Talk:Climate change/Archive 57

Archive 50

←

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Gasification, Respiration, and Flatulence

Why not add "...such as breathing (respiration), fossil fuel burning (gasification) and deforestation..." to the lead? Brian Everlasting (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Because breathing doesn't have an impact on the rise of CO2? (please see Carbon cycle). Flatulence (i assume you mean emissions from ruminants, where flatulence is actually a minimal part - since most comes from "burps") only has an impact because the gas emitted is methane (which has a higher greenhouse effect than CO2), once it degrades down to CO2 it is a regular part of the carbon cycle. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: link to impact factor in answer to FAQ Q22

Proposed change, add link from the word impact to the article impact factor. I believe that the scientific measurement term impact factor is what is meant by impact. Any objections? TMLutas (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Object. I interpret the word following the dictionary meaning "influence; effect" or "the effect or impression of one thing on another." In any event there is considerable skepticism regarding the use of impact factors to evaluate or compare journals. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you similarly object to the use of WP:RS to justify the F22 standard using impact factor criteria on individual papers? Because if doing it for journals is controversial, doing it for papers is even more so and that's what the current text is saying is not only current practice but that it's so accepted that it's noncontroversial. If you look at the impact factors section on misuse, counting citations on individual papers is considered scientific misuse yet here that concept is in the current A22. TMLutas (talk) 05:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Debate and skepticism

Can somebody please explain why by attempt to start this section with the paragraph that is actually about the section title was immediately reverted. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Diffs please. And grammar William M. Connolley (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. This is the diff [[1]]. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Look again. That's not a revert. -Atmoz (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph that I moved to the start of the section has been put back at the end. That is my complaint. I have not checked the wording is exactly the same. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you had added the paragraph. Moving it to the beginning was clearly inappropriate. -Atmoz (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearly? Would someone care to explain why. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Because the first paragraph of a section tends to be the most important, and the most important part of that section is the political debate, not the minority of scientists who doubt global warming. May I ask why you thought it was more appropriate at the top? — DroEsperanto (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Readers of this article will expect the section on "Debate and skepticism" to be informative and provide some grounding in the main objections. I don't feel that that is what's happening. "Believers" rightly control 80% of the article, they should not control the 20% of the article dedicated to "non-believers". MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That was pretty well my point. The current opening paragraph is not actually about debate and scepticism, the paragraph that I moved to the top was, as my edit summary said. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe that some editors are seriously advancing this territorial argument. We're not here to be believers and skeptics, we're here to write the best encyclopedia article. That wouldn't be achieved by dividing editors up into two teams and giving each team a patch of territory. --TS 15:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe that, at a topic/series of articles totally dominated by believers (up to and including agreeing new policies and refusing to tell others what they are) the non-believers are accused of territoriality.

As should be obvious, the stupidly entitled "Debate and skepticism" section is failing to perform its function - the revert looks like a deliberate tactic to keep it that way. Meanwhile the productive time and effort of non-believers is drained by attacks on their work-in-progress, as is happening to Mark Nutley's work on User:Marknutley/The Gore Effect, slated for deletion - territoriality, anyone? It's his own private and non-indexed user-page!!!!!!! (I prepared a vote to KEEP per BozMo, then decided I'd rather watch and see if sanity broke out).

In fact, it's no exaggeration to say there is a reign of terror in operation - and the tentacles even extend to the likes of me, a believer in the main tenets of GW/AGW!

Meanwhile, this article suffers terribly. Despite the vast amount of attention it gets, I've now noticed a second finding important "believer" fact left out. The first one was soot (quite a battle getting it in) and the new one is surely amongst the most important positive feedback factor. I'm working on a draft at a different machine, otherwise I'd put it in right now and say "How on earth did you miss this?" MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 11:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do start a RFC (see WP:RFC) if you want to air your concerns about this. Alternatively if you think Wikipedia policy is being egregiously ignored in letter or spirit and in a way that is disruptive, please file a request for enforcement at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. --TS 13:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

What for? I can't teach people much more experienced than me how to write articles properly or how to recognise bad writing. Especially when some have said they'll invent policy and not tell us about it. When I do try and make improvements they are immediately reverted and I get thinly veiled threats on my TalkPage. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

FAQ A22 edit war

On 12/30 Q22 was added to the faq and unfortunately it seems to hold positions that are contrary to policy. After trying to tag it so it was at least referenced by something, trying to rework it in accord to actual policy (and failing miserably in draft), trying to talk to two separate editors who are referencing policy inappropriately, trying to kill it as hopelessly wrong, I've ended up POV tagging the thing and calling for consensus.

FAQs are supposed to be noncontroversial. Q22 shouldn't even exist but that doesn't seem to be in the cards.

Relevant documents asserted by various editors. I agree with some and not with others but am listing so that we don't have to start from zero.

policy WP:NOTNEWS WP:NOTTEXTBOOK WP:WEIGHT WP:NPOV WP:PSTS

content guideline WP:RS WP:FRINGE WP:TOOLONG

essay WP:DEADLINE WP:RECENT

I'm a bit rushed, if I've missed something, please add to the list. TMLutas (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't see what policy you think F22 is contrary to. It looks fine to me, and corresponds to how things are generally done here. Bear in mind that the FAQ *isn't* policy - no-one can refer you to the FAQ and say "you can't do this because its says not in the FAQ" - all it does is summarise previous discussion William M. Connolley (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It at least appears to be applying a guideline for the use of news coverage (WP:NOTNEWS) to a fundamentally different category of sources (peer reviewed papers). The relevant section from What Wikipedia is not dealing with Not News is:

"News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews."

Given that the Not News principle is addressing a fundamentally different issue, this would appear to suggest that there is a higher standard, for this article, for the use of peer-reviewed papers than Wikipedia's guidelines would otherwise require.EastTN (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree on the fundamental different issue but really would wish that *somebody* would provide some sort of reference to the policy, guideline, or rule laying out the higher standard. I'm firmly for following the rules that are laid out and discussed to consensus. I'm firmly against following the capricious stuff that just lives inside a large enough group of editors' heads. TMLutas (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, all I meant to say was that the current text of FAQ22 appears to suggest a different standard for peer-reviewed journal articles than the normal Wikipedia guidelines would require. I didn't intend to take a position on whether that different standard is appropriate or not. EastTN (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

In direct answer to your question, WMC, it's contrary to WP:NOTTEXTBOOK at the least. There are other things wrong with it but that's a big one. TMLutas (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

In an above section, TS, the original F22 creator asked me to lay out in more detail my objections. I replied that I wanted the discussion consolidated here. My reply:

WP:WEIGHT as written is about framing minority viewpoints so that they do not achieve undeserved prominence. It's a great rule and is an inclusive one. I'm coming in from global cooling, a place where if you're going to discuss the topic at all seriously, has to be chock full of minority viewpoints. WP:WEIGHT has recommendations on how to treat minority opinions. They are to add sufficient majority opinion text so that undue weight does not happen. For pages similar to global cooling the majority position should be recognized as majority but does not need to dominate as it would in a page like global warming. If these recommendations were followed, I would be perfectly satisfied.

But looking at A22 and you see a different standard applied, exclusion and waiting for an indeterminate time for things to shake out and publish only what has impact. Where does that come from? It's not from WP:WEIGHT. I'm open to the standard. On talk:global cooling I've been bending over backwards since 22 December provisionally trying to comply with this sort of thing on the assumption that somebody's going to come up with a rule, policy, or guideline that has been well discussed and supports the sort of restriction various editors like WMC, KDP, and SBHB have demanded. Simultaneously I've been asking for references to those rules, policies, and guidelines. F22 is the closest anybody's come up with and F22 didn't even exist on 22 December when I started asking. It was written 8 days later.

As WMC rightly points out a FAQ is just a shortcut of previous discussion and has no rule, policy, or guideline implication. I'm coming close to the conclusion that a significant number of the rules being imposed in this climatology space are mere private interpretations being backed by bullying force. Somebody tell me it's not so and give me a reasonable rule that's been discussed to consensus in the wider Wikipedia community. TMLutas (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The rules you see in action here are the rules of science. Wikipedia's general policies work for just about anything there is, from a boy-band write-up to a breaking news story to a software product. Science doesn't work like these things and never has. Those of us who have been involved in the world of science for decades recognise these basics - peer review, nothing too new, established facts, debatable new theories etc etc. Knowledge of all this is implicitly applied on all normal scientific articles without comment. Global warming is turning out to be unique - it is a piece of science that has impacted squarely with everyday politics and news, and everyday people. For this reason, people come along here and say, "Science? Pah! I want to put some counter-opinion in here - I read about it in [favourite blog/newspaper/etc]". They don't do that on Hooke's law or String theory, so the question doesn't arise. In this topic there are all kinds of sub-articles, like Public opinion on climate change, Economics of climate change etc etc where these debates and opinions are covered and discussed with weight and balance, but this is the one where we have the actual science, and settled science is not a matter of personal opinion, or subject to politics. If you do a science degree at university, you don't get to put your hand up all the way through a lecture on the Laws of thermodynamics and say, "I don't agree. Have you considered X?" It's a bit like this here. This is where you learn the established and settled science, then you go to the sub articles to see how it was built up and what your politicians are debating while they decide what to do about it. --Nigelj (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The FAQ in question (number 22), deals specifically with "recent peer reviewed paper[s]" - not someone's "favourite blog/newspaper/etc". Recent journal articles are routinely cited in academic literature. EastTN (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I covered that point. 'Nothing too new' is ever included when explaining the basics of established science to any audience. There are other articles where possible detailed debates within small areas of the subject are discussed, such as Global warming controversy. --Nigelj (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That's the question. "Nothing too new" - at least as applied to peer reviewed journal articles - does not appear to be one of Wikipedia's standard editing guidelines. The current text of answer #22 doesn't define "too new" and doesn't single out journal articles with results that are unexpected or the subject of debate. The specific language suggests that we would only include a journal article that has "significant impact" or "revolutionizes scientific thought". That would, on the face of it, seem to preclude using as a source a really good review paper that is published in a peer reviewed journal and summarizes the current state of the science. Is that really what we want here? I suspect the intent is to keep out peer reviewed research that, for whatever reason, produces results that are inconsistent with the broader body of evidence. Odd results turn up in any field, due to data outliers, effects that aren't fully understood yet, methodological problems or whatever. I sympathize with the concern. But again, on the face of it at least, it appears that the current answer to FAQ #22 suggests a standard for determining which sources may be used in the article that is different from what Wikipedia's normal guidelines would require, and which may sweep in (or out, rather) more than was intended. EastTN (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There's been an edit war over Q22? Who knew?

Q22 is just a distillation of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:WEIGHT. Obviously new and as-yet unevaluatd papers don't get much weight. In time they may gather more weight according to the attention paid to them in the scientific community. This is different from the way things work in the news, where a paper gains news value according to the novelty of its conclusions. Science doesn't proceed by news release, so since our task here is to describe the science of global warming here we don't write about every novel paper as soon as it appears but wait for the scientific community to absorb and comment on the results. This follows from the neutral point of view--how can you determine weight if the paper hasn't been evaluated? --TS 00:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

TS, WP:WEIGHT is certainly a valid consideration in this context. Had Q22 just focused on that, I wouldn't have commented. But the current text leads with, and seems primarily focused on, WP:NOTNEWS. Having gone back and looked at what WP:NOTNEWS actually says, this seems to me to be a pretty clear misapplication of that particular guideline. The text there is entirely focused on "news coverage [as] . . . useful source material for encyclopedic topics", "routine news reporting" and "breaking news". It never mentions anything other than news reporting, and at a minimum is clearly contemplating something other than peer reviewed papers. Looking back at the discussion above, it seems that the issue we're discussing really isn't how recently a paper has been published; it's whether the results are consistent with what we consider to be established science. For instance, if a new paper is published that extends and updates a data series that has been extensively analyzed before, producing some results that generally reinforce prior work but have some interesting new twist (perhaps showing that warming is happening a bit faster or slower than expected, or geographic variations are somewhat more significant that previously thought, or what have you), are we really saying that it should be excluded from the article simply because it's "new"? I don't think so. If the real concern isn't how recent a paper is, but how consistent it is with the broader body of evidence and whether there are other, similar results to give it credence, then we should say so. But that's a different line of reasoning than what the current answer to the FAQ gives.EastTN (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I can sort-of see your point, though in my experience the only reason why we're seeing people coming here to propose adding the latest stuff is that they read about it on some blog or news site. Perhaps the "Not news" reference can be removed without altering the sense of the answer, and perhaps a more concrete way of linking it can be found. The wording from Not News that strikes me as appropriate is: "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." Combined with WP:WEIGHT, I think that's a good answer to why the novelty of a new paper doesn't make up for our inability, in the early days, to evaluate its significance. Your point about whether a paper is consistent with the body of published, peer reviewed science is a good one and in recent days I had been considering extending Q22 to cover that, but it isn't essential and, indeed, failure to replicate earlier results in itself can be something we'd want to write about once the relevant paper's significance has been determined. --TS 01:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that WP:NOTNEWS is completely relevant to things coming from a blog or news site; that seems to be exactly what the guideline was designed to address. It may be possible to establish the notability of a very recent event (e.g., a declaration of war, passage of a major piece of legislation, a significant terrorist attack), but we need to ask whether it's notable, or whether it's just the latest sighting of a random celebrity behaving badly. I just don't think the line "[w]hile including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information" from WP:NOTNEWS is the right place to go here. The context seems to make it pretty clear that it's addressing the notability of persons and events; questions of "who were they anyway" and "will anyone remember once the party is over." When we turn to scientific papers in peer reviewed journals, the real issues are WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. Both the answer to FAQ 22 and the discussions on the talk page might be clearer and more productive if we'd focus on them rather than on the date of a paper. I understand your point about the difficulty of evaluating a novel result, but that seems to me to fall firmly under WP:WEIGHT if we're dealing with results that haven't yet been duplicated by anyone else. EastTN (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The latest revision of F22 by SBHB is taking a new policy out of context, WP:RS. I've added that content guideline to the original list. SBHB makes reference to the section on scholarship, quoting "The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes" but if you take a look at the scholarship section it becomes clear that what is referred to by the word sources is journals, not peer reviewed papers. Underneath the quoted section is an entirely acceptable guideline on what to do with isolated papers, essentially treat them with caution but use them until you get something better. Unfortunately, this does not support the F22 line and so the preceding para was chopped up to give the misleading impression that sources=papers.

Here are three relevant paragraphs from the quoted section on scholarship

• Finished Ph.D. dissertations, which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community; most are available via interlibrary loan. UMI has published two million dissertations since 1940. Dissertations in progress are not vetted and are not regarded as published. They are not reliable sources as a rule.
• The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals not included in a citation index, especially in fields well covered by such indexes, should be used with caution, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context.
• Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context.

Finished PH.D. dissertations are considered reliable yet are very likely to be minimally cited if at all. The middle para could probably be improved to make it more clear that what's being discussed is the acceptability of journals. Finally, the most relevant paragraph is the last and I suggest should be the basis of a proper F22 if one is made. The "needs to have impact" or "needs to be cited" or "we need to wait until there's a reaction" objections seem to not be very congruent with this section of WP:RS. Their defense really needs some other anchor in policy, guideline, or rule and if none is found, should be withdrawn as incompatible with the rules as written.

Alternatively, one could go and try to improve WP:RS and all the rest so that the rules as written are more congenial to the attitude. Nobody seems to have tried to do so, I think for very good reason. TMLutas (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice up to now EastTN's use of WP:FRINGE, sorry about that. I've added the guideline to the list at section top. TMLutas (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to get sucked into one of these endless arguments, but if you can lay your concerns out in a brief and focused way I'll try to respond. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

My concerns were laid out in my comment above time-stamped 03:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC) . If you want shorter, the isolated study para (above) is a better model for F22 and the current justification in F22 seems to be aimed at detecting fraudulent journals, not scientific papers that should not be included. TMLutas (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Goodness, who mentioned fraud? We're only concerned with being able to evaluate papers on the basis of their acceptance within the scientific community, and I believe that's what the current wording says. There is nothing about fraud in the current wording, nor as far as I'm aware has any incarnation of the FAQ Q22 or its answer ever hinted at or referred to misconduct. This isn't about fraud. Many perfectly fine non-fraudulent papers turn out to have little scientific significance. --TS 14:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

SBHB mentioned fraud when he quoted the anti-fraudulent journal detection section of WP:RS as being relevant to evaluating whether a paper should be used. I don't think it's appropriate, you seem to agree. Good. We're still searching for a reasonable policy to hang F22 off of though I see that somebody new is trying below. Hopefully they're going to have better luck. TMLutas (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Also try WP:RECENT.— DroEsperanto (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That'a a perfectly good essay and I've recommended it myself in informal contexts and edit summaris, but I'd hesitate to use it as justification, especially in a FAQ. Essays express opinions, and policies have much more weight. --TS 14:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:RECENT is a great essay, but it's dealing with different issues: topics that have no notability beyond the tabloid news cycle; swamping a broader article with too much coverage of a recent event (turning the Louisiana article into an article on Hurricane Katrina) instead of splitting it out into a separate article; and swamping a broader article with too much coverage of our current era at the expense of earlier, relevant eras (writing the article on War in a way that makes it seem like war was invented when WWII was started).

How would we want this policy to actually work? Let's imagine that two papers are published next month in the same peer reviewed journal, and each uses a new, innovative approach. Let's further imagine that one is published by researchers at the CRU and comes up with results that are right smack dab in the middle of the current scientific consensus - but the other is published by a different, more recently established research group and produces results that seem inconsistent with most of the existing evidence. Both would meet the requirements to be reliable sources, but the results would be very different.

