.  I looked for another one where science and politics intersected (and that wasn't a holdover from the brilliant prose days on its way to delisting).  That seemed to be the nearest parallel to the dilemmas editors face here.  Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 04:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral outside comment 

message: The science is quite well settled, and a lot of the discussion about GW in the real world is about mitigation, costs, impacts, and political issues around all of this.  Thus, I think Option 1 is too limited for a comprehensive discussion of the topic.  But adding new sections to an already massive article is not the right approach.
My preference would be to write an entirely new article (called Global warming) which would be a brief, extremely comprehensible overview, nearly in Simple Wikipedia style, and almost functioning as a large disambig page to all the detailed articles.  This could have enough info to give the naive reader a nice (and complete) overview of the topic and would link all of the major subtopics.  Start, for example, with a paragraph defining the topic, and discuss in the simplest terms the greenhouse gases, with a link to a Scientific basis of global warming page; then a paragraph about likely impacts, then about mitigation, then about politics.  A nice overview could be written in 20k which would cover all the ground and allow for much more detailed discussion on topic-specific pages.
I see this as something like the intro paragraphs at the beginning of a Britannica Macropedia article.  This is unusual, I admit, but the incredible complexity of the topic should push us to a a novel solution.  Global warming is not simply a scientific issue, and to treat it as such is asking for trouble.  We should be able to cover all the ground in a simple way before shunting people off into the technical details of the historical temperature record, or financial estimates, or public health impacts, or whatever interest they choose to follow up on.  bikeable (talk) 05:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with you. Actually, you are right; the current content would not really fit in a general overview, but some of it would, and it all should be somewhere. but this entry could be rewritten beneficially as a true general overview. --Sm8900 13:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another not-quite-categorizable opinion

message: from the current article:
"Two British scientists supporting the mainstream scientific opinion on global warming criticize what they call the "catastrophism and the 'Hollywoodisation'" of some of the expected effects. They argue that sensationalized claims cannot be justified by science"
Why aren't these scientists named in the article like the others? Surely not because they're not American? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.110.200.70 (talk • contribs).
:No reason. Feel free to write their names, if you wish, when the article becomes unlocked. ~ UBeR 23:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: British scientists line

message: Weather trends international just released this.
Last year was record warm, this year record cold! April is currently tracking as the coldest April in 113 years - a dramatic change from last years #1 warmest ever. Even after some late month moderation, April 2007 will likely keep the month in the top 7 coldest in history. The Southwest is the one exception, but even here temperatures will cool dramatically late in the week.
:The article is about global warming not US warming. but the answer appears likely to be no not coldest in 130 years or 113 years but coldest in US for 10 years. crandles 20:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And? Is there any demonstration of anything with this statement, that should be included in the GW article? Are yo suggesting that for now on we track (and post) the weather week by week in the discussion page? Else? --Galahaad 20:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly the coldest and snowiest April I've experienced here in Minnesota! ~ UBeR 23:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not confuse short term, local weather readings with climate trends; that's Climate 101. --Skyemoor 00:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Coldest April in 113 Years?

message: How much CO2 are humans putting into the atmosphere compared to the total increase in total  atmospheric CO2?  This is the most logical stat. to prove that humans are causing global warming; however I can't find this anywhere. --Zginder 20:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Carbon_History_and_Flux_Rev.png  Dragons flight 20:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From a historical perspective this might give you an idea of what concentrations have been in over the past hundreds of millions of years. Per your question, humans contribute less than 1% to total CO2 emissions each year, if I'm counting right. ~ UBeR 20:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Missed the question. Humans contribute about 150% of the yearly increase (50% currently go into carbon sinks, mostly the increasing acidity in the ocean). The total carbon flux is indeed much larger. --Stephan Schulz 20:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If I read the question well, he is not asking how much CO2 humans put comparatively to the total emission, but instead comparatively to the total increase in total CO2, namely comparatively to the difference (sources - sinks). That should be radically different. --Galahaad 20:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. ~ UBeR 21:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CO2

