Talk:Climate change/Archive 31

message: I strongly object to Obedium adding the word *measured* to the following text.
The measured global average air temperature near the Earth's surface ...
By definition, averages are computed, not measured. In the case of global temperature, a very complex model is used to perform that calculation. Q Science 22:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the very narrow sense in which you're using the term, all temperatures are "computed." I suppose you could replace it with some words about average temperature as computed from observations, but I can't see where that adds value for the reader. Raymond Arritt 23:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems like reasonable word usage to me. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 02:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: A sensible suggestion indeed. Classic writing advice for modifiers (adjectives and adverbs) is "when in doubt, leave it out." Raymond Arritt 02:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Oops, forgot it's protected at the moment. Raymond Arritt 02:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Calculated is more precise and contains information that your version would omit.  Better to be more informative? Zoomwsu 15:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it is not more informative. The temperature I read from a single thermometer is "calculated" from the expansion coefficient of Mercury or alcohol (or some more esoteric property of semiconductors nowadays). Using just "calculated" is not informative, but it may be misleading, as it might suggest that no measurements are involved (otherwise, if you mention one, why not the other? "calculated from worldwide temperature measurements" is a bit cumbersome). --Stephan Schulz 15:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you could have said it is "measured" from the expansion coefficient. A scale has been agreed upon to take these measurements from mercury expansion and from there, it becomes measurement, not calculation, just like you do not calculate an observable distance but measure it. --Childhood's End 17:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm, I think you're taking it too far with the mercury stuff.  I think calculated is a better term than measured, and better than complete omission of a qualifier.  Calculated leaves us with an out--it supposes the possibility of error. Using just "the temperature is X", doesn't indicate the possibility of error and gives the false impression that the surface temperature is a concrete fact, which it isn't. Zoomwsu 17:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd argue that any average is calculated in a way differently than a single measurement is. I see no problem with the word. That said, (with respect to Zoomwsu's comment) we're saying "the average temperature is X" which definitely does imply a calculation and hence room for error. Basically, I don't care whether it says "calculated" or not, so I'll argue both sides of the issue. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Modeled, of course, would be inaccurate because the temperature is not modeled at all- it is measured.  A model would not require any measurement at all. I agree with Raymond Arritt that, if you want to mince words, all temperatures are calculated averages - they depend on the average pressure exerted by the collisions of the molecules in the substance you're measuring with your measurement device. But the internally-calculated output of a temperature-measuring device is generally called a "measurement", not a "calculation".  I support Enuja's suggestion that the word be removed entirely.  johnpseudo 18:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop playing with words. A duck is a duck is a duck, and same applies to a measurement. On the other hand, you cannot measure global temperature, so it should not be implied that you can. --Childhood's End 19:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you measure the temperature in Houston?  In your backyard?  In your body?  Not according to you.  You are implying that without absolute knowledge of the system in question, you are merely "calculating" the temperature....The fact that measurements are taken in multiple places around the world serves only to provide a more-exact measurement, just as taking an average of the temperature read at different places in your backyard would provide a more-accurate measurement.  The only difference is that, because the earth is a very volatile system, it is more difficult to provide an exact measurement for the global temperature whereas the measurement of the temperature in your backyard is easier because the system is more uniform. johnpseudo 20:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh please. The length of a sheet of paper can be measured with a ruler. The fact that I dont precisely know myself what is a perfect meter does not mean that I am not taking a measurement. There is a recognized system that determines what is a meter, which is why I don't have to calculate length when I can take direct measurements with proper instruments. Same goes for time, or for temperature measurements taken with a thermometer at point X. The difference is that you cannot take a direct measurement of the Earth's temperature, so it needs to be modelled/calculated/computed. --Childhood's End 17:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I really think this is much ado about nothing, but William's suggestion makes sense. If you think that all averages must be calculated/computed/etc. (which no one is really disputing), then just saying "The global average air temperature" already contains that information. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 21:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could bear with this phrasing, although I don't think it's as precise as having calculated in there. Zoomwsu 23:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Average is good.  It requires both measurement and calculation. Only problem is that many people will not recognize that it is an average of a sample not the average of the "population" of temperatures. (I'm not saying that they are stupid but that they would not really think about it that carefully, are not aware of how low the resolution is, and are not aware of things like microclimates). --Blue Tie 17:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, as I understand it, it is not only a weighted average, but I believe there are additional calculations required to adjust for UHI effects, etc. (No sources on this, so take it with a grain of salt. I trust one of the other editors will correct me if I'm wrong about that.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is very much calculated, NOAA calls the derivation of the figure as an analysis.   Here for an explanation of "The merged land air and sea surface temperature data set.":  http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/gcag/gcagmerged.html  Sln3412 17:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Average temperature is computed, not *measured* 

message: Please, I need help to translate this article to all the Wikipedias. This is an important theme, is a global probleme and we must put it in all the languages as possible as we can. Please, help!!!!!! Thanks for your time.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.60.101.71 (talk) 11:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to do some work on the Spanish version.  The English version has very high quality compared to the others which give the subject a more superficial treatment. Brusegadi 18:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Raymond Arritt 02:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appeal for translation help 