My sense of the discussion is that we would want to permit immediate use of the first paper, but not of the second. If that's right, then the real issue here is not recentism or waiting long enough to see what impact a paper has. Rather, the real concerns are WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. In this case, WP:NOTNEWS seems to me to be a red herring. The real debate isn't about how old each study is, but should center on how much weight to give it based on considerations such as the ones TMLutas has mentioned: has anyone else reproduced the work with similar results, or is this an isolated result; are any other scholars citing it; is it showing up in standard indexes; etc. I have absolutely no problem with our making these judgments, but we should be clear and honest with ourselves about the basis we're using. EastTN (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Lets just cut to the point here. Faq 22 was instituted to limit any new research which would be contrary to AGW proponents, such as the recent research showing that CO2 has not increased in proportion over the past 160 years. A quick view of the article shows that recent research which further the AGW viewpoint is not subjected to the same scrutiny. This is nothing more than an attempt to further control this article by AGW propenents and nothing else. Arzel (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

From AR4: "There is yet no statistically significant trend in the CO2 growth rate since 1958 .... This 'airborne fraction' has shown little variation over this period." Le Quere 2009 and Knorr 2009 both find small but statistically significant trends in a still very noisy signal after removing the variability associated with El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and volcanic activity. But meh, have it your own way. You want to think the FAQ question was tailored to exclude results that we know more or less conform to AR4, that's fine with me. --TS 16:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I did not intend to accuse anyone of bad faith or intentional misbehavior, and I apologize if anything I've said suggests that. My basic points are that: WP:NOTNEWS addresses a fundamentally different set of questions; the real issues here are WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE; and both the FAQs and the discussion about specific sources would be clearer and more productive if we'd focus on those instead of how recently a peer-reviewed paper has been published. I have no problem making judgments about the way to give specific sources as we do it in an even handed way - I just think that appealing to WP:NOTNEWS is a red herring when it comes to peer-reviewed papers. EastTN (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Cutting to the point is not helpful here. I have my own suspicions as to why F22 was written but they're irrelevant. I've spent half a month on global cooling demanding exactly this sort of policy justification for the same sort of behavior there and got a lot of silence and half the same justifications that have been skewered in this section. People on both sides of the issue are rising above ideological self-interest here. That's no small thing and should be applauded. I wish it happened more often. TMLutas (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think your actions at global cooling are an excellent example of why we need to deal with issues like this. You wanted to include material in the global cooling articles that was (a) unpublished (still in press), and (b) which you hadn't read, and which clearly did not say what you tried to use it to say. That's one of the best arguments for letting experts evaluate the impact of new ideas first, before we add them to articles, rather than letting editors (who may not have even read the articles in question) try to insert information "hot off the press" (or rather, these days, the PDF-generator). Guettarda (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Tut, tut, the only person who said he never read that paper was KDP and that didn't stop him from speaking out of ignorance and saying how irrelevant the 12/3 paper was based on his reading of a *different paper* published earlier in 2009. I was and still am trying to limit usage of the paper to stuff that is not behind a pay wall because I wanted to forestall a whole different line of unfounded objections (I still do). That is different from saying I haven't read it and your assumption is unsupported by anything other than an underlying assumption that I'm working at this in bad faith. I also agreed that the paper shouldn't be used when in press as soon as you raised the issue. I was and am willing to wait a decent interval if there was some sort of willingness to specify when it would come out of embargo. The answer I got back from multiple editors was not helpful, not clear, and not actually based on existing rules, policies, or guidelines. In fact, it looked a lot like what F22 is just running in a different talk page a week earlier. In any case, the current proposed edit omits the paper entirely and will continue to do so until a decent consensus has been achieved on it that satisfies WP:WEIGHT. And global cooling still doesn't have a section covering the 2000-2009 period at all, a period that arguably has had more interest in global cooling than the prior decade. TMLutas (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I like your two papers test case but I'm not sure why you would not use both papers, appropriately weighted. I've got a global cooling paper. I can reasonably see it being shunted off to a page like global cooling and not be used here. You can't fit everything in a main article like global warming and weighting is so far out of balance that its use to start in specialized pages would be more appropriate because the appropriate balancing weight would require so much majority text to reflect the imbalance that the resulting article would immediately be split and thus WP:WEIGHT could never be satisfied. This inclusive approach is not what F22 proposes and so it needs to be reworked to match the current rules. Let's say adding WP:TOOLONG along in with WP:WEIGHT so that minority views that would require more balancing text than is left in the article length before mandatory split (>100k). Right now the GW page is 98k long. So if my minority global cooling paper asserting that the globe's been cooling since 2002 required 0.5k to cite and more than 1.5k in mainstream stuff to satisfy weight issues, the minority paper shouldn't be used at all because it would cause a mandatory split. But in global cooling, currently at 32k in length, the appropriate 3k of offsetting references does not cause a split so the paper could be used there without objection. TMLutas (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess my real point is that whether we include one, both, or neither, the decision is going to based on issues of WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE and whether the material would fit better somewhere else. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply, and really has nothing to do with the decision.EastTN (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me second the objections that WP:RECENT doesn't exactly fit. It deals with overburdening an article with recent developments at the cost of older examination, not the complete exclusion of recent content that F22 foresees. I agree with WP:RECENT I just don't think it fits. If you disagree, it would be helpful to be more specific. After all, the essay also contains a defense of recentism as well as talk against it. TMLutas (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the current phrasing of FAQ22 does a pretty good job of summarising what matters here. There's no way we could stay on top of the literature here. It's not possible. So we need some way to pick and choose what to include. The normal way to do that is to defer to expert sources. What sort of a reception does an idea get in the literature? It's not like there's a deadline, it's not like there's any rush to include the latest stuff hot off the press. A published paper is the beginning of a discussion, not the end of it. Science is self-correcting. We need to let it do its job. It's not like this is an uncontroversial field where a paper on X may be the only thing that's going to come out for the next 2 years. Anything that's really interesting will attract attention. We can - and we should - wait for secondary and tertiary sources to evaluate the science, rather than making WP:OR decisions as to how seriously we should take the latest "news". Guettarda (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The current version does look okay to me, and I don't find any of the contrary arguments based on the notion that it ignores, rather than expresses, Wikipedia policy at all convincing. In any case, if existing policy as written allowed the random addition of unevaluated new papers, we'd just have to extend policy to say that, actually, that isn't such a good idea after all. --TS 18:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the page become a "random" collection of "unevaluated new papers." I also don't think we have to extend policy to prevent that: WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE are adequate to address the issue. My issue here is that FAQ 22 does not, as currently written, reflect what we're really doing. The question is not one of time - if it were, we could simply pick a minimum period time, like 12 months, and say that to ensure we can properly evaluate it, no peer reviewed paper will be referenced in this article before twelve months after publication. Based on the comments about what people are trying to avoid, though, that's not what we're looking to do. We are trying to exclude papers that are unusual or of relatively minor importance (WP:WEIGHT) and papers that are so far out of the mainstream of science as to be essentially valueless (WP:FRINGE). If that is the case, we should come straight out and say so instead of relying on a policy that's intended to screen out reporting of minor celebrities who don't rise to the full 15 minutes of fame and ephemeral events like this week's high school homecoming. EastTN (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

My arguments that it is contrary to policy are laid out in detail above at the following timestamp 03:52, 5 January 2010 and again in summary form at timestamp 10:13, 5 January 2010 . I know that it's getting hard to pick out individual arguments in this sea of text but I assure you, you've missed real objections. TMLutas (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we're straying far from territory on which we can make common ground. The current version of FAQ 22 refers by quotation to the following fragment of Reliable sources guideline:

Wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources states The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. Brand-new papers will have accumulated few if any such citations, so we don't ordinarily base our writing on very recent works.

Does anybody disagree that this gets to the nub of the question and is a direct quotation from a relevant guideline? If you disagree, exactly what is the objection? -TS 10:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a significant improvement. I might also be inclined to change "We can't include all of them, so we wait to see if papers have significant impact" to something along the lines of "We can't include all of them, and must consider WP:WEIGHT in choosing which sources to reference." I think that would do a better job of communicating the real issue, and would work well with the text quoted from the guideline on reliable sources. EastTN (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I see WP:WEIGHT as a related but different consideration. The reply as it currently stands talks about criteria for including new papers, while WP:WEIGHT talks about minority views. Those are only minimally overlapping sets. A mention of WP:WEIGHT is appropriate but it should be broken out into a separate sentence. How about something like "We can't include all of them, so we wait to see if papers have significant impact. We also have to take into account the appropriate weight to be given to various viewpoints." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but I still think we're talking about a single underlying question. WP:WEIGHT naturally focuses on what doesn't deserve attention (it links to the same spot as WP:UNDUEWEIGHT), but the real issue is deciding if something is a notable view or a non-notable minority view. It's the same test whether a paper falls on the notable view side of the line, or on the non-notable minority view side of the line. I'd be more comfortable with something like "We can't include all of them, and in choosing which sources to include we must give careful consideration to the appropriate weight to give each one." When we say a new study should not be included, we're not really saying that it's too new, we're saying that including it would give it too much weight.EastTN (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

My objection is the same as my objection to the other guidelines, the policy/rule/guideline referred does not actually support what is claimed. WP:RS section 2.1 para 4 is the location of the quote. The quote is taken out of context. If you look at the full context it's clear to me that "source" is not a paper but a journal. Isolated papers are addressed in the next para, are more relevant, and are handled in a manner inconsistent with the F22 approach. TMLutas (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

One thing that perhaps I've been missing. In terms of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, where does the actual study fall. If it's primary, shouldn't we be talking about the need for secondary and tertiary sources? Wouldn't that be a better filter? The relevant policy then would be WP:PSTS. TMLutas (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal Delete FAQ Q22

FAQs should not be under dispute, should not be controversial. I've objected and the text has morphed several times as a direct edit which is not the way it should have happened. It should have been removed and discussed to consensus and then put back up if it survived the discussion. So let's take the thing down, finish the discussion (which currently centers around what the WP:RS people meant by the term source in para 4 of their section on scholarship and whether para 5 of the same section might not be a better policy to draw from) and put a consensus text up then. The page's survived years without Q22 which was added 12/30/09. There shouldn't be a problem with following normal procedure and discussing it out before it's put up. TMLutas (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I suspect we've talked out our differences now. The FAQ probably now has consensus, if there was ever a point at which it did not. We probably do need some kind of standard answer for people who naively believe they can shove the latest novel results into the article. --TS 00:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

inconsistency in intro

The intro defines global warming as the rise in temperature since the "middle of the 20th century". It then gives a figure for the rise between the beginning and end of the 20th century. By the definition used this figure has no place in the article and certainly not in the first sentences because half of the time period is outwith the key period.

Clearly the figure needs to be replaced with one giving the rise from "the middle of the 20th century" and not from the start.Isonomia (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree but also believe that this inconsistency has no effect on the meaning of the passage, only on cosmetics and triviality. The time scale mentioned is to highlight the acceleration of global warming in recent years? Brian Everlasting (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

well, I'm probably about to step on a land mine by saying this, but the reason this opening is confused is because it tries to talk about global warming as a fact instead of as a theory. what it really should say is something like "Global warming is a theory that tries to define and explain apparent increases in the average temperature of Earth's oceans and near-surface air. These temperatures increased globally by 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) between the start and the end of the 20th century, with an accelerated pace since the mid-20th century, and are projected to continue rising." --Ludwigs2 03:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Like Evolution in other words, which remains a theory no matter that it's the central pillar of the life-sciences and has made predictions we now recognise as having been validated. I don't believe we've seen the predictions of GW (or AGW, anyway) come true yet. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 08:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure we have. We have not seen all the prediction come true (yet), but we see stratospheric cooling, we see polar amplification, we see the Suess effect and ocean acidification (both in the larger set of predictions), we see glaciers retreating and ice mass loss on Greenland, we see sea ice retreat.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

How many of those are predictions that were made ahead of evidence for them? Darwin predicted that the origins of man would be found in Africa many years before the paleantologists stopped looking for them in Asia. In fact, many years before they started looking in Asia. Yet Evolution is still considered a theory - AGW is the same. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

One example: global warming as a result of CO2 emission was predicted by Svante Arrhenius around 1900. Evolution (just like global warming) is both a fact and a theory - may I suggest you go read scientific theory? Science has nothing better to offer... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Can I just check that there is no one against changing the first sentences to make them more consistent? Isonomia (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Not so fast. Which way are you planning to agreeise them? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're starting to vote on the italicised nonsense above, it fails after the 4th word: Global warming is not a theory; it's a measured, observed fact. A bunch of undecided/creationists chewing the cud together does not a consensus make. --Nigelj (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Nigelj: please let's keep our terminology clean and clear. there is observable evidence that the globe has been getting warmer; that is not in question. That observable evidence supports the theoretical claim that some unusual process of global warming is occurring. Wherever scientists talk about ongoing phenomena and make predictions about future (currently unobserved) states or events, they are engaged in theory. This is neither a derogatory term nor a problem - this is the way science works. In science, there are neither facts nor opinions; there are theories, and there are measurements that can support or refute theories, nothing more. I personally happen to think the theory that there is some abnormal process of global warming is fully supported by the available evidence - it's the best theory we have that explains what we see - but it is still unquestionably a theory. --Ludwigs2 19:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

No, this is about I's comment of 16:23, 6 January 2010. Since this is now redundant, I've collapsed it William M. Connolley (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to have this collapsed, please, since his comment was clearly about my suggestion (the only thing in this section that is italicized), and my response was cogent and useful for future reference. this just saves me the trouble of posting it again later when the point arises again (as I suspect it most assuredly will). --Ludwigs2 21:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

But the Efficient Market Hypothesis is so-called because it is a hypothesis. There is academic consensus that the hypothesis is correct, but it is still called a hypothesis. HistorianofScience (talk) 09:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(undent)Your proposed version makes the mistake of confusing "global warming", the observed fact, with the proposed theory explaining it. Doing so is like saying hurricanes are a theory, while rather the way we explain their causes is. In any case I think that this discussion is a digression from the original topic, which is the about the timing of the temperature increases, and the rest should probably be collapsed. — DroEsperanto (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

yeesh, you people and collapsing - relax a bit! there's no hurry.

back on point, I'm afraid you've made the mistake of confusing an inherently ambiguous set of empirical findings with a fact. The average global temperature has risen somewhat over the last 100 years - that is an empirical observation that cannot be denied. The moment you step beyond that to make projections, consider adverse effects, discuss causation, or in any way transform that empirical fact into a meaningful ongoing phenomenon you have entered into theory. to use your example, a hurricane is an observable phenomenon and if all you're worried about is wether you're going to die, that's probably good enough. The moment you start trying to predict the hurricane's strength or direction, or the number of hurricanes in a season, or etc, you've entered into the realm of theory, because it's theory that lets us make such predictions.

now, if you would like to keep this article strictly focused on the empirical observations, then we will need to discard any speculative discussion about trends, potential effects, causes, and the like (which currently make up about 1/2 to 2/3 of the article). I'm ok with that if that's the way you want to go. --Ludwigs2 00:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It's an established scientific theory, and shortening the article is seriously not a good idea. Major changes are obviously a no-go without a good argument.Julzes (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Julzes - reductio ad absurdem. I currently have no serious intention of shortening the article, I'm just trying to get a proper perspective on theory vs. fact. I take it from your 'established scientific theory' phrase that you have no objection to the revision I offered near the top of this section? --Ludwigs2 03:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Close. "...empirically observed phenomenon and the theory around it..." should replace simply "theory". It is not a theory that global warming has been occurring over a now-considerable span of time (with a recent lull).Julzes (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC) I'm going to be bold and fix the very start of the article. It may take some hours before I actually make a change. It will refer directly to the graph at the top, I expect a full paragraph in place of the first two sentences, and there will be mention of the recent lull I referred to (with a source). I'm going to use 'Climate-Change Science' and 'Climatology' in the most intelligent way I can. 'Global warming' is not a theory at all, but a short-hand for a phenomenon observed by climatologists.Julzes (talk) 03:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

ok, I'll wait and see what you do. I reserve the right to edit it, though... --Ludwigs2 05:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to post the text here before I edit it in:

'Global warming' is the commonly used shorthand for recent climate change, an empirically established and theoretically predicted increase in the Earth's average temperature over the last century (focused on the near-surface part of the atmosphere and the oceans). It's largely the scientific purview of climatologists, but, because of the complexity and urgency of the subject matter, is also heavily dealt with across scientific disciplines. The two run charts and the colored map at right show how temperatures have changed from what they were in the recent past. The changes are projected to continue, with a great deal of current uncertainty in specifics. At the very present, the data indicate we are in a lull in warming that may be similar to what occurred between 1945 and 1976 (click on first graph). However, the science has not advanced to the point where we can make such projections, though simulations have shown that numerous lulls will occur in a long-term trend of warming.

This will replace the first sentence, and I will pretty much leave the rest of the text alone. A good introductory paragraph, it seems to me. I await comments. Sourcing this shouldn't be an issue. You can see me fix (what will be) the second paragraph in a small way now (Just dating the IPCC report).Julzes (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Too complex and with too much information that isn't a summary of the body. The whole "lull" thing as well as the walk-thru of temps is speculative, and unsupported by sources (as well as likely wrong). Images are illustrations, and shouldn't be explained in text (thats what the caption is for). So all in all - not a good change. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It's source is in Science Magazine. The amount of the lull now being experienced won't be available for years. The part on simulations is not disputable. I'll consider what else is said.Julzes (talk) 09:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) well, the two objections I would have to this off-hand (one trivial and one not) are that (a) it's a bit informal and wordy, and (b) it's inaccurate. 'Global warming' is not a shorthand for actual climate change, which 99.9% of the people on the planet would not recognize. I mean, we're talking about 1° Celsius over a century - perhaps 1/25 of the seasonal variation in temperature in temperate regions - completely undetectable to the casual observer. not to mention that 'empirically established and theoretically predicted' is somewhat odd phrasing, inconsistent with normal scientific usages. If you want to go this route, I'd suggest something like the following:

'Global warming' refers to scientific observations of a global increase in average oceanic and near-surface atmospheric temperatures, and to theoretical constructs which try to explain that increase in terms of human-derived or natural causation. It falls primarily under the scientific purview of climatologists, but because of the complexity of the subject matter other scientific disciplines have noteworthy investments in the debate. As shown at right, these observations have recorded an accelerating increase of 1° Celcius over the last century - a dramatic change by climatological standards, though the climatological record does show other trends and lulls which make definitive prediction difficult.

The more detailed sections of what you wrote can be dealt with later in the intro, or possible more effectively in later sections that get into the meat of the subject. --Ludwigs2 08:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion is a little on the balanced-rather-than-accurate side, but I'll easily concede mine has problems too. Arrhenius predicted the rise, so it's not to be seen in the terms you present.Julzes (talk) 09:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Arrhenius was a theorist, without any of the global-scale empirical evidence that we currently possess, so I'm not sure what your point it. I'm also not sure waht "balanced-rather-than-accurate" means, or whether it's a compliment or insult. can you clarify? --Ludwigs2 10:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, neither one. Balanced-rather-than-accurate means what it says. Yours is good with simply 'explanations for' in place of 'constructs which try to explain'. Big semantic difference. I'd choose it over my own, almost. Arrhenius fits in the theoretical history that shows the constructs work.Julzes (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'm not seeing what it is you think is inaccurate in what I wrote. can you clarify? --Ludwigs2 17:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comments - the proposal is to use the same period over which to state temperature rise as that used in the definition of global warming. That definition is "rise since the middle of the 20th century", so the figure backing this up should use the same period. 79.71.129.112 (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem with this page sometimes, almost every thread gets sidelined. To me the figure does a good job in providing a context for the most recent changes (the "since the middle of the 20th century" bit). I don't see any need for there to be a precise match in the way that you describe, and I think that it would actually be less useful if there was. Mikenorton (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You can argue all you like over the best way to drive a nail with a wrench, but I'm still going to suggest you get a hammer. The inconsistency arises because editors are trying to avoid calling a theory a theory (for some reason that I have no knowledge of). I think the approach I gave above resolves the issue nicely, and once I get some more feedback from Julzes (and anyone else who cares to comment), I think it will constitute a significant enough improvement to merit editing it in. don't you? --Ludwigs2 17:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll give you some feedback. Here is how I believe the first paragraph should read:

'Global warming' refers to observations of a global increase in average near-surface and oceanic temperatures. Theoretical developments, beginning with a prediction by Svante Arrhenius in [year], have separated out anthropogenic and natural factors and shown that at least since the middle of the last century the primary causation has been the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by man. The subject primarily falls under the purview of climatologists, but, because of the complexity of the subject matter and an increasing urgency, other scientific disciplines have made noteworthy contributions in what is now an essentially complete debate with skeptics and denialists. They can be expected to continue to do so in refining predictions, assessing the past, and educating the public and policy makers.

