Talk:Climate change/Archive 20

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

→

National Resources Stewardship Program

The National Resources Stewardship Program writes,

Four hundred and forty million years ago, when CO2 levels are estimated to have been more than 10 times today's, our planet was in the depths of the coldest period in the last half billion years. At other times, high CO2 levels coincided with warm periods. There is no meaningful correlation with temperature in the geological record.
Over the past half million years, the Antarctic ice core records show a remarkable link between temperature and CO2 . Yet, these records consistently show that temperature rises some 800 years before CO2 rises, not after it.
Even over the past century the CO2/warming correlation is poor, with significant cooling taking place between 1940 and 1980 while human-produced CO2 emissions were increasing rapidly. In all these records there is no evidence to show that CO2 has ever acted as a climate driver or even as a significant secondary effect to accelerate climate warming.

Is there any merit to this? ~ UBeR 06:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No, its a std.skeptic set of half-truths William M. Connolley 09:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you care to explain? ~ UBeR 18:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the fact that they try to use the Ordovician/Silurian boundary nearly half a billion years ago to throw doubt on the current CO2/temperature link should be enough to determine that this is pure rhetoric. At that time, there were no multi-cellular land plants (i.e. the carbon cycle was very different), the composition of the atmosphere was very different, all the continents formed Pangaea, which was sitting on the south pole, and the sun was measuarably fainter. And the CO2 concentrations still dropped by nearly half (from 7000 ppm to 4400 ppm during the glaciation), a fact that one assumed might have slipped in there somewhere. --Stephan Schulz 20:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, not sure how serious you were about it. On the ice cores: there is a lag relation but its n ot as clear as they assert. Since the entire process takes 5kyr+ the ~800 start lag doesn't matter too much (in fact it makes sense: the default assumption is t change leads to co2 change leads to t in a feedback) William M. Connolley 21:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggest that this article be modified to account for the video whose url in provided below. Unless, the data on temperature leading CO2 levels by a couple of hundred years and that the production of gammas in the sun will enhance cloud production which reduces the temperature provides suspicion that the co2 levels are diving anything. This article is fanticy without seriously addressing these variables. Also, the economic issue which is damming in its indictment of the global warming community needs to be addressed herein. It must be identified as a political issue--no longer a scientific issue,it must make prediction in the near future that can be measued, perhaps something like the average temperature for 60 days in England, New York state. Who has the most accurate model?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle&hl=en Justthefactmam 22:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)User:Charles Vairin

Errrm, who are you? JTFM or CV? Anyway: why would we modify the article because of a very poor quality TV prog? If you have any interest in the science concerned, try http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/, or http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/co2_and_t_again.php for just the CO2/T point. As for the politics: the Kyoto treaty exempts developing nations. You knew that, of course, not least because the programme mentioned it. Oh? whats that? The programme *din't* mention that fact? How very curious - don't you think it is of some relevance? Is it possible that the programme might be somewhat selective and perhaps even unreliable? William M. Connolley 22:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

OMG William!! I was so much drowned by all the scientific mistakes or 'distortions' that I completly missed that one! Maybe that's why they've put it at the end of the 'documentary' (I barely dare to use the term), knowing that most people would be already too anesthesized by the rest to notice. Thanks for waking me up ! :-D Galahaad 17:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming vs Global Warming Theory

I am just curious why this wiki is not titled with "Theory." If you type "Global Warming Theory" into the search, it brings up the "controversy" page. While I feel that it can be argued as to the extent of global warming that has occurred (I'm not favoring a side either way here, folks), it seems as though the idea of the earth's temperature increasing to the present date has been extrapolated and blended with the theoristic models which attempt to predict future scenarios.

Please do not read this wrong: I am not implying that the models don't have substance or are incorrect. I am just saying that these ideas need to be presented correctly. Here is an example: for many years, the atom was thought of as "plum pudding model"; that gave way to the Bohr model, which gave way to quantum model. In our schools, these are presented as truths, as they can meet certain expectaions when tested against current beliefs held by scientists; everyone at the time thought the Bohr model was correct. The truth of it is, these are just THEORIES. Highly provable theories, but theories none the less.

I just feel that there should be more information in the article, including the title, that future modeling is a scientific conjecture, like most things in science.

I hope this makes sense, and hopefully this is not redundant.

Rich 70.91.186.249 20:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The word "theory" is so ambiguous that it's best avoided altogether. In popular usage it's often taken to mean little more than a guess; in a scientific context, it's something quite different. See theory. Raymond Arritt 20:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Also see WP:WTA#Theory.--Stephan Schulz 20:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I was afraid of this, as I am (obviously) a new poster. We are dealing with semantics. Can we please address the meat of my concern, which is that the article blends the ideas of what has been documented in the past with the future models, which are all guesses. Perhaps I am incorrect in this, but future models are guesses, right? No one has created a crystal ball to see into the future yet? It seems that there should be some disambiguity.

BTW, thank you for the information regarding "theory." It was a refresher.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.91.186.249 (talk • contribs).

The Wikipedia naming convention is to name the article according to the most common usage. The Googlewhack is 37,000,000 to 108,000 for plain global warming. The term is indeed used for the current warming period, including both the already realized warming and the future projections. But no, these projections are not "guesses" any more than I guess that a dropped stone will fall to the ground. The models make assumptions abou emission scenarios, and the physical simulation has certain known limitations. But they are much more reliable the a guess. See e.g. James Hansen's predictions from 1988 that hold up very well. And climate models have been enourmously improved since then.--Stephan Schulz 22:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm—comparing the IPCC's estimated (guessed) predictions to physical laws. Sketchy. I don't think 70.91.186.249 is here to imply that global warming is merely a guess. Indeed, they have stated that to label a simple guess as a theory is incorrect; it's not incorrect, however, to label a theory as a theory. ~ UBeR 22:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Projection (per M-W.com)-"an estimate of future possibilities based on a current trend." Future models ARE an estimate/projection/guess. The(my) issue is that NOBODY, save your chosen diety, knows with certainty what WILL happen in the future. And to presume/present(in the article) that we can predict results (accurately) from a highly complex system lacks intellectual integrity. It should not matter WHAT the IPCC has found; this is not a stump for the IPCC. It is a source of information to be shared.

