Talk:Scientific consensus on climate change/Archive 5

message: I would like to as formaly as i can, request that someone that has nothing to do with editing the Global Warming articles, or the editors of said articles take a look at this for POV issues.  This article is set up in a way to limit the addation of information, allbe it relivent, to enhance a spicific Point of View.--Zeeboid 16:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps WP:RFC?  I've removed the NPOV tag which you haven't justified. --Nethgirb 16:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, WP:RFC would be the next step in the dispute resolution process. Raymond Arritt 17:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Check again 

message: The Gallup Poll referred to in the article is ancient, and I haven't been able to find any first-hand account of its results at all.  We have only second-hand contradictory interpretations from partisan sources. Given that the poll supposedly reflected "400 members of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society", it's more than a little strange that searches of the AMS website and the AMS publication database reveal no mention whatsoever of the poll.  Likewise for the AGU website and AGU publication database. I'm inclined to delete this section unless we can establish what the poll actually says. Raymond Arritt 19:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are right... A search on Gallup for "global warming" between 1989 and 1998, reveals only one survey  which is on public opinion. From my diggings this information seems to originate from here (NCPA BA#203 - "Myths of Global warming", H. Sterling Burnett, 1997) - but Burnett gives no reference - only a graph claiming to be from Gallup.  --Kim D. Petersen 20:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1997 public survey is btw. mentioned in this from the AGU - and while that isn't strange. It is strange that it doesn't mention a previous survey made by Gallup on the AGU's own members.... --Kim D. Petersen 20:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well ignore the above - it seems that the survey is real - but unfortunatly i haven't found the survey itself. Only various very different accounts of what its conclusions or results were. --Kim D. Petersen 20:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks, and I found this too. Looks like the survey is real, but we still have no reliable info on what its results were. Raymond Arritt 21:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And this, which is very interesting though it doesn't give much detail on the AMS-AGU survey. The survey was conducted by Gallup but was commissioned by a partisan institute, so it would be interesting to see how the questions were worded. Raymond Arritt 21:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting...i've only had a cursory look at it - but what surprised me about it, is that it actually indicates a stronger consensus in 1992, than i thought was the case. --Kim D. Petersen 21:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallup poll 

message: I think the AMS has updated the statement mention in the article:
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html
Dr Denim 02:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: now that I look again the mentioned article was regarding climate change research...not entirely sure if the topic difference is significant or not (I haven't had the chance to read them recently) Dr Denim 02:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Meteorological Society Statement 

message: I was a member of the AGU at the time they made their statement. I do not remember a survey of their membership. Instead, a small editorial board presumed to speak for thousands of scientists. The AGU's statement does not reflect my opinion, nor can they possibly claim the unanimous support of people they never asked. I feel they stole my voice and used it against me. Rather than let them continue to claim to speak for me, I dropped my membership.
We must remember that science is government funded, so it will naturally develop a pro-bigger-government bias. This will not necessarily appear as flaws in the work done, but as an imbalance between types of work funded and types of work not funded. Statements from a few people holding political positions in a politically-funded organization should not be assumed to represent the summary of all the views of their membership. The only way to find that out is to poll the members individually and publish the results of the poll. And even then the questions could be stacked.
The global warming people might be right. I don't know. But for them to claim I agree with them is clearly wrong. And by extenstion, they have probably falsely claimed the support of many other scientists. 72.208.56.148 12:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They appear to be obliged to tell you they are developing it . As far as I can tell, neither they nor wiki claim (except perhaps implicitly) that the statement represents the members views William M. Connolley 13:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Geophysical Union 

message: Can anyone verify if the following are not working:
Thanks, Brusegadi 20:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: neither works for me --Nethgirb 21:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I tried finding the articles but to see what I got I needed a subscription and I do not have one.  Does anyone have a subscription?  I will see what I can do. Brusegadi 22:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The second one (heartland) works fine for me. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The first one can be found here:  --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Guess i need to look at the dates instead of noticing the area of a diff ;-) - Oh well it corrected another broken link. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Links 

