Talk:Global warming/Archive 1

From Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium
Jump to: navigation, search

Climate change?

Shouldn't this be under "climate change"? This may be purely semantic, but if global warming is a cyclic phenomenon, then it seems we would only have periods of of warming, followed by periods of stabilization, followed by more warming (i.e. it would only ever get hotter). But this article describes periods of warming alternating with periods of cooling. Since it would be wasteful to have a separate article on global cooling, one article should address both under a holistic title. Cheers! Brian Dean Abramson 23:47, 9 May 2007 (CDT)

When I think of 'global warming' the evidence for warming being related to human activity comes to mind, rather than the general phenomenon of cyclical warming. Shouldn't this page more obviously point to information about current climate change? John Stephenson 00:22, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
You're both right, of course. Perhaps an article on climate change or climate cycles would be better than what I have. As for the role of human activity, I propose an article on Anthropogenic global warming which would present the most popular current theories; and which would present any evidence in favor of these theories, as well as any facts which contradict them.
But Larry said it's controversial, so should we even get into this at all? I'm a new writer here, and maybe I should wait until I have a few "approved" articles under my belt before tackling a hard subject like this. --Ed Poor 09:09, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
Clearly your history precedes you ! But i'd say there is no harm in getting started. The climate editors can always choose not to approve it, right? Chris Day (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
Is it really controversial, though? It is a subject that has been heavily politicized in recent years, but that's not the same thing. This isn't my field, but it's my impression that whatever scientific controversy there may have been is all but settled. Greg Woodhouse 09:37, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
If it had been settled, then there would be no more controversy. The reason some people are still touting anthropogenic global warming theory over the scientifically established natural warming theory, is that the science of natural warming is not settled. Some very prominent journals have even taken stands against natural warming; one even refused point blank to publish an anti-anthropogenic paper - after it had passed peer review - on the grounds that would be "of no interest" to their readers.
When the facts are all laid out clearly, then the theories which are shown to be in accordance with the facts will eventually become accepted. Until then, wishful thinking, prejudice and partisanship will prevail. --Ed Poor 10:54, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
I agree - "settled" is a loaded term which implies that no open questions rationally remain on the subject. As an example, I'd say it is "settled" that the Holocaust occurred in Germany in the 1940s, and anyone who denies that it happened is speaking irrationally. Likewise, it is "settled" that temperatures are rising, and I think we can all agree that humans necessarily have some impact on this, but it is not "settled" whether the human contribution is akin to throwing a bucket of water into a rainstorm, or whether it is the rainstorm. I am inclined to think it is the latter - but I have no expertise in climatology! Brian Dean Abramson 11:11, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
Well, let's not say "settled" (= it would be irrational to question it) but "there is a growing consensus among climatologists" (this is either factual or not, and is capable of being documented). I don't think the choice is between "facts" and "partisanship" -- the Earth's climate is an enormously complex thermodynamic system, and as we seek to understand its workings, it's to be expected that there will be some differences in inetrpretation among experts who study it. We can't speak of "facts" here in any absolute sense, but we can accurately report how current climate data is collected, analyzed, and used to support the prevailing views out there. Russell Potter 11:17, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
The basic concepts of global warming are well-agreed upon within the scientific community. There is no question among them that the Earth's global mean temperatures have been rising since the mid-1800s, humans are the primary cause of this warming, and continued warming is expected given the current trends. None of this should be downplayed in this article. My regards, Benjamin Seghers 22:22, 13 May 2007 (CDT)

Given that this issue is not settled even though some sources report signficant asymmetries of opinion, any science historian could tell you that these issues have a shelf life. Bias is another problem. If someone argues against an issue and that opinion is unpopular, chances are it will either be invalidated or supported. My point, call it a bias if you will but those biases are an integral part of science. My solution is that the various approaches be dealt with and their positions be identified. This will ensure that the articles--which will get rather large unless broken up into schools of thought--will not have a shelf life. In other words, there is no reason why we can not track the arguments. They are part of the history of science and the very nature of enquiry. --Thomas Simmons 15:55, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

Fred Singer

I don't think that Fred Singer (see a brief outline on him here) should be quoted -- or if so, should be the only one quoted, about climate change. Though he clearly has some scientific qualifications, he's a bit out of his field, as well as far, far out of the current scientific consensus among climatiologists. Of course, in the interests of neutrality, his views may well deserve mention somewhere in this entry, but not as a sole authority. Russell Potter 10:42, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