message: I want to have a link to this article (Clathrate gun hypothesis) in here, simply to help people interested in the topic find it. I'm not interested in debating it, but it definitely is of interest and should be referenced. In "Feedbacks" there is an o.k. sentence (Positive feedback due to release of CO2 and CH4 from thawing permafrost is an additional mechanism contributing to warming. Possible positive feedback due to CH4 release from melting seabed ices is a further mechanism to be considered.) basically talking about it, all it needs is a "(see: Clathrate gun hypothesis)" put in.
Hirsch.im.wald 01:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clathrate gun hypothesis 

message: Excuse me, Bozmo. exactly why did you remove that edit of mine? here is your explanation: "Worse. I would rather not have any statement than one which is blatantly misleading. US is historically No1 by a mile and probably still No1 by a mile except for dodgy tree accounting)" Exactly how is it misleading to state that a nation which is the No 1 emitter is "one of the top emitters"? That is not misleading at all. Would you mind explaining just what the heck you meant by that? --Steve, Sm8900 01:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I said misleading not false. It is misleading to use a heavily qualified statement when there is a shorter unqualified one which is also true. For example it is true to say "the USA probably has made a contribution of more than 1 tonne of CO2 to global warming polution" but it gives a wrong impression, it misleads. The "US is historically one of the" has two qualifiers. The double qualifier gives the impression neither works in isolation when in fact either of them works alone. Is that "exact" enough for you? --BozMo talk 10:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you say so. i do appreciate your reply. However, it still sounds a bit like shaky reasoning to me. i don't think that's a reason to remove someone else's work; merely revise it. After all this is Wikipedia. Anyway, thanks for at least replying to my question. --Steve, Sm8900 13:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Bozmo 

message: In the article:  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.163.212 (talk) 05:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Thank you for highlighting this. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 05:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the air temperature were 33 C, then yes it would be 91 F. But if you warm the air by 33 C, you're warming it by 59.4 F. There's a difference. The naturally occurring ghe adds about 33 C to what would otherwise be a frigid Earth. The sentence in the article could probably be written better. ~ UBeR 05:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This was explained last week in #Temperature vs Change in Temperature above. Q Science 06:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep.  Hopefully, it is the same anon.  I hope it is not generally confusing (I dont think it is, but if more people get confused, we may have to try to clarify it somehow...) Brusegadi 07:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a footnote to the main article explaining this. Q Science 16:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I was disinclined to add an explanation that would interfere with the flow of the text, but putting it in a footnote is brilliant. Raymond Arritt 16:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temperature Error on Page 

message: Should the global warming article state there are alternative hypotheses not widely held to be the cause of global warming in lieu of supportive and reliable references?
:For the record, I say absolutely not. If you are going to treat the topic of global warming as a matter of scientific study and research, then "alternative theories" should only be listed if they have some degree (so to speak) of current scientific support. For instance solar activity was once considered as another possible cause for this recent global warming period, but new data and research has shown that this is very, very unlikely the case, to the point that it's no longer considered a valid alternative hypothesis among scientists engaged in global climate research -- just try to find a a recent scientific paper treating it as such. So why give it a mention as though it is still a legitimate hypothesis actively being looked at? It would be OK to list this and other now discredited hypotheses under something like a "History of Research" section, but not in the general Wiki article as being somehow a legitimate scientific alternative to the much, MUCH more legitimate theory that has human activity as being the primary cause. -BC aka Callmebc 15:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe decline of polar bear population is no indication of climate change by itself, it can be attributed to hunting and conversely melting ice caps should be good for warm blooded mammals. It still gets plenty cold in winter to provide habitat, moreover the longer hunting season and easier access through broken ice to their food staples of seals, walrus and other wildlife is a no brainer. Just throwing a point of thought at you. Batvette 07:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The RFC are for comments from editors not already involved in the matter. So far, you're the only person of the many who thinks this. The consensus is clear; there's really no reason for an RFC other than for you to finally drop the matter. ~ UBeR 22:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should an article on Jesus mention the alternative view that he wasn't the son of god even though most of those who want to comment have preconceived ideas?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.106.250 (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it should, and in fact does. Likewise, this article should include the prominent solar variability hypothesis, paying strict accordance to WP:WEIGHT. It does this, and gives a good summation both of the hypothesis and of recent research suggesting that this is unlikely to be the cause of most of the current warming. I'm not certain "in lieu of" is necessary, though, as the references cited seem to support that solar variability/cloud cover is both an alternative hypothesis and one that is not widely regarded as explaining most current warming. Hal peridol 17:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Likewise, the article on Earth does indeed mention that "In the ancient past there were varying levels of belief in a flat Earth."  If we exclude any mention of widely-held misconceptions, then we both deny ourselves the opportunity to refute them and degrade Wikipedia's reputation as a thorough, neutral source. johnpseudo 00:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The section on solar activity should be removed. It is already covered in the global warming debate, and is not a factor in causing global warming. If you want the people of low intelligence to learn something, you don't put in their wrong ideas so that they can say, oh yes, the earth really is flat just like I heard on talk radio. You put in right ideas so they can find out that what they were told is bunk. And you don't put it in the beginning or even in the middle of the article that what they were told is bunk, you put it at the end, so that you don't waste anyone elses time. Global warming isn't a debate. The snows of Kilimanjaro are almost gone. Every winter where I grew up there was always a meter of snow cover, now there is little to none every winter. The reason for that happening needs to be explained correctly in this article, and without any nonsense that just isn't true. 199.125.109.41 19:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, please, don't imply an alternative theory is held by people of low intelligence while in the same reply you cite personal observations of snowpack levels in your backyard as a small child. Such was the case with a recent congressional junket where a number of politicians took chartered jets to Greenland the last week of May, saw melting ice, and promptly declared this as "firsthand evidence that climate change is a reality – there is just no denying it.". I guess the fact that it recently snowed for the first time ever in United Arab Emirates indicated an ice age ahead? The comment by Enuja was responsible, rational, and is dead on because it heads off a misconception by addressing it. Ignoring it allows it to perpetuate without sound opposition, or worse, dissenters might just ignore the whole article. Batvette 07:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC on listing notable alternative theories 

