Talk:Climate change/Archive 29

message: New statistical analysis confirms human role in climate change
The idea that global warming is caused by changes in solar output rather than human activity has been dealt a further blow by a new analysis of temperature, volcanic and solar-radiation data by a physicist in Germany. The research, carried out by Pablo Verdes from the Heidelberg Academy of Sciences in Germany, does not rely on climate models, which cannot account for all global-warming mechanisms. Instead, the work reveals a strong statistical link between rising temperatures and greenhouse gas emissions (Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 048501).
Count Iblis 01:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New statistical analysis confirms human role in climate change 

message: "Anthropogenic emissions of other pollutants—notably sulfate aerosols—can exert a cooling effect by increasing the reflection of incoming sunlight. This partially accounts for the cooling seen in the temperature record in the middle of the twentieth century,[36] though the cooling may also be due in part to natural variability."
This is contradicted by a recent study which suggests aerosols have a warming effect . Iceage77 13:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would help if we had a link to the study itself, instead of a Fox News opinion piece about a Nature Magazine story about the study. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 13:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially one written by Steven Milloy. Raymond Arritt 13:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a more neutral article. And the Nature article. Iceage77 13:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see now. This aerosol is different from the sulfate aerosol that causes cloud brightening and cooling. Raymond Arritt 13:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not according to the Nature article: "On a global scale, clouds of aerosols from biomass burning and fossil fuel consumption cool the atmosphere by reflecting sunlight back into space. But the particles also absorb solar radiation, and it has been suspected they could warm certain levels of the atmosphere." Iceage77 14:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still different. And in particular, even the aerosols analysed in the study have a localized warming effect in certain bands of the atmosphere. --Stephan Schulz 14:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Notice the authors are careful to distinguish "brown cloud" from other aerosols. Raymond Arritt 14:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aerosol cooling 

message: Why was the wiki link in the see also section, Global cooling, removed? Ayudante 19:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there is also a link to global cooling in the Climate Change template at the bottom of the page. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 20:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotcha, sorry. I didn't realize that. Ayudante 01:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Global cooling]] 

message: Big kudos to all responsible for writing and defending this Global Warming article. Given that much of the 'discussion' here is bad science, junk science, and/or politics disguised as science, the end result is exemplary. Thank you.
Despite the potential uproar, I've edited the first paragraph of the "Causes" section, both for style and to fine-tune the science a bit. I hope this has been helpful -- my user page lists my qualifications.
In detail:
: Clarified "internal" processes vs. "external" forcings. As I read it, "internal" should be vulcanism and non-anthropogenic CO2 sources/sinks. And I added "large-scale ocean currents" b/c they are so essential. I reduced "external" forcings to just orbital variations b/c the Milankovich frequencies at 21k, 41k, and 100k per year dominate virtually every sufficiently long climate recorder. The impact of other "external" forcings -- sunspots, cosmogenic dust, etc. -- is not widely supported. Even if these factors do contribute, the general consensus is that the contributions are very small. I provided 3 rock-solid references to support that orbital variations predominate the timing of climate change (if too many, feel free to delete the 3rd).
: Clarified (I hope) what the "scientific consensus" really is. Virtually everyone agrees that orbital variations provide the trigger/timing for large (and rapid) climate change. But the change in solar radiation due to orbital variations is much too small to account for the full magnitude of the temperature change on Earth. So the scientific consensus is that small changes in solar radiation can be amplified somehow by Earth processes. B/c the climate records all indicate that, with small leads and lags, the N. and S. hemispheres change at the same time, the amplifier must be a rapid process. The atmosphere is the only Earth system that can change quickly enough to 'synchronize' (~1000 years or fewer) the hemispheres. Thus the greenhouse gases are the likely candidate.
: Reduced what followed "one such hypothesis" to one such hypothesis instead of two. :-) After reading the reference, Solanki essentially proposed sunspot activity, which allowed me work sunspots back into the paragraph. To be fair, though, Solanki suggested that both sunspots and "higher levels of 'greenhouse gases'" contributed to higher temperatures. It is only further down the page that Dr. Bill Burrows suggests Solanki's results support paying less attention to anthropogenic CO2 and more to solar activity. Todd Johnston 20:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Todd, as you see I tweaked things around a bit.  For example, oceans tend to be considered part of the climate system rather than an external forcing.  Let me know if you have any questions about the changes that I made. Raymond Arritt 02:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, Raymond. :-) I now understand the intended distinction between "internal" and "external." I would like to propose, if I may, that "forcings" are not "perturbations": herein lies much of the confusion surrounding global warming. Orbital variations do not change the climate system -- they are part of it, and by far the most predictable. Similarly, atm. CO2 flucuations are an integral component of the climate change w/o an anthropogenic contribution. It is those events that quickly (on geologic time scales) perturb Earth's climate system that are cause for concern, e.g. widespread volcanism, bollide impacts, and Dansgaard/Oescher events. So the question is whether the means by which humans have thrived is such a perturbation -- and the consensus is "yes." But unfortunately, we have no way predict the outcome of an unprecedented forcing. So, at least to me, in this sense "internal" and "external" may not be the best descriptors given the inherently 'external' origin of non-terrestrial, i.e. solar radiation. Food for thought. :-) Todd Johnston 04:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All good points. For the purposes of the article I suggest we focus on a time scale appropriate to anthropogenic global warming, which would be decades to a century or so; e.g., over this period the effect of orbital variations should be small. The internal/external distinction is indeed somewhat arbitrary, as everything interacts nonlinearly (which is a lot of what makes this a fun discipline). Perhaps by focusing on a specific time scale we can make it a little less arbitrary.  Raymond Arritt 05:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then perhaps it's best to de-emphasize the primary drivers of the climate system, e.g. insolation/orbital variations, and highlight anthropogenic CO<SUB>2</SUB> and rising temperature as potentially disrupting climate? That's really the core of the problem. Humans are forcing (have forced) the climate system into uncharted territory. All we know for sure is that rising sea levels will seriously impact places like Bangladesh; and that when global climate 'switches modes', it can do so in the span of a couple of decades. Todd Johnston 05:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to ''Causes'', par. 1 