He has a PhD in physics, and he got the satellite program that records earth's climate from space. He also writes clearly, has published peer-reviewed articles, and is retired. He is beholden to no one, and no threat of "withdrawing funds" can influence his work.
We can also quote active university scientists like Richard Lindzen (MIT) and Sallie Baliunas (Harvard).
The latest poll I saw of climatologists indicates much less than overwhelming support for anthropogenic global warming theory.
  • A 1997 survey by American Viewpoint found that state climatologists believe that global warming is largely a natural phenomenon by a margin of 44 to 17 percent. [1]
Better yet, we can check the papers these scientists cite in the popular treatments and double-check everything. --Ed Poor 10:49, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
Well, a PhD in physics doesn't necessarily a climatologist make, though it may make a perfectly good physicist. But my understanding of our neutrality policy is that we should reflect the current state of knowledge in the field, state where there are well-known points of disagreement, and if two reasonably valuid sides are seen to exist, say as much and give some account of each. I don't think we're in the business of conducting polls among scientists (or interpreting such polls); that's not how scientific knowledge works. The entry should outline the nature, hsitory, etc. of global climate, show significant recent research, and summarize the range of views -- not excluding, but certainly not focusing exclusively on, global warming skeptics. Russell Potter 11:08, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
p.s the poll you cite was conducted by the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative think-tank that lobbies against those who feel global warming is a problem. Russell Potter 11:11, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
I think Singer can be quoted, but the article should note his obvious bias. Indeed, Singer is a very knowledgeable man while egregiously biased and narrow-minded. Yi Zhe Wu 17:56, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Useful links

There are good starting points for this argument. Two I may suggest are:

Real climate, a blog held by top-level scientists, some involved in the IPCC (link below)

The IPCC 4th report, document of a panel, including the best climate scientists around, on the current state of knowledge about recent global warming.

Both are pro-anthropogenic, I don't know links to contrarians.

--Nereo Preto 11:33, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

A more more moderate Web site on the topic of global warming World Climate Report. They're not contrarians, per se, as they do accept the basic notions of global warming. However, they have serious doubts about the expected effects and the amount humans have contributed to global warming. The site, like RealClimate, is run by scientists. I don't think there are any serous Web pages or blogs that explicitly deny global warming that warrant mentioning, but I could be wrong. Cheers. Benjamin Seghers 22:29, 13 May 2007 (CDT)

Real climate just posted a terrific list of links for beginners-to-experts who want to learn about Global Warming here. I will take advantage of these links for a few edits in the next few days. I'll work on historical record first. --Nereo Preto 10:26, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

I need some help about copyright. Does someone understand if we can use figures from the IPCC reports? Copyright infos are here, but I'm not sure it says we can post their figures in our article. Any ideas? --Nereo Preto 03:40, 26 May 2007 (CDT)
I doubt you'd be able to use them from that site. However, there's quite a few free images at ~ Benjamin Seghers 12:35, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

Scientific opinion

There's an article at Wikipedia summarizing scientific opinion on climate change, that might be worth consulting. If nothing else, it illustrates that there is widespread support in the scientific community for the idea that human activity has had a significant effect on climate change. Greg Woodhouse 11:41, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

I don't think we should rely on wikipedia for anything. Also, should we be considering scientific "opinion" or "evidence"? Things can be observed and recorded but to have an opinion is another.--Robert W King 12:23, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
I don't think anyone is relying on Wikipedia here for anything beyond a handy summary of the current views of the major climatologists and professional associations. The sense of "opinion" here is expert, reasoned opinion consistent with a reading of available data, not the scientists' personal opinions. Russell Potter 12:31, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
Ok, just wanted a clarification. All is well. --Robert W King 12:40, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

Proposed move

Text here was removed by the Constabulary on grounds of civility. (The author may replace this template with an edited version of the original remarks.)

could we all start to re-write what we said here please?

Possible layout

To get this article started, we should probably start with a good layout. I propose the following:

  • Intro
Summarizes the entire article concisely.
  • Attribution
What causes global warming?
  • Greenhouse effect
A bit on the GHE
  • Sun's role
A bit on the Sun's role as discussed in the scientific literature and in adherence with the neutrality policy
  • Effects
What has global warming caused and what can we expect from continued warming?
  • Mitigation
Discussion of mitigation

Thoughts? Benjamin Seghers 00:30, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

This implies we are talking of "recent global warming", and not about natural climate variability in geologic times. I believe it's the right direction.
May I suggest to add a brief chapter about natural climate variability, as seen in geological records (e.g. the Vostok ice core, but much older examples also exist). Also, Greenhouse effect already exists, so we might keep the chapter short and give a link. --Nereo Preto 03:01, 16 May 2007 (CDT)
Yeah, I think a good summary of previous climate change would provide some useful context. We could also summarize the greenhouse effect article to briefly explain how it works and its relationship to global warming. Benjamin Seghers 10:43, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Outside views of this article