You have nothing close to consensus for what you want, and editing what you want just isn't going to succeed. That much said, and realising that my paragraph is probably not going in either, we should improve on what's there. I don't really have the time for more than what I've done on this subject right now.Julzes (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

alright, let's all take a deep breath. I don't particularly want anything from this page - I like global warming as a scientific theory (and I dislike it as an empirical reality, though there's not much I can do about that). I'm just trying to get the article to be accurate, which it currently isn't. I actually like your revision (though I think it gets too far into the details too quickly - introductions need to be generalized), and I'm not particularly trying to start a fight. Is this page so strung-out that every effort at improving the article is viewed as an attack? --Ludwigs2 20:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to read Scientific theory yet? Just to be sure that we are clear about the difference between empirical, deductive, scientific theory and the common use of the term like, 'I know you have a theory that I left them indoors, but I'm sure I left my keys in the car'. --Nigelj (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I teach scientific theory, for whatever that's worth to you. I have checked out that page; some of it is sensible and some of it is a mess. --Ludwigs2 21:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Then you should understand that the observed temperature increases (which we commonly refer to as global warming) is an observed fact, NOT a theory. The CO₂/AGW model we use to explain this (which is not itself called global warming). Again, the words "global warming" do not refer to the explanation, but to the observed phenomenon, and therefore it is a mistake to say "global warming is a theory". Global warming is not a theory, and the theory is not called "global warming", but rather the AGW model or something like that. I fail to see what is inaccurate in the lead. And the frustration isn't coming from this page being "strung-out" and us seeing "attemps to improve the article as attacks", but rather because it appears that our responses are being ignored. — DroEsperanto (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you want me to slide into professor mode, here? The observed temperature increase (more generally any single set of empirical observations) has literally no meaning outside of a theoretical context - it's just observations. you're making the UFO error, here - you see something, and instantly jump to a conclusion about what that something factually is without recognizing (or critiquing) the theoretical underpinnings that make that jump seem reasonable. The power of the statement "The world is experiencing global warming" doesn't come from the empirical observations, it comes from the scientific theory that allows us to treat the empirical observations as examples of an ongoing process, and from the way that empirical observations support that theory better than other theories. When you focus expressly on the empirical observations you cause two problems: (a) you create confused and confusing language as you try to import theoretical concepts without revealing them as theoretical (and you have to import theory to make any sense of the issue at all). (b) You leave the science and the article open to all of the critiques you (I assume) hate, because without the theory giving it structure, anyone and their pet monkey can come along and say "well, I'm going to interpret this empirical evidence this way," and you've blocked the article from saying (the way a scientist would) "but that theoretical model doesn't conform to the evidence anywhere near as well as this theoretical model does".

You are essentially stripping the scientific argument of its greatest power by trying to limit article content to something that can be managed politically. To which I can only say... Dude! Let the science do the work.

And yes, this will be on the final. --Ludwigs2 22:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I walked away from my last edit, not realizing it never made it due to e/c. I see where you're coming from, Ludwigs2. I agree with your last post. You might argue for my paragraph without the last sentence plus required changes in the rest of the article.(?) I think getting too deep on the idea of 'scientific theory' would be as big a mistake as not mentioning it. This encyclopedia article is for everyone, not just science historians, so just having the article state that the theory is accepted as right might be best. What I said is that some people have declared the debate over, some people have changed their minds in favor of the correct side, and some people have become quiet. This can be documented, and it marks the end of a debate. How most of the article changes from now on is of minor interest to me. It's in reasonable hands.Julzes (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

ok, Julzes I'll work from that standpoint. DroEsperanto, do you want to debate this further, or can I start editing along these lines? --Ludwigs2 04:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, please do not make any edits to the article without getting consensus on the talk page first. So far, you have not said anything that sounds like your edits would be an improvement. Multiple editors have explained their objections to your line of thinking above. Bertport (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Bertport, it's a bit difficult getting consensus if no one is willing to discuss the issue reasonably. for instance, I have indeed said a number of things which (potentially at least) would make significant improvements to the article, and yet rather than discuss them you simply poopoo the ideas without comment. honestly, if I want to be contradicted without insight or explanation I have a 14 year old nephew who is willing (nay, eager) to oblige; I don't need to come to wikipedia for that.

If you have a specific, valid criticism, please offer it so that we can discuss the matter - who knows, maybe I'll learn something from you. if you don't, then why are you contributing? Contributions like this that lack any real value or insight just put me in the position of having to ignore you, which doesn't sit well with me. --Ludwigs2 05:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like Ludwigs2 is seeking consensus for something approaching what I said. Saying that he should not make any edits before getting a consensus in light of that seems to be an attempt to clutter up the basic issue, that being that the article's lede (along with other parts) could use some improvement in wording and updating in content. The issue of consensus here is something of a red herring. More edits will be made to the article as time goes by, and there will always be someone saying that there is no consensus.Julzes (talk) 07:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, do get the level of consensus you know you must for real changes in the article. Asking one person's opinion about beginning to edit is a little hasty. Work out what you're trying to do with this page with other editors before starting.Julzes (talk) 07:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

hey, I'm trying. but if no one wants to discuss the issue then I'm going to have to be bold and make the changes, and then ask for clarification from anyone who reverts (and I'm sure there are already a number of people watching this page like hawks, ready to revert any and every edit they don't like). Unfortunately this is standard practice on contentious articles - no one wants to discuss anything, because everyone is angry and frustrated with the conversations that have happened in the past and suspicious of anyone who smells like an 'opponent', even a little bit. so I will simply plod away trying to make proper discussions and improvements to the article. the trigger-happy people will jump on me, and then they'll jump on me again, and again, until eventually they figure out that it's not really an effective tactic with me, and that I'm not trying to make their lives difficult anyway. then they'll settle down enough so that I can work with them to make the kinds of improvements I want to make. it's sad that that's the way it has to be, but I do understand.

you can all take that as a statement of intent, incidentally... --Ludwigs2 08:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Support a change to the lead. Of the two suggesions offered, I prefer the general tenor of editor Ludwigs.

Hence replace: Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) between the start and the end of the 20th century. In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century was caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation. The IPCC also concludes that variations in natural phenomena such as solar radiation and volcanism produced most of the warming from pre-industrial times to 1950 and had a small cooling effect afterward. These basic conclusions have been endorsed by more than 40 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.

with something based on this:

Global warming refers to scientific observations of a global increase in average oceanic and near-surface atmospheric temperatures, and to theoretical constructs which try to explain that increase in terms of human-derived or natural causation. It falls primarily under the scientific purview of climatologists, but because of the complexity of the subject matter other scientific disciplines have noteworthy investments in the debate. As shown at right, these observations have recorded an accelerating increase of 1° Celcius over the last century - a dramatic change by climatological standards, though the climatological record does show other trends and lulls which make definitive prediction difficult.

(Then the three remaining paragraphs seem to follow quite naturally and can stay the same, for the moment)

Climate model projections summarized in the latest IPCC report indicate that the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the 21st century. The uncertainty in this estimate arises from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations and the use of differing estimates of future greenhouse gas emissions. Some other uncertainties include how warming and related changes will vary from region to region around the globe. Most studies focus on the period up to the year 2100. However, warming is expected to continue beyond 2100 even if emissions stop, because of the large heat capacity of the oceans and the long lifetime of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

An increase in global temperature will cause sea levels to rise and will change the amount and pattern of precipitation, probably including expansion of subtropical deserts. Warming will be strongest in the Arctic and will be associated with continuing retreat of glaciers, permafrost and sea ice. Other likely effects include increases in the intensity of extreme weather events, species extinctions, and changes in agricultural yields.

Political and public debate continues regarding global warming, and what actions (if any) to take in response. The available options are mitigation to reduce further emissions; adaptation to reduce the damage caused by warming; and, more speculatively, geoengineering to reverse global warming. Most national governments have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Much inferior to the current paragraph, clumsy, and historically wrong. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

inferior and clumsy are aesthetic judgments I disagree with, but I'm willing to listen to style critiques. historically wrong is meaningless - the only changes are to the first paragraph, which makes no real historical claims that I can see. can you clarify this comment, or is this just a moment of IDONTLIKEIT? --Ludwigs2 18:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, I suggest you ignore MalcolmMcDonald's quick fix and work out a lot of details of what you think should be done to improve the article over a period of about a month (with other editors). If I'm right in arguing the debate is over, try to rationalize that with sources. You may have to compare it with another separate scientific topic, but it might be worth the time and effort.

Generally, as regards the OP's question, reworking precisely the content of the first paragraph (into two?) so that there is no such confusion--I like the idea I had of referring to the first graph--should be thought about by someone intent on retaining the sense of what is already said. By the way, it was pointed out to me that my own editing in the date might be wrong because the IPCC said the same thing repeatedly. If someone wants to get that precisely into words, I think that would be good.Julzes (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Julzes - right now I have my eye on one simple correction in the intro: I want to reframe it to properly present global warming in theoretical terms (which will clear up the other inconsistencies in the lead quickly and easily). I've made a good argument for that position here, and no one seems willing or able to offer a decent counter-argument (outside of generic dislike for the idea), so I'm having a hard time seeing why I shouldn't edit it in right now. in fact, I'm tempted to edit it in just to create an actual discussion; I'm tired of fending off wp:IDONTLIKEIT style complaints and I'd like to get feedback from someone opposed to the change who has a decent grasp on scientific methodology. forcing a revert a couple of times might be the only way to do that, since no one seems interested in talking. I'm open to better suggestions though, if you have any. --Ludwigs2 02:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Do whatever you want, and argue about it with other people. I would suggest someone will possibly simply revert. If you expect a discussion, you may get one or not (I don't know). Reframing it in theoretical terms can be done, but I get the impression you will not do it right. I'm not going to answer whatever question you are inclined to ask me next (so don't bother).Julzes (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

lol - of course someone is going to revert. This page is way too contested, no one wants to discuss anything, and AGF is a non-starter. wouldn't really matter if I made the best edit in the world, because whoever reverts won't even read it first. nature of the beast, unfortunately... If I could find a way to discuss the matter on the talk page, I would, and maybe some consensus could be reached, but look at what happened above - the arguments I make get met with simple declarative statements (either pure IDONTLIKEIT complaints or more sophisticated opinions that are never followed up on). I can make (and have made) a decent case to anyone who wants to listen with an open mind; are there any takers? if not, then a potential improvement to the page will be blocked without due consideration, which I don't think is the way wikipedia is designed to run.

so, I'll give the consensus-building process a day or two more to get started, and if it fizzles completely I'll try some bold editing. but here's hoping! --Ludwigs2 05:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Perhaps it would be better to split the theory with the observable data. That AGW is causing global warming is a theory, I don't see how anyone can deny this. The problem is that many people use the terms Global Warming and AGW interchangably. In any case I agree with your general premise. Arzel (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll support you if I believe some edit you make is good to the degree I have the time, but I wouldn't go about trying to change the whole sense of the article without starting a discussion section specifically devoted to what you are PLANNING to do. Any edit process you make that reminds me of what I just found out about problems you've been having elsewhere will raise my trigger finger (Meaning: I will be thinking in terms of looking for a reason to make a report, but, again, only according to the time I have available (I don't have a job and I'm not looking for one)).Julzes (talk) 06:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to change the whole sense of the article. As I keep saying, I rather like the article as it's written (even though I think it misses the point a good bit). All I want to do is enter the idea that idea that global warming is a theory based in these empirical observations, because (a) that's the most accurate representation of the subject, and (b) it will clarify some confused-seeming points in the rest of the text and allow the article to discuss the trends, models, projections, and other theory-based constructs it already discusses without having to do end-runs around scientific principles. that's it. I don't see this as a particularly consequential change, I'm irked (though not surprised) by the amount of unpleasantness I'm meeting, and I'm more than willing to work with other editors to frame it in an effective and satisfactory way. enough said. --Ludwigs2 06:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If you think it misses the point a good bit, and you want to change that, I suggest a lot of people are going to see that as changing the sense of the article, including me. Discuss it first--relate your plan in detail and *wait* (edit something else less controversial if that bores you or is making you too anxious) for discussion--or you get what you asked for.Julzes (talk) 07:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not getting into my greater dissatisfactions yet. As I discussed elsewhere, I think this page misses the point because I see the issue as first and foremost a political issue (where the science has gotten dragged in as an effort to make political points). That, however, will take a whole hell of a lot more convincing than I have given to this date. I'm not dumb enough to go there yet, because any such attempt would be rejected out of hand (and rightfully so) until I have given a lot more reason for accepting it. This (what I'm doing here now), is really just a tweak to clarify and strengthen the scientific discussion that is already presented. small goal as opposed to a much larger (and mostly unrelated) larger goal. --Ludwigs2 07:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

On that note, I think I'll exit this discussion (and go to bed).Julzes (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

1) homeostasis 2) established fact

1) There is no reason to think that Earth's climate has the homeostasis found in evolved systems. On the contrary, the climate of Earth undergoes wild swings over geologic time. The current swing is the wildest ever, and nobody knows for sure if it will, in the long run, swing back, producing an ice age, or continue, turning Earth into an unlivable planet like Venus. The best we can do is, in the short term, try to save as many lives as we can.

2) The distinction I was making between "established fact" and "theory" is this: that global warming has been observed over the past decade (fact) and is predicted to continue in the next decade (theory). Those who profit from global warming, and their dupes, seize on every statement that science is never certain to claim that if science is uncertain, we might as well do nothing. In the words of a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, "the scientific jury is still out". Yes, I understand the philosophical point. But just because Einstein has displaced Newton is no reason to pretend that we don't know anything, and that an object in motion is just as likely to suddenly stop as it is to continue.

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Spiffy. Explain the holocene then William M. Connolley (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

We are living in the holocene, and have enjoyed a fairly stable climate during that period, but over geologic time the Earth's climate has undergone great changes, and there is no reason to assume that our good luck will continue, especially if we keep dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. To ignore global warming is like the fellow who fell off the top of a skyscraper. On each floor, as we went by, people heard him say, "So far, so good." Rick Norwood (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Rick, the technical term you're looking for is hysteresis - a stable system that self-corrects for certain kinds and ranges of perturbations but may shift to a new and different stable state when it is pushed too hard. This term hasn't really been used for the global warming issue, though. I actually find that surprising, since it beautifully sums up the global warming debate - is the human carbon print a significant enough perturbation to prompt a rapid and dramatic shift to a new climactic state or will the climate self-correct and retain its current state? this is still an open question as far as a the science is concerned, but the the general populace loves a good tale of doooom, and laps up all the more extreme prognostications. The science is (currently) nowhere as dismal as you'll read in the popular press, though it's also nowhere near as rosy as the more pollyanna-ish climate skeptics try to make it. --Ludwigs2 17:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No, not hysteresis, you may mean something else, in Catastrophe theory? But given some of your other comments I guess getting the term right is not going to be a worry. --BozMo talk 17:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

no, hysteresis is the correct term for systems that hold together within defined boundaries. catastrophe theory would involve a type of hysteric system, I think. but it's not really my specialty, so I'm not too concerned with fighting over it.

now, I'd appreciate it if you'd keep a civil tongue when you speak to me. unlike many editors on this page, I'm concerned with getting things correct, which means I'm happy to admit when I make mistakes. The nice thing about that kind of honesty is that it allows me to claim the moral high ground whenever I want, so if you continue to make snide little comments like the one above I will simply make a point of embarrassing you over it until you go away. I'm not interested in listening to childish spite. okie-dokie? --Ludwigs2 18:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(1) You have just made a completely unprovoked personal attack, and harrassment threat both of which are sanctionable and which I suggest you withdraw by strikeout (2) a hysteresis is the term for systems where the response does not depend on the instantaneous value of the input parameters and is not the exactly appropriate term for systems which have other defining characteristics such as nonlinear stability although obviously there are systems with both properties (3) above you use a number of other terms in ways which may make sense to you but are imprecise and non standard. You have just stated that "it" (what?) is not your specialty which reflects your use of language. There is nothing especially wrong with using terms loosely on a talk page and I do not condemn it, people can get the gist of your point, but I observed (correctly as it turns out) that being wrong here on definitions would not unduely perturb you. --BozMo talk 19:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

it's a pleasure talking with you as well. perhaps we should take this discussion to userspace? since it is (apparently) entirely about me, I see no reason to continue it here. --Ludwigs2 19:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

didn't think so... --Ludwigs2 21:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, I can't support your position any longer. It's clear you fundamentally don't understand the subject. The science is not precisely predicting anything. There is a range involved including a sizable probability of enormous catastrophe that risk analysts will tell you they shudder to think about.Julzes (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

hunh. does anyone here actually discuss content, or is it all about the editors? I'm not interested in gathering support, and I'm not interested in people's perceptions of what I do and do not understand. The parts of the above statement that aren't about me don't really make any sense, so I don't quite know how to respond to them. can you clarify? --Ludwigs2 02:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

They make sense as stated and are a response to what you said about media sensationalism. No need to clarify.Julzes (talk) 02:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

hmmm... what did I say about sensationalism? and what science doesn't try to precisely predict? and what range is probably enormously shuddersome? and where did I put my shoes when I came in? --Ludwigs2 03:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The science is (already) as dismal as what is said in the popular press. I disagree entirely and absolutely that it is not. Things may well turn out not too awfully if we as a species straighten out in time, but it's going to take a lot.Julzes (talk) 10:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Things will not matter in the long run regardless of what we as a species do, and increases in CO2 will certainly be the least of the problem. Earth was quite successful with much higher ratios of CO2 in the past, there is no reason to believe the future would be any different. Arzel (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know you. Do you have any specific article edits to suggest or clarifications you are seeking from the article that it does not give?Julzes (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Some climate change inevitable

What is the objection to adding that the Institute of Mechanical Engineers believe that some climate change is inevitable. Is it just that this is a widely accepted view? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That we've already had significant climate change is the accepted view. --TS 21:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it generally accepted that more climate change is likely? This is particularly relevant to the adaptation section in my opinion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Read the first sentence of this article. --TS 22:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Debate and skepticism (2)

This section followed the closure of the discussion "NPOV of GW article"

This discussion closed down before I could arrive with a specific proposal for an improvement to the article. I think it needs a section on "Dissent" that actually treats this factor as significant. The problem I've repeatedly had was that I came here hoping to find rebuttals to various arguments I'd seen in the press. The fact that they're missing, and there is no obvious link to them, leads me to wonder if my belief in AGW is mis-placed. I'm not sure how valuable it would be to place a POV tag on the article, but something needs to change. And it needs to be going on within the article, offers of a sand-box version of a new section are inadequate. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

How is your wish to see the article contain rebuttals to common misconceptions related to the Neutral point of view? --TS 15:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a "Debate and Skepticism" section already in the article. In what way would your "Dissent" section differ from this? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The article does not need to contain rebuttals. But it must answer the needs of visitors like me to quickly find where the substance of particular debates can be examined. From the NPOV angle, the dissent section must treat the beliefs of the dissenters as being significant, even if they're not of the main-stream. The article on Evolution manages to do a fine job eg I can search it for "Creatio ..." and instantly find what I'm looking for. What's the hold-up here? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Scientific dissent has to be given due weight which seems to me to be about where the article is at. What significant scientific viewpoint do you feel is not being given its due weight? --BozMo talk 16:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Rather than these somewhat vague terms, could you offer some examples of "various arguments I'd seen in the press"? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

A quick zip through evolution confirms my recollection that the article contains no rebuttals to creationist dogma and treats the subject of creationism solely as a religious belief based on creation myths. You've apparently misread both this article and that one. --TS 16:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

@ - BozMo I'm not well enough up on well-informed opposition to GW/AGW. But when I hear that in 2008 Dr Will Happer said: "I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect ... Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science" then I go to the web and start investigating.