I will resign this issue and leave it to those with more fortitude, as I can see that this, like other volatile socio-political issues, is going to desolve into semantics.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.91.186.249 (talk • contribs).

Obviously Rich is correct Global warming is a theory as is Einstein's Theory of Relativity. He is also correct that the current computer models are in a very nascent state. All of these models end with the Earth's oceans boiling away or freezing solid within a tiny geologic timespan (a geo-second). Clearly if after 50 years of weather modelling, we cannot predict the weather 3 months from now with any level of certainty then we cannot predict the entire planet's weather or climate 100 years nhence. ~ Rameses 04:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, I noticed your claim that Hansen's predictions have held up very well. I do not believe that is true. Willis Eschenbach reviewed this claim (which was difficult because Hansen does not practice science and make his data and methods available to other scientists). Willis determined the values by digitizing the graph. He learned that the four curves do not start from the same point (which sounds to me like an intentional deception). When the four curves are begun at the same point, the temperature is seen to rise less than even the lowest of Hansen's scenarios (in which anthropogenic C02 production stopped in 2000). You can read the analysis and comments from other scientists here. [1]

Why should they start at the same point? Models published in 1988 would not have set out to match just the value in 1959, but rather minimize the error across the whole interval upto 1988. Some years are too high, some are too low, but that's to be expected. Forcing any single year to match should be expected to only increase the error for other years. Dragons flight 05:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What he said ;-). Also, GISS and HadCRUT3 use different averaging algorithms, giving somewhat different results. As for your claim that "Hansen does not practice science and make his data and methods available to other scientists" - huh? What do you think the paper is? And how old it is? I certainly don't keep my raw test data longer than a few years - it becomes completely unmanagable even today. And if by "methods" you mean "computer programs": Those don't grow on trees. They are the result of a lot of hard work, and part of the "means of production" of a scientist. It's great if they can be made available (I do, but then in computer science the code is often not just a tool, but part of the result), but very many don't, and expecting them to do so is not different from expecting Paul Otellini to give away the detailed layout of the CoreDuo for the asking. --Stephan Schulz 08:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, perhaps you are unaware of the controversy over the tendency of climate scientists not to properly archive their data and methods. Steve McIntyre has been talking about this for a while. Normally peer-reviewed journals require scientists to archive their data. Several of them have chosen not to waive their usual standards for climate scientists. That is bogus. Evidently, the US government has awarded funding to climate scientists and gave them an exemption from the usual requirement of making the data and methods available. This is also bogus and will probably result in a FOIA law suit. Making the code available is a slightly more complicated issue, but not much. When it comes to code, scientists have the choice of publishing their results (and making their code available for others to examine) or not (and using their code for whatever commercial pursuit they wish). That is their choice. The "means of production" argument is a red herring. RonCram 01:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ron, I don't know if you have ever published in a scientific journal. I have, and at least in computer science there never has been such a requirement. In very recent times, reviewers, including me, have often suggested to make data available on the web for papers with a heavy experimental component. But before the web took off, that was just not practicable, and it still is rare. And again, the scientific result is not the computer code, but the methods implemented in it (which should be described in the paper or the references). Reproducing a result does not mean "I take the same code as someone else, and rerun it on the same data" (as computers are deterministic, we know what will happen), it means someone else reimplements the described methods independently (hopefully avoiding different bugs) and getting sufficiently similar results. A computer program is not "a method", it is a tool (and an implementation of a method). I don't understand your FOIA comment - this applies only to direct (US federal?) gouvernment agencies, not to most scientists. The "US gouvernment" is a very sloppy term. It's not a monolith, and usually does not award funding to individual scientists. Are you talking about funding agencies like the NSF? Finally, your comment about code is not true. That may be so in Richard Stallman's universe, but currently there is no requirement for scientists to publish their code. Wether there should be is an interesting question that warrants an independent discussion (It helps transparency, but it probably reduces the quality, if not the quantity of review, and it encourages free riders. Also, licensing issues may make this impossible in many cases, as most code is not written from scratch). However, to reiterate: Currently there is no such requirement or expectation. That is a classical red herring. --Stephan Schulz 10:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, you can view Science's policy here. [2] All of the science journals have a similar policy AFAIK. The code is important because it is very difficult to reproduce someone's result without it. How is one to know what kind of "fix" is in the code? How can scientists evaluate the "flux adjustments" or "parameterizations" or other factors designed to make the simulation look like it is related to the physical world? What if scientists want to apply the same code to a different data set? The US government has many agencies that fund research, a total of some $2 billion going into climate research each year. You should read the data archiving policy of NSF. [3] In it you will find the NSF expects researchers to make their code available to other scientists. So you see, my comment is not from the world of Richard Stallman, but of Karl Popper. As I said before, any researcher who is not archive his data, methods and even his code is not doing science but pseudo-science. The climate journals and other accomplices in this crime against science should be ashamed of themselves. RonCram 17:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sul(ph|f)ate