message: Saying that the IPCC represents one viewpoint is a bit misleading.  The way I see it is that the IPCC is the intersectaion of the views of many, many climate scientists.  So, whats in the IPCC is the communality of the views of the majority of climate scientists. Brusegadi 01:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In your dreamland, maybe. I've been on a number of such commitees (in fact, I'm still on one), and I've never see people being afraid to speak their mind. And in the case of the IPCC, that vast majority of university contributors does have tenure, anyways. --Stephan Schulz 07:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I dont think that makes much sense.  If there are so few seniors and so many juniors then there is only so much control that seniors can exert on the juniors when it comes to tenure in their respective academic institutions.  Suppose the worst case; where there is only one senior member in the committee leads.  Then the IPCC reports his perception because he has control over the many junior members.  However, these junior members cannot all belong to the same academic institutions or government institutions as that one single senior member.  So, many of the juniors will have much freedom.    When there are a few more seniors it works the same way.  Even if you assume that each senior has veto power over the privileges of those juniors to which he is linked; if the number of seniors is as low as you make it to be then there are only so many juniors who will fear.  Note that there is more fear amongst the juniors as the number of seniors grows but then your assertion of "a few seniors" becomes false.  What I mean to say is that not many juniors will be linked to some senior.  Reading this document I get the impression that the reports are prepared by people from all over the world. Brusegadi 08:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This is patently absurd on so many different levels that it's hard to know where to begin. First, IPCC authors are from many different institutions around the world, so there's almost no case where an author has any authority at all over the career of another author. Second, the vast majority of IPCC authors are senior scientists who are tenured or otherwise established in their careers. Third, scientists are by nature an independent-minded, somewhat contentious lot who are unafraid to speak out if they disagree.  Fourth... Raymond Arritt 02:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: As I understand the process, there is the "report" and then there are "policy summaries."   The summaries are written by collaborating lead authors, and not necessarily the scientific opinion of the panel.  It's quite possible that the summaries are not agreed to by persons on the panel. This has come up in previous criticism of IPCC but I am not sure this is still the process.  --DHeyward 04:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the coordinating (not collaborating) lead authors are the ones who are in on the summary for policymakers. But the CLAs are just regular guys (or gals); i.e., they're practicing scientists like the lead and contributing authors and not bureaucrats or politicians. So they do reflect the scientific opinion of the panel. Of course that's not to say that every author on the report agrees with every single word that is written. I doubt such perfect agreement is possible for any document authored by a large group of people. Raymond Arritt 04:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Not really in Wikipedia, sorry Obedium. What most people consider "facts" are a mixture of original research and their own POV. Here we have to go by a consensus of reliable sources and on that score, whether you be right or wrong, your personal views cannot be reflected. --BozMo talk 12:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPCC representing one viewpoint 

message: A temperature of 30C is equivalent to 86F, but a change in temperature of 30C is equivalent to a change of 54F. The difference of 32F is because 0C is equivalent to 32F. Q Science 01:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That bit is all screwed up.  The natural greenhouse effect is actually 33 C (59 F).  I don't have access to my references right now  but will fix it in a day or two. Raymond Arritt 02:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So much for the Australian government! ~ UBeR 03:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S. Peixoto and Oort (1992) substantiate what the IPCC state. ~ UBeR 03:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temperature vs Change in Temperature 