message: Reports in the press indicate that a recent study (Schulte, publication "Energy and Environment") updates the result of the Oreskes study for the years 2004-2007 and indicate the cited consensus view is no longer the consensus.
Since we don't have a copy of the source document to confirm, it's probably inappropriate to change the article just yet, but good to keep an eye out for the results when they are published.
Story here and elsewhere.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.155.65.226 (talk) 18:10, August 30, 2007 (UTC) 
:E&E is not a WP:RS. And the report on the study you is unclear - neutral papers seem to be papers that take no position - probably because it is not relevant for the topic at hand. That would leave a 45 to 6 majority for the consensus view - and I would very much like to see those 6% before I believe in them. --Stephan Schulz 18:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For purposes of this talk page only, read what one blogger has to say about the study. Basically, it repeats what Stephan just said, and expands on it (perhaps a little less politely, though). Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: What did you expect? 1) The study is unpublished. 2) The Moreno citation is not a WP:RS (its a WP:SPS). 3) Moreno hasn't read the thing (second hand information). 4) When the study comes out, it will be printed in a non-WP:RS publication (with a history for selecting by political agenda rather than scientific accuracy ). --Kim D. Petersen 21:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See-also http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/08/classifying_abstracts_on_globa.php - it looks like at least some of the papers have been misclassified a-la Peiser William M. Connolley 21:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  Oh, and while we're on it, you wrote "Only thirty two (6%) rejected the consensus outright" - this appears to be wrong, based on http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/consensus.pdf, which says only 7 papers explicitly reject (the 32 include implicit rej, whatever that is). Are you sure your sources are reliable? William M. Connolley 21:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Just compare the impact factors of the two journals. We should not use articles in journals that are not considered reliable by the climate science community for this wiki page. Articles that get lots of citations are more relevant than articles that are not cited. Count Iblis 21:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually you can't compare the impact factors, because E&E isn't even covered by the Science Citation Index. 'Nuff said. Raymond Arritt 21:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed. See Energy and Environment and Science (journal) for more on the two publications. E&E is not included in any serious science citation index. Science is one of the most prestigeous scientific journals. If you think the two are of equal weight and reliability, you don't know what you are talking about. --Stephan Schulz 21:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see! That's even worse than I thought. Count Iblis 22:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec) First, your "EPW" source  is really the blog of Senator James Inhofe.  Don't try to get your science from a politician. :-) Second, it's not enough to just say "the study happened" and presume that the methodology used was really as described and done correctly, etc.—this is what peer review tries to validate.  Science is one of the most respected scientific journals in any field.  Energy and Environment, on the other hand, is a social science journal which isn't even listed in the ISI database of scientific publications. Here is a news article published by the American Chemical Society discussing E&E in which E&E's editor essentially admits that the journal has a bias towards climate skeptics' papers, and which also discusses the journal's lack of prestige . --Nethgirb 21:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are at least more of legitimate arguments then what I’ve been getting.  The problem with them is that I don't think it's right to justify the relevance of a source based on how many times it's cited and by how other sources view said source.  Especially by the climate science community.  People make the argument that any dissenters to the human caused global warming theory are paid off by energy companies and special interest groups.  This same argument can be made for the global warming consensus crowd.  What I mean is that the argument can be made that global warming consensus crowd has been bought off by these carbon credit companies, environmental cleanup companies, and schools trying to receive funding for themselves.  There is just as much profit in trying to "prove" human caused global warming exists as there is in trying to "disprove" it.  Pretty much any study that is done that disagrees with the "consensus" is pretty much ignored and not cited anywhere except a few places that make those same claims about special interest groups and energy companies paying for them.  Now personally I don't believe that both of these arguments are completely true.  I'm sure there is legitimate research that is pointing to human caused global warming and I'm sure there is legitimate research pointing away from it.  I'm also sure that there are studies that have been bought and paid for by companies and special interest groups on both sides of the aisle.  My point is that Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV and fairly represent both sides of an issue completely without regard to how "fringe" a side might be.  And it is supposed to do this objectively and without bias.  There is obviously another side to the Scientific Opinion on Climate Change.  If you read through this article though you'll find that the other side is not really represented at all.  And any time someone tries to present the other side of the argument in any of the climate change related articles it's usually reverted quickly and wikilawyered out of existence.  All I'm trying to do here is get legitimate information pertaining to the other side of the argument into the article.  I'll wait until the study is published before I make any changes.  The study will be published in a scientific journal.  Someone's judgment about said scientific journals political stance and accuracy does not apply hear.  It's still a scientific journal just like all the other ones that are used as sources for the other studies listed here and it fairly and accurately describes the other side of the human caused global warming argument.  Once the study is published I will add it to the list of other studies.  I'm sure it will get reverted again.  I guess then we move onto an RfC or something... Elhector 22:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The topic of this article is Scientific opinion on climate science and therefore we must present that scientific opinion in a NPOV way. As others have pointed out above (I initially didn't realize that), E&E can hardly be considered a scientific journal. There are journals like E&E on creation science, there are physics journals like Physics essays, Infinite energy, etc.  where people publish their pseudoscientific theories on cold fusion, etc. But these ideas are not considered to be valid arguments by the scientific community. Such ideas can be mentioned in wikipedia, but not on a page that is specifically about the scientific opinion or a page that discusses the science. Count Iblis 23:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so there is no scientific opinion against human caused global warming?  What it sounds like your saying here is that any scientist who disagrees with the scientific theory on human caused global warming are not part of the scientific community.  That may not be what you're trying to get accross here but that's how it reads.  That doesn't sound right to me.  Because a person's study gets published in a journal that is considered less then scientific by certain members of the scientific community has no bearing here.  I'd even be ok with stating in the blurb about the study that certain people consider the journal to be psuedoscientific.  That portion would just have to be cited.  That is how this situation is handled in most other articles.  They include opinions even from the fringe side of science, they just include the info that the opinion is considered fringe by the mainstream scientific community and cite the source that considers it fringe.  My point is the title of the article is Scientific opinion on climate change and I find it really hard to believe that 100% of the scientific community supports this view.  Maybe 99.9% support the view, but the .1% that don't support the theory are still part of the scientific community and I believe there point of view should be in this article as well.  Like I said, I have no problem if someone wants to add the information about that particular journal being viewed as less than scientific by parts of the scientific community.  There are members of the scientific community that do utilize this journal though, or else it wouldn't exist in the first place. Elhector 23:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:WEIGHT, as a small minority opinion, the skeptical side should get less attention than the consensus. The way that has been implemented is that the skeptical side is given equal opportunity, i.e., it's subject to the same inclusion requirements. Until very recently, the AAPG's statement was skeptical and was included.  Now it is noncommittal, mentioning specifically that some members are skeptical, and it is still included.  Nowhere does the article say that 100% of the sci community supports AGW theory, and the skeptical side does appear. As for this particular article that you wish to include, as a criticism of Oreskes I doubt it should belong since Science is widely considered much more reliable than E&E. You haven't given any evidence that E&E is considered reliable by any significant fraction of the sci community (and others have given evidence that it isn't). --Nethgirb 05:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S. Individual skeptics are given attention at Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming --Nethgirb 05:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I always assumed that since E&E prints the bad ones, they must reject the good ones. This will require what strategists call "an agonizing reappraisal." Raymond Arritt 00:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It never crossed my mind that good papers were even submit to E&E :-P  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.31.203.28 (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schulte Study 

