Talk:The Great Global Warming Swindle/Archive 1

message: I'm looking at "very damning" and refering to global warming as a myth and thinking this might not be the best we can do with WP:NPOV.  I didn't see the documentary so I feel unqualified to clean it up. Mykll42 10:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV tag

message: The claims section is long, and contains a large number of assertions about things that are already considered in models supporting climate change, the list, and presumably the documentary, gives the impression that these things are left out of models, which is misleading at best, damn intellectually dishonest at worst. There are claims that are plainly false, such as the troposhere warming claim (the troposphere is warming faster than the higher portions of the atmosphere, and this is completely consistent with models). There is simply to much in there that is wrong or misleading to NPOV it, and I think that it best taken out and rewritten in a short summary form, which can be nuetral. Mostlyharmless 20:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of whether the assertions made by the programme are correct, they have been made and their inclusion here is reflecting on the programme rather than the situation regarding global warming - also, the claim made was that the troposphere should warm more quickly than the surface of the Earth according to Greenhouse Gas models, which the programme assert has not been observed. I'm not going to restore the Claims section at this point, but I may look into doing so (at least in part). QmunkE 22:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a page on the film itself and therefore it should contain detail on the film's claims.  To remove this detail, unless you can show that the film does not make this claim, would simply be censorship.  ~ Rameses 22:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary of claims

message: Rebuttals should have sources and have their own section, not be included in the list of claims.  This is not a place for original research.  That being said the claims section needs to be abbreviated.  This is not the forum for listing every claiom the film makes.  If reception to the film is skeptical, citing reliable sources that say the claims are false is appropriate, users saying the claim is false is not. Mykll42 00:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must respectfully disagree.  If the page on the film were not to list all of the claims the film makes, then it would be incomplete and should be added to, in order to provide a true and complete report on the film.  That is the purpose of an encyclopedia.  ~ Rameses 00:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the article references every claim the film makes, you'll start running into copyright issues.  As fictional movies shouldn't have indepth plot summaries, neither should documentaries contain an exhaustive list of the films' claims. Also, nice job El1jah with the response section. Mykll42 00:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having seen the film I believe each claim could be referenced without any fear of copy-right issues. Obviously, since there are so many claims to deal with, they should be grouped. OldDigger 07:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  The original point still stands - the rebuttals should have their own section. The claims are important to list, but to attempt and rebut each point with an unsourced data and an unfair tone is ridiculous. The article should be flagged for weasel words and NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.57.201.223 (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree wholeheartedly, putting personal views and rebuttals in the article is not at all Wikipedic.  All criticisms should be from verifiable sources and be placed under the heading "Criticism and Reaction".  Look, I realize that this is a controversial film and issue but let us not treat this article any differently than any other Wikipedia article.  Remember there are rules and policies and respect them including NOR and Verifiability. Thanks. : )  ~ Rameses 05:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The rebuttals section is completely inappropriate - this article should be about the programme and any independent reviews from reliable sources (this does not include personal blogs or websites with inherently POV agendas). Criticisms of the scientific claims made should be in the various Attribution of recent climate change articles. QmunkE 20:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rebuttals 

message: The claims are sourced to http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/arguments.html. However, many of the purported claims don't seem to be there: I can't see Carbon dioxide is a tiny proportion of the atmosphere in there; nor is Solar activity is claimed to currently be at a high level, and I'm dubious about and this is likely to be the cause of the current global warming. Now is Vostok mentioned. If these claims come from some other source, please indicate it William M. Connolley 17:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it should be fine to cite the documentary as a source, as it most certainly is. Not a big problem, nonetheless. ~ UBeR 04:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  All of those claims were in the film. Perhaps you should see it? Paul Matthews 16:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The film's claims 

message: Is the copy hosted at google video legitimate? If not, we should not link to it by WP:COPY#Linking_to_copyrighted_works.--Stephan Schulz 10:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be rather unlikely to be legit William M. Connolley 11:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything beyond speculation yet? ~ UBeR 00:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The copy linked to provides no information on source - it could have been posted by anyone and appears to be a rip from the original Channel 4 broadcast. The film states clearly it is copyright of WagTV productions (see the end credits). QmunkE 09:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The BBC and Google have a video agreement, but no mention is made of entire programs. (SEWilco 18:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't the BBC, BTW. ~ 18:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Channel 4 is separate.  OK, then I don't know of any agreements.  (SEWilco 19:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio? 

message: Somewhat obnoxiously, someone linked Paul Joseph Watson to the page for Paul Watson.  The latter may in fact be a founder of Greenpeace, but the former is most certainly not.  Paul Joseph Watson is a correspondent with Alex Jones' radio program in his mid-20's, living in the UK.  He has posted a MySpace profile under his own name where he mentions his employer, while the 56-year-old Paul Watson likely has better things to do.  Attributing the comment to the better known figure, who appears to be a strong supporter of the movement against global climate change, could lend undeserved credibility to a marginal claim.  I have removed the false information from the article, but wonder whether the quote should be included at all considering the true identity of the source. 12.216.63.168 05:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good find. ~ UBeR 06:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Every source I've read so far has stated he helped found Greenpeace. He says so himself, as well. ~ UBeR 00:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Even Greenpeace used to say he was  but they dont any longer!  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thincat (talk • contribs) 12:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Responses and Criticisms

message: Someone found the source of the fake: its http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm figure 12. The wiggles match, but crucially the time axis doesn't, so TGGWS people have indeed faked their graph by stretching it to 1880-2000 William M. Connolley 10:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er... what is being faked?  The two graphs I wanted to see are there.  I can't see anything wrong with them; they show a correlation between earthly temperature and solar activity.  What is the error? Man with two legs 11:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, lets try this slowly: the programmes graph is here. Notice that the timescale starts before 1880 and ends after 2000. Notice that the point labelled "1940" isn't; nor is the onle labelled 1975. If you're used to seeing these plots, then notice also that it doesn't look like what you expect. Now see here; figure 12. Notice the exact wiggle match between the two plots. Notice the little downturn at the end; similarly at the beginning; the little point at 1900. *Now* look at the timescale on this plot. The graph starts after 1880 and ends before 1990. So: we conclude that TGGWS have used that pic, and rescaled its time axis to stretch it as far as 2003. Ie, they faked their picture William M. Connolley 11:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The screen capture graph that goes to 2003 ends higher than the 1940/45 peak while the other one does not.  This is what you would expect if the screen capture also included more recent data.  One of these graphs is not derived from the other. Man with two legs 11:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. The SC graph ends at about +0.7, with 1940 at +0.5. The same is true of the other graph. You are loking at fig 12, yes? William M. Connolley 12:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was looking at figure 3 which is the one comparing warming with solar activity.  Figure 12 does not purport to show a correlation and one of the curves is smooth, more or less exponential, and plotted on a different y-axis.  If the x-axis were corrected, it would be possible to produce an identical graph by legitimate rescaling of one of the y axes.  You are correct in saying there is an error, you are wrong to suggest that it undermines the message. Man with two legs 12:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh dear. Why you looked at fig 3 when I said fig 12 I don't know. Anyway. Let me try even slower. Fig 12 shows a temperature curve (forget the CO2 curve, which is irrelevant for now). Inspection reveals that this is *the same* curve used by TGGWS. Go on, have a look, compare them (or see here: the thin black line is the OISM curve. But. Inspection reveals that the time axes on the two curves are different. Yes? That means that the temperature curve used by TGGWS has had its time axes adjusted. In other words, they have faked their figure and lied to us. They have done this to minimise the warming seen after 1975. I'm a little puzzled as to why you are quite so forgiving of their data manipulation: do you really not see the problem? Are you saying that its OK to simply adjust the time axis and that this produces a valid result? William M. Connolley 13:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous answer.  Man with two legs 13:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 2. Because figure 3 is the interesting one.  Figure 12 shows nothing unusual and the error you have spotted makes no material difference as I explained before.  Now kindly calm down. Man with two legs 13:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This seems to be intellectual dishonesty on your part. You previously said that the rescaling can be corrected by changing the Y axis. This is wrong. On the original, there is a peak in the curve in 1940. In the TGGWS, there is a peak in 1945. The original ends before 1990. TGGWS version ends after 2003 *but its the same curve*. I don't see how I can make it any clearer to you that their data manipulation results in a false graph William M. Connolley 13:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would be possible to correct the error and end up with two curves that have exactly the same relationship.  Anyway, as I said, it is the other graph that I consider to be important because that is the one that shows a correlation. Man with two legs 13:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now I look again, there is nothing to correct.  It appears that your whole beef is that the screen capture graph is shifted a few years which makes no material difference unless you are comparing it with something. Man with two legs 14:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  At last, I think you've got it: yes the graph time axis has been adjusted, by 10+ years at one end and the other. But hey, of *course* you don't consider thats any problem, or wonder why they didn't just use an accurate one. We're trying to compare their graph to reality. They have arbitrarily removed the temperature record after 1988 from their graph - why might they do that? And... the OISM fig 3 is wrong too (of course). See  fig 3 William M. Connolley 17:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I'll buy that!  On first perusal, Laut's versions are rather more inconclusive; they do not manifestly discredit the conventional view in the same way that the programme suggested they would.  But they don't kill off the sceptic point of view either (as Laut points out).  I'm ready to believe that the information presented in the programme was more likely fiddled for dramatic effect than honestly cocked up. The fact that there is a correlation at all is interesting though. Man with two legs 18:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cosmic Rays 