See Talk:Global_warming/OldTalk5#Standards_.26_Chemical_names for the discussion last time round. Anything new? Different numbers of people on either end? William M. Connolley 17:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Coming from Britain, I can understand why you would like to use British English. Only four people, including Connolley, suggested or implied that sulphate should be used. This is not a great number. The consensus was based upon the fact that the original spelling was sulphate, and that for that reason alone we should leave it. It still stands, however, the IUPAC suggest using sulfate. This is a scientific article, so lets keep it as scientific as possible. Also note, this article is using American English. It would seem redundant to use American English in everything except for the very word that IUPAC has already suggested as spelled with American English. It's also rather redundant to use sulphate in one part of the article and then sulfate in another part of the same article. ~ UBeR 18:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind much either way. If left alone, I spell it sulphate, because it's obviously the correct thing to do ;-), but the IUPAC and Wikipedia MOS weigh in on the other side. Is this article really American English? I've become rather desensitized about the issue (my books are half/half), and probably write a Frankenstein dialect myself... --Stephan Schulz 18:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The article started out in BE but has tended to drift toward AE, probably because there are more of us then there are of them... I have a slight preference for maintaining the original convention but don't care much either way. (Stuff like this crops up all the time. In the Beatles Project there's been a huge brawl over whether it should be the Beatles, or The Beatles. Some people take things way too seriously, imo.) Raymond Arritt 19:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Following up, I just noticed that the AR4 SPM mixes British and American spelling. Raymond Arritt 19:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Congrats to U for repeating the old talk. Is there nothing new? Then it should stay (and the latterly added s.a. get converted to ph) William M. Connolley 19:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do you get angry when no one agrees with you? ~ UBeR 19:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking, in an article that is not definitively British or American, Wikipedia policy is to go with whatever the article's primary author used. In this case, that's BE. Raul654 20:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

See WP:ENGVAR. --h2g2bob 20:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The MoS states, "Each article should have uniform spelling and not a haphazard mix of different spellings, which can be jarring to the reader. For example, do not use center in one place and centre in another in the same article (except in quotations or for comparison purposes)," and, "If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoke conflict by changing to another. (Sometimes, this can happen quite innocently, so please do not be too quick to make accusations!)" Currently, everything is written in American English, save the word "sulphate" used once in this article, with that spelling. So... You could change the entire article back to British English, as that is what was used for first two edits (in 2002), prior to Ed Poor (major contributor to the early article) who began using American English. Next, the MoS states, "If an article has been in a given dialect for a long time, and there is no clear reason to change it, leave it alone. Editors should not change the spelling used in an article wholesale from one variant to another, unless there is a compelling reason to do so (which will rarely be the case). Other editors are justified in reverting such changes. Fixing inconsistencies in the spelling is always appreciated." Finally, it says, if those above things don't apply, then go to the first major contributor's edit. So you're right in the sense that it does indeed state that; you're wrong in that sense that that is the one we should follow first. ~ UBeR 21:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It is no longer a question of British v American spelling. IUPAC determined the spelling should be "sulfate" long ago and even British chemistry books and journals use this spelling now. The latest revert to "sulphate" should itself be reverted. "Sulphate" is just archaic. --Bduke 22:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Still stand by my arguements from '04. Support IUPAC and spelling consistency in science articles. GHGs are chemicals and atmospheric chemistry does have a bit to do w/global warming :-) Cheers, Vsmith 15:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, if you fail to strongly support William in every detail, you will be kicked out of the conspiracy! We may even be forced to retract your Cabal Membership and invalidate your secret decoder ring! --Stephan Schulz 15:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh no - not my ring! :-( Vsmith 16:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Just reviewing old talk and find I've missed this :-(. We really need this page organised better William M. Connolley 18:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Date CO2 last higher than today

I found a 'citation needed' for the claim that CO2 was last this high 40 million year ago (mya). I did a google scholar search, and the top ranked article (widely cited) was Pearson and Palmer 2000 in Nature. However, looking over their graph in figure 3b (for those fortunate enough to have full text access) they have a data point something like 440 ppm for 24mya. This is their oldest data point in the more recent series; they have a 'no data' gap between 25 and 39 mya, then a separate series ranging much higher from 40 mya going back (into the 1000+ppm range). Anyway sorry if anyone had a strong basis for the 40 mya figure and just didn't have the ref handy, but this article has a pretty clear peak at 24 mya that's higher than today (if not higher than many projected 21st century increases).Birdbrainscan 03:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The difference of couse is that the 300ppm(?) jump in C02 that happens back then didn't occur in just 50 years. What is the point of trying to find time of highest co2 level. Level of co2 won't show if we are effecting the natural level significantly, we have to look at the change in co2, has there been such rapid change thta we have seen in the last 50 years?--155.144.251.120 22:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as we know, the sharpness of the rise in CO2 is unprecedented. It certainly is in the last few thousand years. But the farther back we go, the coarser our temporal resolution goes. We simply cannot plausibly isolate any given 100 year span 500 million years ago. --Stephan Schulz 23:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there any doubt, at all?

Re the people intent on recasting this issue as a "theory" and not a "fact": Of course, out of the 6,000,000,000 people on this earth, ONE person will be a scientist who disagrees with global warming. As a study showed, however, out of 928 RANDOMLY selected, peer reviewed science articles pertaining to global warming, NONE of them discussed it as anything but fact. Why do these people wish to recast global warming as a "theory", and get people not to act? Do you not care about your children's lives? The science is HARD fact. No buts, ifs, or conditionals about it. Rather than listen to the media about whether it's true or not, simply look in science journals. Almost 50% of all news media articles wrote about global warming as a "Theory" and "unconfirmed", even though 0% of scientists took this view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.61.36.80 (talk • contribs).