message: There is nothing wrong with including a quote from a White House press release, explaining why the US did not ratify Kyoto. The consensus is that it is OK to emphasize that the US is "historically" the largest emitter and was one of few countries not to sign on to the treaty. In the US government, it is the role of the Executive Branch (i.e., the President) to negotiate and sign treaties with foreign governments. Thus, there is nothing inherently political about referencing a statment from the offical branch of government responsible for this decision. There is no reason to continue to delete this passage. Obedium 04:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also no reason to include the paragraph, in that the reasons for the US not ratifying are referenced again in the next section, and are fully explored in Kyoto Protocol and Politics of global warming. There is simply no reason why an article about the science of global warming should be littered with extracts from the press releases of a US president. And it is also somewhat disingenuous to claim that somehow the US president is not political. --Michael Johnson 04:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Littered?  Quit with the hyperbole.  Zoomwsu 05:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I quite liked that. Sorry you didn't. --Michael Johnson 06:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Then there is no reason to include anything on Kyoto Protocol especially if it can't be presented neutrally.  Kyoto is an attempt at a political solution, not science.  --DHeyward 05:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  If the Kyoto Treaty is discussed, and it is pointed out that the US has not signed the accord, it is only fair and legitimate that the US position be explained. See my above comments on the section. Zoomwsu 05:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we should also discuss why Australia and Kazakhstan have not signed, and contrast that with the other 150 odd nations have signed, especially the reasons of those that would have had similar "disadvantages" to the USA. Actually I don't particularly care if the quote was included, it hardly puts either Bush or the US in an attractive light. But it does clog up an article which is not about this topic, take it to Kyoto Protocol or Politics of global warming where it belongs. --Michael Johnson 06:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed here with Mr. Johnson. ~ UBeR 07:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: So do I. --BozMo talk 13:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: And me. Well put. Raymond Arritt 13:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: If the US is notable enough it gets its own special mention that it is the historic emitter, It's certainly legitimate to point out its justification for its refusal to ratify the treaty.  Nobody is suggesting that we explain every nation's position, but as the historic top emitter, the US can lead the way in terms of citing a rationale against the Kyoto accords.  I don't think we need to throw the baby out with the bath water, either.  The Kyoto Protocols are an important part of the GW issue and should be mentioned on this page. Zoomwsu 14:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Nope, that wasn't what the consensus was. You're stretching the limits of WP:AGF here. Raymond Arritt 14:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't have both.  You can't have the U.S. decision portrayed with a negative tone without either a counterpoint to make it neutral or moving it all out of the article.  --DHeyward 16:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Something on those general lines would suit. It mentions Kyoto without veering off into politics. Raymond Arritt 16:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing wrong with mentioning in a general article that the US did not ratify the Kyoto treaty, just like there is nothing wrong with mentioning in a general article that the US did not join the League of Nations. The U.S. is a major superpower, and its decisions are more influential than those of some other nations. This can either appear positive or negative, but it is a historical fact. I suggest we simply get used to it. --Steve, Sm8900 16:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think more important is whether the fact is relevant or not. ~ UBeR 16:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My comment above was meant as an expression of reasons that I do feel it is relevant. --Steve, Sm8900 18:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem is where do you stop?  We have an article on Kyoto.  There are lots of things that are relevant about Kyoto.  Ratification is one.  Failure to meet goals by the nations that did ratify it is another.  Country exemptions is also relevant.  Whether Kyoto goes far enough to mitigiate the problem is relevant and how the goals were arrived at is relevant.  The reasoning behind each of these items is relevant.  It would be just as problematic to list the countries that ratified but failed to meet Kyoto goals without exploring the reasons why.  The problem is to treat all of these neutrally by providing all relevant points of view creates a huge section.  Cherry picking which pieces editors think are particularly relevant will create NPOV problems.    Therefore, a simple summary of what Kyoto is and a link to the main article is the best course of action.  It needs to be neutral in both tone and content.  --DHeyward 19:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel that all those are relevant, you are free to add them as well. If you feel the statement on the U.S. is not relevant, you should simply state your reasons for that directly. There is nothing wrong with you adding further relevant materials if you feel doing so is valid. If your underlying point is that the US statement is not relevant, then please give us your reasons for feeling that way. let's find reasons to include useful material, not to leave it out. --Steve, Sm8900 19:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I only want balance.  IT is not okay to add material that the U.S. didn't ratify it while leaving out why or how it wasn't ratified.  All in, or all out.  Since there are other articles where this material can go and other editors oppose adding certain material, all out seems to be a better choice.  --DHeyward 21:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Obviously, I assume that others will also express their opinions here on this, so that we can get a sense of how others feel, and what the general opinion on this might be. --Steve, Sm8900 21:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I generally agree with your point here, which is why it is legitimate to explain the US position on Kyoto.  Without said explanation, there is nothing to indicate why the US did not ratify the treaty.  Zoomwsu 23:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is does there need to be anything to explain "why"? Given there is a full explanation here at Kyoto Protocol, and that this is primarily an article on the science, I would argue there doesn't. At present I would say the consensus supports that view. --Michael Johnson 03:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an overwhelmingly negative tone to highlight that the U.S. didn't ratify it.  That is not acceptable for NPOV and NPOV is not negotiable.  Either fully explore the vote or don't mention it.  --04:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how explaining the facts of the vote put the US in any better light. --Michael Johnson 04:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may not.  The vote also doesn't put them in a negative light either.  But it's required to be neutral and that means exploring that point of view if ratification details are going to be presented.  I don't think ratification needs to be mentioned at all but if it is mentioned, it needs to be presented neutrally.  --DHeyward 05:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Michael Johnson does understand Wikipedia, and clearly understands that in is an encyclopaedia with discrete articles about discrete topics. There has to be a limit within each article as to what associated topics are included. The reasons for the US not ratifying the treaty are fully covered in other, more appropiate articles, and are certainly not hidden away. And where do we stop? Do we then go into the politics behind the vote? The role of the energy lobby? And what about Australia? Then what about the politics behind the Canadians signing the treaty? The Mexicans? and so on and so on... The consensus is that we have reached the limit for this topic. --Michael Johnson 06:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Michael Johnson, Raymond Arritt and a couple others think we have reached the limit for this topic.  Obedium, Sm300 and I think otherwise.  This is hardly a consensus.  It seems this word gets bandied about too easily these days. Zoomwsu 18:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The US is #1 in a lot of things. it has the highest GDP, biggest military, biggest space program, biggest emitter, biggest role in the internet, biggest role in NATO, biggest role in IMF, biggest nuclear arsenal, etc etc etc. Its actions are significant. It belongs in this article. keep it there.--Steve, Sm8900 13:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Kyoto response 