I found that Happer has published 200 papers and "In 1993, he testified before Congress that the scientific data didn't support widespread fears about the dangers of the ozone hole and global warming, remarks that caused then-Vice President Al Gore to fire him". Lastly I come to this GW article, expecting to find links that will take me to a discussion of his objections and either rebuttals or at least sources for further investigations. Instead of which I find that this man's educated objections are simply ignored. Rather than coming away baffled, I post to the Discussion page and discover that "the believers are specialists, Dr Will Happer is not a specialist, therefore he can be ignored - and don't even think about trying to improve the article so others get better service from it". MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

@ - William M. Connolley I've posted several times of my own experience/s, which is seeing an anti-GW argument in the press and coming here expecting to be quickly led to either a discussion of the point arising, or a rebuttal of it or some other confidence-filling blurb that tells me that matters are under control. Currently, every exchange I see makes it appear there's funny business going on - and perhaps more significantly, every time I search the article for the topic that's caught my interest, I can't find it. F'chrisake, guys, if your allies come away with the impression this/these article/s are POV and under censorship, what effect do you think it has on the great unwashed public?!
Here's another puzzler for anyone who aspires to be writing a good article or thinks you've already written one. Europe, China, India and perhaps Florida are all shivering under a cold-snap right this moment. Can GW really be going on? Has warm air from here gone to the Arctic to be replaced by the cold air from there coming here? Shouldn't googling for GW and clicking on en.wikipedia be the first step to finding out the answer?
I put it to you that if I come away baffled, unhappy whether my question is to the point or off the point, then there must be a problem with the article. And I've told you one of the obvious places, the section on Dissent. It's highly suspicious that Martin Hogbin (perhaps a dis-believer?) has his edits to that section reverted by a believer. Particularly when the believer is plainly wrong, the statement "Some global warming skeptics in the science or political communities dispute all or some of the global warming scientific consensus ..." belongs at the beginning of the "Debate and Skepticism" section the way Martin Hogbin said it did. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

@ - TS The article on Evolution might upset creationists expecting their views to be given equal weight with those of Darwin. The dissenters have a valid objection that the section Social and Cultural Responses is badly titled. But "Intelligent Design" is mentioned and it is possible to navigate from there to pages which, I presume but have not checked, lead somewhere meaningful. But in one respect, dissenters there have an equal grumble to that of dissenters here, since "intelligent design" comes at the bottom of the section when it should obviously be at the top. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

<outdent-- We could add a 'Global Warming Controversy' section that would point to the subarticles.
X Global Warming Controversy
X.1 A minority of scientists oppose the global warming consensus
X.2 Politics of Global Warming
X.2.1 Al Gore
X.2.2 Environmental criticism
X.3 Contribution to global warming by deforestation
X.4 Global cooling theory in the 1970's, 80's
X.5 Climategate Mytwocents (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

All of the above are discussed elsewhere. Please bear in mind that this is an article about a scientific subject, not a political debate. --TS 17:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

@ - Mytwocents I can't tell how well that would work until I see it in action. But the fact that I can't imagine it only underlines what I'm saying above - the section covering the "non-believers" must not be interfered with by "believers". We're not even being allowed to see how much extra value could be added to this article. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

@ - TS This article fails at the scientific level contrives to look as if the science is POV and incomplete. I know it does that, because that's what brought me here I came here expecting to be convinced and was disappointed. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Then surely you should be proposing improvements to the main treatment of the science. --TS 17:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I will defer to those who are more expert than me on both the science and the writing of a good article. However, I came here primarily to check that I have no differences with the science. The problem I have is that there are flaws in the writing such that the article doesn't deliver the goods. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• As you yourself have just implicitly observed, one doesn't have to be an expert in science or writing to identify flawed writing on science. I'm afraid I must tax you further at this point: please identify the specific flaws that you have noticed. --TS 17:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• As far as I can tell, your only example of a failing so far is that we do refute Happer's argument from (his assumed) authority, and that we do not discuss the weather (we do cover this in the FAQ Q4). Looking at Happer's senate statement, he does not seem to believe in positive WV feedback - we discuss this in the Feedback section and link to the main article at Greenhouse_gas#Role_of_water_vapor. What more do you want in this article? An encyclopedic article is not the place to list all spurious arguments and discuss them in detail - it's a place to present the current understanding of a topic.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a limit to the number of times I should have to repeat myself - the article does not help people find answers to any of the kind of details that will tend to bring them here.

And I've told you at least part of the answer - stop interfering with the "Debate" section. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me summarize this: We are not here to be an FAQ for strange questions arising from this topic - there are lots of useful sites on the internet that does this. We are here to present the current understanding of the topic. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

In theory it could be possible to have an article Misconceptions regarding climate change, but in practice we've got enough contentiousness that it would be unwise to beg for more. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(Unindented somewhat)

I think Malcolm is looking in the wrong place. The New Scientist has a rather good set of articles answering common questions on global warming, and they cover some of the questions in considerable depth while remaining accessible to non-specialists. It's here. Perhaps we could add it to our External links section. --TS 10:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I have asked for the list of special policies in operation on this topic before. My question mysteriously disappeared leaving my usual usual sunny disposition a bit fazed. I could start my own list of guidances - how about this for starters: "these encyclopedia articles are not intended to answer the questions of readers"? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a "Dissent" section in this article in order to make it more NPOV. Until there is one, I suggest that the "NPOV" tag be added to the top of the article. Cla68 (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You're looking for global warming controversy, there is loads of dissent there William M. Connolley (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

And besides the article already has a Debate and skepticism section. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone my aunt met on the train said their grandmother had heard Terry Wogan on the radio say something about Global Warming and I came to this article to find out what he said and whether it was right and a rebuttal if needed. This article isn't doing its job if it doesn't include every quotation by the Togmeister: he had 9 million listeners you know. A wellwisher

We arent' talking about Terry Wogan here. HistorianofScience (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Noticed Steven Mcintyre was listed as a prominent climate sceptic - I can see he is a critic but I'm not sure he's a skeptic of AGW - e.g.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5389461/the-great-global-warming-scam-ctd.thtml

Stephen McIntyre October 3rd, 2009 3:26pm

While there is much to criticize in the handling of this data by the authors and the journals, the results do not in any way show that "AGW is a fraud" nor that this particular study was a "fraud".

There are many serious scientists who are honestly concerned about AGW and your commentary here is unfair to them.

In retrospect, the "hockey stick" studies that I've criticized have been used by climate scientists, journals and IPCC to promote concern, but the most important outstanding scientific issue appears to me to be the amount of "water cycle" feedback, including clouds as well as water vapor. This controls the "climate sensitivity" to increased CO2.

In my opinion, scientific journals reporting on climate and IPCC would serve the interested public far better if they focused on articulating these issues to the scientific public at a professional level than by repeatedly recycling and promoting some highly questionable proxy studies that deal with an issue that interests me, but which is somewhat tangential to the large policy issues.' PeteB99 (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Found another bit http://climateaudit.org/2008/02/18/back-from-georgia-tech/

On a number of occasions, I was asked (in different ways) whether I endorsed IPCC findings. I’ve said on many occasions (including the preamble to my talk at Georgia Tech), that, if I had a senior policy making job, I would be guided by the views of major scientific institutions like IPCC and that, in such a capacity, I would not be influenced by any personal views that I might hold on any scientific issue. Many people seemed to want me to make a stronger statement, but I’m unwilling to do so. In the area that I know best – millennial climate reconstructions – I do not believe that IPCC AR4 represents a balanced or even correct exposition of the present state of knowledge. I don’t extrapolate from this to the conclusion that other areas are plagued by similar problems.

I would change the article to remove Stephen McIntyre but I don't think I can edit it yet - is that cos I'm a newbie or cos the article is protected (this is my first contribution to wikipedia !) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeteB99 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

PeteB99 (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

'I do not believe that IPCC AR4 represents a balanced or even correct exposition of the present state of knowledge...' is sufficient to make someone a sceptic in my book, even though he refrains for saying anything stronger. He should stay in the list. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that he's skeptical of the IPCC process. He does not seem to be denying the warming trend nor the role of carbon dioxide, and he specifically suggests that more research into the water cycle is needed. Is that a "climate skeptic?" I think most people consider him one, but his position is actually quite subtle. --TS 11:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

But the quoted statement (if correctly quoted) does not say he is sceptical of a 'process'. He is expressing a view about the 'balance' and 'correctness' of the exposition. This is nothing to do with 'process'. HistorianofScience (talk) 11:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Does he say he's skeptical of the evidence for the current warming trend, though? As I understand it his critiques are centered n statistical analysis of some paleoclimatology reconstructions on the 1,000-2,000 year range. --TS 13:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

what he says is "In the area that I know best – millennial climate reconstructions – I do not believe that IPCC AR4 represents a balanced or even correct exposition of the present state of knowledge. I don’t extrapolate from this to the conclusion that other areas are plagued by similar problems." but in the earlier quote he says that proxy studies (ie millennial climate reconstructions) are "..an issue that interests me, but which is somewhat tangential to the large policy issues." He is correct on this point; whether or not the world was warmer in the past does not mean that the current warming is not caused by anthropogenic causes PeteB99 (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Definition of feedback

The section on feedback incorrectly notes "A positive feedback is a process that amplifies some change". This is necessary, but not sufficient. (Positive) feedback is when the action of some agent A causes a process B which then amplifies or strengthens the action of A, which causes further change in B etc etc. I.e. the amplification has to be 'fed back' to its source, otherwise it is merely amplicification, not feedback. Most of the effects noted in that section are not examples of feedback, but of amplification. For example, CO2 has the effect of increasing temperature. This has an effect on the state of water vapour, which increases the temperature still further. But for the increase in the effect water vapour to be feedback, it would have to cause a further increase in the amount (or the effect) of CO2. But it doesn't, or does it? I'm not challenging the science, just the definitions.HistorianofScience (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the point is that the variable under discussion is "warming" not "CO2". All of these processes are driven by the warming in turn do more warming. So they are a positive feedback on warming. In terms of definition you are right that "A positive feedback is a process that amplifies some change" is not a definition but it is an explanation which kind of works in the context. --BozMo talk 12:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Your point is irrelevant. The sentence in question looks like a definition. "A positive feedback is a process that amplifies some change" looks like a definition to me. If that wasn't intended, it should be changed so it doesn't look like a definition. If it was, it should be corrected. A definition should supply both necessary and sufficient conditions for anything satisfying the definition. This 'definition' does not, because amplification on its own does not entail feedback. Only when the amplification is 'fed back' to its sources, do we have feedback. HistorianofScience (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

All of these start a feedback loop: higher temps -> { more water vapor -> higher temps } (stopping because the forcings are logarithmic) But that aside, the literature calls these feedbacks, which is what we go by. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to my point above that the definition "A positive feedback is a process that amplifies some change" is insufficient as a definition of feedback. The example of water vapour you give is certainly an example of feedback, properly so-called. HistorianofScience (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the definition should be fixed. It is easier to fix it than to argue about it. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It's more fun to argue about it. Seriously, what should the definition be? The article positive feedback has one but it defines it as "a situation where some effect causes more of itself". Possibly correct, but it sounds awkward and idiosyncratic. Any suggestions?HistorianofScience (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've make an attempt. Let me know what you think. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. "Feedback is a process in which changing one quantity changes a second quantity, and the change in the second quantity in turn changes the first." I think that's not bad. (But I note that the Feedback article you link to has a less impressive definition).

The definition currently in the article is ok here, but in general it is not correct (feeding some output from an amplifier back into its input is feedback, and while you could argue that the input quantity and the output quantity are somehow different, it's really not the point). The issue could be avoided by rewording along the lines of "Feedback occurs when a change in one quantity causes a change in a second quantity, and that second change in turn affects the first". Johnuniq (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The fundamental problem here is that the climate is a big system, with many little systems operating inside it. Within all of these systems there is always operating one huge simple negative (stabalising) feedback, which is S=rT^4. So no matter how large a process is at providing "positive feedback" within the system - like ice-albedo feedback, say - the *overall* system remains stable (except for quibbles like D-O osc etc; but even they are bounded). Trying to define "positive feedback" by analogy with electronic circuits, but forgetting that in those circuits only one feedback operates, only leads to confusion William M. Connolley (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

See my 'underwear' note on your page. There is one huge simple negative (stabilising) feedback, S=rT^4. How to describe that one to the average educated/rational reader? To state the problem: I looked up some reference books and stuff on the internet and found out for myself how it works (assuming I have understood it of course). It was not at all what I had expected. I had thought for years it was like a greenhouse. Isn't it the job of Wikipedia to explain that sort of thing? HistorianofScience (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

"Feedback is important in the study of global warming"

Now for another of the claims in that section. "Feedback is important in the study of global warming because a warming trend often produces effects that lead to further warming, creating a feedback loop that is difficult to control."

1. Why 'important in the study of global warming'. Why not omit 'the study of'? For the next part of the sentence is clearly not about study, which involves thought and language, but about physical effects, which are real

2. Why 'warming trend'? Shouldn't 'trend' be omitted. To suggest there is a trend begs the question, that positive feedback exists.

3. 'feedback loop that is difficult to control' - Kim Petersen said on another page that the feedback does not increase indefinitely, but simply ends at a higher equilibrium, because of a 'logarithmic effect'. I didn't understand the logarithm bit, but I generally understand the idea that positive feedback may decrease as it continues, until a new equilibrium is reached. If that is true, this should be explained.

Indeed, I think the whole sentence needs changing to one that makes the real point which is, I take it, that the effect of feedback is to amplify and extend the effect of the original anthropogenic cause, so that higher temperatures are caused than without feedback.

Another reason that feedback is important, and in this case important to the theory rather than the physical process, is that without the assumed feedback the anthropogenic effect would be somewhat less than current models propose. If we take 'anthropogenic global warming hypothesis' to mean the hypothesis that significant and possibly damaging effects will be the result of human activity, then the hypothesis crucially depends on assumptions about feedback. HistorianofScience (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You make good and thoughtful points, but I tend to want to stick with what we've got, and maybe change the article on feedback. 1) I thought about whether or not to include "study of". I decided to include it, because the reading "feedback is important in global warming" seemed to me to suggest that we are trying to achieve global warming. 2) I said "warming trend" instead of just "warming" because global warming is a trend, rather than a progression. That is, it gets warmer, then it gets colder, then it gets warmer again. But the trend is toward increasing average temperature, even though the weather today is cold. 3) the bit about "logarithmic effect" probably refers to head radiated by the planet, but since the planet will be uninhabitable before the new equilibrium is reached, I don't think the existance of a new equilibrium is a major practical consideration. I should also point out that a global warming trend is not a theory, but an observed fact. The theory says that it will continue. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the section is far better now, so let's leave it for now. I want to understand the 'equilibrium' idea a bit better. Are you sure that the current consensus is towards runaway warming, rather than reaching a higher equilibrium. Thanks. HistorianofScience (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

HisorianofScience, your statement #1 appears to me to be a sound grammatical point. The sentence should read either something like "An understanding of basic feedback processes is important in the study of global warming because ... " or "Feedback is important in global warming because ... " , or a similar expression of the involvement of feedback in climate change. The latter is more concise, and preferable, as you indicated... Kenosis (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

@Rick - the 'logarithmic' effect is explained here [2]. It means the feedback effect lessens as the temperature increases, so a new equilibrium will be reached, presumably not at disastrous levels. By the way Rick, nothing is an 'established fact' in science. See my user name. Everything in science is a hypothesis. HistorianofScience (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

@Kenosis - I agree, of course. HistorianofScience (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, calling it a "logarithmic" effect would be a misnomer, and should be left out of the article. While there may be some logarithms involved in certain specific calculations, e.g. power calculations vs. pressure calculations of specific atmospheric components, to refer to the overall set of feedback dynamics as 'logarithmic' would be very misleading to those who understand logs. Overall, IMO, Rick Norwood's copyedits today are an improvement to the section... Kenosis (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think a great improvement. However I think some explanation of equilibrium is necessary. The article on Radiative_forcing says "The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic so that increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect". This is surely important. HistorianofScience (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Now we're getting mighty close to, e.g., the Gaia hypothesis. The so-called "logarithmic" aspect of CO2 accumulations is somebody's approximation and neglects other compensatory mechanisms not yet fully understood by researchers. I'd advise staying away from the use of the word "logarithmic" in this article. As to tendency of climate to seek "equilibrium", this process too is not yet fully understood--to date there are only hints of how these compensatory mechanisms interact with one another, let alone what the overall results of the combined interactions might turn out to be. Though it's under intensive study worldwide, researchers today still do not understand the full range of feedback interactions. Best, I should think, to leave it at what the reliable, secondary sources say about the topic. What we know today, is that there is (1) current warming overall, which correlates to large-scale anthropogenic activity, and (2) there are various feedback mechanisms at work in the process, several of which are introduced to the reader in this article. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, IANAE. HistorianofScience (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Also the Climate sensitivity refers to an equilibrium. Presumably there has to be one? HistorianofScience (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course there is equilibrium or homeostasis, a balance of many forces at work in climate overall. What is happening with GW is that the "equilibrium" is changing, hence "global warming " or "climate change " (as differentiated from more specific, shorter-term "weather variations"). It is this change in the equilibrium or homeostasis of this extremely complex system that is of major concern today. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)

I've gone ahead and revised the opening to this section, both to clarify and to add in homeostatic feedback. That should address some of the concerns here. --Ludwigs2 17:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The description of 'feedback' is getting further and further from reality. There are not three types of feedback (positive, negative and homoeostasis). 'Damping' is a defined term to do with feedback systems, and is misused in the text. There is a lot of talk about 'factors' that is unrelated to normal usage. Where does "the environment is largely a homeostatic feedback system" come from? Is that related to any science, or all science, or is it a spiritual belief? I think it's important that people who want to explain things to others understand them themselves first. Perhaps starting by reading feedback would help? After a while it will be necessary to go back to a clear description, written by, if not an expert, at least someone familiar with the subject. --Nigelj (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This sentence is awful. "Feedback is important in the study of global warming because, while the environment is largely a homeostatic feedback system, certain kinds of changes can theoretically produce positive or negative feedback trends that may lead to dramatic changes in climate. " HistorianofScience (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) hey, I just did a quick rewrite to clear up some grammatical and conceptual problems. if you dislike it or think it's inaccurate, I'm open to suggestions/revisions. the idea that the environment is largely a homeostatic feedback system is neither religious nor absurd - the environment has maintained a remarkably stable set of physical properties (temperature, atmospheric content, etc.) for millions of years due to assorted physical and biological processes (one might compare Mars or Venus, which - as I understand it - have seen dramatic climactic changes over the same time period), and many of the feedback systems you talk about actually describe homeostatic systems, not positive/negative feedback systems. what is with you guys? --Ludwigs2 19:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually this whole change is awful. The irony of a 'grammatical change' leading to such poor grammar - and if Nigel is right, poor science. I would like to revert to Norwood's version.HistorianofScience (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Already reverted before reading this section. -Atmoz (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

awful is not a particularly helpful term. could you maybe say what you find awful about it? I'm not seeing anything except that you seem to be offended by it somehow, which is odd. --Ludwigs2 19:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Replace 'theoretically' with 'be easily shown by theorists to have the potential to', and I wouldn't find it to be a bad sentence.Julzes (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've rewritten this bit.[3] Comments/questions/complaints? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

well, I'll point out the obvious that Stefan–Boltzmann law is not a negative feedback process (it's a damper on runaway heating, not an actual cooling process). --Ludwigs2 05:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you not see that "a damper on runaway heating" neatly fits the definition of negative feedback? (And while we're at it, a "cooling process" per se does not.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

well, looking at the wikipedia definition of the word (negative feedback) I suppose it fits. Not precisely the way I would define it - I'd tend to see negative feedback as more of a canceling process rather than a mere attenuating one (which I suppose also explains the kneejerk reaction above to the term homeostatic, since that concept is built into the negative feedback definition here). my bad; I withdraw the objection. --Ludwigs2 05:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