Yes. There is doubt. Consensus and conventional wisdom are historically inaccurate in many cases....and downright tragic in others. I've witnessed the consensus on silicone breast implants, IUDs, salt, eggs, fat, etc. To have doubt about the HYPOTHESIS!!!! of significant global warming due to human causation (the "null hypothesis", by the way), one simply needs to look at science and history together. I don't specifically need history, however, anyone who knows history knows that it is a living thing and that experts and consensus groups have a pretty colorful tradition.

As for the science, we don't even need to mention the data to find serious flaws. The absolute discarding of the scientific method with respect to the latest, fashionable societal self-hatred trend is simply disgusting. Theory, hypothesis, the rejection of the null hypothesis......what happened to the delineation and careful use of these terms?

Does anyone remember what a THEORY is???? Does anyone recall the rigor necessary for the establishment of a theory? Good God!(my little joke). Seriously, at best we're talking hypothesis here. No one denies that the earth is warming. OK. What is the earth's temperature supposed to be doing? Remaining stable? Are "scientists" really serious when they allude to this? REALLY?

I don't know what the answer is. You know what else? No one else knows either. There's the doubt, and I'm quite confidant in it. It takes me about 5 minutes of simple researching to REJECT THE NULL HYPOTHESIS AND IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS YOU SHOULD SHUT UP. Let's see......anyone care to venture what apocalyptic "theory" we'll be discussing 10 years from now?

Shame on us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpgerber (talk • contribs)

Sadly, people do not seem to understand what a theory is. Read the following definition from Wikipedia: In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.

Please note that gravitation is still only a theory. Global warming certainly has not yet risen to this level of proof. Global warming is simply a hypothesis until proven scientifically - which will take many years from the current nascent state of the science. ~ Rameses 06:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This page is for discussing specific things about the article. If you wish to discuss / shout in caps about the topic of the article, you probably should head to a venue more appropriate for that. —AySz88 \^-^ 17:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Note to 24.61.36.80 Hysteria is not the scientific method and many reputable scientists disagree with the consensus.SmokeyTheCat 23:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Note to SmokeyTheCat, by my calculations that still leaves the number of "reputable scientists" disagreeing with the warming theory consensus at less than 1%, based on the number of reputable scientists involved with the recently concluded U.N. study. I thought that was the point of it, to finally determine what the collective scientific minds of the planet thought. So far, I only see a handful of remaining skeptics, not counting Fox News.

To disagree with "Handful of skeptics" There are many scientist and climatologists who reject global warming. http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm Check that site out and tell me that global warming is fact. Gavinthesavage 23:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we've seen that. Now check out Oregon Petition for a description and some critique of that project. Note that it's also 6-8 years old; a lot has changed. (Incidentally for other editors: I reverted the addition of a link to the petition in the intro of this article a few days ago.) bikeable (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Touche` How about past scares? Like global cooling, global climate change? And has anyone heard of the global 1500 year model? I realize that something is happening to the earth, but just because Al Gore says people are the cause of doesn't mean I believe him (a joke don't take that seriously) . I'll find more information about this 1500 year cycle. Gavinthesavage 16:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Past climate predictions

I see the article has a section on "History of Warming." However, I was wondering if anyone thinks it might be of value to have a section also on the "History of Climate Predictions" or some such similar title? Below is a collection of various climate predictions (both for heating and cooling) going back to 1923 which should be useful in the event anyone is interested adding such a section.

I don't see what relavance it has to global warming. Global warming is based mainly on C02 output. Until the mass exponential increase in the number of coal burners there were constantly people finding different cyclical changes as mentioned in all your links below. Surely there is a an article where such history would fit better, perhaps even make history of earth climate prediction?

NEW YORK TIMES HEADLINES

Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead - May 21, 1975 http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50B1FFD395D137B93C3AB178ED85F418785F9

REPORT THE ARCTIC IS GETTING WARMER; Explorers and Fishermen Find Climate Moderating About Spitsbergen. FIRST NOTED ABOUT 1918 Old Glaciers Have Disappeared - February 25, 1923 http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00F13F7395516738DDDAC0A94DA405B838EF1D3

MACMILLAN REPORTS SIGNS OF NEW ICE AGE; Explorer Brings Word of Unusual Movements of Greenland Glaciers -- Coal Deposits Show Polar Climate Was Once Tropical - September 28, 1924 http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0C14FB3C5B12738DDDA10A94D1405B848EF1D3

AMERICA IN LONGEST WARM SPELL SINCE 1776; TEMPERATURE LINE RECORDS A 25-YEAR RISE - March 27, 1933 http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00617FF3D5E1A7A93C5AB1788D85F478385F9

Google Books:search results

"...there are unmistakable indications that the earth's climate is getting colder." from Editorial Research Reports By inc Congressional Quarterly, 1986 http://books.google.com/books?&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&lr=&as_ft=i&as_qdr=all&as_dt=i&as_rights=&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp&q=%20%22climate%20is%20getting%20colder%22

"World temperatures rose sharply in the latter half of the decade, ... It would appear that at present world temperatures are falling" -- Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society---1940 http://books.google.com/books?&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&lr=&as_ft=i&as_qdr=all&as_dt=i&as_rights=&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp&q=%20%22world%20temperatures%20rose%20sharply%22

"There is some evidence that our climate is getting colder..." Sciene magazine, 1944 http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC01644869&id=NcgCAAAAIAAJ&q=%22climate+is+getting+colder%22&dq=%22climate+is+getting+colder%22&pgis=1

"There is evidence that the worlds climate is getting warmer" ---1950 http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC01259095&id=s5gFAAAAMAAJ&q=%22world's+climate+is+%22&dq=%22world's+climate+is+%22&pgis=1

"The Acrtic is getting warmer" http://books.google.com/books?as_q=&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=arctic+is+getting+warmer&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_libcat=0&as_brr=0&as_vt=&as_auth=&as_pub=&as_drrb=c&as_miny=&as_maxy=&as_isbn=