message: To get back to the original topic, who here can give a legitimate reason to keep this as a citation for the sentence?
:"Few credible scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise in global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution."
This is the sentence for which the article was selected as a source; but the article itself, which is primarily focused on criticizing Michael Crichton's "State of Fear," is clearly an opinion/attack piece which respectively fails both WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Given these conflicts with policy, and the lack of relevance to the sentence it is cited to support, and the lack of any evidence in the article which bolsters this claim, is there any legitimate reason to leave the citation where it is? I will emphasize that I do not suggest the sentence itself be changed at this time, merely that this ridiculously inappropriate citation be removed. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 22:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you seriously contending that Eos lacks the editorial oversight to qualify as a WP:RS? Raymond Arritt 22:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all. But the AMQUA article in which the above sentence is found certainly does not. The second page of the document includes reactions to the AMQUA article and a note by the editor-in-chief. In the note, the editor says that the AMQUA piece was not solicited and that articles published in the journal do not represent its view unless otherwise stated. In effect, Eos disassociates itself from the views presented in the AMQUA article, which by virtue of being an opinion piece which focuses on a wholly unrelated topic does not qualify as a valid source in the context of this wikipedia article. If the focus of the AMQUA piece had been on something other than State of Fear, or evidence of some kind had been provided by AMQUA to support the statement, then there might be a case to include it. But an off-color remark in a piece where one scientific society criticizes the actions of another for something that is not even related to the topic of this article certainly does not qualify for notability or relevance. The reason that this article does not meet RS (for this purpose) is because there is no evidence provided to support the claim. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 07:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never heard of AMQUA, personally. ~ UBeR 07:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're so obscure that they don't even have their own article here. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 04:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are so obscure that they are listed on this page at the National Academy of Science webpage. They organize a biennial conference, and their Web site is here. Wikipedia coverage is far from universal. --Stephan Schulz 06:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe someone should make a page for them, then, if they are notable enough. But that still does not make the unsupported remark on which the citation is based any more relevant. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 07:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Maybe someone should make a page for them, then, if they are notable enough." Done, for what it's worth. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: And the Eos source is an editorial, a "Forum" piece: "Neither the AMQUA piece nor the Corbett piece reflects or promotes an AGU position."  Surely a better source can be found. Acct4 12:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It's been four days, and nobody seems to be able to present a reason why the citation should remain where it is. Given this development, I will remove it from the article (please note that I will NOT change the wording of the sentence itself in any way). If somebody takes issue with this, please provide a reason why it should stay. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 03:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Easier to just say "a few", to which I've changed it William M. Connolley 20:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: American Quaternary Association