message: Calling the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change an advocacy group demonstrates you have no clue what it does, as well as a profound misunderstanding of the peer review process.
The IPCC does no research; it conducts a massive review of the literature on climate change. Several hundred scientists spend a few years debating how best to accurately synthesize, represent, and report the state of global climate research. And that process has now been repeated 4 times in different configurations, in order to further hone the results and incorporate the latest insights.
By definition, the IPCC is the consensus of the scientific community -- that is what it was formed to do. Hundreds (if not thousands by now) of the most qualified people on Earth meet, discuss, argue, get drunk together, and by mandate, emerge with a consensus view. Then they meet some more, discuss, argue, and get drunk some more, over how best to communicate that consensus to other scientists, business professionals, politicians, and grade school children.
The fact that Earth is getting warmer hasn't been a debate for nearly a decade. And to see what the scientific consensus is for why Earth is getting warmer, read the IPCC. Neutrality is not balance. Just b/c some group believes Saturn is made of goat's cheese doesn't mean it should be legitimized by reporting it as an alternate theory. Todd Johnston 21:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The IPCC 

message: I see that the following highly POV paragraph has been added to this otherwise excellent article:
Despite the overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and that it is caused by humans, the lay population does not share such viewpoints.[65] A variety of industries, especially the oil industry, have systematically funded think tanks and contrarian scientists to sow doubt about the scientific consensus and make the public think that the situation is not as severe as it is. Such attempts at denial have focused mainly on the United States and the fraction of the public which accepts the scientific consensus about global warming is much smaller in the United States than in other modern countries such as Japan [65] The global warming skepticism movement started by first claiming that the Earth was not warming. When that no longer worked, they claimed that the warming was not due to humans. Now, the claim is made that even if the warming is due to humans, the warming will be small and not possible to stop.[65]
It sources a single Newsweek article which is itself an unsourced, highly POV hit piece. Newsweek ignores the fact that skeptics are being massively outspent by governments, environmental groups, and indeed many corporations, and it doesn't even attempt to prove whether or not the "industry"'s alleged efforts (which, even if real, would be relatively small in comparison to the spending of the aforementioned groups) are the cause of the public's mistrust of global warming proponents. This paragraph additionally tries to establish motive (proceeding under the assumption that the things Newsweek says are true) when in fact Newsweek's "motive" is all but conjecture. It's conspiratorial. I'm not saying that it doesn't belong in the article, I'm just saying that it shouldn't be quoted as fact. It's one view of the oil industry that should be taken with a grain of salt.
For the record, I support the theory of anthropogenic climate change, and I do think that we should perhaps do something about it. (In my view, a carbon tax would probably be the best option, if we're to do anything at all.) But to paint the entire corporate world with a ludicrously broad brush, when, for instance, the oft-derided ExxonMobil has scientists who are lead authors of the IPCC report (http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Newsroom/NewsReleases/corp_nr_mr_climate_ipcc.asp) and has "secretly funneled" $100 million into the largest climate research program of its kind at Stanford University (http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/campaign/climate_view.asp) is simply not right. 
Oh, and also for the record, I don't work for the oil industry (or for any industry, for that matter). Aristotle1990 15:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed. We now have a separate article for these ludicrous conspiracy theories: Climate change denial. Iceage77 16:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But you nominated that article for deletion!  How can you say that we should shift the material to a second article, and yet propose that the second article be deleted?  Raymond Arritt 16:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's obviously going to be kept. Of course this kind of POV material should not appear anywhere in a credible encyclopedia. Iceage77 17:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Anyway, not only is this Newsweek stuff full of POV, it's full of OR altogether. The claim that the American public doubts AGW because of some conspiracy theory rather than because it is less gullible than Europeans seems to me... unscientific. --Childhood's End 17:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It isn't claiming to be scientific, its a reliable source, and Newsweek is allowed to do whatever OR they want. We need some mention of the public attitude in the main article and the explanations for the public attitude in reliable sources. That's exactly what this does. JoshuaZ 19:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is not one and only single good explanation about the public attitude, so unless you want to cover them all, why would you choose Newsweek over others? --Childhood's End 19:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you have reliable sources that give other reasons, then short mentions of them might make sense. JoshuaZ 20:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we cover each possible other cause of public doubt, notably personal choices, epistemology, global cooling, limitations of GCMs, solar cycles, natural causes of warming, psychology and the adversary effects of gross alarmism, distrust of Al Gore and/or of the Democratic Party, to name a few? And why would Newsweek be given a long paragraph while these other causes would merely deserve "short mentions" ? --Childhood's End 20:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We do have a limit in length here, and Newsweek doesn't get a long mention, most of the paragraph is devoted to the state of things, not to the cause. Incidentally note that I was careful in writing the paragraph not to say something of the form "the general public doesn't accept the scientific consensus because of X" but rather simply noted the correlation, which minimizes POV issues. Similarly brief mentions if you have reliable sources might be acceptable (although I doubt you can find nearly as reliable sources that claim for example that the general public has extensively studied solar cycles or such). JoshuaZ 20:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact Newsweek is not a reliable source. They have made up stories in the past. Iceage77 21:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You may wish to review what WP:RS actually says. Major newsources having had problems does not make them in general unreliable. Similarly, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal are reliable sources even though both have had problems with journalists in the past. I'd be inclined to agree that Newsweek is not a perfect source (indeed, they often oversimply all sorts of newsitems and have other problems) but it clearly meets WP:RS. JoshuaZ 23:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I was just trying to show that this Newsweek stuff not only is POV-pushing, but also might open a can of worms. You do have a good point about solar cycles though (whereas one could argue that simple common sense can tell someone that the Sun may have influence over climate) but still, giving encyclopedic coverage to an op-ed piece which essentially attacks the intelligence of the American public seems to me questionable. --Childhood's End 21:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's a bit more than an op-ed piece, its the cover article of one of the most popular weekly news sources in the United States. JoshuaZ 23:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: We also have to consider all the stuff that has happened.  Remember the 2 commercials by CEI?  'We breath it out, plants breath it in...'  I recall that even the daily show made fun of those .  Not to mention the several newspaper pieces, the youtube video seemingly made by an amateur that turned out to be made by a PR firm, numerous documentaries, etc.  It is not necessarily 'the cause' but it contributes.  I think all countries have been affected by this (to some extent) but the US is by far the most affected probably because it is currently very polarized and this makes the public easy to direct in one direction or the other.  To summurize, I think we have to mention this, but I will currently reserve my opinion on newsweek as a source.  I have seen good stuff on it before, but some editors seem to not trust it.  (I can provide links to the youtube stuff, as long as it is allowed. Brusegadi 21:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Newsweek article is comprehensively debunked here. Iceage77 21:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That isn't a debunking, that's a partisan blog entry whose only approach to notability is from it coming from a staff member who works for Inhofe. JoshuaZ 23:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Iceage77 and CE, having failed to successfully contest tens of sources at Climate change denial are now taking their argument to this page. Of course the Newsweek article should be cited here, albeit at reasonable length. The fact of Climate change denial's existence is neither here nor there -- we have, say, and Iraq War article and information about the Iraq War in the George. W. Bush article -- elaboration is not overlap. The argument that, in order to note a multi-million dollar corporate misinformation campaign in this article, you have to cover all possible sources of climate change doubt is fallacious: of course we have to determine weight and notability; every Wikipedia entry operates under the pressures of selection. The Newsweek article (like countless other articles) certainly evinces the weight and notability of the corporate funded denial machine. Amazing how any periodical that reports the facts re: climate change denial is immediately dismissed as partisan by Iceage and CE!Benzocane 00:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In regards to the Newsweek piece, it's hardly an "unsourced, highly POV hit piece." There is a huge difference between funding research and funding deliberate disinformation, as companies like ExxonMobil have done. In my Usenet debates on the matter, I often include this little comparison of the two sides of the global warming "debate." Of particular note with respect to Newsweek is this website that goes into some detail on very much the same subject as the Newsweek article. My link to a certain Exxon memo is broken in that Usenet post, but this should work. FYI. -BC aka Callmebc 01:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. That's one reason I've never added anything similar to this before. Newsweek however is one of the most popular weeklies in the United States with a large circulation outside the United States, so their having a front page article does constitute sufficient evidence. Note in any event that the paragraph as framed above does not carry the actually "extraordinary"/disputed claims. JoshuaZ 02:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As for myself, I'm done arguing. WP is being turned into some Greenpeace brochure, little can be done, and that might just slowly cause its downfall. --Childhood's End 02:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem here is only citing "Newsweek" in the context of a highly charged issue like global warming, when so many other sources exist. Might as well 2nd source "People" magazine. But the fact remains: the statement "a variety of industries, especially the oil industry, have systematically funded think tanks and contrarian scientists to sow doubt" is not POV. It is overwhelmingly supported by evidence. E.g., TCSDaily.com is a junk science web site started by principals of the DCI Group, one of the most notorious lobby shops in DC. Read Nicholas Confessore's Meet the Press in the Washington Monthly. And before anyone starts whining that the WM is "liberal," I'm also an investigative journalist and have spent about two years investigating DCI. Confessore's article is excellent, so cite that as well. Or mention Willie Soon. Even WP -- bogged down as it is by self-appointed POV prigs who enforce equilibrium like some necessary condition for neutrality -- notes that he is in part funded by the API. Soon is not some "massively outspent" skeptic. He's a well-paid shill pushing junk science. Need more evidence? Dennis T. Avery badmouths good climate science for the Hudson Institute. Avery "studied agricultural economics" at two universities, although I've been unable to confirm he graduated from either. In any case, "agricultural economics" does not qualify you to debate atmospheric radiative transfer, oxygen isotope ratios as a temperature proxy, or Milankovitch cycles -- although that's never stopped him. Or S. Fred Singer, also unmasked here at WP. Then there's Dr. H. Sterling Burnett who bashes global warming for NCPA. Burnett has a Ph.D. -- in philosophy. Burnett's been pushing "Free-market solutions to environmental problems" (Rocky Mountain News, 02/08/1991) for about 2 decades, shilling for the CEI since back in 1987.  So do not confuse POV with opinion. In truth, every article begins from a POV. What needs to be guarded against is including unsubstantiated opinion and intentional misinformation under the guise of neutrality. Todd Johnston 05:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to point out quickly that the Newsweek article is not the only source for the corporate funding of a PR campaign to misrepresent the consensus. The British Royal Society, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Vanity Fair, Science, The Union of Concerned Scientists, and many other sources for this information are detailed at Climate change denial. Although I disagree with the fact that this is an "exceptional claim"--given the documented history of Exxon and like corporations PR record--the sourcing is various, extensive and, so far, uncontested. So this isn't a question of one article...It's a question of extensive international reporting from a wide variety of reputable sources. Perhaps that needs to be indicated in this article? "Some claim that the oil industry funds..." is not an accurate description of the extensive evidence that such funding has taken place.Benzocane 02:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, that's a good point. I'll take a look at the other sources and see how it makes sense to incorporate them. JoshuaZ 02:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you want to add it because  you think it somehow reinforces your POV based on a short article they had over 30 years ago which included the statement that from the NAS that "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key question"? Interesting. Please stop POV pushing. JoshuaZ 14:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm now supporting your edit and I'm... pushing my POV ?!? I'm floored. --Childhood's End 15:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't play games. It is quite clear from your remark above that the only reason you want Newsweek used as a source here is because of the association with the 1975 article which you think somehow discredits this piece. In any event, see my recent edits where I added additional sourcing saying the same things. JoshuaZ 15:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, but I did not propose nor made the edit - you did. Accusing me of POV pushing in this instance was quite an awkward choice of words. As for your other sources, the more you will add about this, the more this article will look like a Greenpeace flyer. I'm not against it. --Childhood's End 15:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think they realise how they are discrediting their own cause with nonsense like this and the climate change denial article. No one is going to take this article seriously once they come across the blatantly POV paragraph on Newsweek. It presents editorial opinion from an unreliable source as fact. It also appears completely out of place: it's followed by an introductory statement - "Increased awareness of the scientific findings surrounding global warming has resulted in political and economic debate" - and then the same point is mentioned again in the next paragraph - "Fossil fuel organizations and companies such as American Petroleum Institute and ExxonMobil, represented by Philip Cooney, and some think tanks such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute have campaigned to downplay the risks of climate change". A similar edit from a sceptical viewpoint would have been reverted within 5 mins by RA, WMC et al. Could they make their bias any more obvious? Iceage77 14:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's an argument for rewriting the section so it isn't as repetitive, not to push your POV. JoshuaZ 14:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Iceage and CE seem to have a very strange position: that uncontested facts are POV. The misinformation campaign happened, is happening, and that's documented by a wide range of sources neither editor has effectively disputed. What's POV, then, is an attempt to remove (e.g. the failed deletion effort at climate change denial facts from articles because you find them inconvenient.Benzocane 15:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For all to see : "uncontested facts". But you're not performing advocacy here, we all know that. --Childhood's End 17:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: To my knowledge, the facts recorded in the British Royal Society letter, etc., have not been contested by a comparably credible source. Please direct me to those sources. Then this discussion can at least begin. The only thing I'm advocating is encyclopedic standards.Benzocane 17:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsweek Article 