@Boris I thought [this was a good edit and explained it well without unnecessary fuss or detail. I would still like to understand (on behalf of the average intelligent layman reading the article) a bit more (no more than a sentence) about whether or not the process reaches equilibrium. Why does the IPCC say the increase will be between 1 and 4 degrees, and not infinite, if there is positive feedback? HistorianofScience (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There are negative feedback processes that eventually balance the positive forcing or feedback, so that the system reaches equilibrium at a higher temperature than before. (One sentence as requested.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a v good sentence. But what is the negative feedback then? Rick Norwood claimed below that the Stefan-Boltzmann effect will not kick in until Venusian temperatures are reached. That suggests the positive feedback is going to cause instability in the climate system, particularly when the time lag between cause (warming), effect (increased water vapour) and feedback (more warming) is short, as I assume it is in the case of water vapour. But we don't see great instability - common sense suggests that there is a reversion to the average - periods of high temperature are followed by reversion to average temperature, or even to extreme cold (I am typing here with frozen fingers as my heating system struggles with the amazing British winter). This paper [4] makes the same point although with more mathematical symbols. If Stefan-Boltzmann doesn't explain the reversion to the average, what does? I'm only asking because this is what will occur to the average moderately intelligent reader of the article, and a good article will always try to pre-empt questions it raises for the reader. Thanks. HistorianofScience (talk) 08:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Actually I thought this, although a blog, explained it pretty well. According to this, the negative feedback is S-B, and you solve for equilibrium by solving an equation derived from it. Is it correct? HistorianofScience (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If nobody answers this any time soon, I will wade through the blog--which has good reference material and looks serious and responsible--and try to answer you tomorrow.Julzes (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a couple of points 1) Positive Feedback does not necessarily mean runaway, a positive feedback in a system can result in a new equilibrium and this effect could be quite small http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/runaway-tipping-points-of-no-return/ People often conclude that the existence of positive feedbacks must imply ‘runaway’ effects i.e. the system spiralling out of control. However, while positive feedbacks are obviously necessary for such an effect, they do not by any means force that to happen. Even in simple systems, small positive feedbacks can lead to stable situations as long as the ‘gain’ factor is less than one (i.e. for every initial change in the quantity, the feedback change is less than the original one). A simple example leads to a geometric series for instance; i.e. if an initial change to a parameter is D, and the feedback results in an additional rD then the final change will be the sum of D+rD+r2D…etc. ). This series converges if |r|<1, and diverges (‘runs away’) otherwise. You can think of the Earth’s climate (unlike Venus’) as having an ‘r‘ less than one, i.e. no ‘runaway’ effects, but plenty of positive feedbacks. 2) HistorianofScience's point about logarithmic effect of CO2 - that is why the climate sensitivity is expressed as the temperature increase caused by a doubling of CO2 - the temperature increase from 280-> 560 ppm is the same as from 560->1120 ppm PeteB99 (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Global warming, Snowball Earth

Anyone watching this article may be interested to see (and perhaps join in) the discussion going on here. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

No thanks - you're embarassing yourself there without any need for help William M. Connolley (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I was told "do refer to it with a link or diff if you think it is relevant". On top of the faults mentioned there I keep seeing more faults. There is no mention of the Amazon, no mention of "fire" or "flames" or even "forest" (two mentions of "deforestation" but no details). The whole "Feedback" section needs work (separate the positive from the negative, I strongly suspect that Stefan-Boltzman is not a negative feedback). I'm sorry for refering to the "Cabal" but there seem to be real problems improving this article. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 10:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

FAQ

I noticed a couple of odd things about the faq. Q3 is a yes or no question, but the answer is somewhat vague. Shouldn't it start with the answer "No"? Q11 is a bit funny, the way it is worded now. The question is, "Are IPCC reports prepared by biased UN scientists?" and the answer is apparently, "No, they aren't from the UN." Hardly what you expect. Another odd thing is that the FAQ (frequently asked questions, after all) doesn't seem to address the questions that are most frequently asked lately on this page. Greenbough (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC) [Edited to remove language an esteemed colleague objected to. I don't want to detract from what good WC, TS and SS have done here, which is undoubtedly a great deal of work, done gratis. And I don't want to contribute to a siege mentality. As I've observed here before, openness is called for. Cheers.] Greenbough (talk) 02:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Desertification

I cut the desertification addition [5]. As it stands, this isn't a feedback, just an effect. Nor is it clear that it deserves this much space. This looks like it should get worked out in a sub-article then summarised here if appropriate William M. Connolley (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to revert that because there is feedback involved in desertification's effect on plants' ability to remove Carbon.Julzes (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The penultimate sentence deals with feedback as is. The paragraph is fine--it doesn't require changes, and fits where it is.Julzes (talk) 13:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The paragraph is only minimally related to feedback and doesn't really belong in that section. This article is constantly subject to bloat: people add their pet stuff but are reluctant to remove other bits. There isn't even a section on fedbacks in the Desertification article itself - it should go there *first* not here first (nor is there a section on desertification in Effects of global warming); but people can't resist the temptation to edit sexy high-profile articles :-( William M. Connolley (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Julzes, would you agree to write up this feedback mechanism from reliable sources at desertification or effects of global warming? I agree that it's a bit premature to list it here if we don't have anything about it in the obvious places. --TS 14:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, hell! You want me to work on this at other articles?! Okay, but I'm apt to canibalize what's in the part that's under contention (at least as far as sources go). The science is pretty simple and feedback is clear. Drought-->Desertification-->Increased CO2-->Increased Warming-->Drought. Don't expect it finished before at least a half day from now.Julzes (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed the section on desertification [6], for the Connolley reason (it is not explicitly about feedback). However as it is interesting I put it into the article on desertification instead [7]. I hope that is a good compromise. An article like this should summarise the main assumptions underling the global warming hypothesis. It shouldn't be getting too 'fat'. HistorianofScience (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I certainly think that you should have discussed this. It *is* **implicitly** about feedback and you seem to be saying that wording change to make it *explicit* is what's required rather than removal. Therefore, I'm going to revert you and then quickly change the wording to make it explicit, momentarily.Julzes (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. I'm going to put it back in in a different shorter form at some point today if no satisfactory change is made ahead of me.Julzes (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, what I'm going to do on this is replace the last sentence of Forest Fires in the Positive Feedback section of Effects of Global Warming with the material described now at desertification and then if I have to I'll put something short in this article where it belongs.Julzes (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I certainly think that you should have discussed this - why did you feel no need to discuss it before adding? Why exactly do you think the burden of discuss-first falls entirely on people removing your undiscussed additions? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

There are two reasons I removed: (1) it is not explicitly about feedback, but also (2) because of the article bloat issue. If you have sources that desertification is a major contributor to GW as feedback then put it in. But this whole section is overlong, mainly a long list without a visible thread. What the newcomer to this subject needs is an overview of the main contributions to GW, and the main reasons scientists support the idea. HistorianofScience (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Please edit in temporal order down the page. That said, I have responded below.Julzes (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This is two people removed. I have to say that I was a little surprised the original editor did not discuss first, but then I thought it was correct. Everything is fine right now, as far as I am concerned. I apologize for the tone.Julzes (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean that a change should not be made along the lines of what the original editor did; but it should be shorter, it should be a little bit clearer that it's about positive feedback, and it should be in other articles as well (or first).Julzes (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Please be a little more creative than simple reverts, William. And, Historian, do you think it should be less list-like? Perhaps that should be discussed. If it is supposed to be a list of feedback types, then the one specific that was added today belongs on the list (in a way more like the other examples).Julzes (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It should be less like list, but more important, it should give more weight to the most prominent causes of feedback. Does anyone know what these are? Apart from water vapour. If we were to list the causes of feedback in order of their importance for the global warming hypothesis, what would those be?HistorianofScience (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not a well-posed question. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, importance admits of greater and lesser, and anything admitting of greater and lesser can be put into an ordering. So why not 'well-posed'? I suppose the definition of 'importance' is a challenge. HistorianofScience (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The answer is that most likely nobody has attempted such a ranking. That would be a good idea for some meta-analysis at some point, but what little meta-analysis is done is secondary in importance at this stage in this particular area (I would hazard to guess).Julzes (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No, any editorial approach has to summarise and to capture what is important at the expense of what is less important. HistorianofScience (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou, HistorianofScience for trying to defend my edit, which concerns something that must be top of most people's concerns about GW/AGW. If the temperature rise is allowed to reach some 2 or 3degC, then 4 positive feedback results quickly kick in - the turning of rain forest into savannah is quite a big one (the others being sea water loss of CO2, permafrost melting/peat decomposition, deep sea methane clathrate decomposition).

It's fairly extraordinary that this factor's not been included before - even more extraordinary that adding it warrants immediate reversion and a poorly concealed warning on my TalkPage. I'm a believer in GW/AGW. for goodness sake - how would I be crucified if I dared to challenge the religious orthodoxy? I've not even deviated from the really well known!!!! MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstood what I said. What I said was that such a ranking would likely be OR.Julzes (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC) People, please edit in sequence so that I don't always have to address the last poster by name. Skip back a post to see what the post before this one was addressing!!!Julzes (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Malcolm: I restored your text, but was reverted, and now I'm responsible for it. I am going to now go do what I said as regards effects of climate change (as effectively ordered to do) and then I will come back with your material in reduced form. I think the way you are handling this is fine. What I have to do is take some part of youer text from desertification and move it to replace/augment the final sentence of the 'Forest Fires' section of the effects article.Julzes (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou. You and I are dedicated to trying to improve this article. It seems strange this so often feels like a really uphill task. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

As well as being out of place, I've just realised that the proposed edit is also utterly wrong. Desertification : Relatively small climate changes could result in abrupt changes to vegetative cover. [8] is then backed up by a Wood Hole study in which they covered the forest with plastic panels to totally remove all rainfall. Since when is removing *all* rainfall from a rainforest a "relatively small change"!?! William M. Connolley (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry. Nothing resembling that particular sentence will be included. The idea behind a study of drought would seem to require LITTLE OR NO RAINFALL, however, so I don't get that objection.Julzes (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I admit it is refreshing to see an editor so totally disown his own contributions so soon: [9]. But I'm glad you've now seen the light. You really think a drought means *no* rainfall? Follow the little blue link and you will be enlightened, glasshopper William M. Connolley (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Sir: See how I edited the other article with my own words. I was just restoring what at first sight looked like a perfectly good paragraph by someone else.Julzes (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You reverted text back in that you now freely admit was junk. The correct thing to do in such a situation, once you have realised your error, is to apologise, not evade William M. Connolley (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

At any rate, I'm done with this issue for today.Julzes (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Connolley, you write everything yourself then. You're just trying to get me to work harder on this, but I don't have the time. I give up. Wasted a half day on this. My ulcer is killing me. You know damned well it belongs in the article--in the feedback section--in some form. You could have saved me some trouble instead of driving me away.Julzes (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I do indeed agreed that wiki should cover a possible desertification feedback, but it should do so from proper sources and in the proper place William M. Connolley (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I will re-visit the article on 11 April full-time. For one week only.Julzes (talk) 04:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Remember, you need permission. The article has to remain deficient until you've abased yourself enough and proved yourself properly capable of being properly respectable. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 08:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't helped your specific case. Do it over with primary source material and make it short and accurate so that it fits in the section.Julzes (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Global cooling

Can somebody explain why this added section was immediately reverted (and the action marked as a minor edit with no edit summary). Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the piece removed:

Global Cooling:

In 2010, some of the world's most eminent climate scientists said, "The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years".

Prof Latif, who leads a research team at the renowned Leibniz Institute at Germany’s Kiel University, developed new methods for measuring ocean temperatures 3,000ft beneath the surface, where the cooling and warming cycles start. He and his colleagues predicted the new cooling trend in a paper published in 2008 and warned of it again at an IPCC conference in Geneva in September 2009.

There was also a link to a story in the British tabloid, Daily Mail.

Firstly, it's got nothing to do with global warming. Secondly, it's not about global cooling. Thirdly it's ridiculously undue weight. Perhaps with better sourcing we could put something about this into the article on the NAO. --TS 23:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Fourthly it's a lousy source, and fifthly, its attributing an opinion to Latif that not even that lousy source claims he holds. Oh yes, and sixthly its fails WP:PEACOCK. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Well at least I got the courtesy of an edit summary and removal not being marked as minor. It was in the section entitled 'Debate and skepticism', what should have more weight in this section in your opinion? Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Something that isn't completely orthogonal to the warming trend would probably be more appropriate. --TS 23:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Having just read up on the subject I agree that Latif was somewhat misrepresented in the added section. But that is what edit summaries are for. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The material shouldn't have been removed with a rollback. It was apparently a good faith edit and I agree an edit summary should have been given. --TS 23:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, I asked the proposer, Dalej78, for his reasons,[10] since he's the one who first proposed it. Although it seems that you've answered for him. I'm sorry, I should've used the undo. But the question really is should we add it? I think it's been answered, and we can close the discussion. Let's not get sidetracked, if you want to ask then "what should have more weight"? Or meta-discussion about the undo button. Start a new discussion. ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree entirely. Reports like this in the MSM emphasise the importance of this article covering all the bases and not looking like a white-wash, which, I'm afraid to say, is very much the impression it gives now. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

<outdent -- I think the article does merit mention on the GW page. Any suggestion to put the information on any other page would be forking. As for the discussion, we've just gotten started. We should have at least 72 hours of give and take on this.

One of the main headlines on the Wikipedia main page today is the following;

"A new wave of very cold weather, with temperatures dropping to as low as −45 °C (−49 °F), affects much of Europe."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html

The mini ice age starts here By David Rose Last updated at 11:17 AM on 10th January 2010 "According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this."

"Like Prof Latif, Prof Tsonis is not a climate change ‘denier’. There is, he said, a measure of additional ‘background’ warming due to human activity and greenhouse gases that runs across the MDO cycles."

"This isn't just a blip. We can expect colder winters for quite a while'But he added: ‘I do not believe in catastrophe theories. Man-made warming is balanced by the natural cycles, and I do not trust the computer models which state that if CO2 reaches a particular level then temperatures and sea levels will rise by a given amount." -- Mytwocents (talk) 06:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

How on earth did astory sourced to a rag like the Daily Mail make it onto the main page of Wikipedia? --TS 07:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The section was removed because it is trash, obviously. Can you expalin why you thought it could possibly be acceptable? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think something very similar could be included. The public will be looking for more balance in this article, especially as the science behind alarmism is increasingly shown to be spurious. ^rossnixon 01:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

<< A quick Google search with the the following terms yield 6 and 7 figure results

Results; about 3,620,000 for 'global warming" fraud Results; about 3,200,000 for 'global warming" scam Results; about 2,810,000 for 'global warming" hoax Results; about 2,590,000 for 'global warming" myth Results; about 1,080,000 for 'global warming" alarmist Results; about 513,000 for 'global warming" dogma Results; about 531,000 for 'global warming" cabal Results; about 357,000 for 'global warming" debunked

Clearly, there is a debate across the web regarding "global warming". All I'm asking is the open debate among the masses, who have to approve of any tax money being spent to limit green gas emissions (in democracies) should be reflected in the article. Mytwocents (talk) 02:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, global warming is a scientific question so these links are not really helpful. The same way, how our tax money is going to be spent has absolutely no bearing on the scientific data or the way this article should be edited. --McSly (talk) 03:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

But what about the raging web controversy over boxcars? Just look at the evidence:

Results; about 684,000 for boxcar conspiracy Results; about 1,790,000 for evil boxcar Results; about 495,000 for boxcar menace Results; about 1,600,000 for boxcar vampire Results; of about 235,000 for boxcar cabal Results; about 1,750,000 for boxcar killer Results; about 540,000 for boxcar fraud

You can't argue with numbers like that. And how much did the government spend on protecting us from boxcars last year? Almost nothing! Write your congressman (or MP), send a letter to the editor, do whatever it takes to protect us from boxcars. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Very clever, but it can't conceal the fact that the article is not delivering. People want and expect this article to cover the science, but it has to do it in a way that informs and/or answers peoples questions (though obviously not lose NPOV in order to "persuade").

Currently, the article is not even complete, I've now found a second major topic people will expect to find here that is missing, in a section ("Feedback") that is scientifically quite poor. I've been asked to put my cards on the table re "Amazon + forest + flames + go up in" in order, presumably, that I and my obsession with improving the article can be vetted. Huh? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 08:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Mail badly mis-represented Latif

Anyone who mistakenly thought the Mail was worth quoting should read http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/11/climate-change-global-warming-mojib-latif and learn better William M. Connolley (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou, WMC. Unfortunately, the writing of the Daily Mail article is better than ours, and it's not just more readable - it's more balanced as well. In 2008, the very Guardian you've pointed us at, in the very first sentence of an article, said that "leading scientists warning that the Arctic could be ice-free in summer by 2013" see http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/aug/10/climatechange.arctic . Far from exaggerating, the 2 Mail articles under-state the GW predictions of the Guardian, read carefully: "challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in summer by 2013". (Don't get me wrong, I agree that the Mail is a rag and the Guardian is normally quite good - but in this case, Martin's source is better than yours).

Similarly, the link you gave us takes a biased dig at the Daily Telegraph for wrongly reporting the results, when the DT emphasises and repeats the sound basis of GW/AGW: "Prof Latif ... an author for the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), believes that the cool spell will only be a temporary interruption to climate change ... summers will also probably be cooler, and all this may well last two decades or longer ... Prof Latif believes that the pause represents only a temporary respite rather than a challenge to the basis of global warming".

The Mail on Sunday said that Latif's results "undermine the standard climate computer models" - and I'm afraid they do. We must include alarmism (like my favourite, the entire Amazon rain-forest going up in flames) and Latif and produce a balanced article.

All of which is just one more good reason for having a proper section on "Dissent". Prof Latif needs to be mentioned (so that people like me can search the article and instantly find the particular part of the debate we were looking for!) and it needs to be made clear that his results clash badly with many GW predictions, but that GW/AGW itself is not affected. (Well, I presume it's not affected, my sunny acceptance is taking some knocks).

