Talk:Climate change/Archive 8

message: Copied here from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/William M. Connolley and Cortonin#Temporary injunction:
Since revert wars between the Cortonin and William M. Connolley have continued through this arbitration, both users are hereby barred from reverting any article related to climate change more than once per 24 hour period. Each and every revert (partial or full) needs to be backed up on the relevant talk page with reliable sources (such as peer reviewed journals/works, where appropriate). Administrators can regard failure to abide by this ruling as a violation of the WP:3RR and act accordingly. Recent reverts by Cortonin
 
by William M. Connolley
 
 
 
Additional reverts by others involved in these revert wars may result in them joining this case. 
--mav 22:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporary injunction 

message: Silverback changed "current" to "2001" on the grounds that the IPCC report was 2001. But... thats not what the sentence says. The IPCC report still does pretty well summarise current understanding. In particular, the phrase attributed - last 50 y - still stands, and thats still the current understanding. The TAR has dated well. William M. Connolley 20:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted back to "current" as per the above; also re-arranged the academies text a bit to make it clear that they are endorsing it as current. William M. Connolley 21:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh, and JGs unhelpful stuff: the climate has been relatively stable *including* not apart from the MWP/LIA. Indicates is correctly stronger than suggests. And for the last one... JG has edited a direct quote to suit his prejudices: you're not allowed to do that. William M. Connolley 21:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  current/2001 

message: Hmm.  The graphs need shading since 1951 labeled "warming mostly attributed to human activities". (SEWilco 01:49, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last 50 years 

message: Nearly no images related to climatoly and global warming are represented at wikimedia commons. It is possible to transfer at least some of them? --Saperaud 03:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are welcome to transfer any of mine across (I hereby give permission if it is required) but I'm unlikely to do it myself. William M. Connolley 08:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Something minor, but how many people have this article on this watchlist? I had a piece of vandalism that sat on the article for entire gaping 12 minutes, and I had to revert it personally. Now, vandalism on such a major article as this, should be removed within a minute or two, if not seconds, from the vandalism. Either this means, the RC patrol fell asleep, there aren't enough people having this on the watchlist (ie. from every part of the world to keep this article covered), or something more insinuating. Yeah. Perhaps I'm over-reacting, but assuming that over 8-10 million readers (and possibly doubling every month) hits Wikipedia every month, who knows how many newcomers got turned off to Wikipedia by our lagging reaction times. Just a shocked contributor commenting. -- Natalinasmpf 20:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I'm not blaming anyone. I was working on another article, I was just complaining in general for not having enough people tagging this article on their watchlists. Hence, I blame partially myself, but its more of, "is this article watched by enough people? Why did it take 12 minutes for it to be removed?" I'm not mad when I have to "revert it personally", just wondering if I didn't catch it, who else would have (ie. would it have stayed on for an hour?), because normally its reverted within one or two minutes. -- Natalinasmpf 21:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Never mind that, its still your move :-) William M. Connolley 21:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  watchlist poll (or an inquiry to why it took so long to revert that vandalism) 

message: The only images on here are....graphs. Now, seeing how that as soon sometime in the future (I hope), we get the problems with this article settled and nominate it for FAC, we'll probably need better images - more dramatic images, like one of those colour images where it shows the difference between Earth's warmth as a globe at one date, and on the other...ie. with purple being cool as red being hot, and maybe a screenshot of a climate model program showing how complex the factors are, and maybe an image that would serve both the greenhouse effect and the global warming article (and finally resolve the technicality that it doesn't really "trap" heat, for once and for all)...graphs are so...well not particularly helpful in illustrating the topic. -- Natalinasmpf 6 July 2005 11:09 (UTC)
Anyone have any public domain/free licensed images of the Antarctic ice sheets? I know that the ice sheets have been receding gradually over the years, and well, if there's a photo of them (anyone been there and taken photos?) and it would be just the thing to illustrate the concept for this article...and maybe rising sea levels (as well as Antarctic environmental issues while you're at it). -- Natalinasmpf 01:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  images 