message: I reverted a recent edit on species extinction because it seems highly speculative.  Even if you have a source, is it the new standard view, or one paper making a claim that is yet to be examined by the major scientific community.  I thought more editos should look at it before we include.  See here for change.       Thanks, Brusegadi 23:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its at least WP:OR that it should be the first species. I think that place goes to the Golden Toad. But neither should (imo) be mentioned, as it gives too much weight. --Kim D. Petersen 23:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I read Flannery's book and recall mention of the toad.  Thats why my bells rang when I read that...Brusegadi 23:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are multiple reasons for the golden toad's extinction, one of which might be global warming. The extinction of the banded snail is pretty hard to explain without considering the decline of rain and extended summers in the region. Of course, it would be inappropriate to add the information without the caveats I inserted. Anthony R. Hansen 01:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article on R. aldabrae doesn't mention global warming as being associated with the rainfall change, so there is a serious original research issue as well unless additional sources are found. JoshuaZ 14:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changes in rainfall pattern over a region is difficult to attribute to global warming (such as those occurring in California where the Bay checkerspot butterfly lives). The extended and hotter summers under which juvenile snails died is likely the result of global warming. Ecologically trapped animals, such as snails, are the whims of climate change (see Debinski). Unfortunate but unsurprising. Anthony R. Hansen 17:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Species extinction edit 

message: I am reinstating a see-also link to climate change denial. If I read the page history correctly, user:Jc-S0CO deleted this link Aug. 1, citing concerns about the linked article's AFD nomination. Cyrusc 01:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also: Climate change denial 