"The Arctic is getting cooler" http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=%22arctic%20is%20getting%20colder%22&btnG=Search&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp

"Both the USA, where certain States have been suffering a drought, and the USSR, where the climate is becoming colder... " Assessing the New Political Trends, Dublin, 1976 http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC02509012&id=se_N25iAuv4C&q=%22climate+is+becoming+colder%22&dq=%22climate+is+becoming+colder%22&pgis=1

The late astronomer Sif Fred Hoyle suggested in his 1981 book Ice: the Ultimate Catastaphe, that the earth was on the verge of a new ice age. http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0826400647&id=BXkWAAAAMAAJ&q=%22world+temperatures%22&dq=%22world+temperatures%22&pgis=1

"But of course the increase in atmospheric CC>2 didn't stop in 1950; it continued, and even accelerated. Yet since 1950 world temperatures have slacked off" --- Climat, Man, and History, 1970 Climate, Man, and History - Page 410 http://books.google.com/books?&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&lr=&as_ft=i&as_qdr=all&as_dt=i&as_rights=&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp&q=%20%22Yet%20since%201950%20world%20temperatures%20have%20slacked%20off%22

"The high and low temperature records of the Na-tional Weather Service used by The World Almanac tend to support the theory that the US climate is cooling ..." The World Almanac, 1975 http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0911818030&id=AYtpIEmY7tMC&q=%22climate+is+cooling%22&dq=%22climate+is+cooling%22&pgis=1

"Since 1960 there have been indications that the North American climate is cooling slightly" http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC06072187&id=OJoJAAAAIAAJ&q=%22climate+is+cooling%22&dq=%22climate+is+cooling%22&pgis=1

Delta x 02:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation styles

The sections "Climate models" and "Other related issues" are not using <ref> tags like the rest of the article. Anyone up to fixing them? -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll try working on it tomorrow (i.e. later today, March 4th), if no one else does. ~ UBeR 07:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Great :-) I have a feeling this will be fixed up quickly. -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I got a few done. There's nine more, but I will be gone for a bit. If no one else does, I'll change them to footnotes later tonight. ~ UBeR 16:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I've gotten them all into to footnote style references, except for one. The one I did not change had a non-functioning link. I put a note to the editors beside it. Hopefully someone can find the relevant paper. ~ UBeR 07:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this "theory" is wrong

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html Mars has "global warming" on the same scale as earth... only it doesn't have people.

So much for this crap junk science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.162.48.36 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 4 March 2007

Read page 2 of the article. --Stephan Schulz 08:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Human stupidity never fails to amaze me. Ugh. Specusci 14:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the whole "global warming" theory. I don't appreciate that Wikipedia users have not shown the other side of the story to us. This is a serious failure on their part and has turned me off wikipedia.

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says National Geographic New February 28, 2007

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural -- and not a human-induced cause -- according to one scientist's controversial... http://www.kurzweilai.net/email/newsRedirect.html?newsID=6484&m=12472 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.36.207 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 5 March 2007

I suppose what we really need is to duplicate earth so we have one as a control and keep humans on the other. Then we can see if it's really true or not. In the mean time there's a lot of mud slinging and emotion for a disputed scientific theory and I really think the main page should indicate the dispute more clearly. MatthewFP 11:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Channel 4 (Britain) to air documentary challenging anthropogenic warming

Did anyone see this Washington Times article about the upcoming British documentary "The Great Global Warming swindle" (deleted link to copyright violation - see WP:EL and WP:C) which airs Thursday March 8, 2007? It should be very interesting viewing, regardless of which side one is on (personally, I'm on the "side" of whatever is scientifically demonstrable). Here is the trailer from Channel 4. Delta x 05:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Setting aside the fact that this "documentary" presents the opinions of nine dissenters above the consensus view of 2,500+ scientists, the trailer and the article don't appear to have much more than solar variation which is too weak to explain observed warming, name calling, and the usual uncertainty games. The producer is a professional ~~idiot~~ sensationalist according to multiple independent sources. James S. 06:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Just finished watching it, came to wikipedia to see what was written here.... Docomentary was very interresting and well presented.Certainly has made me question the science behind the cause of the current warming, which the program did not contest. Sunspot activity and the delay of temp rises compared to increases in CO2 levels (Temp rise leads to more C02) were the main 2 points made against the current dogma. The problem doesn't seem to be as clear cut as the media would have you believe. Ryanuk 22:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the media (including the very documentary you viewed) give much too much weight to the few remaining sceptics. I suggest you read more about the actual science. This article is a reasonable start. Also look at attribution of recent climate change, which has some information on the various forcings (which include most prominently solar, aerosols, and greenhouse gases). Finally, you might want to look at the latest IPCC report SPM (linked from IPCC Fourth Assessment Report). In short, everything you mention is known and has been taken into account. And using the word dogma in this context is extremely unwarranted. --Stephan Schulz 22:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Was it really unwarrented? Its a widely held belief. Has it been proved beyond doubt? Ryanuk 21:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks James for the articles. "Idiot" seems a little strong. However, Durken's credibility does appear a bit suspect, given that the folks at Channel 4 were "forced to issue a humiliating apology" as a result of some of his earlier works. One wonders why Channel 4 would be opening themselves again to the possibility of even further humiliation, unless they believed this time Durken had something truly meritorious to present. At any rate, I for one am looking forward to seeing what, if any, solid scientific data he brings to the documentary in support of the thesis that natural, and not human causes, are behind global warming. It think it'll be interesting. Delta x 09:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

