Talk:Climate change/Archive 23

message: As per the request, and after contacting the admin responsible for the protection, I am unprotecting this article. I can quite understand the reasons which lead the admin to protect this article. Currently, my own opinion is that, given the current state of the article, pretty much any edits are preferable to leaving it as it is. This is not to condone the multiple actions of many different editors which have reduced a featured article to this state: I must remind all concerned that disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is a blockable offense independantly of the three revert rule, as has been confirmed by the Arbitration Committee on several occasions.
For the majority of editors, who are editing in good faith, I invite you to consider that the best way of putting your point is to "write for the enemy" rather than engaging in trench warfare. Wikipedia is neither an election meeting nor a saloon bar; our aim is to be useful to our readers. Physchim62 (talk) 03:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Physchim62. that sounds fine. I would like to offer one small comment, if I may; could you please give us some guidance on how to proceed? we seem to keep going around and around in circles around the same issue. I don't know why we're not able to get any traction. Admins seem to come and go, but no one seems able to put some clear ideas on the table on how to proceed, or to take at least some stand on who is somewhat right, on even at least some small part of any of the main issues. So any guidance you might be able to provide on even some small part of this might be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --Sm8900 03:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I just posted a comment there. Thanks for the notice. --Sm8900 04:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotection

message: Copied from Wikipedia:Administrators%27 noticeboard#Global Warming Dmcdevit method:
::Thanks. I just posted a comment there. Thanks for the notice. --Sm8900 04:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Global Warming Dmcdevit method

message: Excuse me, who just decided it is a good idea to archive discussions which are only an hour old? why is this being done? It seems like it was done by people who are uninvolved in this article. Thanks. --Sm8900 04:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good idea, the page was too long. The material's in /Archive 21, and it's easy enough to cut and paste discussions from there if necessary. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: Perhaps at some point the disappearance of the FA star can be explained? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is de-featured. --Blue Tie 05:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I'd like an explanation of how that happened. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It isn't plainly obvious? --Tjsynkral 05:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think so. Apparently the FARC was closed and the result was that the article was de-featured, but I don't see any statement of the reasons why. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Read the FAR page and you will see a gusher of opinions why this page doesn't come close to deserving FAR in its current state. --Tjsynkral 05:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What that tells me is that you can get an article de-featured by starting a bunch of edit wars and complaining that the article isn't stable. A closing statement might cure me of this misapprehension, if in fact I am mistaken. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've asked Kim to explain why he closed the review, but I expect it will be reopened since it is unclear what motivated the very early closing. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been reopened, but the FA star is still no longer on the article page. I am not sure how to put it back; could someone else do so? -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 08:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FA?

message: The edits immediately before Tjsynkral's plainly violated WP:NPOV by taking a firm position on a scientific controversy that different scientists disagree about.(e.g., "40%", "primary factors" vs. insert of "insignificant").  There was no commentary on the talk page supporting this new conclusory evaluation of multiple points of view.  That's one way to achieve stability for an article if a different standard for blocking is applied to edits that fail to adhere to the favored POV than those that do on grounds of "edit warring".  Someone should add an NPOV tag, but I imagine someone has previously removed one, and I don't want to be accused of edit-warring. -- THF 05:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. I added a NPOV tag and had it reverted. Then I added it again and it was reverted. I added it again and it was reverted. I added it again. Then a rather nice admin (part of the POV pushing clique) banned me. Please note that I was editing and not reverting. It appears that Wiki rules only apply to those non-clique members and even then they you aren't actually held to Wiki rules, just the whims of some cliquoid arse. 193.113.57.167 13:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, editing or reverting, from the moment you engaged in making the same change more than 3 times, you broke WP:3RR. But I agree that some admins use this policy quite swiftly here around while at the same time complaining about wikilawyering in "their" articles... --Childhood's End 13:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV problems and new "edit warring" standard