message: Iceage77 has now added the "no warming since 1998" statistic to the article, and thrown it in a few times on this page, citing this article.  Are there other sources for this?  It's not consistent with my (somewhat limited) knowledge of the trends, and appears inconsistent with the raw data, e.g. here.  Are there other references, please?   bikeable (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted it on the grounds that such statements require peer reviewed scientific articles as a ref (because it is a scientific statement and some time ago we made the agreement that only peer reviewed scientific sources can be used for that). I'm actually not so happy with this whole controversy section, because it brings in all these not so reliable scientific sources in this article. We now have to decide on a case by case basis that a certain newpaper or magazine is a reliable source and another one isn't. The Skeptics can then cry foul play. Count Iblis 21:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You said it. If it suits the AGW faithful, any old reference will do: Newsweek, The Guardian, Mother Jones etc. Opinion pieces presented as fact? No problem. But if it casts doubt on AGW theory, we need "peer reviewed scientific articles". Iceage77 22:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, there aren't peer review articles backing up this factoid?  It was a pretty simple question, and meant in good faith.  The climate data in this article is based on peer-reviewed research, not on Mother Jones articles.  In any case, it appears to me that Bob Carter is looking at the single 1998 data point, which is clearly higher than the rest (see here) and saying that there has been no warming since then.  That strikes me as pretty silly; climate is a long-term process, and the moving average is clearly increasing.  Again, I'd ask whether this is reported in the literature.  bikeable (talk) 22:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  Newsweek, The Guardian and MotherJones are being used not for scientific claims but for claims about the general public, its attitude towards global warming and the reasons behind that attitude. You should be able to see how that's different. JoshuaZ 23:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The fundamental problem is that the active "skeptics" in the global warming non-debate (it's really only a debate among the confused) are constantly trolling for something, anything to support their increasingly crackpotty (let's be honest...) beliefs, and pretty much every source they find, however obsolete, out-of-context, non-credible or just plain odd, is treated as though it's just as good as an article in Science or Nature magazine, or a report from the IPCC,  NASA, or such. No. This business with there supposedly being no global warming since 1998 is just more of the same nonsense. The global temperature mean, as measured (bear in mind that this is a complex process with technological limits), goes up and down quite a bit by year if you look at any chart like this. In terms of whether there is an overall warming/cooling trend, you need to look at the long term, multi-year pattern, and when you do, global warming did not exactly stop in 1998. -BC aka Callmebc 12:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It also has to be noted that the "evidence" that is presented doesn't even support the claim. If you actually read Carters op-ed (which btw. makes it a non-WP:RS - and unusable) - you will note that he isn't hiding his hand in this statistical fraud - he is deliberately using it to present another point entirely: that the period over which the temperature increase has been measured could have been arbitrarily chosen to show an increase. A quite different argument - and one that demands that both the instrumental temperature record our paleoclimate temperature reconstructions are wrong - or showing a misleading result.  --Kim D. Petersen 23:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Last I checked (which, concededly, was a while ago), the use of non-scientific or peer-reviewed sources, such as blogs, to support scientific claims on this article was accepted by Dr. Schulz, Dr. Arritt, Skyemoor, Mr. Connelley, and Mr. Petersen. (With only me and Count Iblis dissenting, suggesting using solely peer-reviewed and published papers in scientific journals for such purposes.) Curious though, they never mentioned it had to first be in agreeance with their views. (Curious, too, is how hypocrisy abounds.) ~ UBeR 04:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Blogs are acceptable under certain, very limited circumstances. For example, although The Panda's Thumb is a blog, the entries are reviewed by other contributors, and so it is an acceptable source under certain very limited conditions. Do you have specific examples of blogs being used as sources in this article? JoshuaZ 14:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Should i really remind you to be civil UBeR - or have you forgotten this WP guideline during your absense? --Kim D. Petersen 06:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Truth hurts. I understand. ~ UBeR 14:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Kim, let's be frank, according to you, an article built upon op-eds published by Mother Jones, The Guardian, Newsweek and Greenpeace is fine  but you will dismiss as unreliable a series of op-eds published by nothing less than the National Post on the basis that 2-3 errors during the whole series have been noted . Give us a break. --Childhood's End 12:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry that you haven't understood the concept of reliable sources yet. An Op-Ed is only reliable about the opinion of its author - nothing else. Further it can be used with the same caveats as self published sources in that an expert speaking about the subject on which he is an expert, can be used. (see for instance this discussion). Newsweek, Guardian, New York Times, the Royal Society, UCS, (Greenpeace wasn't used as a source), and (probably) Mother Jones are all reliable sources - you can called them biased (although i still haven't understood this argument... biased in what way?), but bias doesn't change their reliability. Sorry. --Kim D. Petersen 12:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Childhoodsend makes it a point to spread lies all over these talk pages, and when called on it he simply ignores it. Raul654 12:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I'm a bit surprised that now you pretty much accurately described the rules about reliable sources, as I have already did in the above-mentioned discussion (see . Indeed, an op-ed is reliable about the opinion of its author but not about supporting that what he says is true, so why would you accept an article such as climate change denial whose subject exists only in op-eds?? And regarding the op-eds in the National Post, they were not used to present the author's opinion, but merely for quoting purposes. --Childhood's End 13:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CE, your example is wrong, and indicates that you still haven't got the idea. An Op-Ed is only reliable about the opinion of the author of the Op-Ed. Quotes from other people, or information about other people in Op-Ed's is not reliable. Another unfortunate thing here, is that you apparently also have a misunderstanding about what Op-Ed's are - the Newsweek article isn't an op-ed, and neither are the articles from the Guardian.... (Monbiots column could be considered such though). But we are straying off course - since this isn't, the discussion forum for Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming no Climate change denial nor is it the correct forum for discussing old WP:AfD's. This is a talk page for improving the global warming article. --Kim D. Petersen 14:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should also note the blogs written by professionals, just as op-eds, are at the whim of the author and his opinion and are without peer-review. It should also be noted that the names I listed above have supported the use of such blogs for scientific claims in this article. Take what you want from that. ~ UBeR 14:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be careful how you frame the statements of other editors. Specific instances of collaborative blogs written by scientists who are steadily publishing in peer-reviewed journals, and whose blogs are open to comment by all, is a far cry from just any 'blog written by a professional'. I trust you understand the subtle but important difference, but wanted to address this point openly. --Skyemoor 01:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From WP:V "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. " --Skyemoor 16:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what the policy is. This is entirely separate and about the de facto relationship between sources and this article. Have you already forgotten the past discussion? ~ UBeR 18:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Had you actually tried to be civil in the above - then you might also have gotten an answer. But since you persist - i'll quote myself, from just above in response to CE (about op-ed's): "Further it can be used with the same caveats as self published sources in that an expert speaking about the subject on which he is an expert, can be used." - since Carter isn't an expert on the temperature record, or even contemporary warming, he is ruled out. (He is a paleo-climatologist at best (geologist w. Stratigraphy experience) - certainly someone to quote or listen to when talking about rocks and sediments.). --Kim D. Petersen 15:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Kim I'm sorry but the line you're trying to draw between op-eds and journalism is quite blurred. Anyway, I agree that we are straying off course, except for UBeR's point about sources. --Childhood's End 14:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Op-Eds are statements of opinion or even advocacy. Journalism's objective is to report the discovered facts. --Skyemoor 02:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not like op-eds unless it is to quote the author of the piece.  More here under Zbigniew Jaworowski.Brusegadi 02:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No warming since 1998? 

message: Is there a list of evidence in favor of the scientific consensus, say, along the lines of Evidence of evolution? If there isn't, it would probably be a good idea to add that. I think much of the "controversy" revolves around not knowing what the evidence is. OssDev 22:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In such a complicated subject you can find evidence for either side.  I'm thinking the alarmist don't want to go this route, because it will "confuse" people.  Also I find it interesting that when you talk global warming they try to change the subject on you to climate change.  And as most of know, the climate is always changing, so that isn't an issue. The evidence is that there is no global warming for the past couple of years. Daniel.Cardenas 03:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Making a statement like "there is no global warming for the past couple of years," which is frankly and utterly nonsensical, is actually the sort of stuff that really confuses people. -BC aka Callmebc 12:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that because arctic ponds are drying up, that it proves there is global warming?  Wouldn't it be smarter to a reference with average global temperatures?  Daniel.Cardenas 14:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I had already referenced that in the main "No warming since 1998?" section. The issue is that such after-work bar level opinions by would-be amateur climatologists are not remotely helpful in any way. It would be one thing if such comments never left the bar, along with the empty glasses and bottles, but they instead get posted and reposted ad infinitum all over the Internet. You add in how the same crackpot assertions -- and that's exactly what they are -- get played up in the right-wing media, along with the deliberate disinformation put out by fossil fuel companies like Exxon, and having the research-challenged mainstream media giving nearly equal weight to all "sides," what you end up with is a very confused overall public. -BC aka Callmebc 15:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a feeling we're going to start hearing "global warming stopped in 1934." ~ UBeR 22:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the cooling trend started in the 1940s? Does anyone have a ref? rossnixon 02:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could try actually reading the present article. Raymond Arritt 02:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Evidence? 