s/idiot/sensationalist/, thanks. The show, according to those who have seen it, presents no alternative hypotheses other than solar variation. What they won't say is that the probability of observed warming being due to solar variation instead of atmospheric CO₂ increases is less than 1%. That carbon dioxide traps reflected infrared radiation and forces it into atmospheric heat is a proven, demonstrable, fact, as sure as gravity. The variation of solar radiation has not been measured for long, but we know enough to tell that it wasn't enough more than it used to be a decade ago to cause the observed warming, with a very high degree of certainty. James S. 21:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

there is a way we can stop global warming —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.182.171 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, convert to 75% wind, 25% hydroelectric power, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Good luck on getting the developing world in on that. We can kiss our icecaps and Florida goodbye, and say hello to stronger storms every year for 300 years. Those cold war bomb shelters that got built might have been worth it after all. James S. 21:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course James. If you'd watched the documentary, you'd know that the Earth's weather events are caused by the disparity in temperatures between the equator and the poles. If the poles warm faster than the equator, then extreme weather events will be less likely to occur. However, you're on a dogmatic rant, so don't let science get in the way.... Grimerking 22:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the documentary is probably going to fall upon deaf ears - some of the arguments given against attributation of climate change with CO2 emissions were pretty convincing - particularly the section on the ice cores and the fact that CO2 increases following temperature increase, not preceding it, and the fact that the graphs showing the correlation between the rise in CO2 level and Arctic temperatures over the past century are much less convincing than the one correlating the same temperature variations with solar variation (are these explicitly compared anywhere on Wikipedia?) QmunkE 22:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You might want to look at the aptly named attribution of recent climate change. It has a diagram with the major forcings and the resulting overall temperature change, including solar, greenhouse gases, and sulfate aerosols. If someone claims that a single forcing (i.e. solar) can explain the climate change, he is either ignorant or lying. --Stephan Schulz 23:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This graph isn't the one that they used to demonstrate (that one is based on a model which some of the scientists in the film strongly criticise) - the one they used was actual temperature variation at the poles (measured, not predicted) against solar activity (measured, not modelled) and also compared it to carbon dioxide increases (not "greenhouse gases" - as explained in the documentary and articles, water vapour is by a long way the dominating greenhouse gas). The correlation between solar variation and temperature change was much closer than the correlation with CO2 increase. QmunkE 09:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just trimmed The Great Global Warming Swindle and edited for NPOV Mostlyharmless 10:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, some of you will be interested in reading a very nice (and very critical) review of the Channel 4 documentary by George Monbiot, here. bikeable (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Recommended replacement of effects

These subtractions from the effects sub-article should be emphasized in the main article if you want the financial community to pay attention. What is says is if governments divert 1% of domestic products to mitigation (presumably through clean technology subsidies) then they can avoid a ~~25%~~ up to 20% loss in an increasingly sooner time frame. Xferacct 05:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

How is this for the simple version? Xferacct 05:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This "simple Wikipedia," I'd say, doesn't quite cut it as a reliable secondary source. ~ UBeR 06:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with you on that, UBeR. --BozMo talk 16:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the source for the 1% now saves up to 20% later claim. James S. 00:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Who reverted the page?

Last night I added a couple of {{fact}} tags (seen as {{Fact}}) to the article in the "causes" section where citations are needed to validate and support the material. But today I see those tags have been removed. The "causes" section begins by offering two opposing views in the first two paragraphs. Each paragraph needs citation tags to show that those views are based on something other than the writers opinions or beliefs on those two views. --Clayc3466 15:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I added a reference for your first tag. The second tag really should be multiple tags for the individual alternatives, since they are separate mechanisms. Raymond Arritt 16:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

On the question "who reverted the page and why" please see the page history. The reason for the revert given was "Rv. fact tags, references are in the linked sub-articles and in the text below (the lead just summarizes))". --BozMo talk 16:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There shouldn't really be those refs in the intro - they belong on the sub pages linked William M. Connolley 16:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree references in abstracts are always bad form and in summaries in WP the same rule should apply. It isn't hard to find the basis for everything said and that should do. --BozMo talk 16:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with putting refs in the intro. This is far from an abstract of a paper made to be published in a journal. ~ UBeR 02:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry/favour

I am only doing this to one of the 4000 articles we are including, sorry (actually maybe two). This version of this article: [4] is about to be put in a fixed static schools copy of Wikipedia which based on last year will run off at least 50,000 times (see Wikipedia:2006 Wikipedia CD Selection. The static 2006 online version gets about 10,000 unique IP hits a day so its worth getting right. If anyone (and I include of course the "group" of people who often disagree with me) could check for errors or obvious bits to remove I'd be grateful: the easy things to do are delete sections/strings or choose a better version. I have volunteers checking all the articles but they've ducked out of this one (and a couple on Islam). --BozMo talk 16:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I did just a quick check, especially to find out if the new references are already included. It seems like there are none at all in that version - is that intentional? --Stephan Schulz 17:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Its rather hard to tell - you can't give us a diff from the current version, or tell us which version is was taken from? Also (though I'm sure you fix this somehow) none of the refs are there...) . I think I prefer the current intro... William M. Connolley 17:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

(1) I will get the date and version (about 2 months ago). I need to fix references, but that's hard work in algo terms. References are a real pain from Wikipedia because there is no consistency across articles on what they are called. In this article the references are called Notes (!*&^%^$)... why not "References". "Notes" generally refer to "See Also" internal links on WP which for a selection ends up consisting of a list of dead links: hence "notes" got deleted. Sometimes references are called references sometimes citations sometimes further reading. Hmm. Might be better to just pick a recent version. --BozMo talk 17:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