message: I commented on this a while back ago, why this was one of the only articles that does not have a opposing view, controversy, criticism section.  I see nothing has been done.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.190.62.54 (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not even However, a few individual scientists disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC., and see the linked article? Or the links in the causes section? Mind you, its nice to see that only one scientist disputes GW! William M. Connolley 18:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's my point. That sentence needs to be removed.199.125.109.41 19:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It's too bad when you rely on Wikipedia for information. Ball doesn't deny GW. ~ UBeR 19:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have some evidence to support your claim? The article cites Ball's statement that "The temperature hasn't gone up. ... But the mood of the world has changed: It has heated up to this belief in global warming." I didn't think so. Raul654 20:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here he clearly says the world has warmed.  --DHeyward 03:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, in that article, he explicitly says he thinks the world is cooling: It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling. Raul654 03:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this wasn't the warmest year on record, doesn't that imply that it has cooled since the warmest year on record?  It sounds like he's claiming there is an inflection point happening much like in the 40s and 70s.  --DHeyward 06:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: doesn't that imply that it has cooled since the warmest year on record - no, it does not. Temperature data is very noisy. Saying that the world is cooling based on the fact that this year is colder than last year is not something any reputable scientist would say. (That's the kind if lunacy you would expect to see in an Inhofe press release) When Ball says cooling, he's talking about a long term trend, not a year-to-year thing - and in the context of what he's saying ("major mechanisms and the global temperature trends") makes this very clear. Raul654 07:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nevertheless, inflection points and changes in trends start out as changes below the peak.  It also doesn't change the fact taht he says the earth has warmed as the data indicates.  I would also argue that it's not very noisy as it hasn't varied more than +/- 1C (closer to +/- 0.5C) either in year over year, 5 year, or 150 year rolling average temperature.  It would be interesting to know what the measurement error standard deviation is due to systemic variation (I suspect random variation is averaged our over the rather large number of stations) and comare it to +/- 1C.   --DHeyward 23:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Answer is here.  Error bars seem to have gotton larger in this decade which is strange.  Annual and monthly chart don't show significant warming trend in this decade.  Binomial smoothed graph shows flattening.  Are Crown copyrights allowed to be reporduced?  HTis seems to be better data than what is presented.  --DHeyward 23:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Making sense out of anything Ball says is a challenge best not dealt with here. Raymond Arritt 03:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of CO2" indicates he believes there is in fact a GW, but not due to CO2, which applies to multiple other scientists. "Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since [the LIA] . . . These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on." Again, blaming warming on the sun. ~ UBeR 03:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Ball? What's Ball? Is that the one scientist who disagrees? And who is relying on Wikipedia? School kids aren't allowed to use Wikipedia as a reference in papers. Until Wikipedia gets a lot more mature, it is generally used just as a first look at a subject. 199.125.109.41 20:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And as such, a comprehensive view requires the mention that such dissent exists. But rather than give undue weight to the minority persuasion in this article, a link to the separate topic has been provided which a reader may investigate if they so choose. And the scientists listed are no crackpots; the qualifications for verifiability and notability which must be met to be included in the list are very strictly enforced. Disagree with these dissenters all you want, but removing any mention of their dissent in light of their qualifications would be POV in the same right. Replacing one perceived bias with another does nothing to improve the article. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 04:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also we have that RFC thing still cooking in regards to including alternate theories that aren't really alternate theories anymore, scientifically speaking, regardless of how widespread or how passionate "alternate" notions may be. Which reminds me, I still have to write up a little thing regarding giving the polar/arctic business its due mention, and submit it for everyone's consideration. Sorry, I've been a little distracted.... -BC aka Callmebc 01:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral Point of view 