message: I run a local village web site and would like to summarise the global warming issue. Unfortunately, this article is so long and so convoluted that it really isn't much help as a starting point. Would it not be an idea to create 1 or 2 simpler wikipedia articles aimed at explaining to the average Scottish reader (without a degree in climate science) of a small village like ours, the essential arguments pro and anti global warming?
So, I'm asking for help to create two simple articles:pro Global warmingand Anti global warming
Clearly I can't promise an/some article(s) in Wikipedia as that will be highly fraught with problems, so to convince people to help, I should say that as our village site is always looking for interesting articles, so no contribution need go to waste. If anyone would like to help work on these prototype wikipedia articles please put comments on my discussion page or just add the essentials to   the above pages. Bugsy 12:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming ~ UBeR 14:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This isn't the place for "excitement," and deliberately so. The writing in this article is a bit drier than it needs to be, but the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform rather than excite. Raymond Arritt 15:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's what you're after, just read the talk page archives. ~ UBeR 15:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Touché. Raymond Arritt 02:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the page .... I've just remembered why I so disliked editing this article. I might try saying something on the latest NASA figures - that is interesting, but otherwise, as a Scot, we're rather looking forward to the day London drowns. For your information, I've put my effort into a less contentious subject, Democracy and Iraq. Bugsy 10:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for simpler Wikipedia Articles on Global "Warming" 

message: http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/mail478.html#GlobalY2K
Excerpts:
"While inspecting historical temperature graphs, he noticed a
strange discontinuity, or "jump" in many locations, all occurring
around the time of January, 2000.
"These graphs were created by NASA's Reto Ruedy and James Hansen
(who shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying
to censor his views on climate change). Hansen refused to
provide McKintyre with the algorithm used to generate graph
data, so McKintyre reverse-engineered it. The result appeared
to be a Y2K bug in the handling of the raw data."
* * *
"NASA has now silently released corrected figures
<http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt>  ,
and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on
record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as
record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third.
In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur
before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in
chart form, along with a more detailed summary." —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:81.149.36.207 (talk • contribs) 
:Been there, done that Raul654 18:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to expand on Raul654's point, for those not wanting to click the link, the "astounding" changes are trivial (0.03 hundredths of a degree) and only affect US temperatures, not global temperatures. 2005 is still the hottest global year on record, with 1998 a very close second. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Issues 

message: This is the first Article on Wikipedia I've seen that does not seem to be written in neutral terms or offer a counter view.
Are all wikipedia articles going to be like this?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.147.83.98 (talk • contribs).
:Every Wikipedia article is supposed to be written from a Neutral Point of View. See WP:NPOV. This article is. It gives a description of the scientific consensus, the remaining open points, and significant differing opinions. There just are not many serious disputing voices that have reasonable scientific standing. See also scientific opinion on climate change and, for the popular debate, global warming controversy. --Stephan Schulz 19:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "counter point view" included because the UN's environmental police are opposed to heretics. Some of them want the act of doubting climate change to be a heinous crime. Reminds me of the Spanish Inquisition. rossnixon 11:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody expects the IPCC! Raymond Arritt 02:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, Global warming controversy is about the science.  The Wikipedia editors who are skeptical of global warming have not really tried to discuss the science on this article yet. RonCram 14:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: THE REASON THERE IS NO COUNTER ARTICLE IS THAT THERE IS A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT ONLY UNWILLING TO SEE CONTRARY VIEWS IN THE ARTICLE, BUT AREN'T EVEN WILLING TO SEE CONTRARY VIEWS IN THE DISCUSSION PAGES. HAVING SUGGESTED THAT TWO QUITE RANDOM VARIABLES THAT HAPPENED TO HAVE GONE UP TOGETHER IN A VERY SHORT PERIOD ARE LINKED, IT IS VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE THE NEGATIVE - IE THAT THEY ARE NOT LINKED, BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN CHOSEN BECAUSE BY THOSE WITH AN AXE TO GRIND OR A JOB TO SECURE TO PUSH THEIR CASE. NEEDLESS TO SAY IN A FEW YEARS THE TWO WILL BEGIN TO DIVERT SHOWING JUST HOW MUCH THE PUBLIC ARE BEING CONNED, AT WHICH POINT ALL THE PRIESTS OF THE GLOBAL WARMING RELIGION WILL TAKE THEIR PUBLIC MONEY AND RUN FOR THE HILLS. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO POINT TRYING TO EDIT AN ARTICLE THAT IS SO HEAVILY CENSORED. 88.111.176.38 21:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to hold strong opinions on the matter. Raymond Arritt 22:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eyes...All Caps...Brusegadi 22:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Raymond (and another who removed my original comments), thanks for the obligatory thrashing any adverse comments always receive. I was looking for an article on global warming - and you've inspired me. In February I came to this article a firm believer in global warming, now through your inability to even contemplate allowing the alternative view to be heard - I've seen how your religion really works and so that is what I'm going to write about - the hypocracy and lies being spread as "gospel truth". The original comment was right - this is one of the few articles on wikipedia which does not brook any mention of the alternative view - and I think that is something that people would be interested to read about - thanks! 88.111.176.38 23:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to use strange criteria for deciding upon the veracity of scientific theories. I prefer to actually examine the scientific evidence (preferably from scientific journals) than to make judgments based on the statements made by Wikipedia editors on talk pages. I know I should assume good faith, but personally I'm having difficulty believing in the veracity of your statement since the two comments here are the only contributions you appear to have made to Wikipedia, ever. That, coupled with your use of certain "talking points" makes it quite unlikely that you ever "believed" in global warming. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 23:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't count the number of letters in the Scotsman where I wrote "global warming is the greatest problem facing mankind" and lambasting those who failed to act. As you should well know the scientific method is to create hypothesis that ban be tested. Global warming is not (as yet) a testable hyposis and therefore it is a lie to call it science. Science is not the opinion of scientists, it is the result of the scientific method. Where I went wrong was to assume that there was any scientific tests proving that CO2 caused global warming - I was wrong there are not any tests it is just a correlation of variables which is an interesting observation not a test.88.109.100.41 07:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree completely. If you actually wrote those letters to the Scotsman, then presumably you didn't know what you were writing about if you think that it is "just a correlation", or that it cannot be tested. It has been tested, it is based on rigid scientific principles - the correlation was detected well after the theory was created - and it has passed the tests, not just in simple correlation, but in predictive ability. Twenty years ago, critics were saying, "Well, in 20 years, the warming will stop, and they'll see the errors in their theories." Now, many critics are still saying, "Well, in 20 years, the warming will stop, and they'll see the errors in their theories." Twenty years from now, I make the bold prediction that critics will be saying, "Well, in 20 years, the warming will stop, and they'll see the errors in their theories." (Yes, there are fewer critics now than there were 20 years ago, and there will be fewer critics still 20 years from now. Some people, including a few scientists, cannot ever admit they were wrong, and so will continue the argument even in the face of overwhelming evidence.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 13:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  See if this article helps -- it gives a nice history of how CO2 was determined to be a factor in global warming. -BC aka Callmebc 15:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:UNDUE.  Notice that since this is the article about the increase in the earth temperatures. All causes studied in the scientific community are treated; some other explanations are given their due weight.  (eg. section on solar variation).  If a view is inexistent (or too small) within the scientific community it may not warrant inclusion at all.  Brusegadi 04:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there no counter point view on this article? 