message: Naconkantari added a hidden note to the top of the page.  While this is probably a good idea, I feel like the note should probably say "Please do not make any edits or reverts to the article which are reasonably likely to be contested without first discussing on the talk page."  We're all aware of the wisdom of discussing controversial edits, but I think as worded the warning might give people the idea that material should only be added, not removed, which is somewhat at odds with the way things currently work.  Thoughts on makign this change?  --TeaDrinker 06:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hidden note

message: As long as the first one-sentence paragraph includes the qualifier "in recent decades" then I will maintain that solar variation is not a "cause."  Agree or disagree; why or why not? James S. 18:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The ice caps are melting on Mars also. How did we cause that? IT'S THE SUN, STUPID!!! Mankind has little or nothing to do with it. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html Nirigihimu 18:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read page 2 of those old news, and please refrain from personal attacks. --Stephan Schulz 19:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as an aside, the phrase "Its the _______, Stupid" is sort of a joke in the US.  It comes from Clinton's campaign against Bush Sr, where he used a slogan "Its the Economy, Stupid".  Now people fill in the blank. --Blue Tie 03:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey:  Is solar variation a "cause" "in recent decades"?

message: There is significant text missing from this article, namely the 7 or so points (paragraphs) that discussed many facts opposing either the hypothesis that the globe is warming and whether or not global warming, if it is occuring, is significantly or even mildly affected by human activities.
I may have this archived - I will look and submit for review, but it is my belief that it was maliciously removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jzeman (talk • contribs) 13:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Multi-Point viewpoint

message: It may be prudent to do a review of the summaries. I've just cut one paragraph which while probably correct, wasn't mentioned in the source article (not to mention poorly sourced - which is why i noticed it). The summaries should be short concise descriptions of the various articles, and (imho) not include new stuff that isn't a reflection of the material or text presented in these. Am i completely wrong in this? --Kim D. Petersen 22:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you are absolutely correct. We have the regrettable situation at the moment that people are editing the "summaries" to suit themselves, and paying no attention to the individual sub-pages. We could avoid a lot of controversy (here) if the sub-pages were sorted out first William M. Connolley 11:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Mr. Pertersen and William. The summaries should be reviewed or at least sourced. ~ UBeR 20:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. By the way Kim, I appreciate you asking about this in such an open, constructive manner. I do not know of any consensus here which says that various subtopics have to be restricted and cannot go beyond simple summaries. If some good-faith editors wish to expand some subsections, I feel that is a legitimate contribution which we should be willing to accept, or at least to evaluate individually. --Sm8900 20:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry this is not how I took it. What I am agreeing with is that the summaries within this article should be checked to see if they are in fact accurately summarizing the sub-articles, or the claims should at least be sourced. ~ UBeR 21:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Certainly the summaries must comply with all NPOV and verfiability policies - if content contained in the sub-articles is poorly sourced this needs to be addressed, but there is no reason it shouldn't be a parallel process between this article and its related topics. Contrary to a comment which was made earlier regarding sources in summary sections, I think that all material needs to be sourced explicitly if it includes specific claims - the same sources used in the sub-articles should suffice. If such sources do not exist then that is a problem, and the material should either be included and tagged with a view to removal if a source is not rapidly discovered, or simply removed. QmunkE 21:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Review of the various summaries.

message: This article should abide by WP:RS which does not exclude sources other than peer reviewed journals.  I would not even have a problem with some limited inclusion of William's research (he is an expert, particularly in models) but I would want to keep that to a minimum (as I expect he would also) and it would be best if items could be supported not from blogs.  
Having said that, the purpose and title of the article make a difference.  If the article is renamed The science of global warming then it should significantly favor peer reviewed articles.  It is, after all, a science article.  But if it retains its current name, Global warming it must be larger and broader than it is now and include topics that are not going to be covered in peer-reviewed journals.
--Blue Tie 01:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review vs Other Sources