For better or worse, people like me have been led to believe that glaciers are in inexorable retreat and the Arctic could be ice-free in a few years. If real GW experts are bitterly divided over their predictions (as Martin's nugget suggests) then it's vital we document that fact. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If a scientist says that their results don't undermine global warming, they probably don't, no matter which venue is the interviewer. Your above comment insinuates that you know better than the scientist. If you care to be serious about this, I (or someone else) can give you Latif's original article. As a note, no one who takes themselves seriously in climate ever thought that the N. Pole would be free of sea ice by 2013, and the writer for the Mail didn't have a clue what they were talking about. My snippiness is due in part to the fact that you've ignored my request to strike your insults from Talk:Snowball Earth; please do so; you have some interesting things to say (here and there) but they are often sandwiched between bouts of talk-page grandstanding. (Thank you!) Awickert (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Look through the second ref in Latif's article. Pretty clear the Mail story misrepresents him. Guettarda (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

We're not trusted to debate whether the Mail misrepresented Latif or not, my words "- or did they?" were simply removed. With action that high-handed it looks as if your ideological allies are afraid of us getting to the facts. I can't re-build the credibility that such people throw away on your behalf. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The headline of the Mail piece is "The mini ice age starts here". That is the first and the most egregious misrepresentation of Latif. Give up, Malcolm. Mojab Latif is an expert both on climatology and on the opinion of Mojab Latif, which make him a far better source on this subject than one of the less reputable British newspapers. --TS 16:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If that's the most egregious example then the GW persuasion is in trouble. The fact is, we've been primed to believe that the curve is upwards pretty nearly year on year. Assuming Latif really did say "winters like this one will become much more likely .... there may well be some cooling" (and that he really does think this tendency could go on 20 years) then we've been badly misled. The GW industry should have predicted this before it started. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

As a further note, it's unfortunate that you were led to believe that the Arctic could be ice-free in a few years. I had a massive forehead-slap when I saw that particular media blitz. I'm not sure what Martin's nugget is, but as a scientist, I have to look very very hard to find any dissent to global warming, and I usually find none. Something that I have noticed is that this article doesn't give a critical address to what is available in the news media. Unfortunately, I have a hard time finding a way for an encyclopedia to offer an opinion on news pieces without ceasing to be an encyclopedia, but there is the problem that people won't find whatever info about whichever new news extravaganza, which can also be frustrating. I'm going to think on this for a little. Awickert (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Well you have global cooling which is a pretty good article about a similar "imminent ice age" blitz in the 1970s that is still used by some critics of global warming. In effect,the article by documenting the actual science of the time manages to do an effective job of debunking the myth that the scientific establishment was predicting the imminent end of the interglacial. But you can only take this stuff so far. The media can make up a dozen or so myths like this in the time it takes to document the actual scientific thought on the matter. And as you say we would risk becoming less of an encyclopedia. We cannot win a battle against ignorance, we can only document to the best of our ability what is, and it is best for an encyclopedia to leave unspoken what is not. Let's leave the debunking to those who are good at it. --TS 17:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

@ - Awickert - Anyone seeing newspaper reports in 2007 (2008?) that said "North Pole ice-free in summer 2013" should have been able to come to this article and quickly discover whether the science was really stating this as a fact as a fact or not. A year later, there's still no information on this rather memorable factoid that impressed itself on you as much as it did on me. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? So by your proposal, wouldn't this make the article a rebuttal to news reports? This seems wholly inconsistent with what you said in Debate and skepticism (2). Well, the article does mention "arctic shrinkage", and the main article does mention that "the Arctic ocean will likely be free of summer sea ice sometime between 2060 and 2080". Anyways, we're sidetrack, this isn't about global cooling anymore, start a new discussion if you think this warrants inclusion. I think we're done here. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought it a given that the Daily Mail tabloid is an inherently unreliable source. The policy WP:SOURCES plainly states in the first sentence: "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" Any number of background sources would confirm that the Daily Mail does not fit this definition of a WP:RS. See, e.g. The cultural politics of climate change discourse in UK tabloids, by University of Oxford's Maxwell T. Boykoff, or this brief summary reporting of the Oxford study, or another brief review of Daily Mail "predictions" over the course of some 18 months, etc. And of course, the Mail is world famous as a tabloid that plays fast and loose with the truth, not for fact-checking and accuracy. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

First and Last sentences of Geoengineering section

I've been bold by raising the final sentence of this section from what I saw as a C- to what I see as B- with the intent and indication that it will be an A by the week's end (say, Sunday, actually). If anyone would like to collaborate (or take over, with expertise) in this, it's welcome. Keep in mind, as I have, that there is a separate article on the subject. Also, WP:Recentism could be an issue, both in my choice of word 'recently' and in theory. I see what is needed involves, aside from the best writing possible, numerous footnotes going back at least to early 2008 (the earliest I've seen that fits the theme). It might be good to cross over the linguistic divide on this one and go global. That would certainly be over my head.Julzes (talk) 12:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sourcing. My initial concerns were of weasel words (who exactly are these "various significant players"? What makes their opinions representative?). WP:V-related, is it true that "no geoengineering projects have ever been initiated"? And regarding the text itself: what is "at a higher urgency": the suggestion or the studying? The phrase "and for their different externalities and costs (even with the possibility of single-nation unilateralism in mind)" also confused me a bit. — DroEsperanto (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Projects have not been initiated that fit into the category of geoengineering, as it's currently defined; though it would be hard to prove that as a negative, and one could say that national park systems (and other things) are geoengineering light in a way. I'm doing an improvement of the edit, right now. It should be a little clearer. Substituting 'short-term' for 'stopgap' changes the sense, but there are other problems with the sentence anyway. Note that what's intended for the footnotes is more extensive than what I've done so far. There has been a little of a sea-change since a period in which geo-engineering was being pretty much ignored (mostly for good reasons), and the footnotes might document this.Julzes (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Now, I'm really not all that happy with the edit accomplished so far, but I believe it is a little more informative and accurate than its predecessor. I'll mostly be accumulating more sources. Keeping the size and basic content of this section pretty much where it is at present--with the exception perhaps of the definition of geo-engineering (There is no such thing as the natural environment, in my opinion, any more)--seems about right for the foreseeable future. I'm going over to the geo-engineering article to see how much work it needsJulzes (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the article on geo-engineering appears to require no help. I have a pet solution, by the way: A single-machine carbon-sequestration (in a specific place actually). It'll cost a lot of people money, but I also expect the superwealthy to do it.Julzes (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

1. The diff looks okay.[11] Some problems, "In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that[...]" actually the IPCC concluded this in 2001 as well, in their third assessment report,[12] and perhaps before then also (the older timers can tell you).[13] Sounds misleading.
2. Remember that the section "Geoengineering" section here is a summery of the article Geoengineering, I don't know about you, but keeping the two sync, or in fact just canabalizing important pieces of the other article, may make your life a lot easier.
3. The "See also" in this article was actually moved to the two articles Glossary of climate change and Index of climate change articles and the navbox at the foot of the article (see Template:Global warming). As you can imagine, there are a lot of link that can go in there. The Navbox provides collapsible organization based on subject, and the two articles provides organization based on language. If you object to the system, then I want a good reason, because choosing which out of the hundreds to list can be a serious neutrality, notability, and organizational problem—that has been discussed before (e.g. see [14], [15], [16]).

ChyranandChloe (talk) 08:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't object, and thanks for asking. I see the problem if the older reports said the same exact thing as what's in source number 1. If you're at all interested, I and a couple of other people are trying to sort out the first two sentences of the whole article above. I have one recommendation, another person has another, a third downed my idea but didn't actually recommend anything.Julzes (talk) 09:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

As per your suggestion, I'm going to borrow (now) from geoengineering specifically as regards the definition in the first sentence. This replaces Newsweek the New York Times with the NAS.Julzes (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't like it. Sorry, I've only just seen this section. By all means use NAS as a source for the term. But don't dump there name into the text (it shouldn't be on the geoeng page either). Geoeng is a thing. NAS has one view of it, we should not priviledge that view William M. Connolley (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm interpreting what you said as that the sentence in there right now is okay. Is that right?Julzes (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No, and I don't think you're being serious or sensible here, which is a bad thing to do for an article on probabtion, especially. We don't need a *defn* that is explicitly tied to any institution. We can use a defn by one institution as an illustration of a general principal (with a few exceptions, where it is generally accepted that one institution "owns" the defn). In this case, NAS doesn't own the defn William M. Connolley (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

We'll just disagree. The previous was a definition from somewhere else. All I did was improve over that. If you have an alternative suggestion, let me know and we can debate it with third and fourth parties. I'm not engaging in anything resembling an edit war. I was not aware of the 3RR. If someone else has to revert silly decisions, I will leave it to them.Julzes (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I was in the process of making an edit to a section here.

This is my summary to Dr. Connolley: I hope you find my edit of the first part of the section to be a reasonable compromise. Not serious or sensible? You told me what was wrong with one edit, and I fixed it. You then told me a different reason. What's there now really ought to satisfy you.Julzes (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I restored the section (above) and have reset Miszabot's archive cycle back to 5 days. --TS 08:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) This is the article talk page. Messages here go to everyone. If you want to talk to me only do it on my talk page. I've cut back the bloat a little - this is the GW page, after all William M. Connolley (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

warming from pre-industrial times to 1950

"The IPCC also concludes that variations in natural phenomena such as solar radiation and volcanism produced most of the warming from pre-industrial times to 1950 and had a small cooling effect afterward.[2][3]" I'm not sure this is quite right - I've followed the two references

I'm fine with the first reference ""Recent estimates indicate a relatively small combined effect of natural forcings on the global mean temperature evolution of the second half of the 20th century, with a small net cooling from the combined effects of solar and volcanic forcings" that's direct from chapter 9 of AR4 and so I'm fine with the statement that there is a small natural cooling effect from 1950 onwards.

I'm not sure about the first bit of the sentence "The IPCC also concludes that variations in natural phenomena such as solar radiation and volcanism produced most of the warming from pre-industrial times to 1950"

1) I can't find that in the IPCC chapter 9 2) The reference to the PNAS paper isn't conclusive proof for the statement

what is says in chapter 9 is

A substantial fraction of the reconstructed Northern Hemisphere inter-decadal temperature variability of the seven centuries prior to 1950 is very likely attributable to natural external forcing, and it is likely that anthropogenic forcing contributed to the early 20th-century warming evident in these records

which is not quite the same thing —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeteB99 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it you have :

pre-industrial to 1850 - No significant anthropogenic forcing 1850-1950 - anthropogenic forcings (mixture of Greenhouse gases and aerosols) and natural forcings combined but of the same sort of order. The error bars would make it difficult to say which is greater 1950 - dominated by anthropogenic forcings with a small natural net cooling

e.g. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

Personally my preference would be to just completely remove that sentence. If we had to have something then

Prior to 1950 a mixture of natural and man made effects produced the warming observed in the earlier part of the century PeteB99 (talk) 07:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that sentence can't stand as it is (who wrote it anyway?) so I've cut it to "The IPCC also concludes that variations in natural phenomena such as solar radiation and volcanism had a small cooling effect after 1950". I'm sure we've had big arguments about the pre-1950 stuff - how the sentence ended up in that state I don't know William M. Connolley (talk) 10:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

change to intro - restarting from archived version

The previous conversation got archived (short archive timeframe on this page - I had no idea). Maybe a good thing, that. So let me revive it with a formal proposal. I suggest the first line of this article be replaced with the following two sentences:

Global warming refers to empirical observations of a global increase in average oceanic and near-surface atmospheric temperatures, and to theoretical constructs which try to explain that increase in terms of human-derived or natural causation. It falls primarily under the scientific purview of climatologists, but because of the complexity of the subject matter other scientific disciplines have noteworthy investments in the debate.

I have provided detailed reasons for this change in the archived discussion - Talk:Global_warming/Archive_57#inconsistency_in_intro - and will repeat them if necessary to pursue further discussion.

Note: I have already read (and disposed of) a sufficient number of ITSCRUFT-type comments to recognize that a lot of people don't like this change. I'm sorry. However, I don't need any further reminders of general displeasure, so please don't comment unless you have some valid reasoning that opposes this change and are willing to engage in proper discussion towards consensus. Thanks. --Ludwigs2 05:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I oppose this text for two reasons. First, because the words "global warming" do not refer to the theoretical constructs which try to explain it, so it is inaccurate. Second, the last sentence is purely original research as far as I can tell. — DroEsperanto (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

well, sorry, that's not going to work.

1. Your first statement (as I have discussed extensively) is clearly and unambiguously wrong. Global warming does refer to the theoretical constructs, this article itself deals extensively with theoretical issues, and there is no way to separate 'theoretical' and 'empirical' issues in the way many people on this page try to, not without violating basic tenets of scientific methodology. I will happily explain this again in detail, if you like - just say the word. basically I'll be copy/pasting the argument I made in the archives, if that makes your life any easier.
2. Your second statement is specious. Line two is neither 'original' nor 'research': it simply notes that most of the scientists who study the issue are climatologists, but that other specialties (oceanographers, physicists, etc.) have some input in the debate. I assume this is a self-evident and unobjectionable description based on the references I see on this page, but I'm open to revisions if you want to craft a more (to your mind) precise statement.

do you have a more sophisticated argument to make? --Ludwigs2 07:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Refers, but what is it? Well, Ludwigs2, I do have objections, but I'm more interested in what's wrong with the current lead. Re-list your reasons from the archived discussion. Feel free to restart the thread. ChyranandChloe (talk) 08:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The first two sentences in the existing lede paragraph are particularly clumsy and refer to two different time periods. The alternative suggestion is a significant improvement on what's there now viz: [see lead para 1, oldversion CaC]

I'm not currently seeing persuasive opposition to the new version. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 08:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Right, and I'm not seeing persuasive reason as to what in the current lead is wrong. MalcolmMcDonald, elaborate "clumsy and refer to two different time periods." A quote of the whole first paragraph from the article isn't an explanation, and I've refactored it. ChyranandChloe (talk) 08:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

@ ChyranandChloe: Granting what Malcolm said, I think it's more important to note that the lead and the article as a whole refer to theory without ever addressing the fact that they are referring to theory. For example (just looking at the first paragraph), the increase in global surface temperature over the last 50 or so years is an empirical observation (yes), but the projected continuation of that trend is unambiguously a matter of theory, as is the conclusion that most of the observed temperature changes were caused by greenhouse gases, as are the conclusions about solar variation and volcanism. This broad confounding of empirical measurements with the models and theories that empirical evidence is designed to support (or refute) makes for a lot of confusing language throughout the article. Specifying clearly up-front that global warming refers to a theory or theories about what is happening to the earth (theories that are well-supported by the available empirical evidence) will begin making the article clearer, more scientifically accurate, and less contentious as a whole. --Ludwigs2 08:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This is pretty much putting FAQ 8, but in the article, right? Here's where I'm confused about. When you said "Granting what Malcolm said", so you also believe that the lead is also "clumsy and refer to two different time periods." I don't see how your later statements support that. It sort of sounds like you want to side, I don't think it's wise to have your comments tied with his, but that's just me. ChyranandChloe (talk) 09:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

well, sort of. FAQ 8 sidles past the issue, giving a fairly good description of the difference between the colloquial and scientific uses of the word 'theory' but not really applying them to the topic, and most editors here seem to rely on the 'global warming is only about the observations' argument implied by FAQ 8's first line. I'm really trying to get past that misleading 1st-line assertion to something more like scientific theory as it's expressed later in FAQ 8.

With respect to Malcolm's point... I'm trying not to play politics here, despite the pushme-pullyou tendencies of this talk page. I think this: (1) I don't disagree with his assertion that it's a bit of a clumsy construction, (2) I don't think I'd object to the phrase merely on the grounds of clumsy language construction, but (3) I kind of suspect that his objection to the construction is really an objection to what he perceives as a violation of NPOV in the article, and I'm leaving an opening for that to be expressed more fully later if need be. I'll give that same grace to anyone in this debate, so long as I get the sense they are trying to communicate (not just beat someone over the head with words). --Ludwigs2 09:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all I'm concerned that the article fails the reader. I have repeatedly come here for information and I've found it is not helpful. I've made suggestions for improvements, but the conduct of this page makes it very difficult to have any kind of sensible discussion. That's why I've not come back to try and fight for "Amazon" "rain-forest" "flames" and "go up in" to appear. Even desertification and the Antarctic are missing, which is pretty astounding.

Secondly I'm concerned about the poor writing of this article in places (such as the lede) which it is extremely difficult to improve, as you're discovering.

Thirdly I have concerns about POV in parts of the article (eg the ridiculously titled "Debate and skepticism").

I should not need to state that commenting must relate to improving articles and not concern other editors. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 12:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Theoretical construct?

What is a "theoretical construct"? I had to look it up - according to Blackwell, it's not something that is commonly used among scientist, but a philosophical term that describes "a term for something that is unobservable and postulated, such as force, atoms, field, or electrons", and "scientific realists reject the notion of a theoretical construct".(link may not persist) I strongly suggest that a term with such a specialized philosophical meaning has not place in the introduction of an article of general interest. I'd also say that the term would be grossly misused. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I had no problem understanding "theoretical construct". It suggests a linkage based on theory and seems to fit well with "which try to explain that increase in terms of human-derived or natural causation". Your objection may be that the words "try to" are surplus, I'd agree to leaving them out. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

That ignores the point that "technical construct" is apparently a terminus technicus that is used outside the boundaries of its understood meaning. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Does the phrase get it's meaning across to me, and do I accept that its use complies with NPOV? My answer would be "Yes" on both counts. (Well, the words "try to" could be chopped but the rest of it reads properly). Newspapers manage to be interesting and infomative and credible (even the notorious Daily Mail talking about Prof Latif) and the WP article should aim to be better than them. Currently, I fear that it's worse, sometimes much worse.

I would like to congratulate you for attempting "constructive opposition" to the proposed version, something we're not always seeing. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but either you don't get the technical meaning of the term "theoretical construct", or I don't get it. As far as I'm concerned, while there is a somewhat fuzzy interpretation consistent with an naive reading of the term (see the FAQ Q8), there is no plausible interpretation that is consistent with the technical meaning of the term. It's like saying "the mechanic used a spanner to move the car" when talking about a mechanic driving over the Golden Gate Bride to move the car from Oakland to San Diego. Yes, bridges "span", but its still a wrong use of language. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You may be right and if you wish to change those two words I'd not object. However, the proposed paragraph makes a lot more sense than what we're using currently, which manages to use unnecessary temperature and mathematical precision to support a different statement.

Why do I get the impression that this discussion will be dragged out until those who can see the problems with the article and genuinely wish to improve it are forced to abandon the attempt? I want to re-write the "Feedback" section to cover the 4 most important elements (and remove the irrelevancies) and I want to incorporate desertification of the Amazon rain-forest, a significant gap. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)

@ Stephan. I'm happy to use the word 'theory' instead of 'theoretical construct'. very minor point. I had't meant anything special by the phrase, I just speak jargon by default. I'm confused, however, by the bit about 'scientific realists' - do they not believe that electrons exist, or do they believe that we can see electrons directly? both claims strike me as a bit... odd. --Ludwigs2 17:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Pedantic

That proposed introduction looks excessively pedantic to me. We should use plain English wherever possible, especially in the introductory sentence where we have not yet defined our terms. Currently we say: 17:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation.

That's a pretty short sentence, but it gets the message across without all the fiddling and scraping employed by the first sentence of the proposed alternative. As for the second sentence in the alternative, I don't know what it's doing there. --TS 12:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "Global Warming" as we know it is somewhat more than those straightforward words imply, in some quarters they're a swear-word. We need to pay lip-service to that view if we don't want to immediately lose that half of the visitors who, like me, came here to find the root of an NPOV discussion. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This is about the science. The nonsense in the newspapers should stay in the newspapers. People who cannot tell newspaper reports from fact may have difficulties with the content of this encyclopedia, but the solution to that problem is not to change the content of the encyclopedia. Indeed we have no business trying to solve the problem at all. We are neither propagandists nor educators, we only write the facts about science from reliable sources. --TS 13:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I would debate you on the degree to which very knowledgeable editors of this article live in ivory towers where they can afford to ignore public debate and what's going on in the real world. However, I'm not going to do that because Wikipedia doesn't live in an ivory tower. The issue at stake is not the perfidy of newspapers or even the disastrous consequences for the planet but the dreadfully uninformative state of this article. And the poor writing, a problem that Ludswig2 is trying to fix with my support. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

@ Tony: as a statement of science, the current lead is wrong. I'm happy to use plain English where and to the extent that plain English correctly explains the situation, but I see no reason to use what (at best) amounts to scientific baby talk. If you'd like to revise my proposal to be more accessible, we can discuss that, but what you've said here does not constitute an argument for not using it. --Ludwigs2 17:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

We disagree about whether the introduction is wrong. I think it's correct, and I regard objections from pedantry as unhelpful. --TS 17:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not a matter of personal opinion. Try [17] and [18]. Bertport (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

@ Tony: You are entitled to disagree, of course, but you are not entitled to disagree just for the sheer heck of it. I've given carefully thought-out explanations of why I think the article needs to include what I've included. Unless you have an argument that counters the explanations I've given, then I will acknowledge your disagreement but will be forced to ignore it. The article shouldn't suffer from misinformation simply because some editors don't like the information that's missing. --Ludwigs2 18:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

@ Bertport: dictionary definitions are now the final word in scientific discussions? when did that happen? --Ludwigs2 18:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, please don't misrepresent me. I have told you that I disagree because the wording is correct and your objection seems to be sheer pedantry. Please don't falsely claim that I disagree "for the heck of it." --TS 18:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

@ Ludwigs2: No, dictionaries do not supplant scientific discussions. The first sentence of this article should not be a "discussion" of any sort. But you have stated that the intro, which is a definition, is incorrect. Definitions are the domain of dictionaries. Bertport (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No pressing need

I see no pressing need to change the existing lede. This looks like being yet another pile of unproductive and possibly acrimonious talking likely to lead nowhere. In particluar, I see no "misinformation" in the existing lede: L, if you want to insist on this point, you'll need to make it rather more clearly William M. Connolley (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

@ Tony and William: again, I have spelled out my reasons in detail in this section and in the archived discussion. If you would like to address those reason, I'm listening. If you would like me to repeat those reasons, I will do that (within reason). If you don't want to read or discuss the arguments I've made, that's fine, but then you really don't really have anything to contribute to the conversation. All I'm hearing from the two of you is that you don't like it, and that's just not a valid reason in a debate of this sort. --Ludwigs2 18:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've read and understood (i presume) all your arguments, and reasons. Despite this i disagree with your change, for much the same reasons as that given by others. Your introduction is worse than the current one, readability is worse, explanation too complex, goes into details that is outside of the lead's purpose, focus is too narrow ... etc etc. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Asserting that you are listening is no substitute for listening. Mischaracterizing the responses of others does not pass for answering them. Calling yourself reasonable does not amount to being reasonable. Bertport (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

@ Kim, I'm not sure I'm following you. you understand (and presumably agree with) the substantive change that the lead should acknowledge global warming as a theory, but you disagree with making that change on stylistic grounds? or am I misunderstanding you?