message: "800-Year Lag" Research Paper This appears to be the original paper in which the 800-year lag was identified. If you can understand it you are a better man than I.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.228.106.137 (talk • contribs).
:Thanks, that is a very nice paper. While the details of the methodology are beyond me (at least without a lot of digging), some things are interesting, namely:
:*The lag only refers to Antarctica. Warming of the Northern hemisphere follows the rise in CO2.
:*They only look at termination III, i.e. one deglaciation event, not at all of them (are there followup-papers applying this methodology to other ice cores?)
:*They explicitly acknowledge that CO2 drives temperature, and that for the modern eopisode of warming the inital impetus can be provided by anthropgenic emissions, as well.
:Is this really the paper Ball et al build their denial on?--Stephan Schulz 18:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The paper does not say: Warming of the Northern hemisphere follows the rise in CO2.  It says that the start of the warming preceeded the start of the CO2 by 800 +/- 200 yrs. --Michael C. Price talk 20:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read more than the pieces you like. Page 1730, rightmost column: "This sequence of events is still in full agreement with the idea that CO2 plays,  through its greenhouse effect, a key role in amplifying the initial orbital forcing. First, the  800-year time lag is short in comparison with the total duration of the temperature and CO2 increases (5000 years). Second, the CO2 increase clearly precedes the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation" (my emphasis). --Stephan Schulz 20:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop making assumptions about what I have or haven't read.  That the CO2 preceeded an endpoint effect (Northern Hemisphere deglaciation) of the temperature rise does not prove that the CO2 caused the melt. --Michael C. Price talk 20:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...which is a claim noone has made so far. Howeer, the authors indeed strongly suggest a scenario in which the CO2 feedback plays a major role in the warming, in particular for the Northern hemisphere.--Stephan Schulz 22:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody is claiming this data proves the CO2 caused the melt. The TV program claims it proves the CO2 DIDN'T cause the melt. The paper clearly proves nothing of the sort. Neither does it prove the opposite. Nothing to see here. --81.129.160.189 21:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad we all agree that the 800-year lag claim is well founded.  :-) --Michael C. Price talk 21:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: (Learning about indentation and signing now, sorry) I'm fairly sure but I am no climate scientist so this is just based on googline. How can I know when they they did not see fit to provide any references or to speak to the people who actually took the measurements they were talking about, whoever they are? I guess I'm doing them a favour, digging out their missing references for them :-)--81.129.160.189 20:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Its a good idea to realise that this "800y lag" stuff is not definite. For example Our finding suggests that the phase relationship between CO2 and EDC temperature inferred at the start of the last deglaciation (lag of CO2 by 800±600 yr) is overestimated and that the CO2 increase could well have been in phase or slightly leading the temperature increase at EDC.  (yes I know: its only submitted). Also people seem to site Monnin et al  for a lag of 800+/-600y; this for the last termination. NOte that Caillon is 2003; Monnin is 2001 William M. Connolley 20:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CO2 Lag 

message: With my "modicum of research" into the claim that Wunsch stated the film was "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two" resulted in a total of one source stating that. The Guardian Unlimited, at that. Amazing! (Of course, countless blogs reference the Guardian's article.) Even in Wunsch's own response that he penned does that statement not show up even once. Perhaps, at least, a modicum of research should be done by those who say otherwise? ~ UBeR 03:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is a single utterance inadequate, or do we require that individuals repeatedly make the same statement in order to include it?  Raymond Arritt 03:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Seeing this comment show up in only one source is exactly what is to be expected if he gave the Guardian the comment in any setting other than a public statement (such as in a private interview). Is Uber claiming that the Guardian is not a reliable source - that they made the quote up? Raul654 03:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arritt, you have grossly misinterpreted my comment. Lets not play so foolish; of course one need not utter a phrase twice for it to be cited by more than one source. When all the quotes, however, (often duplicated by many sources) are coming from a letter written by Wunsch are easily found within save one anomalous passage, it simply raises the question. ~ UBeR 04:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Grauniad, for all its faults, is professional journalism -- and professional journalists like to get exclusive quotes. It would hardly be surprising that a Guardian reporter called Wunsch on the phone and asked for his reaction so as to have exclusive material. If you're going to contend that the Grauniad quote was erroneous (or fabricated) and cannot be used, you'll need better evidence than the simple fact that the quote doesn't appear elsewhere. Raymond Arritt 04:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If only the same logic could be applied to the countless sources you have deleted... ~ UBeR 04:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The many, many, many countless sources which you have deleted....  (Albeit, only when they were against your pro-GW POV ; )).  ~ Rameses 19:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: UBeR i think that could be said about any newspaper or media. Do you have any particular reason to think that this one is any worse than the average? --Kim D. Petersen 01:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that this publisher is known to publish false information, and not even bother to correct themselves after the fact. I just find it peculiar they print a particularly pugnacious quote that no other source has concurred, including the letter written by Wunsch himself, out of which all other quotes are pulled from. ~ UBeR 03:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: UBeR - so has the Washington Post. But my question was: Do you have any particular reason to think that this (news source) is any worse than the average? --Kim D. Petersen 04:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you didn't read my last post. ~ UBeR 07:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: UBeR i did. The trouble with interviews is that people usually don't say things the same way twice - so there is often only one source. Now you seem to dismiss this source under WP:RS. So i'm asking you why you consider this source any worse than usual for newsmedia. Are you going to answer my question? (that its pugnatious stands for your own POV - i can personally put myself into his shoes and quite imagine saying something like that). --Kim D. Petersen 00:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "close to pure propaganda . . . since WWII"

message: We've been told for years that carbon dioxide causes climate change, but if I am to believe many of the detractors of this documentary, it still causes it even if the solar cycles match up with temperature changes and CO2 follows warming by 800 years.  The lag is called "irrelevant."  Does CO2 have a flux capacitor?  Is there any research on this? 68.42.98.97 03:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it has been researched, save the flux capacitor part. Eccentricity, precession of the equinoxes, and tilt of the Earth tend to the largest factors in determining temperature on Earth. They cause ice ages, interglacials, etc. Now keep in mind the fact that oceans take in CO2 when they are cool. The opposite happens then they are not. So now lets combine the ideas we've just learned. So now you got warmer oceans, meaning more CO2. (See, the temperature comes first.) The additional CO2 further drives the temperature upward. That is, until the next ice age or glacial period. =) My regards, ~ UBeR 07:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So wouldn't we need a flux capacitor to stop essentially all CO2 from dissolving from the ocean if it were capable of driving warming by itself?  If the world cools down without that happening, wouldn't we need a flux capacitor again? I ask because the "irrelevance" of whether the CO2 comes first or second is being used as justification for a lot of the GW apologetics being used in this discussion.  If it's irrelevant if it comes before or after, then shouldn't the outgassing of the oceans "run away" until there's no CO2 left in them if it were capable of driving climate by itself?  I'm not a climate scientist but I am capable of logic.  70.91.235.10 14:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One problem is that changes in C12/C13 isotope ratios show the increase in atmospheric CO2 isn't coming from the oceans. Raymond Arritt 14:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Also relevant is the relationship of CO2 outgassing on temperature (I've no idea if this is sublinear, linear, or superlinear), the fact that the CO2 reservoir in the Ocena is large, but limited, the fact that temperature depends on CO2 approximately logarithmically, not linearly, and that the amount of energy emitted by earth grows with T^4. --Stephan Schulz 14:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So we have absolutely no idea.  Well, we better destroy the world economy to be on the safe side, wouldn't want anybody to have to move inland. :) 68.42.98.97 15:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I wrote "I have no idea". Also, I have no idea if this 800-year effect is already considered in the IPCC reports, as they usually concentrate on the time up to 2100. As far as the economy is concerned, the EU has just commited to unilaterally reduceing CO2 emissions by 20%, and Britain aims at even 60%. They don't do that to destroy there economies, of course. I'm always surprised that Kyoto opponents believe in outrageously one-sided back-of-the-envelope estimates about cost, but deny the carefully considered and documented science about the effects. --Stephan Schulz 15:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Europe's population is on the edge of shrinking especially if you treat the EU as a unit.  So basically if the US signed Kyoto they could contract, sit back, and watch the transfer payments from America roll in without doing much.  That's why the developing economies were left out.  They're where the real growth in CO2 comes from, we're only 25% and they are industrializing fast.  But they're not about to send Europe money as a reward for dying. And as you probably know, nobody actually is willing to say Kyoto would make any difference even if you accept anthropogenic global warming.  Chirac recently threatened to put a carbon tax on the US, an empty threat, but you understand, it's not about CO2, if it was they'd be trying to spend money to help the developing world be cleaner and more efficient. It's about money. And talk of setting limits?  That's rhetoric.  Show me one European country that's remotely come close to reducing emissions.  I know France's have grown every year since they signed, and likely every other signatory as well.  They are not and will not do anything substantive, except build nuclear plants, which is smart global warming or not. 70.91.235.10 16:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CO2 Flux Capacitor?

message: I genuinely don't understand why 142.151.175.39 keeps removing the section I've added, as follows:
On March 14, 2007, The Independent published a further investigation of the programme's claims which uncovered the fact that the programme makers had selectively used data which was sometimes decades old, and introduced other serious errors of their own.
Mr Durkin admitted that his graphics team had extended the time axis along the bottom of the graph to the year 2000. "There was a fluff there," he said. If Mr Durkin had gone directly to the Nasa website he could have got the most up-to-date data. This would have demonstrated that the amount of global warming since 1975, as monitored by terrestrial weather stations around the world, has been greater than that between 1900 and 1940 - although that would have undermined his argument. "The original Nasa data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find," Mr Durkin said."  
Can someone explain why this is irrelevant?
--Merlinme 13:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its also rather funny... the real data was too "wiggly" for them to cope with... he doesn't seem to appreciate that William M. Connolley 13:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering they're making a science documentary, it's strange that they're reduced to re-drafting lines from other people's graphs. Odd they don't have someone on staff who can plot a line chart in Excel. Raymond Arritt 14:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this particular piece of "Reaction" being removed? 

message: It is inconvenient, but true, that the article on that particular piece of propaganda simply describes it as a documentary film. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and add "polemical" to that as well? TharkunColl 18:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a problem with a page on wikipedia, please comment on the relevant talk page. don't comment about an article on another article's talk page, as those who contributed to the article in question may not see your comment Lurker oi! 18:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree the two films should be treated equally. Iceage77 18:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes indeed. The point I'm making is that An Inconvenient Truth is written in the sort of style we should adopt for this article. And since its (pathetically small) criticism section leads back here, we need to make this one neutral as well. TharkunColl 18:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I was thinking about this, but I'm not sure polemical describes it so well. It apparently includes "personal events from the life of Al Gore". Which presumably means it's not quite so single minded in its focus. But I haven't seen it, so I can't really comment on whether it's one sided and focused enough to qualify as "polemical". I have seen "The Great Global Warming Swindle", on the other hand, and I do think it fits the standard definition of a polemic. --Merlinme 18:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tharkuncoll- The word "polemic" is not a judgement of accuracy, but a term used to describe tone. This programme has a polemical tone. If you have seen An Inconvenient Truth and believe it to be polemical in tone, please add that to the article (preferably after discussing it on the talk page). Saying AIT should be described as polemical becasue this programme is described so is nonsensical. It is like saying The Godfather should be described as a comedy because The Producers is Lurker oi! 18:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No - what I'm saying is that this article should be written in the same style as the article on An Inconvenient Truth - not the other way round. TharkunColl 19:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aside--I find it funny how its emphasized that TGGWS did not present the opposite view (i.e. anthropogenic GW) except to make counter-claims--the exact same thing Al Gore did with his film. ~ UBeR 19:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: William, Considering your edits of the article itself were to put the word "propaganda" in the article, and since you are not pushing a POV, could you please provide the source referenced which actually justified the adjective of this film as propaganda? --  Tony of Race to the Right 21:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[An Inconvenient Truth]]

message: Lurker has just reported me for breaking 3RR, which is completely untrue. TharkunColl 19:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess this is why the page got protected. I personally think both the reporting and the protection were unnecessary. --Merlinme 10:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: If you don't like what somebody is saying, gag them