message: Could scientific opinion on heat be included here? I mean the opinion that heat from houses, cars, power stations, industrial processes etc makes a direct contribution to global warming/climate change (not just an indirect contribution due to emissions). I'd certainly find it useful to have this clearly covered - if heat itself is a significant contributor, 'carbon neutral' sources (such as biomass) may not be the answer, as they would still produce the same amount of heat. Perhaps this has been covered somewhere and I just haven't found it? Can anyone help?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.249.135 (talk) 07:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt it should be included here, because as an idea its so uncommon. Its wrong, of course. See http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/04/global-warming-is-not-from-waste-heat.html This was discussed somewhere else recently William M. Connolley 08:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And even for the rather insignificant effect of waste heat: Fully renewable energy sources (like biomass, wind, water...) only redistribute heat, they do not add heat to the system. Biogas will be burned into water and CO2, the same endproducts as a ordinary decomposition. The same amount of heat is released either way (or we are in trouble with the first law of thermodynamics ;-). There may be second-order effects, of cource (biomass use captures Carbon in the form of methane that would normaly be released into the atmosphere and decay more slowly into CO2, acting as a greenhouse gas on the way). Nuclear power plants, on the other hand, really release energy into the system that would normally remain bound. But, concurring with William, the effect is minimal compared to Greenhouse gas forcing.  --Stephan Schulz 10:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heat 