@ Bertport: if I've mischaracterized something someone has said, please clarify. I am listening, but I might have misheard.

With respect to reasonableness, I stand by my behavior. --Ludwigs2 19:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The gravity analogy

This is the problem:

Gravity refers to empirical observations of the motions of mass-bearing objects, and to theoretical constructs which try to explain that motion in terms of their mass and distance from one another. It falls primarily under the scientific purview of physicists, but because of the complexity of the subject matter other scientific disciplines have noteworthy investments in the debate.

The problem is one of inappropriate distancing motivated by a pedantic wish to provide an exact and pathologically precise, defensive definition of the facts. By applying such distancing, we traduce the subject and give undue weight to alternative suggestions, such as that global warming will not continue, or that it's primarily of natural cause, or (in the case of gravity) that the Earth sucks. --TS 18:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Tony, on the gravity article, no one has any issue with referring to gravity as a theory. There are major headings about the history of the theory and alternate theories, yah? and that even considering that the theories of gravity are much more solidly based in empirical evidence than the theories of global warming. If you're going to make reference to that page than we should have much more thorough discussions of theory on this page than it currently shows.

not my business if you want to shoot your own argument in the foot... --Ludwigs2 18:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs, you seem to have misunderstood the gravity example above. That is not the introduction to that article, but shows what an unnecessary mouthful that would be if it followed your proposed wording. The actual introduction there is much simpler, as are those for Evolution, Electron and most other articles on established scientific topics. They all begin, "X is..." and go on to explain in simple terms the established science in a clear sentence or two. Your proposal, to begin, "Global warming refers to empirical observations of..." and to go on to talk about "theoretical constructs which try to explain..." clearly sets out to muddy the water before the reader gets started. Such a rhetorical device may go down well in a political debating society, or in a lawyer's speech to the jury, but is not relevant (or normal) in a scientific context. Try as some people may, one cannot turn GW itself into a debating matter - it may be one of the first times that science has led politicians into doing the right thing, but trying to turn the science itself into a matter for debate, among those who do not understand it, is not relevant. The politics, debates, brinkmanship and gambling begin where the science leaves off, not just before it begins. --Nigelj (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Nigel, I haven't misunderstood anything. I have no objection to any stylistic critiques you care to make - I'm sure that we can arrive at something nice if we work at it - but the substantive changes I'm quite set on. if you want to model things on the gravity article, then I will immediately add 'history of the theory' and 'alternate theories' sections to this article, and once they are in place and properly developed I will give up my concerns about the lead. Is that what you'd prefer?

I do not put style over substance, ever, and I am not inclined to sacrifice an accurate description of this topic over petty stylistic concerns. let's agree on the substantive point first, and then we can haggle of style issues. --Ludwigs2 23:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I find it depressing that we're spending so much time refuting misrepresentations of clearly stated arguments. The key question is, or should be: Is there actually any reasonable argument to replace the clear and accurate first sentence of this article with a sequence of unreadable circumlocutions? --TS 21:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've given one that you refuse to address. Tony, please note: I will continue to raise this issue until it is resolved (one way or another) to my satisfaction. You can keep trying to avoid it - as you've done repeatedly in this discussion to date - or you can settle down and start editing cooperatively to address my perfectly valid concerns in a way that satisfies us both. I'm ok with either choice you make, but judging by your comments above I think that in the long run you'll be happier having taken the second option. Up to you. --Ludwigs2 23:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned the issue is resolved: there is no consensus for your proposed change and I've given you my opinion of it. Feel free, within reason, to advocate for your version. But please refrain from repeating your false claims that those who disagree with you have done so without engaging with your suggestions properly. I've stated my reasons above and I will not continue to repeat them. --TS 23:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

that's your business. however, I am obliged to disregard your opinion since you refuse to make any actual argument. I want to discuss an improvement to the encyclopedia, you're simply being obstructionist, and that is all that needs to be said on the matter. Oh... that, and 'have a nice day!'

now, if anyone would actually like to discuss the matter, I'm listening. --Ludwigs2 00:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Pretending that you (one person) have the right to hold this article and all its contributors to some kind of ransom regarding changes you want to make to it, is unrealistic. You have been making similar demands here for some weeks now. This is not the way WP:CONSENSUS works. Many people have explained that the changes you propose do not improve the article, for various reasons. WP:ICANTHEARYOU --Nigelj (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

As I have said (repeatedly) until someone shows me my actual substantive point is invalid, I am obliged to argue for it. Consensus does not have anything to do with majority rule, it's a tool for improving the encyclopedia. This is a question about whether GW should be identified as a theory - I've given good reasons for it, no one has given good reasons against it. what would you do in my shoes? --Ludwigs2 17:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

A shorter version

After going through some of the history I think you make some good points. However, you suggestion would have to be shortened and changed to get any traction. My suggestion to your previously stated alternative.

Global warming refers to empirical observation of a global increase in average oceanic and near-surface atmospheric temperatures since the mid-20th century, and the theory which tries to explain that increase in terms of human-derived causation.

Arzel (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a problem with that. Human-derived causation is an inference, and not an integral part of anybody's theory. If we discovered tomorrow that the warming trend was significantly natural in causation, this would not make the trend go away. We would only have made an adjustment to the attribution of different mechanisms. --TS 14:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This suggestion is not any kind of improvement on the existing opening sentences. It would replace some simple and easily cited facts with a lot of mealy-mouthed verbiage that achieves nothing except inviting the possibility of picking uncited holes in the basics of the science that this article is about. Almost every word and phrase can be challenged, and all together it amounts to WP:OR to synthesise a whole new view of the published science: "refers to" - why can't we just say "is"? "empirical observation" - why qualify even this half of the new definition? Is there some other kind of observation that we're going to discuss? "average oceanic and near-surface atmospheric" - what's wrong with "near-surface air and oceans"? "the theory which tries to explain" - that just drips of an unspoken allegation that science itself is basically corrupt or ineffectual. "tries to explain that increase in terms of" - that is an actual misrepresentation of the way scientific modelling proceeds from observations towards explanations and projections. The science in this area did so many years or decades ago, and there is no need to imply in the first sentence that it is still struggling to emerge from its own primordial slime and assemble its first coherent thought. --Nigelj (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Arzel, thank you for trying. I'd personally be happy with your version, except that it needs to be expanded - it's not just about human-derived causation but about the relationship between possible forms of human and natural causation.

Nigel: The reason we can't just say 'empirical observation' is because empirical observations have no meaning in and of themselves. As I have said before, empirical observations are measurements of isolated events in time - they only have meaning to the extent that they are tied together by a theoretical structure which gives them meaning. saying that science has theories does not "drip[s] of an unspoken allegation{s] that science itself is basically corrupt or ineffectual", it is a simple and accurate description of the way science actually works. --Ludwigs2 17:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

As pointless as ever. There is no reasonn to re-write the lede. Stop fiddling, do something useful, there is plenty to be done William M. Connolley (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

piffle. When everyone stops arguing about irrelevancies and gets down to discussing the substantive issue I've raised, then this will move forward. If not, not. either way I am not about to give up on a credible improvement to the article because a few editors are on a tear about it. --Ludwigs2 17:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk Page Censorship

I'll believe in the various wikilawyering arguments made about the talk page cuts and the thread collpses when they involve some of Connelley and Sidaway's "settled science" arguments. 69.165.159.245 (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what you are saying but there is far too much removal of material from this talk page in my opinion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sanity has prevailed and the page has been semi'd so we won't have to endure any more appalling spelling from anon's. Since this section has nothing whatsoever to do with improving the page, I suggest removing it William M. Connolley (talk) 09:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

More IPCC Fun and Games

In light of the Himalayan glacier fiasco http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/columnists/swaminathan-s-a-aiyar/IPCC-imperialism-on-Indian-glaciers/articleshow/5478293.cms and this: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-does-pielke-think-about-this.html it seems to me like it's time to take the IPCC findings with a big grain of salt. I think I'm not the only person who has left Wikipedia because climate change articles are "owned" by people who are determined to push the IPCC party line and ignore all proof of peer review manipulation, use of non-academic material (the glacier stuff from New Scientist) and the manipulation of data belonging to people like Pielke. 75.119.249.7 (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That's an extreme view that no NPOV article could follow. The IPCC process is important because so many nation states are involved.

The glacier business is a right cock-up, and has exposed the astonishing fact that many IPCC participants thought only peer-reviewed material would be used, whereas other participants had written policy so they could do whatever they liked. Fortunately, nothing so diabolical could ever happen to an article written to the tried and trusted processes of Wikipedia. Even so, I agree this article is stale and I like what Ludswig2 said about it above. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That is not an extreme view. The reason I do not edit this article is because it is so far from being neutral that I couldn't possibly endorse it in any way by my edits. That may be a selfish view - a kind of "walk by on the other side of the road to the crime", but to be quite honest, I would not wish to have my name as an author on such a wholly distorted document and all I can hope is that it is so obviously biased to the ordinary sensible people who have the misfortune to come across it that they will realise that it cannot be relied on as a source of information.85.210.3.125 (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh really? If this article is so biased, could you name any other encyclopedia (and I am not talking about conservapedia) that portrays global warming in a more neutral way? Have you had a look at the article of Encyclopædia Britannica, widely regarded as the most scholarly of encyclopaedias, lately? They also mention the IPCC conclusions right away. Are they following any agenda? SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 22:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this going to be the pattern? First, hacking the emails out from CRU didn't 'bring down the whole of climate science', so now the 'glacier fiasco' is going to do it? You guys need to get your heads around just how big the scientific world is in our modern society. It's not just 4 guys in East Anglia and a little UN committee, you know. This has been going on for decades, involving thousands of highly qualified and professional researchers and reviewers and thinkers, writers, politicians, heads of state, whatever. We know you don't like it, that's why so much work was put in. Running around in circles shouting "Gotcha, you lying b****s!" every five minutes isn't going to make it all go away. Reflecting the science as it is in this article is neutral. Pretending that it's all a house of cards is irrational. --Nigelj (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, if everyone believes it, it must be true, right? Nigel, meet my friends Copernicus and Galileo. I'm afraid, when it comes to the hockey stick graph, the glaciers -- a big part of IPCC and Gore's case, and now the hurricanes (see Pielke's blog above. He was a main researcher on hurricane frequency) a lot of IPCC and CRU is coming up snake-eyes. So people like me will continue to refuse to do anything for Wikipedia.75.119.249.7 (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

See Neutral point of view. If we all knew the truth about everything we wouldn't need that policy. Nor for that matter would we need encyclopedias. There is a lot of disinformation around but the science seems to be sound. If and when that changes we'll eventually adapt the article to the changed circumstances. --TS 23:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Even taking the tired example of Copernicus and Galileo, that was a step change in science: it wasn't a case of Joe Bloggs of East Penge sitting up in his bath with a brand new idea that was better than those of all of the world's scientists put together. Nicolaus Copernicus was a mathematician, astronomer, physician, polyglot and scholar. He worked his whole life on these things, and had a huge circle of scientific colleagues and supporters, and mountains of careful observations and calculations, before he allowed his heliocentricity theory to be published, just before his death. He wasn't a blogger who found a wrong date in AR4, or a hacker who found some e-mails. If the scientific community find a better theory for what's wrong with burning all the earth's fossil fuels, i.e. better than global warming, then they'll publish it and we'll report it. But don't expect to find that your favourite blogger is a reincarnation of Copernicus or Galileo and has thought it out all by himself! --Nigelj (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh come on Nigelj, climate "science" only really got going after the ice core samples in the 1960s - there has been precisely 5 decades of data (one decade being as far as climate is concerned only one data point). It has a record of predicting cooling in the 1970s using the Camp Century cycles (a fact you won't find in this biased load of trash here) - it then invented manmade warming in the 1970s to excuse the failure of predicted cooling, and then the fad was to predict warming, which happened for 2 decades (warming 1980, 1990) and then being totally confident on their "science" based on only two data points the idiots decided that they understood the total climate and in 2001 predicted warming, since when it has cooled. That's not science - that complete junk - real scientists won't to have nothing to do with these charlatans! 89.168.179.31 (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Very clever - but a ridiculous simplification of the state of the art. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

|}

Historic Low of sub-400 ppm CO2 Levels

Shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere that at 380 ppm today, we are at an historic low of CO2 concentrations when we look back at past CO2 levels? The only other time CO2 has dropped below 400 ppm has been the late Carbiniferous some 300 million years ago, but at all other times CO2 has been above 400 ppm. The graph here [19] shows CO2 levels with a black line, and temperature is the blue line. In fact it's been as high as 7000 ppm during the Cambrian period, which was so favorable to life that it resulted in the famous Cambrian Explosion, an explosion of biodiversity. This seems to contradict the predictions that our 380 ppm level will result in dire consequences for life. It's a basic crime of omission by leaving these facts out. JettaMann (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The concentrations in prehistoric and prehuman times are relevant to paleoclimatology, but of only contingent relevance to the current warming. The current warming is not predicted to have effects such as mass extinctions and the like; rather, it's likely to cause changes that we'd rather, as humans, avoid. Costly changes lasting many human lifetimes.. --TS 21:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Or you could say that humans originated and evolved in a special niche in which CO2 concentrations were extraordinarily low. That's to say that one can speculate either way, so it probably shouldn't be included here. Awickert (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's also say that "historic" usually refers to written history. CO2 is at an all-time high for at least 100 times longer than written history, and possibly for 2000 times longer than written history. The 20 million years currently most likely is about 10 times the average life time of a species. And Tony, global warming is predicted to cause mass extinction, although it will be hard to separate it from the holocene extinction event that's ongoing anyways. An extinction event does not require every third animal species to drop dead and rot away immediately. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Your assumption about "Historic" is erroneous - just convenient for your argument.Dikstr (talk) 05:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that this "historic low" is really relevant. However, it is yet another example of an issue that people should find if they search the article. Having found it, readers should be diverted to another article that (maybe) gives this feature the attention it deserves.

The list of missing key-words may not include "historic low", it most certainly does include words such as "Antarctic", "desertification", "Amazon" and many others which are currently missing from the article. Two of those in my short-list above were removed immediately when I put them in. (Comments on "advocacy" of this kind by me to my TalkPage, please). MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the resistance you're encountering here is because most other editors don't share your view of what this article should contain. You can't just stand around and say "X is missing", "Y is missing", and so on. You have to persuade by presenting evidence that a significant aspect of global warming is omitted. --TS 12:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

JettaMann believes a discussion of this "historic low" needs inclusion, I've told him that a mention would indeed be valuable, but i couldn't support the whole nine yards. I trust others to contribute in a similarly balanced and article improving fashion. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Stephen, isn't it worth noting in the article that historically CO2 bottoms out at about the 400 ppm level. If you look at the Tertiary period in that graph it clearly shows CO2 levels starting at about 1000 ppm, then leveling out far before industrial production began. They have no where to go but up, at least it appears that way from past behavior of the planet. This just seems like relevant information that people reading up on Global Warming would want to know. JettaMann (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Tell us the "key-words" that help guide people to find out about this feature, and I'd support including them. But there is said to be a problem with article-bloat, so the discussion presumably needs to go somewhere else. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
• Jetta, that is not true. CO2 levels during the last half million years (i.e. "historic period"*100) or so have been between 200ppm and 300ppm (during the warmest periods of interglacials). Our best current estimates are that CO2 has not been as high as it was today in the last 20 million years. Assuming you talk about the graph labeled "Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time" at [20], that graph is intended to show, in broad strokes, CO2 and temperature over half a billion years. It simply does not have the resolution to show details on the million year scale. The uncertainty for the last 20 million years in that graph goes from about 0 ppm to approxiately 350 ppm. [:File:Carbon Dioxide 400kyr.png] shows the last 400000 years in some detail. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well yes that's true, we are at another low point in CO2 concentrations. As I said, the current period started at around 1000 and decreased gradually then *leveled off* far before industrial inputs, leaving no where to go but up. Likely if we had more accurate records the Carboniferous would also show levels bottoming out at a similar number (you can see the error bars in the graph go to about 0). On examination of the micro level it was probably spiking up and down as we see today. But my main point here is that it is important to give data in context. You can look at smaller periods of time such as the transition from winter to summer and predict a massive trend in warming, or 1940 to 1970 and predict a massive decline in temperature, etc... up to all different time scales and periods. Without context, it can make people panic unnecessarily. The context here that is important for people to know is that: 1) the earth is at historic lows of CO2 2) It's been as high as 7000 ppm 3) Life thrived during the warmer periods 4) CO2 levels have gone down and up without any industrial activity in the past. This is important information for the average Wikipedia reader to know. JettaMann (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. First, you write "the only other time CO2 has dropped below 400 ppm has been the late Carbiniferous (sic)" - i.e. you talk about hundreds of millions of years. Then you talk about the Tertiary, i.e. about time spans of 10s of millions of years (and CO2 was below 400 ppm for large parts of the Tertiary). Now you talk about a thousand years? Or a 1000 ppm? Anyways, no, the Earth is not at "historic lows of CO2". It is likely at unprecedented heights during the current geological age. Going back even 20 million years, you are talking about a different planet. The Mediterranean dried up about 6 million years ago. Both the Tethys Seaway and the Isthmus of Panama closed up during the last 20 million years. Sure, life "thrived" during higher CO2 concentration. But "life" the last time we had 3000 ppm was the dinosaurs, not humans. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

@ - JettaMann - the details of what you're talking about are not important for the reasons you've been told. No matter how good things may have been all those years ago, the re-imposition of those CO2 levels will likely be catastrophic to our way of life and possibly to our species.