message: Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate change. Please do follow the discussion there! Rd232 22:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Developing a schema/survey 

message: Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate change. Rd232 22:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sociological considerations about greenhouse gases]] 

message: A few things;
99.7% of CO2 emissions come from volcanoes.  See .  
: That page is nonsense. The recent rise in CO2 is anthropogenic. No-one (with any scientific merit) doubts that - not even Bush. Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial revolution.  And the National Academy of Sciences indicate that the increase is due in large part to human activity. . Bush is wrong - its more than just "in large part" - but if even he won't support your stuff, you're lost. William M. Connolley 09:20:25, 2005-07-18 (UTC).
In fact, many of the weather stations used to collect data are at the top of active volcanoes .
: Sigh. Give it up. There are better things to argue about. The South Pole gets the same answers as Mauna Loa, and it isn't on a volcano.
Climate change models are often presented as being based on real phenomena, however they are almost always gross simplifications of the real systems.  They can almost never explain the Ige Age, or even the Little Ice Age.   
: Because very few of them are run through those periods.
So, temperatures have risen since the 18th century, when we were in the middle of a little ige age.  So what?  They can't even correctly predict global temperatures for next month or next year accurately, so how can they claim to be able to predict 50 years into the future?  
: Heard it all before... http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/04/we-cant-predict-weather-week-in.html
Sadly we never stop and perform the basic checks on these predictions necessary for scientific validation - seeing if their predictions are correct.  The IPCC are continually revising their doomsday predictions downwards.
: You're a victim of septic propaganda. 
The reality is that the Earth's climate is a complex system with multiple feedback systems, and that water vapour, not CO2, is the primary greenhouse gas.  
: http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/01/water-vapour-is-not-dominant.html
More warming should lead to more clouds, which will reflect more light out to space.  
: Why?
You see that there is an equilibrium involved that is simply assumed to have certain characteristics, via a link that has never been shown.  In fact, polar ice core samples show that CO2 levels follow periods of global warming rather than preceding them.  There's a lot on this subject at 
: Friends of Science is a non-profit organization made up of active and retired geologists, engineers, earth scientists and other professionals... or, a front for the petroleum type people? With, sigh, Baliunas. 
Dirty tricks were employed by Enron from 1993 to 1996 to basically fool the easily succeptible Green movement (who, despite their good intentions, are well known for taking an anti-establishment view in any debate, with or without evidence) into protesting about Global Warming, which previously had only minor groups supporting it.  As they pulled other strings to make sure it got further through government (so as to gain control of the lucrative Carbon tax market), more people got on the bandwagon to support it, and eventually the Kyoto protocol made it through, despite these gaping holes in the science behind it.  There is a long, well referenced account of this at .
The Green movement needs to refocus on the control toxic pollutants rather than life-giving ones, as a matter of urgency.  There are good reasons to move away from oil dependancy - otherwise the disatrous consequences of Oil shale mining or shortsightedness of Nuclear Fission may cause global pollution on a hereto unforseen scale.  Global warming is real, but you may as well campaign against the movement of the sea tides for all the good it will do anyone. 
:(above unsigned comments by User:Mugwumpjism on 02:48, 18 July 2005)
:Vsmith 15:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significant and compelling evidence to refute anthopomorphic global warming. 