message: Due to a large amount of edit warring, this page has been protected from editing. I encourage those involved in the debate to come to a resolution, so that editing can be resumed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No offense, but it seems you haven't a clue of the current situation. No one has even breached the 3RR, and you've admitted that. One person reverting a word or two doesn't quite constitute an edit war. Further, a full protection is unwarranted, especially considering there are more suitable ways for going about trying to solve a dispute. Next, if you'd take some time to notice, there is in fact discussion on the current problem, and a consensus is being developed. ~ UBeR 21:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see a good few reverts over the past several days, having looked through the history, quite aside from this situation. It doesn't take a 3RR breach to make an edit war. But if you're almost to an agreement, that's wonderful, it won't need to stay protected long at all! Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't we make a subpage to work on the intro? I'll put something up at /intro, and those who feel the need to fill in the blank of "... is a (blank) film" can hammer out a for a compromise version there? That's what I used to do when I was active in Mediation. --Uncle Ed 01:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you have there has all the pieces of a worthwhile lead.  It mentions the controversy and polemic line in the third paragraph, so just call it a documentary in the first sentence and be done with it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because we're doing just fine here on the talk page, Ed. ~ UBeR 01:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I must admit I'm slightly mystified as to why the page was protected. Following extensive discussion on the talk page, we appeared to have achieved something near consensus on 'polemical documentary', accompanied by a change which explained exactly what the programme attacked. The word 'polemical' was reverted once, and then reverted back. There was further discussion, without anyone making any particularly controversial edits, i.e. it looked like 'polemical documentary' was going to stand. Then 90 minutes later the page was protected. --Merlinme 10:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Polemical documentary is appropriate - just "polemic" doesn't work (the noun refers either to an argument or a person, the adjective is used to describe something as controversial or containing a polemic argument - dictionary.com definitions QmunkE 10:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK William M. Connolley 11:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we should use the same structure and language as used in An Inconvenient Truth.  Isn't that fair? --Michael C. Price talk 14:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nope. The two are different. Start a comparison of AIT and TGGWS if you really must William M. Connolley 14:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  No. of course not. Look at the critical reaction. An Inconvenient Truth has been out for some time, has received mostly rave reviews in reliable sources, and many competent scientists have come out and lauded it. It has received a number of notable prices. It is a fair, if dramatic, representation of the current state of knowledge. Factual criticism by most reliable reviewers has been restricted to minor points. TGGWS has been broadcast on TV only 2 days ago, has already been ravaged by the press and at least one of the particpants, and has been shown to use fake and out-of-date data to try to make its point. Treating the two movies as somehow equal would be grossly misleading.--Stephan Schulz 14:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're missing the point: AIT has reception / reviews and criticism sections.  Mention the feedback there.  Why the double standards? --Michael C. Price talk 13:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: Has anyone seen the article about this by George Monbiot in the Guardian? 
I'm surprised no-ones picked up on this. there should probably be a mention of this in the criticism section. G-Man * 21:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I can comment on my area (solar physics). Monbiot is completely wrong in his attack on Friis-Christensen. Friis-Christensen's original 1991 article says that there is an inverse correlation between solar cycle length and temperature, and his more recent work presents the same view - he has not changed his tune as Monbiot suggests. So it should not be referenced. Paul Matthews 11:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think Paul's post kind of proves my point... I think there are better sources than Monbiot. --Merlinme 11:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Paul is wrong. Monbiot is substantially correct (and cannot possibly be described as completely wrong). The original FC+L paper contained errors; when these are corrected the wonderful correlation goes away (see fig 1 of ). The cloud-cover/cosmic rays stuff has also shofted over time, as Monbiot says: it has changed from all cloud to low cloud . If this is inded Pauls area, Im surprised that he is unaware of this William M. Connolley 11:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be sure, the claimed correlation  apparently remains the same, but the proposed mechanisms (cloud cover, high cloud cover, low cloud cover...) change. But Schneider seems to demolish all the claimed correlations. And of course, solar physics may help Paul with understanding the solar cycle, but not with the climate reactions to it. --Stephan Schulz 12:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two issues here which should be dealt with separately. a) Solar Cycle Length (see section below), ie.  "arithmetic errors". b) Cosmic Rays, see '‘Cosmoclimatology’ - tired old arguments in new clothes' (9 Mar 2007) on [RealClimate.org] which seems to suggest a lack of response to peer-review. . OldDigger 21:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Someone said I have seen it, but I don't personally consider Monbiot to be particularly impartial, which is why I haven't already quoted it.. whether he is impartial or not is irrelevant. The fact is it is a reaction to the documentary published in a national newspaper. As such it should be quoted in the 'Other reaction' section. G-Man * 20:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Someone" would be me, then. I'm not going to stop someone else quoting Monbiot, I'm just registering my viewpoint that he's not a particularly reliable source. I also don't think his arguments particularly help in showing whether the programme is correct or not. I would prefer to stick to sources which are more reliable. --Merlinme 22:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Monbiot article

message: I've put in a request for the page to be unprotected, as I don't think it was necessary. --Merlinme 13:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for unprotection 

message: If we're lising the films claims one-by-one, then we need to list rebuttals one-by-one, where they exist William M. Connolley 14:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer this not to become a POV-fest like Global warming is, though.  If you're going to work with this article, work with this article.  I'm not sure your reversion was helpful, and your edit yesterday regarding propaganda is giving me a lot of pause. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was going to delete this, having thought better of it, but I can't now you've commented :-) William M. Connolley 14:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, shucks.  If it's any consolation, I was planning on leaving a similar comment anyway.  I'm extremely concerned. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rebuttals 

message: We went through dozens of lines about this above and I thought we'd reached consensus. Why is it being removed again?
--Merlinme 15:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, this is getting really silly now. What is the problem with people sticking to the agreed description of polemical documentary? Did all the discussion mean nothing? Did the protection of the article to prevent edit warring not tell anyone anything? I'm putting it back - can people stop acting outside process - WP:BOLD does not mean "ignore discussion and consensus". QmunkE 09:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK by me William M. Connolley 09:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you may know, sometimes opinions, as well as consensuses change. No article is ever set in stone, lest it be forgotten Wikipedia is an ongoing project. ~ UBeR 18:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polemical documentary 

message: Re this edit : I would note that all the data is fully sourced, and plotting it is a simple application of the data. The graphic appears in relation to fully referenced discussion of the correctness of graphics shown on TGGWS. Further the graphic itself does not forward any particular interpretation (that is left the reader). I would suggest that, in this case, the graphic does not fall into the category of OR. Discussion is welcome. -- Leland McInnes 18:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that the "Translated TGGWS Temperature" line is Original Research.  The reason I say this is that it is an arbitrary decision exactly where you place this line. For example I can see that placing this line 0.1 degrees higher would more closely match the NASA data, which is the rationale you give for placing it where you do.  ~ Rameses 04:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The the graphic would be fine pending removal of the extra line? -- Leland McInnes 20:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, certainly as far as I am concerned. I would also like to thank you for going to the effort of creating such good and valuable graphics.  This level of contribution is what makes Wikipedia a valuable resource for so many. ~ Rameses 14:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of graphic 

message: I have reverted the current edit because the statement made no sense in the context of the article.
Peterlewis 15:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also deleted expletives since they have nothing to do with a debate about the facts at issue. It is essential, I think, to keep Wikipedia neutral. Adding swear words does nothing but raise the temperature of debate.
Peterlewis 08:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have completely missed the point here. Durkin's intemperate reaction was the reason Leroi withdrew co-operation with him. Deleting relevant information is not a good way to lower the temperature of debate.JQ 11:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I strongly disagree with removing expletives simply because they are expletives. It is impossible to understand what the fusss was about unless you hear Durkin's reply in full. And while I do not think the article should dwell too much on his character, it is surely relevant what his reaction was when asked to engage in serious debate by two respected scientists. --Merlinme 13:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Relevant policy is "when quoting relevant material from external sources, rendering a quote as it was originally spoken/written trumps our style guidelines". Raymond Arritt 14:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yep no problem with that. --Merlinme 15:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep in mind Wikipedia is not censored. ~ UBeR 18:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nonsensical Statement

message: I've added a "See also" section on the film's scientific claims. While some of these are covered in wikilinks in the text, some of these links go to general articles (for example, clouds) and it's not immediately clear which are relevant. With a list it should be possible to check the programme's claims against existing Wikipedia content more easily. JQ 22:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two things: We already have a see also section (they go at the bottom of articles). Second, Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to be used sources/references. ~ UBeR 23:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. But Wikipedia articles shouldn't contradict each other either. If two statements in different articles contradict each other, something should be changed - probably getting sources from reliable sources to support each statement. Carcharoth 23:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not contradictory to say "This film claims the Earth is flat," despite the Earth article saying otherwise. ~ UBeR 00:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. We are probably misunderstanding each other. Carcharoth 01:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems a bit problematic. If an article states "Film X claims the Earth is flat,", presumably readers should be informed explicitly that this claim is false, even if no one has criticised Film X on this point. How should this be done?JQ 01:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This smacks of WP:OR.  If the film claims the Earth is flat, there will likely be a published review that points out how ridiculous that is.  It's appropriate to include the counterclaim as part of criticism and reaction to the film.  It's also appropriate to include links to relevant Wikipedia articles such as geodesy. But we can't argue the point ourselves. Raymond Arritt 02:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This problem comes up a lot, and I don't think waiting for a published rebuttal is adequate. Take a look at Edward R. Dewey for example. Dewey was a fringe economist who pushed a bunch of cycle theories that have no credence in mainstream economics. He's notable enough to deserve an article, but obscure and old enough that specific rebuttals to his ideas are hard to find. His fans can therefore delete criticism of those ideas on the grounds that they don't refer specifically to Dewey.JQ 04:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: We should probably focus on specific claims made in this article, rather than the general case. I watched this documentary (The Great Global Warming Swindle) when it was repeated tonight on More 4, and it was interesting reading the Wikipedia article during an ad break in the documentary. My personal view is that no-one really has "the truth of it" yet. The media (newspapers, TV documentaries like this, the Al Gore film, and popular books) all tend to present a viewpoint that is biased to a greater or lesser extent, and some are very, very persuasive in presenting their view. The key thing, if you want to become informed on a topic like this, is to read extremely widely and with a hefty dose of scepticism. Learn to be able to judge whether someone knows what they are talking about, and compare with what you have heard elsewhere. Also, it is important to distinguish between "talking heads" rhetoric and data. Both have advantages and disadvantages. Data can be presented wrongly and misinterpreted, and rhetoric can miss the point. Data, when presented correctly (ie. not in the pretty graphics form in the program), can make very powerful points and help with powerful predictions. Rhetoric can help people understand what the science is about, but can also be misleading. For what it is worth, I found the points about solar activity and clouds and cosmic rays to be very convincing. I also liked the points that Nigel Calder made, and it was great to see Nigel Lawson talking about Maggie Thatcher! The bit about socialist peaceniks turning into "environmental lobbyists" made me laugh - that really is true in some cases. Best of all though was seeing the quiet authority exuded by some of the experts, particularly Wensch (though I see that he was quoted out of context for some of his stuff), and that head of the Arctic research centre who bemoaned the media trumpeting every ice shelf breakup merely because we now have satellites that can spot this sort of thing. Overall, some stuff I hadn't been aware of before, but nothing to really change my view that we know a fair bit about this sort of thing, but not really enough to say that we really know what is going on. More investigation needed, but we might as well tidy up our act while we do so, and don't spend too much money investigating, and don't hinder the development of the developing world. Oops. That turned into a mini-review. Sorry about that! :-) Carcharoth 02:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: See also