message: The article should discuss the  recent finding that Kyoto projects are harming the ozone layer.  I'm not certain if it should go the the section on "Adaptation and mitigation" that expressly discusses the Kyoto Protocol or if it should go under "Related climatic issues." RonCram 14:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like the normal "optimizing" of subventions. It has nothing to do with global warming, but possibly should be discussed in Kyoto Protocol. --Stephan Schulz 20:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Might as well be yet another topic for Law of unintended consequences... --Childhood's End 20:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kyoto Projects Harm Ozone Layer 

message: The article says
 
"Based on estimates by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2005 was the warmest year since reliable, widespread instrumental measurements became available in the late 1800s, exceeding the previous record set in 1998 by a few hundredths of a degree.[35]"
Someone may want to correct that, as NASA has updated their numbers. I don't know all the details, but Steve McIntyre found a bug in NASA's methodology. NASA's scientist acknowledged his find, and updated their numbers. Now, 1934 is the hottest year on record (and, in fact, four of the ten hottest years on record occured in the 1930s).
:Please see this thread about the same thing. ~ UBeR 15:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NASA updated the US temperature numbers, not the global temperature numbers (which is what the passage you quoted is referring to). --SirEditALot 19:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is seems to me that the real issue is that the last ten years are warmer than the 1930s only by some trivial amount. In other words, what global warming? Kauffner 06:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you use one country's data to disprove global warming? Do you see where the fallacy occurs? ~ UBeR 13:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NASA's revised data 

message: I think it would be good if you added more data on these two major polluters.
I also translated this article into Romanian to use on my website about Environmental Protection and Global Warming.Hope that`s not a problem.(The Romanian Wikipedia article on Global Warming is merely 4 rows long. Sad.)
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.122.131.15 (talk • contribs).
:You are welcome to use the article, as long as you abide by the terms of the GFDL. In practice that is easy to achieve by a) publishing that part of your website under the GFDL yourself and b) acknowledging Wikipedia as the source. Good luck! BTW, why not submit your translation to the Romanian Wikipedia? A discussion of emissions by country is out of the scope of this article, but see Greenhouse gas. --Stephan Schulz 13:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on China and India 

message: Now, I'm not really big on the Global Warming theory or whatever, and I'm certainly not against it either, however, I believe that a "Controversies" section should be added because there are loads of people who don't believe in it and have their own evidence to support their own claims. I think dumping controversies there would be a good idea, because I know there are controversies involved with it. IronCrow 23:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We discuss the science here. For the public controversy, there is a sub-article at global warming controversy. --Stephan Schulz 18:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm a skeptic, but I actually believe no article should include a criticism or controversy section.  I feel if there is criticism or controversy, it should have its own article, but that article should be mentioned in its parent. --HillChris1234 11:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies Section? 

message: "A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts" http://www.volny.cz/lumidek/tsonis-grl.pdf
"The above observational and modeling results suggest the following intrinsic mechanism of the climate system leading to major climate shifts. First, the major climate modes tend to synchronize at some coupling strength. When this synchronous state is followed by an increase in the coupling strength, the network’s synchronous state is destroyed and after that climate emerges in a new state. The whole event marks a significant shift in climate. It is interesting to speculate on the climate shift after the 1970s event. The standard explanation for the post 1970s warming is that the radiative effect of greenhouse gases overcame shortwave reflection effects due to aerosols [Mann and Emanuel, 2006]. However, comparison of the 2035 event in the 21st century simulation and the 1910s event in the observations with this event, suggests an alternative hypothesis, namely that the climate shifted after the 1970s event to a different state of a warmer climate, which may be superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend."
Anyone have a suggestion as to where it should go and a good summary?LetterRip 05:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't, being one very new paper William M. Connolley 08:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another recent issue is 

message: OK, since there's been a little argument about whether the first line should readGlobal warming refers to the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation.orGlobal warming refers to a rise in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans and any potential projected continuation.I figured it'd be good to get it out in the open. First of all, although I agree that the first version is correct, I'd argue that the second version is equally correct. I understand the subtle difference here is that the first one implies it is "fact", whereas the last one makes no assertion either way. As a bit of an NPOV warrior, I prefer the latter. However, I want to hear an argument as to why it even matters that much. I know why some people (who I disagree with in general) think that the second version makes that important distinction. What I want to know is why others think that the second version is unacceptable. There's nothing incorrect about it, is there? Yes, I'm trying to be a peacemaker. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 14:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the second one.  Why is the term "Global Warming" only limited to any present warming?  Why wouldn't it refer to any type of warming on a planetary scale regardless of when or which planet? --HillChris1234 11:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I agree with the idea that it's only the present warming and our planet (of course the second one doesn't challenge the part of it being our planet). This has been established by usage. We describe, not proscribe, what something is. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 15:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: A projection is a projection and has some uncertainty. It certainly isn't necessary to have *potential* projected. Forecast is more certain than projection in my opinion and UK accounting terminology. I think forecast may be justified but as there seems reasonable consensus on projected lets leave it as that. Does 'the increase' and projected continuation mean the higher temperature is maintained or that the increase maintains its rate? Same question for rise. Does it need to be 'an increase' and 'its projected continued rise'? crandles 15:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a compromise:Global warming refers to a rise in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation.Is that one acceptable to most people? (I'm not asking if it's perferable, I'm asking if it's acceptable.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 15:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: And here's another option:Global warming refers to a rise in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent history and its projected continuation.After all, many scientists do go back more than a few decades in discussing global warming. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 15:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article here is about the current warming (ie. the last few decades) - if you want the larger picture - its climate change. The distinction has to be made to seperate the two articles. The reason that this article is named global warming (and not global warming in the last decades etc.) is because of WP:COMMONNAME. If we go back more than a few decades - then the anthropogenic part falls - and the anthropogenic part is very much a part of this article. --Kim D. Petersen 17:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  Global Warming isn't just about average temperatures. Thats like doing a structural analysis on the average stress on a building. What we really need to be concerned about is the extremes of temperature, the places where we are going to get structural collapse. The places where warmer oceans are beginning to cause category 5 hurricanesRktect 11:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the increase" vs. "a rise" 