My concerns begin with the first sentence (!) since it doesn't include the "projected continuation" bit. A more recent version would be good. Raymond Arritt 17:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so this one [5]? --BozMo talk 17:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be better. A couple of Qs: shouldn't the page contain a link back to the wiki GW article; and ideally to the version it is from, too? Or is that too much work. As to fixing the [n] refs... what do you do about that? Remove them, or put the hrefs inline, or wot? William M. Connolley 18:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The version is an offline DVD (or 2 CD with only thumbmail images) primarily, or was intended to be and has had wide use in the developing world. The position on link back and attribution is a bit more complicated than some people make out but we've agreed on improving this versus 2006 (actually mainly on images... the slightly more official 0.5 version isn't really licence compliant but its surprisingly hard work to comply) and in return we've been given permission to publish under the WP logo. The DVD will include a list of all the contributers to WP but not the page histories, which is what the German release did. Whether the static online version should have a clickable link to WP is a moot point: some of the child friendly classifiers insist no links to unsuitable sites (and WP is porn of course). However, I was a bit stunned by the popularity of the online version (partly I think because it delivers pages much fast than WP does) though so I need to think. At the same time getting about 15000 pages of written material hand-checked is a headache enough. Which brings us on to how to handle references offline (since they are links often). Deleting and refering to WP is the easiest fall-back: rendering all the links as text URLs in the "reference" section is possible and depends how many iterations it takes to get it right. In the end its for children and probably too complex to need references but it would be nice to have them anyway. --BozMo talk 20:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Question: In the interest of consistency, is anybody opposed to a change from "Notes" to "References"? Suprisingly, the WP:MOS is mostly silent about this. It mentions both "Notes" and "References" briefly, but it leads by example. As far as I can tell, "References" is much more frequent overall, as well. --Stephan Schulz 19:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No. But if we revert back to nice in-line refs the section wouldn't have to exist :-) William M. Connolley 19:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There are too many jokes I could make now, so I'll leave it at "pftrrrt!" ;-). --20:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

End of Global Warming (UK Channel 4 Documentary)

As I watch channel 4 on climate warming, I can see why the pro-global warming people are so very worried to allow any real debate. Ha ... Ha .... Ha .... Ha .... Ha .... Ha .... Ha .... Ha .... Ha .... Ha .... Ha .... Ha .... !

Hilarious, see Talk:Global Warming#Channel 4 (Britain) to air documentary challenging anthropogenic warming above. G-Man * 22:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just finished watching the documentary. The whole 'man-made' global warming story is a lie. There is no consensus. The IPCC is a load of crap. Scientists are censored at the request of politians and NGOs. Can we please now balance this funking article? I am placing a NPOV tag on this page. Any removal will be an act of vandalism under Wiki rules. Grimerking 22:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

So one funky TV documentary with no detailed references has more weight than the considered and referenced opinion of thousands of scientists? Wow....--Stephan Schulz 22:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

And all the lemmings were right as well?

~~I disagree and am removing the npov tag. --TeaDrinker 22:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)~~ Someone beat me to it. I can't really imagine how a teevee documentary could potentially negate the science cited in the article. --TeaDrinker 22:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If I'd come here and found the argument for both sides laid out based on the evidence then I'd agree with you. What we have here is a political scandel not a scientific one .... there are a group of people using the scientists for political reasons - unfortunately, most scientists don't have the necessary training to understand the socio-political system in which they work - so it's really easy to manipulate them! 88.110.230.109 22:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

G-Man I came here to see whether it refuted any of the claims. I don't see any, I thought channel 4 would be a lot of "there's a lot of uncertainty", in fact it was full of very compelling data. Scientists aren't infallible - and at the end of the day I'm inclined to believe those who don't just go along with the crowd. Besides, I've seen how scientists will mix fact and opinon as if it all were fact - and funnily enough they get paid much better if they "enhance" the facts to suit the current political climate. As I read a lot of history texts, what was beginning to dawn on me was the number of texts talking about massive cold and hot periods in the past, and how the same time periods were being portrayed by climate "scientists" as being "Normal". Someone is not telling the whole truth .... and now we know who it is!

Wouldn't want to be a climate scientist right now - prospects for future employment look pretty gloomy - if I were a climatologist I'd jump ship ASAP before the rush! 88.110.230.109 22:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was quite amusing as a TV show (i.e. it was crap enough not to be serious or annoying) anyway it didn't seem to negate any of the article: the main thrust seemed to be the Al Gore was wrong about the ice records because warmth drives CO2 not the other way round. Don't see that "central premise" appearing in this article or did I miss it somewhere? --BozMo talk 22:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems we'll have this whenever some cranks come up with something claiming to 'debunk climate change'. It happened with Christopher Monckton's daft report a few months back. Of course some of the world's top scientists on the IPPC are wrong, and a bunch of mavericks with a proven anti-enviromentalist agenda are right. G-Man * 23:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

How are they 'proven anti-environmentalist'? One of the contributors was the co-founder of Greenpeace. Admit it, you haven't even seen the documentary. Much easy to smear the opposition than actually learn something new, isn't it? Grimerking 23:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahhhhh. Let me guess. Its that 'patrick moore' idiot right? The dude is a professional anti environmentalist whos infamous for being opposed to all forms of environmentalism whilst pointing out he was involved briefly with greenpeace some 20 odd years ago. He's a professional con-man. Ten years ago he came to perth , claiming logging was necessary to 'fix' the environment. All expenses funded by the local timber mill. He runs a company that specialises in 'debunking' environmentalists for a fee. No he's not credible at all. 58.7.0.146 11:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well there's Martin Durkin for example, the show's producer. who's previous documentary was roundly condemned by the Independent Television Commission for misleading and misrepresenting facts [6]. Of course if you want to believe people like that over the vast majority of world scientific opinion, you are of course perfectly welcome. G-Man * 23:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, how dumb can those IPCC scientists be? Instead of getting the true story from Channel 4, they waste their time reading books and journal articles and stuff. Raymond Arritt 23:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