message: There's a Durkin article in the Telegraph today. However it's essentially just a restatement of his position, i.e. I don't think it qualifies as criticism or reaction to the programme, so I'm not adding it to the article.
--Merlinme 15:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I changed my mind. Durkin's reaction to his critics should go somewhere. I don't think it should go in the section on scientists' reactions (or you could reasonably ask, why aren't we doing line by line rebuttals by scientists of Durkin's claims? Some of which are deeply controversial.) I propose therefore that we create a short new section on "Durkin's response to his critics", in the "Criticism and reaction" section, which would basically be about the Telegraph article. I'll do it myself when I get half an hour, unless someone else wants to jump in first. --Merlinme 15:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. He never truly responds to the scientific objections (his responses are mostly "proof by repeated assertion") so it shouldn't go in that section. Raymond Arritt 15:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed -- Durkin says nothing new.  Maybe something slightly more than "Durkin rejected all criticism of the film" is appropriate; perhaps "In response, Durkin has admitted that one of the graphs was incorrectly drafted but stands by the rest of the film's arguments."  Hard to see how that merits a whole section, though. Raymond Arritt 18:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I didn't originally want it in at all, because it is largely just a restatement of his position. I'll see if I can cut it down. --Merlinme 18:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, that's a bit better. I think it does deserve a section of its own, because at the end of the day we're talking about Durkin's programme; his reaction is significant. I've tried to keep it to the stuff which isn't just a restatement of what he's said before. I've added in links to the standard positions on the ice cores and sulphate cooling. It's now approximately the same length as the "go fuck yourself" fiasco, which seems reasonable to me. Unbiased improvements obviously welcomed. --Merlinme 18:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  I agree your original version was a bit long. Current version is good. Paul Matthews 18:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise, Connolley, should we state every journalist of The Independent disagrees with Durkin's film, and leave it at that? Just as accurate, no? ~ UBeR 19:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We should not include repetitious crit, no. Is there any such? William M. Connolley 19:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Durkin article in Telegraph 

message: There's an article about this in the latest addition of New Scientist. Unfortunately you need to be a subscriber to see the full article on the web . G-Man * 21:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can summarise it sensibly, it should go in the "Reaction" section (or, possibly, the "Reaction from scientists" section). I don't have a subscription myself, but that doesn't stop it being what I assume is an interesting piece of reaction. As far as I am aware there is no issue with linking to material that you need to be a subscribed to be see in full, any more than there would be using a book as a reference which you would have to buy and go to the correct page to see in full. --Merlinme 08:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't say much that's new. The fact that it's written by Alan Thorpe, head of the UK NERC, may be noteworthy (hello William). The factual core of his response is "First, let's deal with the main thesis: that the presence or absence of cosmic rays in Earth's atmosphere is a better explanation for temperature variation than the concentration of CO2 and other gases. This is not a new assertion and it is patently wrong: there is no credible evidence that cosmic rays play a significant role." But we know that already. Raymond Arritt 03:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We know it already, but apparently we're not allowed to say so unless someone else makes the point in the specific context of Durkin's film. Since that's now happened, let's put it in.JQ 07:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Don't give it undue weight, but it should go in. --Merlinme 08:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Scientist article

message: This claim is either true or its not: "Volcanos produce more [CO2] than all the cars and factories in the world". Houghton seems to say that it's not. Can anybody find a link or source which could clarify this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Merlinme (talk • contribs) 08:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's false. Currently volcano output is negligible compare to fossil fuel output (i.e. around 1%, with somewhat largish variations).. Just see the Keeling curve and the non-existing volcanic spikes.--Stephan Schulz 08:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly the idea, put across badly in the documentary, was that volcanoes can produce large amounts of CO2, though from memory don't volcanic eruptions produce large amounts of sulphur dioxide and cool the climate? Anyway, the documentary at times put up strawmen like "carbon dioxide is a very small part of the atmosphere" (yes, we know that) and "manmade carbon dioxide is a very small part of natural emissions of carbon dioxide" (yes, we know that as well), and tried to make something out of these things - namely that Joe Public was being misled or misunderstanding the issues. That may be true, but overall this documentary probably didn't help in educating the public. The main lesson is to not believe everything the media tells you, and to keep reading and asking questions. Carcharoth 10:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: PS. The important point about volcanoes is that they can influence the climate in an unpredictable way. Which is why I think the schemes to cool the climate by sulphur additions are a bit crazy. It only takes one large volcanic eruption and the extra sulphur on top of the clumsy  manmade attempts to cool the climate could cause really drastic (and catastrophic) cooling. Carcharoth 10:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volcanic CO2 emissions 

message: It's not clear to me at the moment whether we are looking at the original version of the graph used on TGGWS, i.e. the one which was mislabelled to 2000 when it only went to about 1980, or the later version of the graph (which would imply that the time axis is correct but they added twenty years of data in between broadcasts). When the screen capture says "World temperature 120 years", is that correct, or is it 100 years?
If we're looking at the first version of the Durkin graph, I don't actually understand why it matches up at all with the NASA data for 120 years (the time axis would be out by 20 years by the time we get to 2000 vs. 1980). If it's the second version, then does that mean that they used a completely different graph in the rerun? --Merlinme 20:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not reading your stoat, or you'd know this... the blue line on the graph is the original fake, the one they labelled "120 years". The blue, indeed, doesn't match up: the local max at 1940 is more like 45; the min that should be around 1970 is more like 1980 in their weird counter-factual history. All that saves it is the warming at the end, since its then not obvious that 15 years data has been chopped off the blue curve William M. Connolley 21:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right. Well, given that the modified graph is also in the public domain, could we have both lines on the graph: GGWS version 1 (stretched to 2000) and GGWS version 2 (stopping in 1990). That would enable a reader to a) see how significant the original error was and b) what the "corrected" graph looks like. Even the corrected graph looks a bit strange, and given that they've removed the attribution to NASA, perhaps that isn't so surprising. I think it would be helpful to be able to see this. Perhaps Leland could do the honours? --Merlinme 21:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good suggestions. Done. -- Leland McInnes 21:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks good to me, thanks. --Merlinme 21:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm. So did they simply omit all data after ca. 1988 in the "corrected" version? Raymond Arritt 21:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe so, yes. Incidentally, I may be being thick here, but why doesn't the NASA graph start at 0.0? --Merlinme 22:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they simply relabelled the x-axis scale in the corrected version. In this case I simply put them on the same scale and rescaled the plot accordingly. As to why the NASA data doesn't start at 0: it is a measure of "temperature anomaly" which, in this case means deviation from the mean temperature between 1951 and 1980, which was (apparently) 14 C. What the baseline for the TGGWS data is is uncertain. -- Leland McInnes 22:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends where you look. Land or land-ocean? ~ UBeR 22:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are comparing NASA GISS data (degree difference from 1951-1980 mean) with CRUTEM3 data (degree difference from 1961-1990 mean) there, although even then I have to query the exact details of that plot since there seems to be an adjustment since the raw CRUTEM3v data  has values of around -0.4 C for 1885-1895. Furthermore you might note that the included graph does, in fact, include both land data from met stations and Land-Ocean data - though here both are from the same source and the data was simply directly plotted from the available data file. -- Leland McInnes 23:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In that case, I can understand why you originally decided to move the NASA graph up 0.2 degrees, but let's not got into the argument about Original Research again. Even without starting them from the same point, it's pretty obvious that the "corrected" GGWS graph is a bit weird. The two graphs don't even agree on whether the temperature was getting hotter or colder in the 1880s and 1890s. By about 1940, the GGWS graph says the temperature has increased by 0.5 degrees from 1880; NASA says the temperature only increased by about 0.2 degrees. That's a pretty massive difference when considering Durkin's claim that most 20th century warming happened in the first 50 years. --Merlinme 22:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interesting find, UBeR. Is the implication that TGGWS used the land data? Is there any particular reason why land or land-ocean would be considered more accurate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Merlinme (talk • contribs) 22:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphs 

message: It's really amusing (and tragic) how the pro-global warming lobby have attempted every possible tactic to discredit those who don't share their view of the world. As any historian will tell you, this is the prelude to authoritarianism. TharkunColl 00:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's one perspective.  Another would point to the organizations that have ideological and funding ties to corporations with deeply vested interests and even deeper pockets with which to buy propaganda.  The flat earth theory has been discredited and I don't feel one smidgen of my rights lost.  Skyemoor 00:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The deep pockets are those provided by governments, the UN, etc. who support human global warming. And the flat earthers are those who stick to that theory like a religion, which for some it has evidently become. TharkunColl 08:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Every tactic... down to pointing out that Durkin faked his graphs, a subject of surprisingly little interest to you. Gosh how underhand of us William M. Connolley 09:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And yet the fabrications from Al Gore's flick are conveniently narrowed to down very narrow criticims and no mention of the factual exaggerations.  So, 'faking graphs' is obviously a 'subject of surprisingly little interest' to both sides--it only matters if it is an admin's ox is being gored on the article as to what information will survive.  The double standard for how the two films are treated is glaring and disheartening; worse is how blind some are to it (and how vehemently some fight to maintain it). --  Tony of Race to the Right 21:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  AFAIK no one has even accused Gore of faking graphs, much less produced any evidence. Which ones did he fake? William M. Connolley 21:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Barring a sophomoric game of semantics I would say a photoshopped picture of polar bears, the NYC graphic showing a 20' water level rise are just the tip.  There are certainly people out there who have parsed the movie more than I since I do not care to waste more time on the film.  The point remains, the films should be treated equally (at least somewhat equally) and they are not.  Speaks volumes about the "NPOV" of Wikipedia on controversial topics...and also speaks about the dual standards in place.  --  Tony of Race to the Right 18:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Really amusing