message: The opening section of the article says "The global average air temperature near the Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the twentieth century" but, if I have read it correctly,  the Global Temperatures graph shows year 2000 temperature being 'only' 0.48C higher than year 1900 temperature: +0.26 for 2000, -0.22 for 1900, a difference of 0.48, not 0.74.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.203.42.31 (talk) 18:53, August 21, 2007 (UTC) 
: Um. I think this may well be a mess, probably as a result of updating from TAR to AR4. The 0.74 is from the spm and is the 1906-2005 linear trend, so the text should really say "last 100 years". The opening and the T ch section really ought to be synchronised William M. Connolley 21:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something is wrong, isn't it? 

message: There is a proposal to tighten up the rules on use of this talk page (and you may have noticed tis happening here recently). Please see User_talk:UBeR#What would you think of this.3F. Don't reply here William M. Connolley 21:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal re use of the talk page 

message: [I removed this section. It was turning into the same old tired stuff, none of which has anything to do with improving the article. Please try to show some discipline William M. Connolley 10:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm surprised by your selection of which thread to delete. There is an ongoing misunderstanding of the concept of weight on this page (and other climate related pages). I tried to express the difference between equal textual attention and appropriately weighing the distribution of space in an entry. This seems to me to be an important conversation, not a lack of discipline.Benzocane 14:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: More likely there is a problem with these "editors" -- their "hard work" is usually discredited, misunderstood, irrelevant and/or nonsensical stuff that has not only been beaten to death over and over, but given a funeral and buried, over and over.... It might help if perhaps a teeny bit of research was done before trying to post, like, oh say...reading up on the subject first. This  New Scientist article addresses most of the misconceptions shown by posters here, and this piece from the American Institute of Physics has a great history of the research, especially this summary, that has gone into developing the current climate models. Of course, if you really prefer to get your science knowledge from non-scientific sources, you can always find plenty of sites like this. -BC aka Callmebc 13:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The real global warming POV problem 

message: If so, that should probably be mentioned.--24.162.154.176 18:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. He has been a popularizer in the US, but has had next to no influence in Europe, and probably little in the rest of the world. Also, this article primarily discusses the science. I wonder if there is a better article for the public perception - indeed, Public perception of climate change might be a useful and less contentious title than global warming controversy. --Stephan Schulz 19:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. It's just some more right-wing "wackiness" in this country to try to tie Al Gore to global warming in yet another attempt to politicize it. His documentary An Inconvenient Truth probably stirred up the discussion more than actually making people more "aware" of global warming than what they already were -- it was already a hot topic, so to speak, at the time. -BC aka Callmebc 22:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wasn't Al Gore the reason everybody became "aware" of the modern Global Warming situation? 

message: I wasn't thrilled this was deleted so casually and without a discussion -- it was kind of time consuming to put together. But I'm just visiting here, more or less, and will behave. An issue I see is that the way this talk page is organized makes it very easy to miss the referred to "FAQ", especially since it's not actually called that -- it's written out as "frequently asked questions" -- and it's poorly located in an easy to miss section below all the banners. Since it's in normal text with no highlighting or anything else to make it conspicuous, as well as not being in the index, it looks very much like it's not going to be seen by most posters. Also the FAQ itself is not as complete as some of the other similar FAQ's out there, so I do believe something more complete is necessary to deal with the "skeptics" both real and not so genuine, along with their inevitable questions and/or weasel comments. While the main page has tons of links, it has...tons of links, and can be overwhelming for someone genuinely trying figure out what's what. Ya think? -BC aka Callmebc 04:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember discussing this before (as I had also missed the FAQ page and mistakenly suggested that one be created).  I went ahead and put the FAQ link info inside a box similar to that found on the evolution article's talk page (link to Talk:Evolution).  Hope that's OK with everyone. R. Baley 04:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it might be easy to miss it.  So, making it more obvious might help.  Have a big box (bigger than the one already there) at the top that says FAQ and only FAQ, with alarming headlines that will make most yellow journalism green with envy.  I do not think anyone would mind if you gave that a try.  The thing is that with the non-genuine skeptics the problem will always exist because they can always simply adapt their questions.  Thats why the best way to go about this is to tighten the enforcement of WP:SOAP.  Of course that, for the few genuine ones, the big box might help.  Adding something on the index might be problematic if we have automatic archiving.  Brusegadi 05:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: ~ UBeR 14:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's at the bottom of the main Wiki page. I think it would need to be simplified and include primers to be truly useful as an introductory guide. It's really just a partial topic list as is. -BC aka Callmebc 14:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Putting back Resources for "Skeptics"? 

message: I've been assured by the Miszabot's operator that reducing the archival interval to 15 days shouldn't introduce any technical problems (in the short-term was my concern).  I'm going to go ahead and change it from 30 to 15, unless there is a compelling argument not to (looking at the above thread I think people will like this idea).  Looking at the talk page as a whole, a good deal of it looks to be archived soon and once that happens, I will go through and manually archive any stale threads that are hanging around due to lack of signature/time stamps.  I am open to reducing the archive interval further if this page stays above levels (in size) considered useful by everyone for improving the article. R. Baley 17:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reducing archival interval to 15 days