message: Blue Tie, for the second time, please read WP:NPOV which states "Views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skyemoor (talk • contribs) 02:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't matter.  The policy does not say "quote us in the article".  "Tiny" is a weasel word.  shall we get a third opinion on this?--Blue Tie 02:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about "teenie tiny minority"? :) Maybe there is too much emphasis on the numbers here. Every single time some viewpoint or idea is expressed must we state "9 scientists believe this", "400 believe this"? What purpose does this serve, to inform the reader that one is right and the other is wrong through vague numbers? The machine512 03:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with machine512. How about "minscule"? or "like wood shavings"? There are just so many ways to go here. Wow. --Sm8900 20:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-Weasel Words

message: Well - for once i agree with Blue Tie here - that sentence is too much, it reads better as "....other hypotheses have been...". But i still have problems with that paragraph. Particularly this sentence "have been proposed to explain all or most of the observed increase in global temperatures" - i have been tempted several times to add a tag to that one.... First of all - what hypotheses are these? And secondly - can anyone mention even a single hypotheses which explains "all or most"? (for instance solar variation cannot explain the lack of stratospheric warming). --Kim D. Petersen 02:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry that it is only for once.  I hope that we may find areas where we can mutually agree. --Blue Tie 02:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "tiny" should go, it clearly has a dismissive and pejorative element in this context that renders it weaselly. - Merzbow 17:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There might be another way to say it, without being pejorative. And no I can't suggest any... but I am sure that native-english speakers will have some ;-) --Galahaad 19:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with Uber, above.--Sm8900 21:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes "Contrasting with the consensus view" already implies minority, stating "tiny minority" afterwards would be an unneeded redundancy. The machine512 23:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tiny minority view

message: It ought to go in the article, not only couldn't I edit it, but there doesn't seem to be anywhere listing the evidence that contradicts the assertion of the global warming fraternity - it really ought to be in the article - can someone help?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.111.119.165 (talk • contribs).
: This appears to be summer-only for Sweden, whereas the article looks at hemispheric records. And its an unpublished dissertation. You want the "history" section William M. Connolley 14:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What warming?

message: The first part is in the lead. The part called into question currently reads:
:"An increase in global temperatures can in turn cause other changes, including a flooding of coastal cities, an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, reduction in agricultural yields due to changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation, increases in the ranges of disease vectors, reduced summer streamflows, further melting of glaciers, and species extinctions.
 	
:"Remaining scientific uncertainties include the exact degree of climate change expected in the future, and especially how changes will vary from region to region across the globe. Efforts are underway to reduce or reverse future warming, and, in some instances, to allocate future generations the responsibility of bearing the brunt of the expected consequences. Most national governments have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol aimed at combating greenhouse gas emissions."
However, it originally read, and should read:
:"An increase in global temperatures can in turn cause other changes, including sea level rise, and changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation. There may also be increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, though it is difficult to connect specific events to global warming. Other consequences may include changes in agricultural yields, glacier retreat, reduced summer streamflows, species extinctions and increases in the ranges of disease vectors.
:"Remaining scientific uncertainties include the exact degree of climate change expected in the future, and especially how changes will vary from region to region across the globe. A political and public debate also has yet to be resolved, regarding whether anything should be done, and what could be cost-effectively done to reduce or reverse future warming, or to deal with the expected consequences. Most national governments have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol aimed at combating greenhouse gas emissions."
Read carefully and notice overly catastrophic and rhetorical speech, "such as bearing the brunt," in comparison to "deal[ing] with"; "flooding of coastal cities" with "sea level rise"; removal of "difficult to connect specific [weather] events to global warming"; etcetera. It is also in violation of WP:LEAD, in that it does not adequately summarize the article, because all mentions to politics and controversy have been removed (save, of course, Kyoto). ~ UBeR 21:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First

message: The obvious is "Contrasting with the predominant scientific view, other tiny minority views have been proposed to explain all or most of the observed increase in global temperatures . . ." instead the better, "contrasting with the consensus view, other hypotheses have been proposed to explain all or most of the observed increase in global temperatures . . ." (It is also proposed to change "all or most" with "some.") This, however, is probably better discussed in the section on this page already made to cover the issue. ~ UBeR 21:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Second