message: The article currently says something to the effect that Durkin said that he thinks global warming is "wrong, wrong, wrong". This in incorrect. Durkin merely said that global warming is "wrong, wrong, wrong" - he did not say that he "thinks" it is. TharkunColl 08:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I would have thought that's implied- it's obviously his opinion- but ok, I'll change it. --Merlinme 08:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong, wrong, wrong

message: Disputed passage in intro:
:One of the film's primary targets is the scientific opinion on climate change held by the majority of climate scientists. Except when making a counter-argument, the film does not attempt to explain why these scientists think that modern global warming is caused mostly by human activity.
The first sentence asserts that the majority of climate scientists accept the UN's assessement. However, the only surveys conducted are inconclusive. And the word "majority" should be clarified. Does it mean 51% or what?
Also there is no source for the assertion that even 51% of scientist "think that modern global warming is caused mostly by human activity." That view is obviously what the United Nations IPCC says, but it's not clear how many climatologists accept this.
Recent discussions of the new Wikipedia:Attribution policy indicate that we contributors should back off from asserting percentages when we do not know them. --Uncle Ed 12:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with this, Ed, if I could think of a better way to phrase it. In the absence of any significant number of climate scientists disagreeing with it (Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming), I don't think we really need to know whether it's 90% or 99% of climate scientists who agree with this opinion. There's not very many scientists on the "opposing" list, there's even fewer climate scientists on the list, and the ones who are on that list tend to dispute very specfic points. Yes I know we're not supposed to use Wikipedia as a source, but surely this is just a matter of fact? Are you saying there are lots of climate scientists not on that list who should be? If so, why haven't they been added to the Wikipedia article? --Merlinme 13:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be using Wikipedia as a source here. Do you have a source which says identifies any particular assessment of global warming as "mainstream" or which asserts that "no significant number" of climate scientists disagree with that assessment? --Uncle Ed 18:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  To be honest, I would be happier with "large majority" of climate scientists, rather than "majority". I originally phrased it as "nearly universally". --Merlinme 13:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this needs to be properly sourced.  2,500 scientists signed the IPCC report vs 20,000 who signed the Oregon petition. Iceage77 14:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is the same old argument we've had on sci op and GW. Having it again is pointless; this is nothing but trolling by Ed who should know better William M. Connolley 14:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Re: the Oregon petition: "In 2005, Scientific American reported: “ Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400* signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community." If Scientific American calls it "rather a small fraction", I would say that is a Reliable Source for saying that a "rather large fraction" agrees that human caused global warming is happening. And even then, the petition is phrased in a very particular way, emphasising the "catastrophic" parts of global warming, the ones which Wunsch, for example, might disagree with. It does not dispute the existence of global warming. --Merlinme 14:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: (unindent) This looks good. Let's use Scientific American as the source for the assertion that "a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community" disgree with the mainstream. --Uncle Ed 18:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Connolley, stop trolling here. You nuisance is perhaps needed elsewhere, but not here. Ed Poor is correct in the sense that if we say "a majority" of so and so believe so and so, it NEEDS TO BE SOURCED. Look at WP:A if you don't believe me. (And no, Wikipedia is not a valid source; linking to to scientific opinion on climate change does not constitute referencing.) Additionally, what's being said has to reflect precisely what the source is saying. Academia is stringent on this--Wikipedia should and does follow the same pattern. It just needs comparable enforcement. ~ UBeR 17:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is everybody happy with the current version, which seems a bit clumsy to me, but does stick to a statement of fact? --Merlinme 18:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uber, stop being tediously unpleasant. Merlinme, since predominant scientific opinion on climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature is stronger and more accurate, I'm quite happy with it William M. Connolley 18:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The irony of User:Ed Poor asking others to "stop squabbling" is duly noted. Raymond Arritt 18:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, touché, but I'd really like to see less name-calling, you smelly toad! ;-) --Uncle Ed 18:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I see Uncle Ed who routinely demands attribution, promptly deleted the link to material from an authorative source. Note that the source gives a link to letters, including those of Peiser which all support the statement regarded the overwhelming majority. Peiser scores it 900-30, compared to Oreskes 900-0. I've reincluded this point JQ 21:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize if I removed a good link. Please post a diff, so if I made a mistake I can learn from it. --Uncle Ed 21:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Percentage of scientists 

message: The articles for Fahrenheit 9/11, Outfoxed and An Inconvenient Truth all call those films "documentaries."  Any other label for this documentary is a plain violation of NPOV.  It's not the case in Wikipedia that left-wing propaganda gets a neutral description and right-wing films get a pejorative one.  -- TedFrank 21:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has addressed this point, yet an editor unilaterally decided to change the introduction.  Why have an RFC if one is going to ignore the comments produced by the RFC? -- TedFrank 12:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC

message: This article is most definitely in the crosshairs of a disinformation campaign. The emphasis on "who is right, and who is wrong about graphs" is all well and true to be a central issue of the article, however I feel it needs to be condensed to allow other areas that the documentary draws on to be included, i.e; how development in Africa is stymied by enviromentalists through the UN under the guise of saving the planet. And possibly the origins of the green movement.
Also, Mr Durkin is having his character polluted in ways that go beyond the pale. Go to the article covering An Inconvenient Truth to see the inconsistencies, one of their producers who believes (unlike Mr Durkin) that man made CO2 is most responsible for global warming zips around the country in a private lear jet, well, three 10-hour flights (roundtrip) in a private jet for holiday/business represents 180,000 pounds of CO2, or the equivalent to the CO2 output on average of 9 people in the US for an entire year. If such a profound discrepancy were to be made in relation to what Mr Durkin preached and then practised it would be jumped all over like white on rice by the myth advocates and placed prominently on the article that covers a documentary he made, and not simply palmed off on the page that covers him personally. (personal ad hominem innuendo against producers of An Inconvenient Truth are downplayed versus those of the The Great Global Warming Swindle) --Dean1970 20:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Describe the sentences in the article that you contend are unencyclopedic, then we can discuss their merits.  Skyemoor 12:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page may as well be written by the IPCC 

message: I'm tired of the whole thing, so I'll just sum up before the matter drives me crazy.
One. Is it a polemic / is it polemical?
*polemical = disputatious
*polemic = 
*#an aggressive attack on or refutation of the opinions or principles of another 
*#a controversial argument, as one against some opinion, doctrine, etc. (Random House, quoted above)
Attitude: Is the film disputatious or aggressive? And who cares? Is the argument controversial? 
: Jolly good. Its both 1 and 2. Is the film disputatious or aggressive - yes. Who cares - the people editing this page. Controversial - obviously William M. Connolley 21:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its hopelessly inaccurate. It deliberately faked graphs and used misleading info William M. Connolley 21:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ed, not to be condescending, but we already have a section in this talk page discussing this. ~ UBeR 22:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hamlet|Words, words, words]] 