message: Hello there: I'm Nicholas Turnbull, a mediator from the Guerrilla Mediation Network (WP:GMN). It appears the mediation efforts over at WP:MEDCAB have rather stalled, as the previous mediator (Kim Bruning) felt that he couldn't really tackle it satisfactorily and asked for someone else to take over; and so, here I am, at your service as your new mediator. If people are willing, we'll do the mediation here to directly solve the dispute rather than carrying it on at a protracted mediation page - which was just producing more argument, definitely not a useful outcome - which is how we sort things out at the GMN. My view is this dispute may seem to be inexorably difficult but, in fact, there is not as much work that needs to be done as people may be thinking to create a solution that's acceptable for everyone concerned.
I have looked over the past MedCab mediation page, and at this article's history/discussion, and feel that the issues as they stand can be summarised as follows:
* Global warming is, obviously, a contentious subject, and views on the subject of politics and the relationship that political policy has to the subject differ significantly according to political viewpoint.
* Claims of POV slanting, inaccuracy of material, "weasel words", etc. have been brought by some editors here, and disagreement continues over these issues.
* A protracted edit war has occurred as to what should be included in the article and how that material should be presented.
* Sometimes, personal attacks and incivility have spilled over as a consequence of this, increasing "editing temperature" and making the dispute all the more acrimonious.
So, I think the best way of proceeding is extremely simple, and would be a good way to kick off working out how to come to a satisfactory conclusion for everyone:
: Anyone who feels there is an issue with this article, please write below the answer to the following question:-
:: What do you think would need to be included or excluded from the article in order for it to be NPOV, and for all of its content to be factual?
: Please answer this in no more than three sentences. "Short and sweet" is what I'm after. :)
Once we know what the higher-level issues are, we can then refine these down into some kind of pattern of mutual agreement. How does this sound to everyone? If, of course, anyone has any better suggestions, then please shout 'em out! The more the merrier! Cheers, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk:Global warming/Archived mediation responses
I am now going to analyse the responses here, and see what common elements can be found to form a proposed strategy that could be applied to the article. I will post a summary and my proposed course of action shortly, in the section below. Again, thanks a lot. Cheers, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I also urge you to perhaps go through subsequent relevant discussion, if at all possible. Thanks. ~ UBeR 23:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guerrilla Mediation opening here 

message: To everyone that responded: Thank you so much for your answers. The discussion has been archived and moved to the following sub-page, for the purpose of brevity and so it is easier to summarise what is going on:
: Talk:Global warming/Archived mediation responses
I am now going to analyse the responses here, and see what common elements can be found to form a proposed strategy that could be applied to the article. I will post a summary and my proposed course of action shortly, in the section below. Again, thanks a lot. Cheers, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also urge you to perhaps go through subsequent relevant discussion, if at all possible. Thanks. ~ UBeR 23:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replies to initial question 