How dumb, pretty dumb if their science doesn't stand up to some very simple scrutiny! There was once a group of scientists that believed in phlogeston, another group believed in the ether, another group believed in lamarks theory of "evolotion", through the history of science there have been scientists who have gone up a dead alleyway only to come out years later looking very sheepish. I was convinced by the evidence on the Channel 4 program, most other people will have been as well - the evidence was afterall compelling. Let me summarise the argument here - temperature has risen, CO2 levels have risen, therefore CO2 causes temperature rise. But when I saw the very close correlation of sun spot activity with temperature, and the lag between temperature and CO2, then I knew something was seriously wrong with the idea of manmade global warming! I can see the R&D funding on global warming starting to dry up even now! In 3-5 years, they'll be a fraction of the funding and it might be possible to edit this article without some idiot reverting before the enter key rises. 88.109.250.241 17:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

CO₂, temperature, and sunspot activity since 1850

If the only thing suggesting warming might result from atmospheric CO₂ was the historical correlation then you might be on to something, but that's far from the truth. Indeed, warming as a result of atmospheric CO₂ were known long before those correlations were ever known. The reason we expect CO₂ to produce warming is basic physics with regard to absorption spectra (energy from the sun passes through due to it's frequency, while heat radiated back from has a different frequency, is absorped, and trapped). And as to correlations between sunspot activity and temp, try the last 50 years - obviously sunspot cycles have an effect, but it seems the CO₂ trend is at least as important. -- Leland McInnes 17:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Leland, look at the graph you included. Sunspot activity rises before temp and co2. The program discussed whether there was a delay in rising sunspot activity and rising temperatures. There may be a few years before the temp of the earth reacts to the increased activity, they pointed at the oceans taking a long time to warm and cool. Also, if you look at your own graph, temperature rises before CO2 levels rise during the last 40 years or so. Maybe temp rises result in more co2 being released by natural means? Ryanuk 21:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a nice idea that the current temperature rise is a delayed response to the sun spot peak in 1960, but you'll need more than that - if you offset the sunspot data appropriately for the recent temp. rise and sunspot peak to align appropriately you end up with temperature lull around 1890 aligning with a sunspot peak from 1840-1850, so you've just given yourself something different to explain away. I also have to say I'm not sure what you mena by temp. rising before CO2 for last 40 years - CO2 is steadily increasing throughout the entire graph. As to CO2 increase being natural - that's easily disputed via isotope analysis of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The results are that the recent increase is quite clearly anthropogenic. The climate is complex and many factors affect it. It seems clear that sunspot activity has some effect. It is not at all clear, however, that it provides any better explanation that CO2. -- Leland McInnes 21:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanaition and plot. As you mention, it would seem that both CO2 levels and sunspot activity affect the climate. The suggested mechanism in the documentary was interesting, "the climate was controlled by the clouds, the clouds were controlled by cosmic rays and the cosmic rays were controlled by the sun. It all came down to the sun." While this explanation is perhaps over-simplified (there was some more detail in the documentary), does the concept broadly agree with your understanding of how sunspot activity influences the Earth's climate? Chrisnumbers2000 03:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Most people won't have actually seen the stupid thing, very wise of them, but if you care for a few notes then see http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/the_great_global_warming_swind_1.php William M. Connolley 23:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't listen to GW fanatics, listen to climatologists: Global warming: the bogus religion of our age Arvin Sloane 07:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

~~[incivil comment removed - Arvin Sloane 21:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)]~~

The article is by Lindzen and only mentions the documentary in passing - he shows no sign of having seen it, but reiterates his usual blabla. I fixed the syntax of your link, but check the semantics. Do you really want to link to the comments section? --Stephan Schulz 07:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[incivil comment removed - William M. Connolley 12:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)]

[removed - WMC] (BTW, nobody asked you to "fix" anything. Next time, please refrain from changing other people's comments without solicitation.) Arvin Sloane 11:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Your link was physically broken, as it had an extra http:// in front. Fixing such an obvious error is accepted Wikiquette. I suggest that you put a comment next to your errors if you want them unfixed for some reason. Lindzen used to be a respected scientist, and has done a lot of good work in the past. "World-reknown" is a bit strong for my taste - before his denialism, I doubt many people outside his specialty have known him. Anyways, regardless of his past contributions, in this article he really is repeating his usual "blabla", and there is no reason to give it more respect than it deserves. Some examples might be enlightening:

He dismisses most of the instrumental temperature record, but is happy to accept measurements from 1780 to claim that Greenland has not significantly warmed since then.
He still seems to ride an interpretation of the satellite temperature record that no-one seriously believes - not even Spencer or Christy. But then he is so vague about it that it is unclear what exactly he thinks.

--Stephan Schulz 08:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I watched the programme and found it quite interesting. I think on the whole it's a good thing to have the debate. And I think journalists (and some scientists) are guilty of exaggeration. However it struck me even at the time how one-sided it was; a lot was irrelevant. Who cares what percentage of the atmosphere CO2 is? The question is what effect it has. It also appeared to suggest that believers in human generated global warming ignored all other causes of global warming. In particular, they never looked at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png which I found online when looking for it again today, and which to me is the crux of the argument. The political argument I found somewhat ludicrous. Are you seriously telling me that the environmental lobby has stopped Africa industrialising? And solar power can be present in places without a National Grid or gaslines.

Anyway, it's good that we talk about it and get a good understanding, and there are many areas that still need to be understood. But one sided polemics like this don't help. Building better models and understanding the risks and consequences of different actions helps.