message: For some reason, the entire global warming debate is rehashed in this article.  This is a violation of WP:OR except to the extent there are reliable sources explicitly discussing that debate in relation to this documentary.  The entire article needs rewriting: there is no way that scientific papers predating the documentary are appropriate sources for contentions made in the article. -- TedFrank 22:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't a clue of what you're talking about. The claims section is verifiable via the documentary. The criticisms and reactions published in various newspapers on Web sites are all linked to. (In the criticism section we have the journalist saying "the film is wrong in so and so because of so and so." The person who said that is cited. In that, we're not disputing the science ourselves, but rather pulling quotes from the journalists and attributing it to them.) Can you perhaps give some specific occurrence in which you believe there might be an infringement on the WP:OR policy? ~ UBeR 23:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is my proposed edit removing original research (and some redundant and extraneous material), which was reverted with the false claim that I did not explain the deletions in the edit summary.  The introduction inappropriately editorializes about global warming, and critics get lots of WP:OR citations supporting their claims, while there is no such use of footnoting for supporters or the film's claims--a violation of both WP:OR and WP:NPOV.  My edit was appropriate. -- TedFrank 23:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've added tags rather than get into an edit war.  -- TedFrank 23:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the deletions included a cited link to a summary of the peer-reviewed literature, published in a leading journal.JQ 23:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  This summary violates WP:OR and WP:NPOV, in particular WP:SYN.  Please read those policies and guidelines. -- TedFrank 23:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TedFrank, some of your recent edits have been detrimental. You're adding  tags to sentences that are clearly referenced. That is not the purpose of those tags. Again, I ask that you present specific parts or sentences you disagree with or you think constitute original research or violate NPOV. ~ UBeR 00:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I presented specific parts and sentences I disagreed with by tagging the article.  Again, see WP:SYN: Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C.  One doesn't get to combine two sources, no matter how well referenced, to make an unsourced argument.  Even if there wasn't a synthesis violation, there's an NPOV violation when the article marshals many scientific sources to make points that the documentary disagrees with, and ignores the scientific sources that support the arguments of the documentary. -- TedFrank 00:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Edit conflict)I don't know how I can make this much more clearer to you, but can please copy and paste your disputed sentences here on the talk page. I cannot help you unless you do this. You say that there is a violation of the synthesis policy, but you have failed to present any specifics. How are we supposed to debate this if you cannot present your argument without example? I have, in fact, gone through some of the tags you have listed as OR and I wonder if you have actually read them. Clearly, the Royal Society's reference mimics precisely what is being said about the national academies of science. What thing you listed as OR could be verified via the documentary. If need be, I can make an inline reference for the film. Moreover, your last reversion of my edit actually erased what could have possibly been weasel words in the section you listed as NPOV do to weasel words, despite the fact you have not given me any specific information on what you think is weaselly. I do not think this is the right approach Ted... ~ UBeR 00:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for that much. But let me try to explain to you this: You agree the film disagrees with the consensus? And you agree the G8 nations endorse the the consensus (as provided by the Royal society reference)? Then consequently you must logically agree the film disagrees with the G8 nations' opinion on the consensus? This is what is precisely what is written and does not constitute as a violation of the synthesis policy. If you wish to think of it logically, synthesis as explained by the policy can be as explained as: If A then B. If C then D. Therefore, if A and C then E. Obviously this is a fallacy and is not allowed per WP:SYN. But what is explained in the article can be demonstrated as followed (called hypothetical syllogism in philosophy): If Q then R. If P then Q. Therefore, if P then R. This is valid and this is what is presented in the article. ~ UBeR 00:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying it's not logically valid.  I'm not even saying it's false.  I'm saying that it is forbidden by Wikipedia's WP:OR policies and doesn't belong in the article. You'll note that the example in WP:SYN is both logically valid and true, yet is explicitly forbidden. -- TedFrank 00:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the example in WP:SYN is not even well-formed, as there is that little rider "to advance position C". --Stephan Schulz 00:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The fact that the Science Academies support the scientific opinion on climate change is not a synthesis; they state this plainly.  Skyemoor 10:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So what?  In the WP:SYN example, the quote from the Chicago Manual of Style is stated plainly.  It's still a violation of WP:NOR. -- TedFrank 12:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "The claim that the Royal Academy of Science disagrees with the film is original research: " You have misquoted the article, so this complaint is invalid.  You haven't stated specifically what you think is the actual synthesis violation, you've only referred to the SYN example. Skyemoor 12:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Criminy, it was a freaking paraphrase of "The film's main target is the predominant scientific opinion on climate change as given in the peer-reviewed scientific literature[3][β] and recognised by the scientific academies of the major industrialized nations [1] and other professional scientific bodies," and wasn't an inaccurate paraphrase at that.  Either way, it is still a violation of WP:SYN. -- TedFrank 15:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This is probably true, but needs a cite. -- TedFrank 01:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This strikes me as improper synthesis to push a point of view; not a single cited source mentions the film.  "The film's main target is the predominant scientific opinion on climate change" (with any appropriate wikilinks) is sufficient.  -- TedFrank 01:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing wrong with provided a minor amount of context to go along with the wikilink; this is a standard WP practice. Skyemoor 11:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SYN says otherwise, this is more than a "minor amount of context" and it's a violation of NPOV to provide supporting context for only one side in a debate. -- TedFrank 12:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's your POV that this is more than a minor amount of context.  This film is an argument against the established scientific consensus, so context for the consensus is appropriate, as the rest of the article is about the film's side. Skyemoor 12:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Does the film cite Friis-Christensen and Lassen?  The sentence needs to be rewritten to clarify whether the reference to the two scientists comes from the film or is improper synthesis to push the POV of the film -- TedFrank 01:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ted, Eigil Friis-Christensen appeared in the film and said this. Paul Matthews 17:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The alpha footnote is entirely inappropriate original research/synthesis.  Let the Houghton article speak for itself.  There's also an NPOV problem: no claims from the other side have footnotes on the scientific support for their claims. -- TedFrank 01:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no POV problem because there isn't any scientific support for these claims. For example, to my knowledge there aren't any published journal articles at all that state "volcanic eruptions emit more carbon dioxide than fossil fuel burning"; such a claim is patently absurd to anyone with minimal knowledge of the relevant science. It's the scientific version of an urban legend, if you will.  There aren't always two sides -- as difficult as it may be to believe, some things simply are facts. Raymond Arritt 02:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty appalling behavior by the documentary filmmakers.  Unfortunately, the Wikipedia standard is verifiability, rather than truth, so articles have to tolerate a lot of nonsense to comply with NPOV.  (See, e.g., homeopathy or orthomolecular medicine.)  A better option to get the same option out there is a wikilink to a Wikipedia article (or, more likely, section of Wikipedia article) that debunks the nonsense.  Perhaps a volcanos and global warming article is called for; the material in the alpha footnote would be appropriate for that article, and one gets around the SYN problem.  The genesis of the volcano claim is interesting, too. -- TedFrank 03:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the link. Rush Limbaugh, Lyndon LaRouche -- it doesn't get much better than that! Raymond Arritt 03:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. Wikipedia articles do not constitute as source to cite. ~ UBeR 04:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying cite the Wikipedia article as a source.  I'm saying create a Wikipedia article (or section of the global warming controversy article) to wikilink to so that useful information that doesn't belong in this article doesn't get lost when it gets removed from this article.  The volcanos legend is notable, but this article isn't the place for it. -- TedFrank 10:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S. I've been trying to argue my idea I posted previously about synthesis and logical deduction the policy talk page. Enchanter makes it pretty clear. ~ UBeR 02:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally find it absurd that an encyclopedia cannot direct its readers on matters of fact. Houghton does not make his sources clear for his two statements (well, to be precise, I think his sources are the entirety of the IPCC report, which is not very helpful to us). We're not allowed to give Wikipedia links as sources; articles may not necessarily exist on the topics being discussed; so are we seriously saying that we're not allowed to give notes to reputable third party sources which confirm whether a statement is factually accurate or not? What is this, an encyclopedia or a newspaper clippings amalgamation device? Some of the statements about synthesis I agree with, and I agree the British media section needs to be trimmed. The statement on scientific consensus is probably too long as well. We remove the notes on matters of fact over my dead body, though. --Merlinme 10:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See my 10:22 note above for one solution.  There are, for better or worse, lots of Wikipedia articles where matters of fact are treated as matters of debate.  I find many of the Cuba articles appalling because NPOV requires communist propaganda on human rights questions to be treated with equal value. -- TedFrank 10:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because there are no scientific findings that support the volcano > human emissions doesn't make the scientific findings we have now NPOV, nor does citing them make the article NPOV.  One can't give equal weight to Flat Earther's, for example, just because they have no scientific basis and we therefore would have to eliminate cites that report findings on the shape of the Earth as an approximate sphere.  Skyemoor 11:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The WP:SYN issue remains.  -- TedFrank 12:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not supplied a description of the actual synthesis you believe to be in violation of SYN, hence such a claim is void. Skyemoor 12:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read what I wrote.  -- TedFrank 14:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  The problem here is that Houghton misquoted the film - it didnt make this claim about volcanoes. It talked about volcanoes plus other natural sources, see channel 4 site. So I suggest we omit this. Paul Matthews 17:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul - unfortunatly wrong.... (00:24:48-00:25:00) "Volcanoes produce more CO2 each year - than all the factories and cars and planes and other man-made sources of carbondioxide put together" - it then continues with "more still comes from.....". It is not the site that is the source here - its the actual "documentary". --Kim D. Petersen 22:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I see now that RealClimate has a Wikipedia entry that identifies it as notable, so I withdraw my question whether this is a reliable source. -- TedFrank 01:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't realize that a Wikipedia link was a precondition to being notable. Where is this rule stated? Skyemoor 11:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nowhere.  It's sufficient, not necessary, and the information in the Wikipedia entry is persuasive (to me at least) on the question of whether it is a reliable source. I just hadn't previously heard of the blog; global warming science isn't my forte'. -- TedFrank 12:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: After having read the synthesis policy as a part of the WP:OR policy, and discussing it with a few administrators, I agree with the above statements. As for the RealClimate, well that was inserted by the administrator who wrote the blog, so be wary of the obvious bias and POV pushing from self published sources, especially those of blogs. ~ UBeR 01:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cognizant of the WP:COI issue of the editor who originally inserted it, I'll vouch for its inclusion as a notable point of view; it meets RS, and readers can decide for themselves whether the fact that it was published on a blog makes it less reliable.  The reality is that a lot of important work is being published on blogs these days, especially for a current-event issue like this. -- TedFrank 02:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem is exhibited now: The "doubts" are raised not by a scientist, but by Steve Connor, a journalist, yet was placed in the "reactions from scientists" section, when the Connor critique of the documentary was already in the "reactions from British media section".  Hence the problem with the weasel words and use of the passive voice. -- TedFrank 00:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Valid enough. While the argument is perhaps about the science (really, the data presented, which doesn't constitute more more than a few graphs), it's done by a journalist. It doesn't belong in reaction from scientists. ~ UBeR 01:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:NPOV]] violation 

message: There is a tag next to every single sentence I found to violate the synthesis guideline.  The claim that the Royal Academy of Science disagrees with the film is original research: the cite does not mention the film at all.  Yes, it's reliably sourced that the film disagrees with the consensus; yes, it's reliably sourced that the Royal Academy supports the consensus; but one cannot synthesize those points to write in the article "The film disagrees with the Royal Academy of Science" without a specific source for that last claim.  Again, Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C.  Doing so violates WP:OR. -TedFrank 00:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that much. But let me try to explain to you this: You agree the film disagrees with the consensus? And you agree the G8 nations endorse the the consensus (as provided by the Royal society reference)? Then consequently you must logically agree the film disagrees with the G8 nations' opinion on the consensus? This is what is precisely what is written and does not constitute as a violation of the synthesis policy. If you wish to think of it logically, synthesis as explained by the policy can be as explained as: If A then B. If C then D. Therefore, if A and C then E. Obviously this is a fallacy and is not allowed per WP:SYN. But what is explained in the article can be demonstrated as followed (called hypothetical syllogism in philosophy): If Q then R. If P then Q. Therefore, if P then R. This is valid and this is what is presented in the article. ~ UBeR 00:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying it's not logically valid.  I'm not even saying it's false.  I'm saying that it is forbidden by Wikipedia's WP:OR policies and doesn't belong in the article. You'll note that the example in WP:SYN is both logically valid and true, yet is explicitly forbidden. -- TedFrank 00:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the example in WP:SYN is not even well-formed, as there is that little rider "to advance position C". --Stephan Schulz 00:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The fact that the Science Academies support the scientific opinion on climate change is not a synthesis; they state this plainly.  Skyemoor 10:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So what?  In the WP:SYN example, the quote from the Chicago Manual of Style is stated plainly.  It's still a violation of WP:NOR. -- TedFrank 12:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "The claim that the Royal Academy of Science disagrees with the film is original research: " You have misquoted the article, so this complaint is invalid.  You haven't stated specifically what you think is the actual synthesis violation, you've only referred to the SYN example. Skyemoor 12:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Criminy, it was a freaking paraphrase of "The film's main target is the predominant scientific opinion on climate change as given in the peer-reviewed scientific literature[3][β] and recognised by the scientific academies of the major industrialized nations [1] and other professional scientific bodies," and wasn't an inaccurate paraphrase at that.  Either way, it is still a violation of WP:SYN. -- TedFrank 15:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: convenience break 1

message: *Except when making a counter-argument the film does not attempt to explain the scientific reasons that these scientists say that modern global warming is caused mostly by human activity.
:This is probably true, but needs a cite. -- TedFrank 01:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This strikes me as improper synthesis to push a point of view; not a single cited source mentions the film.  "The film's main target is the predominant scientific opinion on climate change" (with any appropriate wikilinks) is sufficient.  -- TedFrank 01:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing wrong with provided a minor amount of context to go along with the wikilink; this is a standard WP practice. Skyemoor 11:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SYN says otherwise, this is more than a "minor amount of context" and it's a violation of NPOV to provide supporting context for only one side in a debate. -- TedFrank 12:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's your POV that this is more than a minor amount of context.  This film is an argument against the established scientific consensus, so context for the consensus is appropriate, as the rest of the article is about the film's side. Skyemoor 12:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Does the film cite Friis-Christensen and Lassen?  The sentence needs to be rewritten to clarify whether the reference to the two scientists comes from the film or is improper synthesis to push the POV of the film -- TedFrank 01:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ted, Eigil Friis-Christensen appeared in the film and said this. Paul Matthews 17:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: convenience break 2

