Talk:List of climate change controversies/Archive 1

message: I take exception to one statement in the article:
:It is rare to see an objective examination of global warming, one which considers arguments from both sides and tries to determine honestly which presents the best case. 
This may be what constitutes "objectivity" in a U.S. law court, but it is not how things work in science (and, I'd argue, it is utterly inappropriate to science.  Scientists are informed by previous research and debates.  But scientific objectivity is based the claim that the world exists and can be understood independent of our relationship to it.  Scientific objectivity occurs when scientists observe data under rigorous conditions and interpret such data based on reproducable methods. 
Perhaps one can say that an "objective examination of the global warming debate" would consider and evaluate the different arguments made by different people.  But an objective examination of global warming as a physical phenomenon would be based on an examination of physical events themselves and not different people's arguments about the phenomena. SR
::Yes, reality is not determined by popularity of science.  It seems unlikely that Earth became round when most people believed it was round.  This article does serve the purpose of examining the controversy itself and should continue to exist as history of the controversy.  Other pages show the state of actual climate change (yes, warmer) and of the global warming movement (everyone knows why is it warmer). Eventually this might fold into an article about the global warming movement, but at present the controversy is an issue of its own. -- SEWilco 15:14, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Objective examination

message: To Do: add IPCC quote about it taking another 10 years before the signal will emerge from the noise.
:Isn't announcing the hope that the signal will someday "emerge from the noise" equivalent to conceding that natural variations dwarf any other identifable cause? In other words, that there is LESS THAN the ghost of a chance that GW theory is correct? --Uncle Ed 14:35, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 15:36, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Do 

message: I don't agree with you, William, about a "majority" of scientists endorsing the GW theory. That is the position of some politicians and some environmental activists, but I'm unaware of any survey of scientists which supports that view. 
Moreover, even if 51% of scientists surveyed agreed completely that "the GW theory is sound science" that wouldn't mean much to me. Now if 80% were that certain, I would sit up and take notice. But anything less than 95% means that there would be significant opposition to the hypothesis.
It would be interesting to study a bit of the history of biology or medicine, and determine the "tipping point" at which Louis Pasteur's germ theory of disease gained such wide acceptance that immunizations could be required by law. In the 1860s, acceptance was zero: no one knew that microbes transmitted disease. How long did it take Joseph Lister's idea of using carbolic acid for sterile surgery to catch on?
How much evidence must be collected? And how many other researchers need to be able to reproduce the results independently, before a consensus forms? --Uncle Ed 18:47, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes in context

message: (William M. Connolley 21:00, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disaster area 

message: I think that this line should be moved or removed:
: There is a distinct correlation between GDP growth and greenhouse gas emissions. A cutback in emissions would lead to a decrease in the rate of GDP growth
Reason being - this is not an argument against the existance of global warming - this is an argument in favour of doing nothing about global warming. - Drstuey 21:41, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: move "arguments against the existance of global warming"

message: Cut from article intro:
----
The science of global warming is spread over several articles:
*The basic science is covered in greenhouse effect 
*Recent climate trends include: global warming, global cooling
*Past climate behavior, being studied in determining normal variation as well as recent climate: historical temperature record, temperature record of the past 1000 years, satellite temperature record
*Causes of recent climate trends: attribution of recent climate change
----
To speak of the science of global warming is to assume that it has been proven
: (William M. Connolley 17:36, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 17:36, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I wish you hadn't removed those lines from the intro. I thought they were worthwhile to direct people to other relevant articles. If you don't like the word "science" then just change the word science, not remove the whole section. Personally I disagree completely that to speak of "the science of global warming"' is to assume that it has been proven. I think we should put the whole section back, but put in "alleged science" if you are really concerned about this. Also, if you problems with other articles you should discuss them on the talk pages for those articles, not here. - Drstuey 21:53, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  (William M. Connolley 22:13, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Endorsement of GWT

message: The page is looking much better now, I like the new structure - its symmetrical and the headings and sub-headings are correct IMHO. Good work team! Now to clean up the text!!!!! Actually one unsymmetrical thing is that the order is 
* Supporting points, supporting organisations, supporting individuals
* Opposing points, opposing individuals, opposing organisations
cheers - Drstuey 00:12, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: New Structure

message: The petitions sections could do with some work. Firstly there is not adequate coverage of any supporting petitions - some are discussed on Heidelberg_Appeal. Secondly there is some logical argument here which is out of place in an encylopedia. For example it says
: However, people who have examinated the petitions challenge that conclusion, pointing out that the 1992 petition is more than a decade old and only has 46 signers.
There is no need for this, we should simply state the date and number of signatures. We should leave it up to the reader to determine whether an old petition is good evidence or not. - Drstuey 00:19, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 16:29, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Petitions

message: (William M. Connolley 16:29, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with delete of individual supporters, but think we should leave a large selection of heavyweight organisations/reports. I just added one and will add more. The idea being to present the evidence and let the reader make their own mind up. - Drstuey 10:38, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted individual supporters 

message: ===Global climate change and Climate forcings===
Please read the new articles and consider commenting on them and/or moving some material to either one. Note that climate forcings is not specific to global climate forcings, so if it makes sense to create a separate section please do.
I hope this helps get this part of Wikipedia sorted out.
Posted to all discussion pages listed in the "See Also" section of global climate change.
--Ben 03:48, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW: I think these were quickly merged and redirected - Drstuey 10:30, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Articles: 

message: Please read the new articles and consider commenting on them and/or moving some material to either one. Note that climate forcings is not specific to global climate forcings, so if it makes sense to create a separate section please do.
I hope this helps get this part of Wikipedia sorted out.
Posted to all discussion pages listed in the "See Also" section of global climate change.
--Ben 03:48, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW: I think these were quickly merged and redirected - Drstuey 10:30, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Global climate change]] and [[Climate forcings]]