message: Does entropy come into this at all? If it does, should it be included?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.251.57 (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not in any meaningful sense. You can't get around the second law of thermodynamics in any energy exchange, but adding an explicit reference here makes no sense. --Stephan Schulz 21:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entropy 

message: I hope no one minded the new archive I created.  I was careful in selecting very old stuff.  Feel free to change the layout. Brusegadi 06:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I stopped at 'what about Mars?' because there was some discussion there less than one month old.  Brusegadi 06:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did a little more of this today.  I got no objections before. Brusegadi 01:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: How should we include the following info?
100 prominent scientists have sought to address the problems with the current "consensus" on climate change.  Is there any way we can include this in the article? Zoomwsu (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Some of these self-styled "promenent scientists" have poorer publication records than our better graduate students. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what is the publication standard for being considered a scientist? How many IPCC authors meet that standard? My point is, we need to be careful about setting our own standards for who qualifies (OR anyone?). Zoomwsu (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Several are not scientists at all. It's an interesting list of signatories, though. Neither Christy nor either Pielke is on the list. We get only one of the M&Ms. I'm a bit surprised about Lindzen, Gray and Spencer - I would have expected better of them. Wegman, the "neutral" reviewer of the Hockey stick is there. When did Nigel Lawson become a scientist? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  Indeed, on of them is Louis Hissink. Standards for prominence are clearly slipping. But to answer the question, I suggest we "include" the info by throwing it into the bin William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mercy. Hissink's views sound like a cross between Tim Ball and Immanuel Velikovsky. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in a certain weird and somewhat sad way, that makes sense. According to Usenet Velikovskyans, Venus heat has nothing to do with CO2, either. She just has not have had time to cool down after her recent expulsion fro Jupiter... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The articles do include the opinions of dissenters. If anything, the dissenting views are greatly over-represented when compared to the academic literature. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open Letter to UN Secretary General 

message: The link to their statement does not seem to work. Also, unless there's something else in the full statement, the summary selected for the article cannot be said to be supportive but is obviously non-committal. --Childhood's End (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing out the broken link. I've fixed it. What makes you think it is "obviously non-committal"? Is it that they're saying that it might be only "partly" due to human causes? I'm not aware of anyone who thinks it is definitely due to only human causes. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 15:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but to be committal, they would have to say that it is mostly due to human causes, something they avoided to say. Without this opinion or other clear pointers to the main IPCC conclusions, we must categorize it as noncommittal. --Childhood's End (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm, I just read the full statement. It's really dry and empty. The only indication of support is that they say that they support the statements of other organizations, but aside from this, they themselves produce nothing relelvant towards a commitment for one side or the other. --Childhood's End (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read the whole thing? It seems we're looking at two different statements! It was almost a point-by-point agreement with the IPCC. There is global warming. Man is at least partly responsible. It's a bad thing. We have to do something about it. By the standards you're now suggesting be applied, Lindzen would also be noncommittal, rather than "opposed". Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on how we read it I guess. From what I know, you can believe that man plays some part in climate change, but that's not where the IPCC needs support. It needs support as to the finding that man is responsible for most of it. Otherwise, saying that man plays some part may mean 0.1% responsibility and just be an escape-door-wording for the day the IPCC will crumble down. And no scientist denies that the climate changes all the time and that we have to adapt. --Childhood's End (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Compare your wording of "no scientist denies that the climate changes all the time and that we have to adapt" with "[f]urthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning." Doesn't the latter one seem just a tad bit more alarming than the former one to you? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you say, just a bit. That's likely the wording I would have used if I also had to be politically correct without taking sides in my public statement. --Childhood's End (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got to say, you've opened my eyes. I don't believe your POV, but I never before believed that an intelligent person could have such a POV. (That might sound like an insult, but it's not intended to be. I'm convinced you're intelligent, although misguided. Presumably, you feel the same about me. At least I hope you believe I'm intelligent.) Anyways, if you were trying not to take "sides", you don't think you'd omit the words "active" and "effective" and references to "the time scale" of the changes? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh dont worry, I've learned since long that point of views are less a matter of intelligence than of information. And even for well-informed persons, it's hard to escape our respective cognitive bias. Now as to what you say, frankly, with all my honesty and as hard as I try, I fail to see all the alarmism that you see in their statement. The whole sentence that includes the references to "time scales", "active" and "effective" lead to one thing : a recommendation for long-term planning. That's even less demanding than adaptation. With statements like this, I'll sleep very well tonight again. --Childhood's End (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geological Society of America 