message: *He contradicted two of the programme's statements that "the troposphere is warming less than the surface" and that "volcanic eruptions emit more carbon dioxide than fossil fuel burning".[α]
:The alpha footnote is entirely inappropriate original research/synthesis.  Let the Houghton article speak for itself.  There's also an NPOV problem: no claims from the other side have footnotes on the scientific support for their claims. -- TedFrank 01:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no POV problem because there isn't any scientific support for these claims. For example, to my knowledge there aren't any published journal articles at all that state "volcanic eruptions emit more carbon dioxide than fossil fuel burning"; such a claim is patently absurd to anyone with minimal knowledge of the relevant science. It's the scientific version of an urban legend, if you will.  There aren't always two sides -- as difficult as it may be to believe, some things simply are facts. Raymond Arritt 02:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty appalling behavior by the documentary filmmakers.  Unfortunately, the Wikipedia standard is verifiability, rather than truth, so articles have to tolerate a lot of nonsense to comply with NPOV.  (See, e.g., homeopathy or orthomolecular medicine.)  A better option to get the same option out there is a wikilink to a Wikipedia article (or, more likely, section of Wikipedia article) that debunks the nonsense.  Perhaps a volcanos and global warming article is called for; the material in the alpha footnote would be appropriate for that article, and one gets around the SYN problem.  The genesis of the volcano claim is interesting, too. -- TedFrank 03:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the link. Rush Limbaugh, Lyndon LaRouche -- it doesn't get much better than that! Raymond Arritt 03:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. Wikipedia articles do not constitute as source to cite. ~ UBeR 04:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying cite the Wikipedia article as a source.  I'm saying create a Wikipedia article (or section of the global warming controversy article) to wikilink to so that useful information that doesn't belong in this article doesn't get lost when it gets removed from this article.  The volcanos legend is notable, but this article isn't the place for it. -- TedFrank 10:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S. I've been trying to argue my idea I posted previously about synthesis and logical deduction the policy talk page. Enchanter makes it pretty clear. ~ UBeR 02:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally find it absurd that an encyclopedia cannot direct its readers on matters of fact. Houghton does not make his sources clear for his two statements (well, to be precise, I think his sources are the entirety of the IPCC report, which is not very helpful to us). We're not allowed to give Wikipedia links as sources; articles may not necessarily exist on the topics being discussed; so are we seriously saying that we're not allowed to give notes to reputable third party sources which confirm whether a statement is factually accurate or not? What is this, an encyclopedia or a newspaper clippings amalgamation device? Some of the statements about synthesis I agree with, and I agree the British media section needs to be trimmed. The statement on scientific consensus is probably too long as well. We remove the notes on matters of fact over my dead body, though. --Merlinme 10:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See my 10:22 note above for one solution.  There are, for better or worse, lots of Wikipedia articles where matters of fact are treated as matters of debate.  I find many of the Cuba articles appalling because NPOV requires communist propaganda on human rights questions to be treated with equal value. -- TedFrank 10:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because there are no scientific findings that support the volcano > human emissions doesn't make the scientific findings we have now NPOV, nor does citing them make the article NPOV.  One can't give equal weight to Flat Earther's, for example, just because they have no scientific basis and we therefore would have to eliminate cites that report findings on the shape of the Earth as an approximate sphere.  Skyemoor 11:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The WP:SYN issue remains.  -- TedFrank 12:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not supplied a description of the actual synthesis you believe to be in violation of SYN, hence such a claim is void. Skyemoor 12:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read what I wrote.  -- TedFrank 14:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  The problem here is that Houghton misquoted the film - it didnt make this claim about volcanoes. It talked about volcanoes plus other natural sources, see channel 4 site. So I suggest we omit this. Paul Matthews 17:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul - unfortunatly wrong.... (00:24:48-00:25:00) "Volcanoes produce more CO2 each year - than all the factories and cars and planes and other man-made sources of carbondioxide put together" - it then continues with "more still comes from.....". It is not the site that is the source here - its the actual "documentary". --Kim D. Petersen 22:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: alpha footnote

message: *realclimate blog
:I see now that RealClimate has a Wikipedia entry that identifies it as notable, so I withdraw my question whether this is a reliable source. -- TedFrank 01:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't realize that a Wikipedia link was a precondition to being notable. Where is this rule stated? Skyemoor 11:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nowhere.  It's sufficient, not necessary, and the information in the Wikipedia entry is persuasive (to me at least) on the question of whether it is a reliable source. I just hadn't previously heard of the blog; global warming science isn't my forte'. -- TedFrank 12:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: After having read the synthesis policy as a part of the WP:OR policy, and discussing it with a few administrators, I agree with the above statements. As for the RealClimate, well that was inserted by the administrator who wrote the blog, so be wary of the obvious bias and POV pushing from self published sources, especially those of blogs. ~ UBeR 01:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cognizant of the WP:COI issue of the editor who originally inserted it, I'll vouch for its inclusion as a notable point of view; it meets RS, and readers can decide for themselves whether the fact that it was published on a blog makes it less reliable.  The reality is that a lot of important work is being published on blogs these days, especially for a current-event issue like this. -- TedFrank 02:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: realclimate cite

message: "Doubts have similarly been raised" is weasel language (as well as poor English use of the passive voice).  The source is a self-published blog.  Identify the people who raised the doubts. -- TedFrank 00:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is exhibited now: The "doubts" are raised not by a scientist, but by Steve Connor, a journalist, yet was placed in the "reactions from scientists" section, when the Connor critique of the documentary was already in the "reactions from British media section".  Hence the problem with the weasel words and use of the passive voice. -- TedFrank 00:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Valid enough. While the argument is perhaps about the science (really, the data presented, which doesn't constitute more more than a few graphs), it's done by a journalist. It doesn't belong in reaction from scientists. ~ UBeR 01:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: weasel language

message: Many of the cited press stories don't say anything notable, and many are redundant.  Can we trim this? -- TedFrank 00:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it's becoming more and more redundant, that section. ("My dear, some bloke in the newspaper said he disagreed with the film... again.")  ~ UBeR 01:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahhrg! It's a CONSPIRACY to CENSOR the TRUTH! And I don't KNOW how TO select CAPITALIZED words FOR maximum COMIC effect! Ermm.... Sorry, went into "skeptic" mode for a second. If, as Ted will probably insist, we cannot synthesize "reception in the press was overwhelmingly negative and pointed out the many inaccuracies and the misleading presentation", the next best thing is to quote a fair cross-selection of the press. --Stephan Schulz 12:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for a fair cross-selection of the press.  Organizationally, we can consolidate all the Monbiot columns into a single paragraph, the March 5 Daily Mail cite is utterly non-notable, and distinguish between the columns that perform detailed rebuttals and consolidate the ones that are just political thrashing into a single paragraph. -- TedFrank 14:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reactions from British media

message: I've spent a lot of time on this article and I was kind of hoping it would have settled down a little more than it has, given that I do have a day job. But there we are, Wikipedia is an ongoing project.
TedFrank, you do make valid points, but the problem is that a lot of what you raise we had problems with before, i.e. it's very difficult to find a solution which pleases all sides. Controversial areas:
1) What to call the programme: "controversial documentary film" seems to be an acceptable compromise, especially with the Channel 4 "polemic" quote in the lead. --Merlinme 12:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Controversial film" would be fine, but adding "documentary" gives undue weight per the definition provided above (the producer has already admitted to falsification of data).  "Polemic" is appropriate, due to the definition above, as previously and thoroughly stated.  Skyemoor 13:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: "Constroversial documentary film" is accurate, verifiable, and NPOV.  We simply can't accept anything less, and the polemic sentence attributed to the Channel Four quote is more than adequate to deal with that issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael Moore falsified data, too, and unlike Durkin, hasn't made any corrections.  His movie gets called a documentary.  NPOV requires the encyclopedia to withhold editorial judgment.  It's not a question of "pleasing all the sides": it's not a diplomatic letter.  It's a question of satisfying Wikipedia editorial policies.  -- TedFrank 14:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go to the article on Michael Moore and you'll see his features are listed as 'films', not documentaries. And how one interprets policies and attempts to bluff their way through are two different things altogether. Skyemoor 17:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: People keep claiming the creator admitted to falsifying data. Either step up to the plate and support these accusations, or don't mention them again. And on point, "controversial documentary film" is fine, and so is "controversial film", and so is just "film". - Merzbow 17:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can agree to the latter two.  Skyemoor 17:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So will you be wandering over to An Inconvenient Truth, Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael and Me, and Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price and making the same changes?  My hope is that you wouldn't be.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: convenience break: "controversial documentary film"

message: 2) How to describe the scientific consensus: I originally tried something like "the programme disagrees with the opinion on global warming supported by the large majority of climate scientists". This is simple, and acknowledges the contrary view without giving it undue weight. This was criticised however for not being specific about the percentage of climate scientists who agree with this opinion (which is essentially unknowable, but there we are). So I then changed it to something like: "the opinion on climate change supported by the scientific academies of the G8 countries", which is true and more precise, although clumsier. People then wanted to be more specific about exactly what that opinion meant, which is how we ended up with what we have now, which probably gives too much space to outlining the counterargument. I propose we go back to a simpler statement of the consensus using the G8 academies as evidence of this consensus.--Merlinme 12:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also suggest keeping the wikilink to the scientific opinion on climate change, so that we don't focus on just the G8 subset.  Skyemoor 13:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I actually agree with Skyemoor on this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need "evidence of the consensus."  Just wikilink to the article discussing the consensus; if there's a RS that says "the movie contradicts the consensus" (and there has to be), cite to that, also. -- TedFrank 14:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: convenience break: description of scientific consensus

message: 3) The scientific notes: I originally added the notes in the text to give people some way of referring to reliable 3rd party sources on whether these statements were true or not. These were then moved to the a separate notes section, which is fair enough. If it would help placate people, I'll remove the quote from the Climate Change Science Report, which is arguably leading the reader too much.--Merlinme 12:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how, it is simply a government publication, not one from an advocacy group.  It is no different than the USGS. Skyemoor 13:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No real opinion on this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Government publications aren't ever advocacy?  In any event, the issue is one of WP:SYN.  The place to debate the science is the global warming controversy article or other such articles.  If we debate the science here, we just turn this article into a mirror of that one. Wikilink to the appropriate article. Keep this article focused on the film. -- TedFrank 14:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a Bush Administration publication, so take full advantage of it.  The place to debate AGW is indeed other places, but this film deals with the subject and contrasts itself with established scientific opinion, so the article would be remiss not to explain this.  Plus, any notable criticisms of the film are also part of the article. Skyemoor 17:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: convenience break: scientific notes

message: 4) The British media section: I propose we cut it down, giving each paper a paragraph, and summarising the most significant points from each.--Merlinme 12:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok by me.  Skyemoor 13:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Same. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. We can keep the multiple cites, I just don't think each piddling op-ed gets a full paragraph unless, like the Connor, it says something notable. -- TedFrank 14:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: convenience break: British media section