message: Mediator.  Insight on the problems of this whole area may be had by a review of FAQ subpage history.  This DISCUSSION subpage is being treated as though it were a special class of article.  An article that provides "resource" information from a particular point of view.  The authors of this page are exercising  OWNERSHIP on the page and then using it to buttress arguments on other pages.  It is insideous.  There isn't even a "talk page" to discuss the issues.  When the POV tag is added, it is removed, even though the page is clearly POV.  When a scientific study is cited, the cite and information is removed instead of presenting alternative views. (See FAQ #5 where the current version is an anecdotal rather than scientific answer).  The responses to edits oh this page highlight the problems.  A few tenditious editors with a pronounced POV insist on having their way.  This (and the subsequent treatment I received) was my original complaint for the mediation.  It has never been addressed. --Blue Tie 14:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't realize we were in active mediation at this time.  --Skyemoor 14:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I am sure the mediator will read through everything Blue Tie. I would just like to add though that every time we try to count the "few" "POV" editors who "feel they own the page" turn about to be about 20-25 WP longstanding editors, including a handful of admins, who broadly speaking have opinions supporting the status quo. We have discussed a POV tag over the last six months repeatedly and every time there seems to be a consensus that the article does not have a POV issue. There are a smaller number of people (perhaps 8?) who are consistently shouting POV and we need to be better at including them (if they want to be included, which some appear not to). In terms of history I am not sure that digging the past will help but in the time I have watched the page the understandable frustration from the Cave of Adullam has let to endless ad hominem sniping from there and a degree of irritation/terseness back. Please note Blue Tie I chose Cave of Adullam carefully: its not a snipe, Davia ousted Saul from there. --BozMo talk 14:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be sure, but I am not. I have not tried to count the "few" editors as you have.  Suppose we counted the number of editors chased off by those "few"?  Would it be more than 25?  I hope you realize that I am not going for an appeal to democracy or an appeal to popularity, but apparently you are.  Is that where you want the discussion to go?  On the page I am talking about there were only 13 editors total.  As for the POV tag, being discussed over the last six month... The article I am talking about was only created in January. With regard to the article on global warming.. there is no consensus on any aspect of it.  That is one of the problems that is leading to this mediation.  I do not know about Cave of Adullam.  I will be interested to see what it is. I believe that on this article, wikipedia is suffering by a refusal to admit the standards of wikipedia guidelines and policies here. Maybe there too.  --Blue Tie 14:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Suppose we counted the number of editors chased off by those "few"?  Would it be more than 25?" Just want to express and reinforce my explicit support for this excellent point, and this entire posting by Blue Tie. --Sm8900 17:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually Blue Tie I am trying to keep to the same standards of accuracy and decency in this discussion as we require in the article and am not appealing to anything. "Few" has been removed from the main page of the article as a weasel word more times than I've eaten Polar Bear, but you keep using it here. I wonder how many other WP editors have steered clear of the climate of personal attack and nastiness which has been created? To a degree the article talk page is a cess pit of our own creation and I for one would like to see the wikipedia guidelines and policies especially on civility and personal attacks enforced on the beams here before we try to take the speck of dust out of the article's eye. --BozMo talk 15:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate that. The only reason I used the word "few" here was as a modifier on the notion of "tenditious".  I doubt that "many" or "most" are that way, and anyway, I have not counted them.  If you want, I shall do so and enter a specific number, but I would rather not go to that level of judgment.  Please, also note, that it is the FIRST time I have used it rather than it a matter of me "keep" using it over and over.  It was this once because of the word tenditious, which I also have not used before.  However, I totally agree with you about the cesspit bit and I sincerely ask anyone who feels that I have been hurtful or uncivil or even if all I have done is upset them by some quirk of my nature, to address that to me on my talk page so that I may make amends and repair what damage I created. --Blue Tie 15:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bozmo, you are upholding a small group of editors who are unilaterally deciding how this article should look, and suppressing Wikipedia principles to keep it that way. I don't care if it's 25. I don't care if it's 50. The essence of Wikipedia is openness to new ideas and material. You and your group are suppressing established Wikipedia principles. This is supposed to be an entry in flux, as are all entries, continually reflecting new ideas and views. You are continually suppressing the natural process of growth which should be occurring here. I feel this should stop, now. --Sm8900 15:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not read Wikipedia Philosophies before deciding everyone else is wrong? --BozMo talk 17:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Just for the record, I am not so interested in flux as I am in improvement.  When it gets hard to improve, you might not see so much action. --Blue Tie 16:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the link. I am not "deciding everyone else is wrong". I am stating my opinion, which is one shared by many other people here. I stand by my opinions, as stated above. Thanks. --Sm8900 18:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I am with you on this flux thing Blue Tie. I don't have a group but personally I think we want convergence and stability not for all of Wikipedia to be a sandpit. I apologise for associating you with the other people who have used "few" often... I don't like being put in a group and I shouldn't do it back to you. --BozMo talk 17:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If I may, I would like to suggest that we not be disingenuous. You are not really with Blue Tie on this issue. He was not stating he is against flux; he merely said flux is not a main goal in itself, but he hopes to make the article more flexible to allow it to reach a more improved state. --Sm8900 17:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually in my work, I am a change agent. So I guess I like flux in a way.  But, as a matter of course, I expect superior systems to reach a certain stability. Not sure if that happens on wikipedia. I have a proposal that may help with a meeting of the minds and help us communicate better, but I will present it later.--Blue Tie 19:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note to Mediator

message: Hang on one second - before we start having polls on things, could people please be patient and hang on before we've determined what the collective goals are for this article? It seems awfully premature to be voting on the subject, and I really don't think it's likely to be of much value at the moment. If nobody objects, I'll blank this section shortly. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I was wrong.  I thought the other poll was closed. I thought this might help focus mediation.  (Have not heard from the mediator for a couple of days though). If I was wrong in doing this I apologize.  I was trying to help.-- Blue Tie 16:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: actually, do we need this as a poll? maybe leave the questions, which are excellent, but use them for discussion, not polling? --Sm8900 16:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, just using words, I have missed the whole debate about Natural vs other science. I think brevity helps focus.  But I do not mean to be a distraction. --Blue Tie 16:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you referring to this when you say that? Because that is the closest I have seen to progress.--Blue Tie 19:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll on the generic issues