message: I found a graph containing the CO2 levels for the past 600 million years, showing that global warming is a part of the natural cycle, which existed long before humans. The graph compares 3 models all showing that CO2 was historically 3 - 20 times higher than it is now. The CO2 released by humans comes from fossil fuels, which were originally plants and animals. The prehistoric plants took the CO2 out of the atmosphere and locked it in petroleum. Climate change has been proven to exist, but it has not been proven to be caused by humans. If you would like to have a look at the graph and its sources here's the link. Prehistoric CO2 Levels, at first it looks like CO2 is higher now due to the fact that it goes from present to past instead of the reverse, but it actually shows a huge CO2 deficiency in modern times. I just thought I'd put the link up there to see what everyone thinks. I'm not a scientist, but am trying to look at this scietifically, and it seems that the CO2 in fossils must have been in the atmosphere at one point, as it is not being made just released. Mason L. (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's precisely the accepted explanation. Atmospheric CO2 was fixed by photosynthesis tens to hundreds of millions of years ago.  Eventually it turned into coal and petroleum.  Now we're burning the fixed carbon and putting it back in the air. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The other point I was trying to make was that the CO2 seems to have gone up and down by large amounts in the past, would that have been from volcanoes or animals eating the plants, and whatever it was how are we sure that that is not happening right now? Mason L. (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The changes in the past took place over very long periods of time. The current changes are much, much faster than anything in the historical record. And we know from isotopic analysis that the current rise in CO2 is from fossil fuels, not from volcanoes or other sources (see e.g., Suess effect). Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prehistoric Carbondioxide Levels 

message: The text under Dissenting opinions regarding the AAPG's revised statement is incorrect.  Although they support the research to reduce emissions, they no where commit to the premise of human influencded climate change.
I believe an edit war is underway by some editors of this article.  The citation of the dissenting statement states the following:
Excerpt:
"It is somewhat unusual for a scientific
society to criticize the actions of another
learned or professional society [Brigham-
Grette et al., 2006]. So when the Council of
the American Quaternary Association (AMQUA)
takes issue with the American Association of
Petroleum Geologists over its 2006 Journalism
Award to writer and climate skeptic Michael
Crichton, citing a recently issued government
scientific report [Karl et al., 2006], one must
take notice.
The AMQUA council members demonstrate
that they have not read (or understood) the
cited Karl et al. U.S. Climate Change Science
Program report. It is true that the report’s summary
(and press release) claim ‘clear evidence’
for anthropogenic global warming, but
the report itself clearly contradicts this. Specifically,
Figure 5.4G, which compares key
observations with the calculations of major
greenhouse models, shows a considerable
disparity. There are other differences between
observed and calculated ‘fingerprints’ of temperature
trends [Singer, 2006], further demonstrated
by more detailed comparisons [Douglass
et al., 2004].
Note that even if there were agreement
between observed trends and those calculated
from greenhouse models, it would not logically
constitute ‘proof’ of anthropogenic global
warming, but simply make it more plausible.
However, the demonstrated disagreement
between observations and greenhouse models
falsifies the anthropogenic global warming
hypothesis and argues convincingly that human
effects are minor and that natural factors are
the main cause of current warming. This explanation
fits well with the paleoclimatic evidence
for a (roughly) 1500-year climate cycle,
observed in ice cores, ocean sediments, and a
variety of other data [Singer and Avery, 2006].
AMQUA members must surely be familiar with
such evidence. The obvious disparity between
the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
report and its summary illustrates the common
problem of relying on a potentially distorted
summary for policy-makers. Perhaps we need a
policy for summary-makers. (Eos, Vol. 87, No. 36, 5 September 2006)"
--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 20:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the AAPG statement. It doesn't say anything one way or the other about human influence. Thus the Wikipedia text is correct as written: the AAPG no longer denies the possibility of human influence. You seem to think that somehow this implies the AAPG accepts human influence, but the article doesn't say that. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, editors are fighting to kill any questioning of neutrality in this article.  I read the citation you suggested, above are the words.  I will watch this page closely, because I see that the agenda is to show that there is zero dissent on this subject matter.  If that were true, there would be no international debate on the matter, but there is.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 20:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with RA. Please note that AAPG's shift from it's previous dissenting position was notable in sentences 1-2 and in bullet number two of the new statement. It was widely reported that AAPG had abandoned it's previous position which explicitly denied human influence, while the new statement is now correctly interpreted as "non-committal". Please read here, and also check those citations.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but you are confused. The footnote you refer to is to the AMQUA statement in EOS. You cite from a letter to the editor in reply to it. The AMQUA statement is not used to criticize the AAPG statement, but to positively source the claim that no scientific associations except for the AAPG opposes the IPCC consensus. Note that this sentence refers to the old AAPG statement. This has since been changed to the current non-committal version linked in the article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bingo. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: "If that were true, there would be no international debate on the matter, but there is."  I think that we can all agree that nuclear proliferation is dangerous, yet, politically, there is much international debate on the matter.  So, there can be agreement about the detrimental effects of something but no agreement (or willingness) in what to do about it. Brusegadi (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there certainly can be a continuing debate on the matter irrespective of whether or not "no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate". The continued existence of debate does not logically nullify the foregoing statement, which is both true and reliably sourced. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there's a rule about "weasel wording", and I think the threshold has been met.  Besides, anyone with their eyes open can see there is an agenda at work in this article.  Good luck.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 03:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What, specifically, do you think is in violation of (has "met the threshold" for violating) WP guidelines on weasle words? riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 04:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect statements and citation improvements 