message: The Ed Poor version of the introduction also violates NPOV; WP:Lead section requires the introduction to identify notable controversies, and the current version does not do that.  Can someone restore the tagged 1400 March 23 version, preferably through self-reversion?  Let's hammer out a consensus here; if everyone adheres to Wikipedia policies and guidelines on NPOV and NOR, this shouldn't be especially controversial. -- TedFrank 16:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't realize I had failed to identify the controversy. I thought of calling it a "controversial film" in the first sentence, but left out the word controversial. (Flogs self with wet noodle.) Okay, I have paid penance! --Uncle Ed 18:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: convenience break: introduction

message: Skyemoor's personal attack has persuaded me that editing this page is a no-win proposition for me, as I risk attack no matter how good faith my edits are, and I get absolutely no benefit in trying to improve Wikipedia other than that I find it an interesting and addictive hobby.  I'll take my leave and let others hash out this page's compliance with Wikipedia policies.
I've raised the conduct of an administrator on WP:AN/I, simply because if I were to engage in conduct half that blatant as an editor of a page on legal topics, I would face severe sanctions, and it dumbfounds me that an administrator can so easily disregard Wikipedia policies without fear of consequence.  I've fought hard for WP:COI not to be applied in too overbroad a fashion because of the importance of editors like Connolly being able to share their knowledge in their areas of specialty, but his personal attacks, edit-warring, and misunderstanding of WP:NPOV really undermine that position. -- TedFrank 20:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What did I say that was a personal attack? Skyemoor 21:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views", though I didn't mention you in relation to the AEI. I retract my statement and offer my apology.  Skyemoor 21:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: convenience break 4

message: *Aye. --Merlinme 18:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've just described Fahrenheit 9/11.  Which is called a documentary. -- TedFrank 19:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Skyemoore, the word "documentary" is used several times in the Wikipedia articles about Michael Moore. You could argue it's misused, but I think it's fair to say "documentary" has entered popular usage as a word to describe films about real things, as opposed to dramas. I think the main reason that Moore's works are also described as "films" is that they have cinema theatre releases,  rather than being made for TV. You could reasonably use the word "programme" about TGGWS (and it quite often is), but plenty of people also use the word "documentary" as well. To be honest, I don't think there's an awful lot of difference between the words "programme", "film" and "documentary" in this context- especially if the controversy is acknowledged, with a quote comparing it to a polemic by the people who commissioned it. Are you really not willing to accept any compromise on this? --Merlinme 19:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your tireless zeal to move us forward hath convinced me, and I repenteth my obdurant positure, so "Aye" it be.  Skyemoor 20:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment - and the volcanoes issue is not just a simple "error" - they produced a cartoon specifically to show this. --Kim D. Petersen 22:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, well while accepting the point that Wikipedia is not a democracy, is everyone agreed that we seem to have a reasonable show of consensus here? I recognise that there are quite a few reluctant Ayes there, but that's the nature of a compromise. Skyemoor has been persuaded to vote Aye, and while I know WMC has strong views on these things, I think in practice he'll respect the consensus if we can find a compromise which sticks. That leaves Dean1970 (who's holding out for documentary) and Kim Petersen (who's holding out for propaganda or polemic). I think in practice we're never going to achieve 100% agreement on such a controversial topic (although Kim/ Dean, please tell us if there's anything that would help change your mind). So, if/when the page is unprotected, is it fair to say that we have consensus to stick to the formula in the heading of this section? The problem we had last time was that when someone came along and changed the description, it became open season again, with everybody edit warring for their version. I'd like to believe that the Aye voters will stick up for the form of words we just voted on, as and when someone new comes along and changes it (as I'm sure they will). --Merlinme 23:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merlinme, i'll accept a decision. --Kim D. Petersen 23:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent! Glad to hear it. --Merlinme 23:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll accept the consensus, of course, whilst disagreeing with it. I think Dean makes clear in the comment above that he is non-serious and so can be ignored William M. Connolley 11:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  All those in favour of "controversial documentary film", with the "polemic" quote somewhere in the lead, say Aye. Those opposed say Nay 

message: Ok, well now we've got "what to call the programme" out of the way, I would hope everything would be easy in comparison. Another somewhat controversial part of the lead is "what to decribe what the programme attacks". I would suggest we have the following objectives here:
* Explain to a reader what the programme is attacking (i.e. the dominant scientific opinion on global warming)
* Explain to a reader why this is an unusual scientific opinion (i.e. while it cannot be considered fact, it is held with an unusually high degree of certainty by an unusally broad spectrum of scientists)
**I assume here that the unusual scientific opinion is the concensus, which I think you mean is an unusually high level of agreement about a scientific opinion. Skyemoor 11:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just [TGGWS] "...argues against the scientific opinion on climate change" and leave it at that? William M. Connolley 14:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because that implies that what is presented is not scientific opinion - something which may or may not be true, but is not verifiable at this time. Another reason not to state it in this way is that most of the contributors are scientists, and so their opinions are also scientific opinion on climate change. To be honest I think the title of the other article is slightly misleading. QmunkE 14:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then toss in 'prevailing' in the sentence in this article. Your other point would be best discussed on that article's talk page.  Skyemoor 16:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to describe what TGGWS attacks 

message: :: "The material included controversial graphs that have been disputed in many scientific circles as misleading, however, the documentary included scientists [including IPCC lead author Professor Paul Reiter] who disputed the methods the IPCC used to publish their final reports." --Dean1970 17:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reiter's involvement and dissention was based around the modeling of mosquito-borne disease vectors with respect to temperature (which is his specialty).  He had no argument about GHG and AGW. http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-09-01/paul.htm  Skyemoor 18:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And he isn't an IPCC lead author William M. Connolley 18:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: "The graphs and data used in the documentary have been disputed in many areas of the scientific community as seriously stretching the truth to favour their opinion, equally, the documentary includes [IPCC] scientists and professors who express their disdain at similar methods employed by the IPCC to conclude their final published reports."
*or words to that affect, added "many" and "serioulsy" for added emphasis for wikipedians who totally found the documentary lopsided or disturbing, added the fact that the scientists et al in the documentary equally express their disdain for the methods used by the IPCC - and was actually the genesis for the documentary in many regards.
 
So, wikipedians depending on how seriously they take the 'subject of the article' will research the subject further without having everything decided for them in a non-neutral manner.
It could be cleaned up (on going process,) but I agree with the administrators that a balance needs to be struck, don't know if this helps or resolves anything with a couple of the wikipedians here intent on marshalling everything, but I guess its not just them who need to look in the mirror now and then. --Dean1970 18:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid I don't find your suggestion for the "seriously stretching the truth" sentence to be very helpful at all. Use of emotive language (such as "disdain" in the next sentence) is always going to cause problems, especially when it appears to be your opinion- I really don't think John Christy would classify his opinion of the IPCC as "disdain". If you look at John Christy's most recent statements, there's not actually very much at all which separates him from the IPCC. He is critical of overblown disaster scenarios, but he helped draft and signed the American Geophysical Union statement, which said: "Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed in the second half of the 20th century...The unprecedented increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, together with other human influences on climate over the past century and those anticipated for the future, constitute a real basis for concern."  --Merlinme 11:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New text suggestion? 

message: Surely a reason why the atmosphere cooled since 1940 despite CO2 rises is that WWII and the boom in industrial activity of countries worldwide during that era added huge amounts of heavy particle pollution to the atmosphere which is known to give a cooling effect (Global cooling)? Forbear 22:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can see Durkin was little concerned with the truth and was merely concerned with reinforcing his own conspiratorial beliefs that any groups that campaign for the environment are out to destroy capitalism or the modern way of life. It is really sad that Channel 4 chose to air this programme- I doubt they would commission a programme advocating genocide or mass murder but this is exactly the real possible consequences of people believing his arguments. I wonder if C4 will allow a televised debate about global warming or perhaps a documentary refuting Durkin's work point by point. But perhaps that would be not be outrageous enough for them. Forbear 22:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what I've called the "sulphate cooling argument" in the Times review at the bottom of the British media reaction section. If or when I get a chance to edit this section, the main arguments used against Durkin should become more obvious. --Merlinme 11:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: I've put in a request for Unprotection, as follows: "We've reached consensus on the talk page on the most contentious issue (what to call the programme), and I believe things have now cooled sufficiently for edit warring to stop." --Merlinme 11:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for unprotection 

message: There's a sort of transcript here: . It's been created by someone while watching the programme, and created specifically for the purposes of building a rebuttal, so I wouldn't trust its reliability 100%. However it's the best I can find (please let me know if you can find a better one). It's not a Reliable Source for linking against, however if you remember something from the programme and want to find out exactly who said what and when, I would have thought it would be reasonable to have a look at the transcript. Someone can always correct you if you it turns out to be inaccurate. Personally I used it to look up exactly who made the "death threats" quote. --Merlinme 17:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Thats very helpful William M. Connolley 20:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wondered about that -- so it was Tim Ball. Gosh, what a surprise (eyeroll). Raymond Arritt 20:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Great Global Warming Swindle" transcript 

message: On the whole I don't think citations are necessary in the Claims section, we're reporting what TGGWS said, so it's accurate if it reflects what was said in the programme, regardless of whether it's true or not (and we know there are several claims which independent sources say are definitely untrue, e.g. about volcanic emissions). 
For those who are curious,  says: "Many studies have documented the acute and chronic respiratory infections resulting from open fires in developing countries. Acute lower respiratory infections, which commonly lead to pneumonia, are the leading cause of mortality from infectious diseases, with an estimated 3.5-4 million deaths worldwide each year, according to the World Health Organization in 2000." So it looks suspiciously like Durkin took the high figure and then claimed they were all children, but I've checked the transcript and it is an accurate reflection of what was claimed in the programme. I'm removing the tag, therefore. Conceivably we could add a note, although to be honest even if it's 'only' 3.5 million people, rather than 4 million children, the point that cooking fires are bad for health remains valid. --Merlinme 17:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I merely wanted to separate what the WHO said from what the film said.  The WHO made no mention of exclusive or predominant  use of electricity, and indeed mentions several other cooking approaches (i.e., gas, oil, solar, wood stove with chimney, etc) equally. So the TGGWS claim being made is about electricity for cooking. --Skyemoor 18:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Children killed by cooking fires claim 

message: Does anybody know the copyright status of TGGWS as it appears on the Internet Archive? It would be very helpful to have the show available, but we also have to be mindful of WP:EL and WP:C as they apply to linking to material posted in violation of copyright.  There's no statement on their site regarding release of copyright. The bad edits at the breaks don't give much confidence that the Internet Archive version was supplied from a professional source (Channel 4 or the producers). Raymond Arritt 20:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The $19.99 Wagtv wants to cash for the upcoming dvd release says enough I think. --Van helsing 21:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. Will continue deleting copyvio versions. Raymond Arritt 21:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright status of web versions