message: In the lead there is a sentence that reads, "However, a few individual scientists disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC."  When I go to this article, there is much more than a "few".  Perhaps this should read "several" or "some" individual scientists - something more accurate.  I know very little of the article or the disputes.  I'm just reading through some of it for the first time but this statement came accross as bias by understating the number (I was expecting 3 or so but it lists like 40 scientists). Morphh  (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean, "I go to this article"? Do you mean List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming? The answer is, that list contains many people with no qualifications to talk about GW, so its not usable as anything. But the skeptics resist pruning it back to usefulness. Look in the archives for endless discussions about "few" William M. Connolley 20:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: And, to reiterate previous discussions, calling one or two dozen out of 10,000+ "a few" gives far too much weight to a tiny oil-sponsored fringe. Raul654 21:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And that comment just reinforces the bias he complains about.  Believing that the small amount of warming the earth has experienced over the last 100 years might not be entirely anthropogenic makes one neither fringe nor oil-sponsored.  William Gray comes to mind.  --DHeyward 02:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Did you mean to say "some" instead of "a few"? Otherwise, you and I interpret "few" a bit differently. (Although, in this particular context, I do find "few" to be somewhat vague.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 21:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I meant few, as in (according to the Oxford english dictionary): "a small number of, not many, a select minority" Raul654 21:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, how is that giving "far too much weight" to the scientists? Is there a word that means less than "a few" that you'd rather use? I'm not sure what you're driving at unless one part or the other of your sentence was poorly worded (or I'm completely misunderstanding it). Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 21:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For some reason this reminded me of the Continuum hypothesis... Brusegadi 21:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep in mind that article is quite limited. Limited by a campaign to enforce nonexistent policies that require a Wikipedia biography for mention in the article. The result is that we end up with unsubstantiated, subjective adjectives that seem to go against Wikipedia's standards. ~ UBeR 22:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds like the discussion is around my question regarding the article content.  I don't see that it violates policy.  I'm fine with the arguments presented.  I normally read a few as 3 and a couple as 2.  So this is probably just lack of vocab on my part. I do think "some" would be a better word but I'm sure this article has been debated heavily due to the nature.  Just thought I would comment. Morphh  (talk) 0:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That entire sentence needs to be deleted (the one beginning with "However"). 199.125.109.41 03:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree: "However, a few individual scientists disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC." is not cited or ref'd. You can probably count on a maimed hand now the number of legitimate, active climate researchers who actually disagree in any significant way with the IPCC. If anything, you'll find more who think the IPCC is being way too conservative. If the "However..." it can't be properly ref'd (and that doesn't include links to sites like this with massive listings of virtually nobody actually directly and actively involved in climate research), it should be removed. -BC aka Callmebc 12:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess this definition would also depend on the other number of scientists as well.  So we have a "few" (very small number) that disagree with the  main conclusions of the IPCC and the super majority agree with the  main conclusions of the IPCC.  Any source for this?  Raul654 said 10,000+ compared with two dozen... is this true?  Does this step into POV, OR, or weasel word area or are we on solid ground?  What about the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine that claims around 20,000 signatures - why is this dismissed (is it our place to dismiss). Morphh  (talk) 12:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Those are examples of the "massive listings of virtually nobody actually directly and actively involved in climate research" I mentioned. They are not credible lists in any way. -BC aka Callmebc 14:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: PS- I forgot I had a little "discussion" of the "Oregon Petition" on Usenet a while back where I dissected the first 10 names on the list. It's messy, but go see. -BC aka Callmebc 14:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I understand and I really don't want to get into any large debate on it.  The statement just seemed unclear.  I've read a couple of times here that we're talking about climate scientists.  So why don't you write that?  Instead of "individual scientists" put "climate scientists", this certainly changes the sample and may excuse the POV in excluding groups that have been deemed "non-climate researchers".  Other words could also be used to get across the same point as "few", without the confusion (related normal use of the word few in describing small groups - not relationships of 10,000+).  What about "small number" or "small minority"?  It seems to me that the statement "a small number of climate scientists disagree" is less pov and avoids confusion.   Also I don't see anything about Stephen Schwartz of Brookhaven National Lab's recent research that is stated as "Overturning IPCC consensus ‘in one fell swoop’".  I don't see anything on the Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works that global warming has stopped.  As someone coming in with little knowledge on the topic, I'm just a little concerned and thought I would comment. Morphh  (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You don't see Schwatrz because he is wrong. Inhofe is a totally biased source, dont use it (here or in your personal research). Carter is wrong too; you might pause to wonder, given that you wanted to give him credentials by calling him a "Paleoclimate scientist", what those have to do with recent changes? Not that he is a palaeoclimatologist anyway - he is a geologist William M. Connolley 14:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Inhofe is a politician so that's a no brainer.  I am not sure who Carter is.  But Schwartz is a noted scientist from Brookhaven.  His paper referenced here was peer reviewed and accepted to the Journal of Geophysical Research.  Dismissing it based on analysis on a blog or from a political organization would seem to be just as bad as accepting Inhofe as a scientist or dismissing global warming based on a blog entry.  Find a reliable source in a peer reviewed journal that disputes his analysis or refines it.  But essentially dismissing the  Journal of Geophysical Research and Brookhaven National Labs as "wrong" is just not acceptable for scientific analysis.  --DHeyward 05:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I didn't give him credentials. I was quoting the source provided, which was the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment.  It is not Wikipedia's place to suggest who is write or wrong.  It should only provide other sources or research that claim to disprove said other research.  In any event, them being "wrong" in your opinion does not negate inclusion as someone that has disagreement with the IPCC.  It appears they are significant enough to deserve some weight as they were the first thing I found in a Google search and under discussion by the U.S. Senate.  I'm not looking at a blog for reliable information, and neither does Wikipedia.  If I don't see Schwatrz because he is "wrong", then I have to wonder about the balance and POV of the article.  Morphh  (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then the same applies to the env ctte. We don't use that as a source for people credentials. On S, if you want knock about, go to Global warming controversy where you'll find Schwartz. This page doesn't give individual estimates for CS, even the reliable ones, so why would it list S? Climate sensitivity discusses CS and is linked William M. Connolley 15:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't realize their were so many articles on it.  I was refering to List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.  My main question was with regard to the one sentence discussed above with regard to clarification on the word few and adding what type of scientists. Morphh  (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm fine with the first. We had this text "a small number" ages back, but some people insisted on something matched exactly by a source. The second change is plain wrong. Read list of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Anybody notable with at least one publication in the natural sciences potentially qualifies. Bellamy, Chilingar, Plimer and Seitz are clearly not climate scientist by any plausible definition, and many of the others are at best borderline.  --Stephan Schulz 12:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess the term "few" that has other uses is somehow better then using the actual definition intended, which was label as a weasel word and reverted.  So I'm going to try again, this time I'll leave the word "few" but qualify it with the term "relatively" as to clarify the use with large groups instead of the common small group usage.  This should not be a big deal as everyone here has just stated that the word few is used relative to the large group size.  Morphh  (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think both "relatively few" and "a small number" are preferable to just "few". Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 12:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are weasel-words too. Call a spade a spade. Use the word "minority". It's accurate: a minority of scientists. -Amatulic 16:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Minority" is misleading, as it implies the fraction could be as great as 49.999%. Raymond Arritt 16:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggested "small minority" above.  I see it was changed back to few.  Not sure why few is ok but defining it as relative to the group is not, unless the intent here is to actually mislead the reader, which presents itself as bias.  I only brought it up as I thought it was misleading and came across as bias.  Few is most commonly used in small groups, not in large groups like 10,000.  It is akin to using the word "couple" to describe two, with "few" being three or close to.  Few seems to be more of a weasel word then the more specific examples presented here, so I'm not sure what the issue is.  If there has been endless discussion around this word, then there is clearly a problem with the word that needs to be resolved or your going to countinue to have discussions about it.  Concensus is not in itself a be all stamp for no change - see the policy.  Morphh  (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  a few individual scientists disagree? 