message: Uh, can we try to stick to using the word "carbon dioxide" whenever possible? It's more formal, looks better in print, and is in fact, easier to type then putting in subscript tags all the time. The only time the abbreviation should be used is when discussing chemical formulas, or reactions, or whenever it's being discussed about its chemical properties. Otherwise, it's a basic greenhouse gas. "Carbon dioxide" just aesthetically becomes better for describing that kind of property. At least for me...the key thing is that it looks more formal and the only times we should used abbreviations I believe, is when we're using extensively long names that have acronyms and sound awkward when being used repeatedly. However, in our case, I think "carbon dioxide" is sufficiently convenient to pronounce repeatedly not to warrant a constant abbreviation. -- Natalinasmpf 15:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  CO2 abbreviation 

message: This article has a vast number of ext links at the end, accreted over years, many of dubious relevance or belonging mostly on sub pages (not just skeptical: do we really need so many UNFCCC type links?). I would like to prune them severely... William M. Connolley 20:08:14, 2005-07-29 (UTC).
:Prune away - people can always make a case to replace them if they disagree.  Guettarda 20:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. However, where possible (or at least where useful) do move them to daughter articles (eg some might go to the work-in-progress politics of global warming). Rd232 21:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ext links 

message: Why is there no subsection "Symptoms of global warming"? Nor any mention of observed changes, whether disparaged as "anecdotal" or not? Comparison photos of Alaskan glaciers, the recent navigation of the Northwest Passage, the observed shifts in distribution of numerous species: things like that. The average reader expects some mention of such instances, constantly discussed in this context in all media, and some links to further information. Have all such attempts been censored? (This page is not on my Watchlist.) --Wetman 22:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Besides the basic shift in tempature described in th overveiw, there isn't much on that. If anyone has time on their hands......HereToHelp 12:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: No Subsection: Symptoms of global warming?

message: This article has become completely pitiful and useless for a rational reader who wants to learn something. A lot of activist and highly biased sentences talking about "scientific opinion" and "scientific consensus" devastate the overall quality of the article. There is nothing like "scientific consensus" that decides about the validity of scientific hypotheses, and whoever thinks that there is, misunderstood what science means. In this article, only the opinion of average scientists are presented, but the opinion of big shots such as Richard Lindzen is neglected. --Lumidek 12:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You misspelled "crackpot". What exactly makes Richard Lindzen so big, except that he agrees with your POV? And how many other qualified scientists (let alone "big shots") can you find? --Stephan Schulz 13:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, try "Stephan Schulz". I did not know that I'm a bigshot (admitedly, not all the references really are me). More to the point, what I see is that most of Lindzen's papers are from the 60th and 70th. There is very little modern work (and, on average, old papers attract more references).--Stephan Schulz 13:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Dear Stephen, in science, it is the actual results that make scientists big; citations in particular. For example, open scholar.google.com and type "Richard Lindzen" including the quotation marks to see some of his most influential papers. Once you find at least four "alarmists" with the same impact - and I don't mean some papers shared by a team of 10 people - then you can get back and expose your new doubts. So far, let me assume that I have settled your question why Richard Lindzen is a big shot. --Lumidek 13:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The rejection of your extreme POV edits does not make this article NPOV. Your statement above is absurd - to you 0ne big shot evidently out weighs the work of all those average working scientists. Vsmith 13:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course that in science one big shot scientist outweighs 100 or 1000 average scientists. This was a favorite example of Richard Feynman - how the average scientists determine the length of the emperor's nose: by making the average of 1 million of people neither of whom had seen the emperor. They could have asked the emperor's assistant instead. (Feynman used it as an explanation why his opinion was more valuable than the average of 60 engineers.) --Lumidek 13:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "One big shot scientist outweighs 100 or 1000 average scientists"?  Maybe in some alternate reality, but not in the world I live in.  Guettarda 14:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Science is by nature uncertain. The scientific consensus is the currrent interpretation of the state of uncertainty and as such is always subject to change. One big shot interpretation perhaps has more political clout than that of an average scientist due to the big shots reputation, but that does not make the big shot interpretation right or better - it is still uncertain. And sooner or later one of those average guys will show the big shot to be in error as a result of new evidence and research. Feynman was a great scientist with a super sense of humor - but among those disparaged average scientists are the future greats. I'll take the collective consensus of a thousand working scientists over the pronouncements of one big shot any day. Vsmith 15:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV - a few words 