However, it is an interesting and perhaps significant discussion. Rather than try to argue the details of these 'historic lows', we need to provide readers with a) a signpost they'll be able to spot amongst the forest of other signposts and b) a proper discussion of this effect. The latter will almost certainly have to be on a sub-page because it cannot be fitted in here at the moment (though later it might come to be more important and be fetched back). MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

@JettaMann Can you give us a statement, boiled down to one sentence, with a ref so we can see it. I don't think the addition of one sentence will damage the page. We can point to the relative sub-article with a wikilink. Mytwocents (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a simple statement that's more-or-less consistent with the designated scope of this article: "The current rise in CO2 levels is unprecedented since the appearance of homo sapiens on the earth approximately 200,000 years ago." Don't have time to provide a citation right now, but there are secondary RSs out there for this. The last time CO2 levels were 1000ppm, dinosaurs and ferns dominated the Earth. ... Kenosis (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Simple statement C&P direct from Atmospheric_CO2 "Present carbon dioxide levels are likely higher now than at any time during the past 20 [million years] and certainly higher than in the last 800,000." How that adds up to 'historic low' is beyond me, but a statement that says something like "Even though ancient pre-historical atmospheric CO2 levels may have been higher, present carbon dioxide levels are likely higher now than at any time during the past 20 [million years] and certainly higher than in the last 800,000." (with the same cite as that article) might be a useful addition? ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Scratch that, per "These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores.[25][26][27] Less direct geological evidence indicates that CO2 values this high were last seen about 20 million years ago." already included. ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

What I'm proposing is that we just present the data to the readers of Wikipedia, unvarnished. It seems to me like some of the people above are trying to interpret the data for people, which strikes me as problematic. Malcolm McDonald's statements above are bordering on original research and Kenosis' statement would be repeating what is already said in the article. The proposed addition would be something like, "In the geologic scale, the earth is at historic lows of CO2. CO2 concentration has been as high as 7000 ppm during the Cambrian period, which resulted in the Cambrian Explosion, an explosion of biodiversity. The only other time earth's CO2 concentration has been comparable to present sub-400 ppm levels was during the Carboniferous, some 300 million years ago, after which CO2 levels recovered." The reference for this is provided above in my first statement.JettaMann (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

What's "unvarnished" about "CO2 concentration has been as high as 7000 ppm [...] which resulted in the Cambrian Explosion, an explosion of biodiversity"? Moreover, why do you feel this data should be included? I'm not aware of any serious scientists who claims that conditions during the Cambrian or Carboniferous are in any way comparable to conditions today. Continents are configured differently, the biosphere is completely changed, heck, even the sun was significantly fainter back then. There also is no serious scientist who claims that the current increase is some kind of natural recovery. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

^^^ That ‒ Jaymax✍ 08:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

AEB

The statement above is not interpretation of any kind. It is a fact that CO2 was at 7000 ppm and the Cambrian explosion followed. There is zero interpretation there. Whereas the claim that CO2 levels today are unnatural and deadly is controversial to say the least, as you are well aware. That claim is not an observation, it is an interpretation. So I'm saying let's just put these facts in the article, which are not interpretations, which put current CO2 levels in proper context to the earth's past, and which put the interpretations of AGW scientists in context as well. I'm also not sure why you are saying scientists don't think the earth's past is comparable to today. In many ways it is comparable, and in some ways it is not comparable. For you to say it is in no way comparable is your interpretation and sounds like original research to me. JettaMann (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Am I missing something here? I thought we're discussing an article on global warming not an article on historic (or even current) levels of carbon dioxide. If the current or historic levels of CO2 are relevant to this article, as established by reliable sources then it should obviously be included in a relevant context but otherwise it doesn't matter whether it's 'a fact'. It's also a fact that Venus has an atmosphere 96.5% carbon dioxide by volume and has a surface tempeature of 740 K; and evidentally that "Republicans have received 75 percent of the oil and gas industry's $245 million in political contributions during the past 20 years" [21] and evidentally, at least as of 2005 [22] that "Bush, who has received more from the oil and gas industry than any other politician" (in the US); and that in 2006 the US had the highest per capita emissions of CO2 of any country with a population over ~6 million; but in all cases again, not something that particularly belongs in the article unless there's some established relevance Nil Einne (talk) 07:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• That the current CO2 level is unnatural is a fact, not an opinion. We don't claim that it is "deadly" in the article, so that's a straw man. If CO2 levels were 7000ppm in the Cambrian explosion is uncertain - look at the error bars. However, this is picking nits. The main problem is that you wrote "resulted", suggesting a causal link for which you have provided no evidence, let alone reliable sources. But that still misses the point. The "explosion" took some 70-80 million years. The dinosaurs left us 65 million years ago, leading to an explosion in the diversity of mammals. Does that make a major asteroid strike desirable? Granting you your nit, yes, the precambrian Earth was in "some" ways comparable to today's Earth. However, you cannot usefully compare the climate system. The sun was about 6% less luminous than today, equivalent to a forcing of approximately 20W/m², or more than 6 doublings of CO2 compared to preindustrial modern levels. The continents were configured very differently. Oxygen content started at 3% and rose to 15% or so - something that might be much more reasonably be connected to the Cambrian explosion. In short, it's a different system, and trying to frame parameters as "normal" because they are within boundaries experienced within the eep geological past is fallacious. For that concept of "normal", an Earth without humans is normal, as is one without mammals, as, indeed, is one without multicellular life. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Instead of saying "resulted in" we could say "was followed by", which contains no interpretation. You mention above that it "is a fact" that the current 382 PPM level is unnaturally high. Could I ask you how unnaturally high it is? In other words, how much ppm higher than what it is supposed to be today? This seems like a difficult thing to answer without a significant amount of interpretation because the history of CO2 levels is that it is bumping up and down all the time without any industrial or man made input. Sometimes it bumped up to as high as 7000 ppm, sometimes it was under 400 ppm, and all without industrial pollution in the past. So to me this seems like a very relevant thing to mention in an article that talks about CO2 levels with the earth today. You need to put in perspective what the earth has done in the past. You've kind of argued against your own case in my opinion by talking about what is "normal". Is it up to you to decide some arbitrary cutoff point in which "modern conditions" exist? You can't just arbitrarily select a narrow date range that Wikipedia readers are allowed to see data from. Like I said before, if you select the date range from June to December, it looks like massive global cooling! Yet it would be wrong to just focus on one small slice of data to try and convince people of a trend. JettaMann (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The appropriate 'slice' for this article is the one which includes where there most recently seemed to be a natural (non-human affected, for the sake of debate) balance or steady-state in CO2 levels for an extended period of time. ‒ Jaymax✍ 07:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The currently proposed statement is something like, "In the context of the geologic time scale, the earth is at historic lows of CO2. CO2 concentration has been as high as 7000 ppm during the Cambrian period, which was followed by the Cambrian Explosion, an explosion of biodiversity. The only other time earth's CO2 concentration has been comparable to present sub-400 ppm levels was during the Carboniferous, some 300 million years ago, after which CO2 levels recovered naturally." JettaMann (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I regret encouraging you. Yes, it would be nice to have some "key-words" (eg historic low) that led the reader to some kind of explanation of this argument. (Even though I'm pretty sure it's a straw-man of the deniers). But you seem to want a discussion on the page, and that would be completely WP:UNDUE. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Reads like an ad

This article reads like an ad and is in a generally erroneous state

Elements that must be repaired:

1. Article implies that global warming is isolated to earth in your bed, however other planets very likely undergo natural global warming and cooling just like the earth. This focus upon the earth has caused the article to be heavily written with an undertone that it contains an implied realistic hypotheses. This is really a theoretical hypothesis, especially since anthropogenic influence on global warming cannot be measured directly and may yet cause unpredictable effects. Thus the article should transform from a focus on earth, to the general phenomenon of global warming, globe warming of other planets and possibly include the surface of the sun and moons, then an explanation of possible causes such as effects proven by the IPCC, then known and hypothesised effects.
2. Article has a focus on warming of earth over the past century and does not express our knowledge of global warming before 150 years ago.
3. Article contains a strange fixation on the works of the IPCC with 26 citations of their direct works. Sources should vary a bit more than this.
4. Mathematical incompetence is implied with such example phrases as "Expressed as a linear trend, this temperature rose by 0.74 °C ± 0.18 °C over the period 1906–2005," "relative to the 1961–1990 average" and immediately following "relative to the average temperatures from 1940 to 1980," firstly temperature graphs are not linear in nature and differences between two time points do not require linear plotting to establish error bounds, secondly the associated graphs are presented relative to differing averages and these graphs are then presented next to each other, this may cause an unrealistic perception of recent global warming (especially since the global graph of average temperatures is 1 year out of date and contains a very strange comparative average). These graphs shouldn't even be in the introduction since global warming has occurred at other points in time, they should show a longer time period of global temperatures.
5. The introduction includes an unnecessarily complex explanation of the IPCC's hypothesises, and does not give any credence to alternative theories attempting to explain this scientific phenomenon. The length and complexity should be reduced, and a reduced focus on the IPCC. An example of subtle advertising is "these basic conclusions [by the IPCC] have been endorsed by more than 40 scientific societies and academies of science."
6. "The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70 percent of the greenhouse effect; carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26 percent; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9 percent; and ozone (O3), which causes 3–7 percent. Clouds also affect the radiation balance, but they are composed of liquid water or ice and so are considered separately from water vapor and other gases. Human activity since the Industrial Revolution has increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, leading to increased radiative forcing from CO2, methane, tropospheric ozone, CFCs and nitrous oxide. The concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36% and 148% respectively since 1750." This information is not disputed, however since there is such a heavy focus on the human effect there should be a calculation of the total percentile contribution to these greenhouse gases by humans, and there should also be a note that increasing one greenhouse gas reduces the concentration of other greenhouse gases which may have a stronger effect to global warming than the introduced gas. A calculation of human contribution based on the above figures would be (note that the figures don't indicate the percentage of gasses released by humans, thus this calculation assumed 100% contribution by humans, or is above the maximum anthropogenic contribution): 0.36/1.36 * 0.09-0.26 + 1.48/2.48 * 0.04-0.09 = 5-12% Since 100% of all green house gases today cause 33 deg temperature warming, the theoretical cumulative anthropogenic effect is 0.05-0.12* 33 = 1.65-3.96 deg.
7. The introduction includes hypothesises of the effects of global warming upon the earth which have weak citations and is probably unnecessary.130.56.88.227 (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that, I've refactored the list to be numbered, makes it easier to refer to each point. You're okay with that, right? Before we begin, do you really believe the article reads like an ad? I don't think very many people would appreciate an accusation like that, and I don't think that's the focus of your proposal. Anyways, the direction of this discussion is up to you. It's a big list, which one do you want to start with? ChyranandChloe (talk) 08:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The article does read a bit like an ad. I wouldn't expect a GM advertisement to tell me whether, for instance, there had just been a gigantic recall to fix the brakes of every vehicle they've ever made. But I expect the article on GM here to tell me all about it (if it's sufficiently notable, naturally) and if it fails to do so, I'm likely to walk away thinking to myself that Wikipedia is POV.

Similarly for the GW article here. If Prof Latif (a firm believer in GW/AGW) is quoted in the Daily Mail as saying there may be 20 years of cooling ahead, I expect to quickly find what the reference work of record says about him and his words and the possibility that he's being mis-quoted and what his colleagues say. Or, I expect to be sent to a sub-article where this information is discussed, anyway. Currently, it would appear that Prof Latif is a top climatologist making a startling prediction the credibility of which WP will not tell me! The Mojib Latif does not tell me what's going on, but then I'd not expect it to. So where is the discussion? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This article reads like an ad in that it unnecessarily continuously promotes the perspective of the IPCC which is especially unneeded in the introduction. Having "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century was caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.[1] The IPCC also concludes that variations in natural phenomena such as solar radiation and volcanism had a small cooling effect after 1950.[2][3] These basic conclusions have been endorsed by more than 40 scientific societies and academies of science,[B] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries" in the introduction is far too much. The first point I would like to address is #1 in which global warming occurs on planets other than earth and should have a reasonable weighting in this article. 130.56.91.147 (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be saying that you don't want the lead to reference a scientific conclusion that is universally endorsed, but you do want it to reference your opinion that global warming on planets other than Earth is a significant fact. Do I have it right? --TS 12:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOURCES, one of the core WP editorial policies, requires that we use "reliable, third party sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy" [emphasis mine]. The Daily Mail is not a reliable source for a scientific or technical article such as this. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

First, we should probably divide these 7 points so that each has their own heading and we can talk about them one by one, otherwise it is difficult to address these specific issues. Overall I think the reason it reads like an ad is due in part to the way some people here have been addressing the article. My experiences with trying to put the present sub-400 ppm CO2 levels in the context of the earth's history (see issue above) was met with basically, "How can we reinterpret this information so that it reinforces the AGW theory." We should not be taking sides and trying to only find things that reinforce AGW theory. The AGW theory is controversial to say the least, and I think we all acknowledge that. Anything in Wikipedia that is controversial should do a good job of explaining both sides of the controversy, but the information here seems to have been tailored to promoting the AGW theory. JettaMann (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's where your logic falls down. The AGW "theory" is not in the least bit controversial. It is endorsed by ... (I'm not going to restate the obvious here - read the relevant articles and all their references). The only thing that's controversial is when the Big Oil-funded right wing is going to give up pumping money into trying to persuade the uninformed and the gullible that there is nothing to worry about and that their business models will survive until the present board of directors can retire on the profits. The science is settled, and that's what this article is about. --Nigelj (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to respond to that. Have you been keeping current with news on AGW theory? There are many, many dissenting scientists. Wikipedia has a page just for AGW skeptics, and those are merely the prominent ones who have distinguished themselves. For every one of them there are dozens of non-notable scientists. This article here talks of an IPCC scientist who is dissenting. The theory clearly has a lot of scientific disagreement which makes it controversial. JettaMann (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the man who said, "If my name was not Mojib Latif, my name would be global warming. So I really believe in Global Warming." You must stop believing what you read in the Daily Mail - they supported the wrong side and stirred up anti-semitism in the lead-up to WW2. They lost five libel cases in 2009 alone, over the WP:BLP lies they print. Read a better quality newspaper for your views, it'll damage your mind. --Nigelj (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The anon IP who introduced this section asserts the article "reads like an ad". JettaMann asserts "Overall I think the reason it reads like an ad is due in part to the way some people here have been addressing the article."-- which is not really an explanation of how the article reads like an ad. I'd appreciate hearing, for instance, for what the article "reads like an ad". That is, what does it read like an ad for ? Or, for instance, what demonstrable characteristics of the article resemble an advertisement? ... Kenosis (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

"But wait! There's more! With your membership in the Global Warming Cabal you get a free pocket diaper steamer and an autographed picture of Guy Stewart Callendar! Just dial that toll free number -- 1-800-NOCO24ME!" Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess we could work some of the above-listed denialist talking points into the FAQ, those that aren't already there that is. --TS 23:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the article reads like an ad for the IPCC mission to hunt for human induced causes. If the IPCC were a privately owned org, the conflict of interests folks forces would be all over this issue. As is, there are folk working here to put the IPCC competition (NIPCC) out of business. Seems to me folks are denigh that this science is subject to change like any other NPOV. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Fred Singer's project? the "Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change"? "conflict of interest folks forces"? ... "folk working here to put the IPCC competition (NIPCC) out of business"?.
..... OK then, leaving the rhetoric aside here, this slightly more specific assertion, of what is being asserted that "the article reads like an ad" for , helps to pin things down a bit. So the assertion is that the article reads like an ad for the premise that homo sapiens has played a substantial role in creating or accelerating global warming. I completely disagree, and think the assertion that it reads like an ad for the concept of anthropogenic global warming to be farfetched. It appears to me the article is, at present, entirely consistent with the editorial policy WP:WEIGHT and the guideline WP:FRINGE. The WP internal peer review process which applies the good-article criteria and WP:Featured article criteria has already subjected the article to close scrutiny as to its compliance with WP editorial policies. If the article in any way resembled an ad, they'd have promptly instructed the participants to clean it up accordingly. And if the overwhelming scientific consensus were to change, as you suggest is possible, WP editors would be obliged to report such a change in scientific view accordingly. Lacking such a development, though, the issue of how the assertions of the scientific community are received by a small minority of scientists and by many non-scientists is relegated to a specific section, Global_warming#Debate_and_skepticism, which links to other "main articles", e.g., Global warming controversy. ... Kenosis (talk) 06:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this article reads like an ad.

A number of users have asked "WHY" does it read like an ad? Let us actually address that SPECIFIC ISSUE.

Here is the exact, precise explanation:

(1) there is a completely fixed focus on the past few decades, with no selfawareness at all on this myopia. (2) the article is extremely focussed on the IPCC, with no selfawareness at all on this myopia. (3) The intro in particular is an extremely detalied exposition of IPCC thinking, with no selfawareness at all on this myopia.

The epitome of "scientific," if you will, writing, is that it has total continual self-awareness of it's own shortcomings, viewpoints, tones and agendas.

Conversely the epitome of "Madison Avenue" writing is that advertisement copywriting has utterly with no selfawareness of its own myopia: an advertisement marches forward with no awareness - no mention - of it's own myopia. That's exactly what is meant when someone says an article (whether in wikipedia, a magazine or elsewhere) "reads like an ad."

Unfortunately this precisely describes this article as it stands.

So, there's a very clear explanation of exactly why this article reads "like an ad."

People who actually care about the quality of this article, should set to work on making it NOT read like an ad.

Assuming the questions "WHY does it read like an ad" were not rhetorical or empty, the above is a clear explanation of exactly what makes the article sound like an advert. 83.203.210.23 (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Please have a look at this and either sign one of the suggested positions, or add a new one of your own. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: additional peripheral discussion has been userfied to User talk:MalcolmMcDonald#GlobalWarmingAd, per WP:TALK and WP:FORUM]. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC) UTC)

Extended content

"McSly" .. and now "Keosis" ... You appear to want to delete the following critical comment, by appealing to "Wikipedia:FORUM#FORUM" If you please click to Wikipedia:FORUM#FORUM and read it, you will see that it says "In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles" The following segment is about, specifically, HOW TO IMPROVE ARTICLES. If you don't have much time, skip forward to the bolded word MECHANISM. If you are desperate to again delete this, I'm guessing you just referenced "Wikipedia:FORUM#FORUM" without much thought or without reading the section you deleted-- so if you are again desperate to delete it, please more carefully choose your rationale for deletion. (The fact that this is ABOUT THE NATURE OF DELETION and INCLUDES PROPOSALS apropos of that issue, should temper your actions very carefully.) Once again, your notion that you deleted "due to Wikipedia:FORUM#FORUM" is simply weak, if you feel the need to again delete, please bring up a more reasonable reason. Your comment, "your next step is a complaint" is simply rude. No need for that eh. If you please click to Wikipedia:FORUM#FORUM and read it, you will see that it says "In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles" Once again, if you please click to Wikipedia:FORUM#FORUM and read it, you will see that it says "In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles" ONCE AGAIN: "In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles" Well, the whole thing is astonishing. Who knew? (Hilariously, another "important" person just edited my typing here, complete with one of the funny mock-polite undergrad-debate-club notes.) "Such conduct has worked well enough in the past because it's driven people off in very short order" ... Indeed, it is certainly inconceivable I would waste my time on a censored enterprise, so that's that. And it's hard to see how any ordinary interested person, with a life, would bother here? Why? Since all discussion other than the narrowest status quo is simply erased within, say, two minutes, it's impossible for any contrary opinions to build-up any weight. Of course, this could be INCREDIBLY TRIVIALLY SOLVED by a MECHANISM that simply allows no talk (no matter how "whacky" according to a Super Being) to be deleted, edited, moved for 'convenience', etc etc for, let's say, two weeks. Obviously however, this trivial solution would be the end of the current system: A huge weight of "inconvenient" comment would immediately gather against the status quo on a point by point basis. This would be self-reinforcing as (imagine!) people with contrary views to the status quo would feel it is worth commenting (surely not!) so there would be more and more (gasp!) comments. Of course this will, obviously, never happen, so instead people (like myself) will simply walk away, laughing at the strange little world they stumbled over (and quickly, of course, left). (Indeed, the best way to describe the current censorship system is probably that it: quickly (indeed AMAZINGLY QUICKLY -- you're talking TENS OF SECONDS) mitigates anti-status-quo comments on any anti-status-quo issue which arises, thus eliminating any possible build-up of weight in support of any anti-status-quo issue. Sure, the occasional one or two grumps may bother to push and push and push and push and push and actually get - no! - A COMMENT on the page (gasp!); but the vast majority don't so there is never seen any weighty build-up in support of anti-staus-quo positions.) (Of course like any censorship, this is obviously done in the name of "convenience," "reducing whackiness," "rules," "avoiding confusion," etc etc. -- nothing new or surprising here, censorship is censorship and it always works the same way.) In short: it is UTTERLY HILARIOUS to wander along to wikipedia, make a comment on a talk page, AND BE CENSORED. Your system is risible beyond belief. Good luck! 83.203.210.23 (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

If you cannot make a comment without being insulting, you won't be allowed to post here soon enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Shock - I'm going to be blocked from a system where anyone who says anything is instantly censored.

Oh, no. 83.203.210.23 (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of others who have commented here without being "censored." I have no axe to grind on this issue but general rants about censorship aren't productive. Is there some specific wording you would like changed? Some specific source you would like used? Suggest those (and I'd say in separate sections instead of long 'here's a 20 ideas all of one discussions') and I think you might find it some leeway. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)