message: I cut this section added by Nursebhayes:
:Scientists know with virtual certainty that:
:- Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the :atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood. 
:- The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels. 
:- An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans.
:- The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore :virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades. 
:- Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet., EPA :"State of Knowledge", 2007
Should the EPA be considered a scientific body?  I could be convinced either way... --Nethgirb (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think government agencies should be considered scientific bodies. Usually, a scientific body's policies and leadership are decided upon by their members. Government agencies don't do that. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: That's a very good question.  And it's true that govt agencies tend to be policy or acquisition bodies rather than scientific bodies.  However, that's not a certainty and agencies such as the CDC, NIH, NASA, and DoD RDT&E directorates do have scientific experts in certain fields.  So the EPA may very well employ experts in certain area of environmental science; for how else can they monitor govt policies? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 17:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  EPA 

message: There are numerous articles about an alternative theory of global warming.  It suggests that CO2 and greenhouse gases may have a negligible effect on climate change.  It is clearly a minority view, and has some problems, but there is a strong, vocal minority of honest to god scientists (not oil company apologists) who support further research on the theory.  There was a television documentary on BBC a few months back where some of these scientists expressed their dismay that funding for this type of research is very difficult to come by.  Apparently, this topic has become so politicized that real science can no longer be done if the possible conclusions would run counter to the IPCC party line.
I really wish the issue in the publlic spotlight had not moved to whether or not there is still room for scientific debate on this subject.  There should *always* be room for scientific debate on a subject this complex, and this trend to market a "consensus viewpoint" is harmful when it shuts out legitimate discussion.  I think the public would be better served by honestly acknowledging some level of inherent uncertainty, while still maintaining that the risk of failing to act is so great that we still must reduce CO2 levels swiftly anyway.  It is this notion that we can only act after we have all the facts which should be confronted directly, not the notion of whether there is any room left for scientific doubt. -- anonymous 148.87.1.167 (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The theory is old and WP:FRINGE. Still, we mention it in global warming. But it has extremely little support among scientists (in other words, the minority may be vocal, but it is not strong) or in the scientific literature. The "documentary" probably was The Great Global Warming Swindle, and has been widely discredited. Yes, funding is hard to get,  but that is true for all scientists. The EU, for example, funds about 6-8% applications in it FP programs. In other words, if you get more than 1 in 12 projects approved, you are lucky or very good. Projects are evaluated and, with the usual margin for error, evaluated on merit. You don't get a bonus for being widely out of the mainstream, unless you can show compelling evidence that you are likely to be right. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cosmic rays 