message: Someone is systematically returning untrue statements to this article although it is generally known that they are untrue.
For example, the beginning of the article states that the G8 national academies support the "scientific consensus" - whatever this nonsense means - which means the global warming theory as defined by the U.N.
It is well-known that most of Russian scientists and their academy are convinced that the global warming theory is nothing else than flawed science, and the Russian Academy of Sciences has repeatedly complained that its opinion was either neglected or even misrepresented by politicians and pseudoscientific manipulators. See, for example  and  --Lumidek 14:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fact is that the president of the Russian Academy of Science has signed the statement, and has not retracted it. I take that over a non-verified article from a news agency. Please discuss substantial changes here first to avoid frequent reverts. This page has been rather quite for the last few weeks, indicating that it is indeed close to uncontroversial in its current form. Also note that there is no single "someone". --Stephan Schulz 14:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Page editors being quiet doesn't mean readers aren't laughing at it.  (SEWilco 19:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Your comments about a person who made a signature somewhere - a person who had not authority to speak on behalf of the academy on this issue - is not terribly important. What's more important is that the current version of the article states that the "scientific opinion" is endorsed by "academies of all G8 countries" which is simply a lie. It is a lie designed to intimidate everyone who realizes that the global warming is a shaky science (which includes a clear majority of Russian scientists), the statement that something is known is junk science, and those who promote it - for example by spreading lies on Wikipedia - are disgusting political manipulators. I insist that this article cannot state that the scientists of academies, or even scientists in general, support some favorite and fashionable theories of yours simply because it is a lie.  --Lumidek 15:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, Global Warming is a lie, and "Brownie" is doing a super job.  Absolutely.  Guettarda 15:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

text:  The "it was all a mistake stuff" appears to be just Yury Izrael pushing his POV. The RIA article is from July - if the academy had made such a mistake, it would have been corrected by now. The RIA article, whilst nothing new and simply reporting YI, is at least an article. Lubos's other ref  is a joke - its by Louis Hissink. Check out some Deltoid stuff, e.g.  for some of his wacky opinions. It would be interesting, though, if the RAS would release a proper reasonned statement indicating their opinions. William M. Connolley 17:17:14, 2005-09-10 (UTC).
Lubos should add his name and comments here :) Count Iblis 18:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian academy of science declared that the global warming theory is nonsense - wrong statement corrected 

message: *please help remove Global Warming from a list of wiki-conspiracy theories
*Hurricane_Katrina_conspiracy_theories
and
*Talk:Hurricane_Katrina_conspiracy_theories ...
please, somebody?--172.128.245.193 19:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defenders of Global Warming 

message: I wanted to add something right after the first sentence like "Usage of this term does not necessarily imply human influence or causation, depending on context.", but this might potentially contradict some portions in the rest of the article.  (Personally, I've only understood "global warming" in scientific terms as a synonym of what the note in the article says is "climate change".)  I think something about the usage of the term should be mentioned right at the beginning.  AySz88^-^ 02:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See the terminology box in the overview section. This was originally in the intro but got moved down a bit as it was judged not quite vital enough to take up intro space. And I think thats right. As to the meaning: in "scientific" terms people tend not to use the term at all, preferring anthro cl ch or somesuch. When it is used in most discoourse, it is almost invariably used with the presumption of human influence. William M. Connolley 08:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  (Sorry, "scientific" (I assume you interpreted it as in journals and such) wasn't really the word I wanted; perhaps "formal" is closer but that's too vague.)  I saw the box later on, but it seems like the ambiguity is more significant to me than it seems to be for you; when small discussions about global warming take place around here (school and work), there is usually a significant portion that either interprets the term as without including human contribution or requests clarification of the term.  Anyone else also encountering this often enough? AySz88^-^ 04:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

text:  Well, it just happened....  AySz88^-^ 20:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage note early in article