message: I believe the the paragraph: "Some scientists supporting the mainstream scientific opinion on global warming criticize what they call the "catastrophism and the 'Hollywoodisation'" of some of the expected effects. They argue that sensationalized claims cannot be justified by science." should be included in the "Effects" section. ~ UBeR 21:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Third

message: Would this belong somewhere in the article?  --Childhood's End 15:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not really notable. Might belong in radiative forcing if you can bring yourself to be interested in an unfashionable article William M. Connolley 16:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it's to specialized for this article, as it's essentially a what-if. It might, however, have a place in mitigation of global warming, as it adds some caveats to reforestation (plant trees in the tropics, not in high latitudes). Also, the original article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences would probably be a better source. The Economist article reads surprisingly unhyped, but necessarily will have simplified things a lot. --Stephan Schulz 17:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny how one person can come here and condescendingly claim that a publication such as The Economist is usually "hyped"... --Childhood's End 20:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny how you can misread what I wrote. Popular press renderings of scientifical paper are usually overhyped, because the sensation sells. --Stephan Schulz 20:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see; sorry for that. But if you read The Economist more often, you would not have been surprised by the article's lack of hype... :)  --Childhood's End 21:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. --Stephan Schulz 21:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Destroy all of our most precious ecosystems to cool the planet! Not much different than the forced sulfate emission idea. Other than that, it's an interesting theory, but not necessarily sure if merits inclusion here. ~ UBeR 21:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a weird thing, but it suggests the difficulties of comprehensively modeling climate. --Blue Tie 14:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Climate model suggesting to cut trees to fight global warming

message: I would like to remind everyone of the following hidden comment at the beginning of our article:  **Note!**
Please do not revert any non-vandalism changes to this article without first discussing on the talk page. 
Thanks 
William, I noticed you deleted an entire chunk of text of well-sourced text regarding glaciers. I see no reason for this. If information is valid, coherent and well-sourced, i do not think it needs to all be deleted. however, i did not restore the entire chunk of text, but rather just one basic part of it. --Sm8900 13:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Err yes I did, but since this wasn't a revert I'm not sure why you're quoting procedure. As to the question: this is a *summary*: listing things which are *not* causes belongs in he sub-articles not here. And the S+V stuff is probably not true either and there is no reason for it to be here William M. Connolley 14:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article procedure

message: including eight glacial cycles timed by orbital variations with interglacial warming periods warmer than current temperatures. What is the basis for saying warmer? Is the claim that all 8 periods were warmer? If not, then the text needs correcting. If so, where is the predominant citations to support this? --Skyemoor
:I'd like to hear the rationale for this as well - i can buy that the interglacial 450.000 years ago was warmer - but not all of them (or at least according to Hansen(2006) they most likely aren't. The sentence needs to reflect this uncertainty at least. As it stands now it reads as if all periods where warmer. --Kim D. Petersen 19:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Warmer" Milankovitch cycles

message: I think everyone agrees that the causes section was no great, and there was a lot of repeats between the main bit and the GHG section. I've tried to fix that by reordering some and moving others into a "feedbacks" section.
In principle, the feedbacks apply to most forcings - solar for example. However, there is a rub - if you believe that solar has caused most of the variations, you believe that the GHE of variations in CO2, CH4, and presumably water, is small. So you can't worry about, eg, clathrate releases if you're a solar-ist. Fortunately none of the solar folk get this far, so I've just left it unresolved.
And the article could mention the major negative feedback - R=rhoT^4 - possibly William M. Connolley 20:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the new sub-section helps. Thanks. ~ UBeR 23:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Causes