message: As I see this possibly becoming an edit war, I'd like to head this off. Iceage77 was concerned by this: "Climate model projections summarized by the IPCC indicate that average global surface temperature will rise a further", because the use of the word will "implies certainty". Of course, there is no certainty, but the question is do the "projections summarized by the IPCC indicate that ... temperature will rise..."? I would argue that they do, although hopefully everyone realizes that any projection is subject to uncertainty. (The edit to "will likely" is fine as well.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. We are giving a lot of prominence here to educated guesswork. The GCMs are just a set of equations which do not replicate all climate processes. I understand that although they do now include clouds, their role is not properly understood. Recent research by Christy and Spencer indicates an important source of negative feedback. Iceage77 18:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The words "projections" and "indicate" make it clear that we're allowing uncertainty -- not to mention the fact that a range of temperatures is given!  I don't see how anyone reasonable could mistake this for certainty. (Oh, and by the way, the statement that GCMs "now include clouds" is a bit misleading, since GCMs have included clouds for over three decades.) Raymond Arritt 18:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that a range is given doesn't mean that the temp will certainly fall within that range, does it? Compared to the empirical evidence ie. 0.6C/100ppm over 20thC, it looks distinctly alarmist. Iceage77 18:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Past performance is no indication of the future. It's arguably alarming, but I have problems with calling it alarmist. As for your main point, the model itself allows for the possibility that it will be outside that range (hence, "will likely" is possibly a better wording), and, although the models could theoretically be wrong, we're talking about what the models indicate and this is what they indicate. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 19:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: "Will likely" used by Dr. Schulz works well, especially because it's the same wording used in the source (wherein likely signifies >66% likelihood). However, I think the sentence should still be signifying the temperature range is relative to the 1980-1999 period. ~ UBeR 19:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Certainty in modeling 

message: AGW redirects to global warming where it doesn't appear at all. If it means "anthropogenic global warming", this abbreviation should be mentioned in global warming#Terminology. --89.60.168.106 00:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added. Thanks for the suggestion. Raymond Arritt 01:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Good call.  I've had to explain my use of "AGW" in other arenas of discussion.  Look what you guys are doing to me :-p Zoomwsu 23:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[AGW]] 

message: i added a very good educational resource that i have found very useful in my classesEnergyadonis 16:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. But to be honest, I do not find that link to be terribly useful or educational. First of all, it's only about one project, which has a narrow scope. And second, it comes from a tertiary source. I won't remove it, but perhaps someone else will. ~ UBeR 18:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  educ link 

message: I made this small change  because the section is referring to measures in the 3 countries but this is a US measure. While Australia may not have 8 Northeastern states and Kazahkstan doesn't have any states, I think it's still wise to make it clear we're referring to the US here. 09:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Northeastern U.S. states 

message: Obedium seems to dislike this passage's lack of refs: 
"Increasing global temperatures will cause sea level to rise, and is expected to increase the intensity of extreme weather events and to change the amount and pattern of precipitation. Other effects of global warming include changes in agricultural yields, glacier retreat, species extinctions and increases in the ranges of disease vectors."
The editor removed it and I re-added it because I recall that we agreed the refs should be in the core of the article and not on the intro.  I even have a diff where Uber removes refs added by Dr. Arrit and myself.  I am ok with Uber's logic, but I wanted to make sure that everyone was ok with having the refs later on.  Is that ok Obedium?  Thanks, Brusegadi 05:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The intro should only refs in it if the specific information is not explained further down in the article. We already explain al these effects in the effects section. Further, the effects section is a summary of the effects article, so the main article is the place where the refs should be, and that's where they are. ~ UBeR 17:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I prefer the refs the first time something is brought up and see no harm in putting little footnotes in the intro. That said, this isn't high on my priority list. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there shouldn't be refs in the intro if the same information is in the body. There especially should not be redundant references stacked up on each other to make a point. The lead is just supposed to be a summary or overview of the body. WP:LEAD says it should be handled on a case-by-case basis for complex or contentious material, except for quotes and contentious biographies, which are always referenced. ~ UBeR 20:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making sure