message: # Agree --Blue Tie 16:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Agree

message: # Per  there is a dispute about whether science content should be restricted to natural sciences only. James S. 16:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disagree

message: # William M. Connolley 16:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I was wrong.  I thought the other poll was closed. I thought this might help focus mediation.  (Have not heard from the mediator for a couple of days though). If I was wrong in doing this I apologize.  I was trying to help.-- Blue Tie 16:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: actually, do we need this as a poll? maybe leave the questions, which are excellent, but use them for discussion, not polling? --Sm8900 16:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, just using words, I have missed the whole debate about Natural vs other science. I think brevity helps focus.  But I do not mean to be a distraction. --Blue Tie 16:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is already one straw poll open, and mediation in progress, now is a bad time to open yet another 

message: *Aye ~ UBeR 19:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you referring to this when you say that? Because that is the closest I have seen to progress.--Blue Tie 19:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stop straw polls and focus on discussion instead

message: This article has been protected for some time; the admin who protected it shows no interest in the article; its time to see if we can do anything productive by unprotecting it. Hence I have William M. Connolley 20:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is improper for an editor who was involved in an edit war that led to the lock, to unlock the article without at least discussing it with the blocking admin. --Blue Tie 21:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggest you see the blocking admins talk page for that matter William M. Connolley 21:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked.  Did not see a discussion other than a count on the poll.  If I missed it I apologize, but I did not see it there. --Blue Tie 21:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree we should think before unlocking it. However, it appears there is no progress on any front. Is the mediation moving ahead? If not, I suggest we try to follow up, and see how we can best move things along. It's all well and good that discussions have continued here on this page. However, it seems a bit odd to be discussing an article which not one of us can edit even a single bit. So I would suggest that we start tring to follow up on this. thanks. --Sm8900 17:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotect 

message: Uber, I did not know if we agreed or disagreed on the opening, but I really believe it is a better opening.  Just about every word (except the last sentence) can be broadly sourced from very highly accepted sources whereas the former statement was weaker in that regard.  This statement is also more comprehensive and with just one more sentence (like: "Global Warming and its causes are widely but not universally recognized by scientists and scientific organizations") to summarize the article, it can serve as a simple summary lead.
Then each of the next few paragraphs could easily move to the sections where they apply better.  That would leave a nice pithy opening and details to follow. --Blue Tie 21:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Political controversy has no place in a scientific discussion. This has been allocated to Global warming controversy, so ensure its use in the proper place in the future.  --Skyemoor 01:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no discussion of political controversy in that opening that I proposed or edited. What are you referring to? --Blue Tie 02:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. I did not know people actually tolerated this. Now this article doesn't even link to either the controversy or political articles. Hmmm, this political legislation piece called the Kyoto Protocol still seems to be snuggly left in. Again, this type of hypocrisy is the bane of this article. ~ UBeR 02:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The changes are happening too quickly for me to keep up with; I would like to point out, in the event that a controversy section makes its way in, that international opinion is should be included:
"Steven Kull, director of PIPA, comments: “The universality of the consensus that climate change is a serious problem is quite extraordinary.” " World Public Opinions. Thanks,Hal peridol 02:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It is almost certain that Steven Kull said this.  If it is is referenced by a good source per WP:RS, then it can be included in the article.  And it is possible, maybe probably that the statement reflects reality.  But, when you quote opinions about opinions, its definitely debate by proxy, without varnish, whipped cream, or lubricant (take your pick).--Blue Tie 02:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True - this is just a summary of the results of a poll conducted in 2005-2006. About 33000 people in 30 countries were surveyed. 16 of these countries were also surveyed in 2003. Hal peridol 02:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening

message: The following statement:
Climate models can produce a good match to observations of global temperature changes over the last century
is found in the article.  Visually, looking at the graphs there appears to be a correlation, but I would like the article to express this in a more precise way.  With an expert like William here, there must be some source that can be cited giving correlations, goodness of fit measures, confidence levels on history vs prediction or something like that.   Can these be found and added?  I think that they would add some credibility to the statement.
Now that I think about it and look at the graphs, possibly the correlations will only be good on smooth data, not the data as plotted.  If that is how it goes, its might be a problem for extrapolations.  Are there published statements on the confidence intervals of forecasts? --Blue Tie 19:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He could type up a blog entry on it and cite that within the course of a few minutes. Apparently Wikipedia allows self-published sources now. --Tjsynkral 20:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think wikipedia is that loose. Have some good faith. --Blue Tie 20:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for cite

message: Recently Blue Tie changed the wording that the AAPG was the only major scientific body that denies anthropogenic global warming. However, I think the reference by the Council of the American Quaternary Association makes it clear "the AAPG stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming." I'm not opposed to attributing it them, such as it does at scientific opinion on climate change, but I think it's just improper for the lead. No real reason to doubt the AMQUA. ~ UBeR 21:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok.  Well, it is referenced.  And I suppose the AQA is reliable. We should cite the AQA though.  That's all. Thanks for the heads up. --Blue Tie 21:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, I will do it. --Blue Tie 21:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the cite already on the page somewhere?  Did I miss it?  Or can you direct me to it? --Blue Tie 21:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The cite is there. It's the first reference after that sentence: American Geophysical Union (5 September 2006) "Petroleum Geologists‘ Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate" Eos 87(36): 364. ~ UBeR 21:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've cite-journaled it and added the relevant quote explicitely. --Stephan Schulz 23:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The AAPG as the only 

message: When I look at this article in the edit window, I am impressed by the number of cites.  It is a really well cited article.  I still do not like the layout.  I think the article can be improved.  But it is really well cited and I have to compliment the people who have done that because it takes a lot of work.--Blue Tie 00:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Well cited

message: I don't think solar variation is a cause, if the term is what we have been calling it. James S. 00:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about after the [[Global_warming#Global_dimming|global dimming]] section? 

message: The fifth paragraph in the summary reads:
frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, reduction in agricutural yields due to changes in the amount and pattern of
It should read:
frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, reduction in agricultural yields due to changes in the amount and pattern of
BlueCanary9999 01:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small spelling error, please correct 

message: Apparantly, my opinion is not to be tolerated on the discussion page as it becomes deleted soon after it appears.  I will present my discussion again until I am given a valid reason why I should not.  It seem that I may have hit a nerve.
I am not an expert on global warming, by any stretch of the imagination. But I am not so under-educated that I can not easily find numerous, reputable, long established, world-class institutions around the globe that support both sides of this debate. Futher, it does not take anyone long to quickly discover that the articles presented on Wikipedia regarding global warming do not represent, with true equality, what all of the world’s scientific community is stating about the issue.
It also does not take long to discover that this obvious stifling of a true balance is perpetrated by a relatively small amount of zealous persons. Dedication to ones belief is an admirable trait. However, the amount of fervent veracity that this inequity is pursued leads me to believe that there is a deeper, ulterior motive behind the disparity.
From more than two decades of study and work in my field, I can say with complete confidence and authority that this type of systematic ‘leveling’ is the trademark of a political interest that is, at the least, superficially organized. I hope that the bond that these few have does not lead to an exclusive ‘cornering’ of a niche on Wikipedia. If they succeed, their tactic will become a model for other special interest groups to use. --Uwops 13:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Could you calrify a few points in your statement please. Are you talking about "numerous, reputable, long established, world-class scientific(?) institutions around the globe"? The only one I know about is the "American Association of Petroleum Geologists". Apart from that, there are definitely a few Think Tank ... and some individual scientists who oppose the AGW conclusions, but I don't personnaly know about a list of numerous reputable world-class scientific institutions. If you can produce such a list, I'd be glad to see it. However, it also depends on what you mean by "supporting both sides of this debate". There is actually funding available for research also on non anthropogenic origin of the GW in most of the scientific institutions (especially for studying the solar influence), contrary to what some skeptics would like to believe and would like others to believe. So if this is what you meant by supporting both sides of the debate, you are right, and that's very good news for everybody. However, despite this "support" of both sides in terms of funding for research, the statement by the national academies of science of many countries, the American Geophysical Union, etc ... are unambiguous concerning the interpretation of the current knowledge available, and it does not support your 'feeling' of a divided and hesitant scientific community. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Galahaad (talk • contribs) 17:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinion not tolerated