message: The introduction is painfully agenda driven at the moment, it needs to summarise the observed increase in temps, the scientific theory of Global Warming (both natural and anthropogenic). The IPCC has absolutely no place in the introduction. Grimerking 07:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The IPCC reports are acknowledged as the best summary of our knowledge on glbal warming by essentially all scientists, scientific societies, and governments. Even Lindzen and Christy acknowledge this. --Stephan Schulz 08:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes. WP:LEAD suggests that the lead summarizes the article, and quotes go into the corresponding section below. We have some references to the most fought over points in the lead just to avoid revert wars.--Stephan Schulz 08:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Checking out WP:LEAD, it now suggests that the lead should be "carefully sourced where appropriate". Should we duplicate some references, or do we decide that that is not appropriate?--Stephan Schulz 08:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in agreement with Grimerking.  This is one of the problems with the article and several editors have mentioned it before.  It was my first criticism of the article. The article has structure problems and the lead is part of the problem. Many edit wars could be avoided if the article were structured better. I have tried to discuss methods to improve the article on this basis with no interest in any pov except npov. This continues to be my biggest complaint about the article itself.--Blue Tie 13:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: To reply to Grimerking, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article. Citations you are looking for should be in the body. However, information in the lead that doesn't appear to be cited elsewhere should be cited in the lead. For that reason, we could remove the citation to the volcanism/solar on temperature to and since 1950, since the same exact sentence appears later in the article and is cited. But I won't do that, lest I be screamed at by the usual suspects for making good faith edits. Of course, as I have argued, the sentence shouldn't be in the lead in the first place. ~ UBeR 19:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction - Should summarise scientific theory of Global Warming, not IPCC Report

message: The following link provides valuable information on what it would take to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and what technologies would allow one to do so.  One can access this information through video streams, power point slides, or a transcript.  
http://nsl.caltech.edu/energy.html
131.215.220.112 06:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevant Information

message: There is ongoing political and public debate regarding what if any action should be taken to reduce or reverse future warming or to adapt to its expected consequences. Most national governments have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol aimed at combating greenhouse gas emissions. Unquote.
Note: Political and Public debate are not the same. The actual debate over AGW in public is certainly not resolved. The political debate seems done and dusted (actual high-ranking environmental politicians consider the debate over) with many western govts (particulary E.U bloc) accepting AGW as fact, citing Stern, IPCC etc. As a result, and despite the debate not being resolved in public these Govts are pressing ahead with measures, at a national and local level. --Dean1970 23:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The debate doesn't seem to be so much about disputing global warming, but rather "what if any action should be taken to reduce or reverse future warming or to adapt to its expected consequences." ~ UBeR 23:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly, the debate isn't over facts of AGW. It's about what to do next and how to do it. ~ UBeR 00:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: AGW is considered a fact with a 90+% probability by the IPCC. Few things in politics are ever that certain. And the European public certainly shares this estimate. I don't know which public you refer to.	--Stephan Schulz 00:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the American public? ;-) ~ UBeR 00:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then there is globalization of the text to consider.  --Skyemoor 12:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You are quite right; the debate is almost exclusively a US phenomenon now, with Australia admitting AGW wrt their severe drought.  So this sentence needs globalization, or removal to the GW Controversy. --Skyemoor 00:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See this is where you're getting into too much semantics. By definition, the U.S. has "admitted AGW." Again, nothing really to do with "admitting AGW." ~ UBeR 00:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Once again, a single event is pinned upon 'Global Warming'. Droughts in Australia are hardly exceptional. Grimerking 12:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ever thought about asking the Australians how they would like doing without their breadbasket?  --Skyemoor 01:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 100 days is a long time. This drought, however, is 6 years long...so far. --Skyemoor 01:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Text at bottom of 1st para

message: I think the ozone section should read like this:
Ozone
The concept of global warming and ozone depletion are commonly conflated, though the two issues are very different and have different roots there is a relationship between the two.
And maybe some detail on how they are related.
I know that many in the public confuse the two issues (though that may be less common than it used to be) but there is a link and the present description I think is misleading. Ken 21:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section 8