message: The section Survey of U.S. state climatologists 1997 includes the text "conservative think tank Citizens for a Sound Economy surveyed..."  Why are they identified as conservative?  Other groups cited in this article are not labeled with their political positions -- conservative, liberal, or otherwise.  I think it should be removed.  Johnskrb2 (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they are conservative, as described in reliable sources, e.g. . The scientific groups do not have a political affiliation per se, unless you agree that reality has a well-known liberal bias. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) They don't apply the label to themselves, others do; they describe their mission as "to fight for less government, lower taxes, and less regulation."  Yes, it sounds conservative, but it could also be libertarian;  2) Journalists are more liberal  than the general public, but that doesn't mean that an individual journalist cannot put aside his liberalism to report the facts; simply being a liberal is not evidence of biased journalism.  Along the same lines, simply being a conservative is not evidence of biased science;  3) University professors are more liberal  than the general public, but that is not evidence of biased science, so there's no need to label the scientists as "liberal";  4)  Most importantly, the label is non-NPOV because it is applied to discredit the study based on political affiliation rather than presenting criticism of the methodology or analysis.    Johnskrb2 (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 1-3 are all irrelevant. We don't go by self-description, for obvious reasons. No reliable source has described the Royal Society or the United States National Academy of Sciences as politically partisan. "Scientists" and "Journalists" are not acting in an organized fashion, unlike a pressure group like Citizens for a Sound Economy. As for point 4, to quote you: "simply being a conservative is not evidence of biased science". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Classification 

message: A number of unfit references have been creeping into this article, such as;
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]
The Not So Clear Consensus On Climate Change
Neither of these, as an example, meet the criteria of "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. " from WP:V.  We need to keep our sources up to standards. --Skyemoor 15:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source problems 

message: It seems that we're arbitrarily deciding which statements agree with the IPCC and which don't without any sources qualifying them as such.  That's practically the definition of original research.  The statements should stand for themselves unless we have reliable sources that classify them as concurring, non-committal, whatever.  Oren0 (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems rather moot, since your "arbitrary" apparently comes from the old AMS statement, which references and cites both the NRC and the IPCC conclusions (including the most warming: human, most: GHG). Or are you of a differing opinion? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above, it quotes these conclusions and then says more research is needed in these areas, it doesn't say it agrees with these conclusions.  I think that in order to label a statement as concurring, it either needs to explicitly endorse the IPCC conclusions, specifically say that warming is mostly anthropogenic, or endorse another group's statement that does one of those two things.  I think you're going to start getting into judgment calls and that's why it's better to let the statements/excerpts speak for themselves. Oren0 (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading the 2007 report (which should be linked and quoted in the article instead of the current one), I agree that the AMS explicitly endorses the IPCC.  But that endorsement should be explicit in the quote used in the article.  And it doesn't change my position on classification as a whole.  If I need to find another organization to prove this point, I'm sure I can.  I'm sure that some of the groups listed don't explicitly fit the criteria I mentioned above. Oren0 (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I must agree. Even if it may seem in clear agreement in some cases, unless we have a source qualifying the statements as in agreement with the IPCC, it is OR to qualify them as such. There's a few blurred cases imo. I would have expected KDP to agree here. --Childhood's End (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:OR]] in making the call?

message: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution has a “Global Warming” web page which features Dr. Terrence M. Joyce’s “Observations on Global Warming”.  Dr. Joyce, who is Senior Scientist and Director of WHOI’s Ocean & Climate Change Institute, states, “Global warming is real, is happening now, and has real consequences for life on Earth. The scientific community is largely persuaded that not only is Earth’s climate warming, but the rate of warming is accelerating, due substantially to human activity.”
The piece goes on to outline how anthropomorphic global warming works, the effect it’s having on the planet, the role the oceans play, etc.
  
Would this meet the criteria for including Woods Hole on this page? --CurtisSwain (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not. To cite from the article: This page documents scientific opinion as given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. It does not document the views of individual scientists, individual universities or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions. If we start listing those, this page will grow beyond reasonable limits. It might be a good idea to have one sentence on this: "Several notable scientific institutes and universities support the IPCC conclusions: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution [ref]...", but I don't know if we should even go there. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Woods Hole