For those just tuning in, you may want to look at this harsh critique of this global warming article, based partly but not entirely on an earlier version. See also the comments discussion there. David Hoffman 18:43, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Indeed, bur Dr. Connolley fails note this article is less than a week old. Benjamin Seghers 20:18, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

I'm afraid those guys are fundamentally right. Our article is still too weak to compete with hundreds of other entries available in the web. We are talking here of an hot argument, the IPCC 4th report (the ultimate source for this topic) is about 1000 pages of good science about global warming and is available for free in the web. We are offering a mere half-a-page, with statements far from state-of-the-art here and there. It should be my duty to edit "less gently" (a comment in the blog cited above), but -for personal reasons-, I'll be able to work on it only after May, 24th (sorry).

On the other hand, the article is just started and we desperately need some climatologists. I'll post there, hope they understand.

Thanks to all contributors, anyways. Continue to be bold... and read the IPCC report. Ciao! --Nereo Preto 01:58, 17 May 2007 (CDT)

I'll Try working on it more in the mean time. Benjamin Seghers 13:15, 17 May 2007 (CDT)
One of the problems is assuming that the UN can be the ultimate source of scientific truth. What makes anyone in this project regard their IPCC assessments as authoritative? One assessment is contradicted by the next. Scientists quit after having their work misinterpreted. Unauthorized changes are made in a draft after it is approved by scientists.
Science is not determined by voting on it. We get our scientific knowledge when researchers allow their data and methods to be examined by others. If no one can replicate their work, it's considered "junk science" and discarded, like cold fusion. --Ed Poor 14:42, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Text here was removed by the Constabulary on grounds of civility. (The author may replace this template with an edited version of the original remarks.)

Text here was removed by the Constabulary on grounds of civility. (The author may replace this template with an edited version of the original remarks.)

This discussion shouldn't go too much in the direction of what science is I think. Can we go back to the reliability of the IPCC reports? My point of view is there is not, at present, any other source as authoritative as the IPCC. Reasons are (1) the wide range and number of scientists involved; (2) the huge literature called in support of the report; (3) the positive feedback from policy makers, who were instead expected to reject the results because of their unconveniency.
I'm not saying that the IPCC report is perfect (science never is), but I couldn't find anything better in the web or in the scientific literature. If better or complimentary sources really exist, they should be suggested in the /* Useful links */ section, so the post can become a useful help for contributors.
For what references are concerned, the best article should refer to scientific publications directly rather than to summarizing reports, even if the last are good as the IPCC report is. At the moment, however, the IPCC report is the best review of climate science around. It is reasonable that contributors will find much easier to refer to the IPCC report, and track down citations only in a second time.
--Nereo Preto 03:57, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

What a laugh. I was pointing out the fallacy of appeal to authority, but instead *I* got slammed with a personal attack in the form of a false accusation of argument ad hominem. How desperate are the pro-AG warmers?

And what happened to "Let's tell both sides of the story?" Are we trying to create a "consensus article" here? Or a neutral one?

I have several questions:

  1. Larry, does the Citizendium project endorse any particular form of The Scientific Method? If so, which one?
  2. If not, then is it the policy of this project merely to list the individuals and groups which endorse or condemn the various viewpoints on political controversies? And does this include political controversies over what the scientific facts are; and over which theories explaining these facts are true or false?
  3. In other words, do we take a "Scientific Point Of View" like Wikipedia, where our project endorses whatever some percentage of scientists or preponderance of scientific groups says?

I have a few comments. I would hope that if we as writers with some lay background in science cannot agree on (1) what the facts are or (2) what theories best explain these facts - then we would simply express the major points of view without drawing any conclusion about which should be considered the most correct at all.

I daresay we can't even agree on what percentage of climate scientists agree with, are undecided on, or disagree with ANY of the various points in the global warming controversy, such as:

  1. Was 1999 the warmest year in recorded human history?
    • Or in the last 1,500 years?
  2. Was there a worldwide Medieval Warm Period, as the UN's assessment previously stated?
  3. Has there been significant, periodic, natural warming (and cooling!) over the last 900,000 years - all over the world (not just in Europe)?
  4. If the "climate models" are correct, should we see more warming in the middle atmosphere than at the surface?
    • If so, but we don't see this, does this mean the models are wrong and AGW is unproven (or even disproved)?
    • And if that would disprove (see Falsification) the AGW theory, what sort of warming has been observed in the middle atmosphere compared to the surface?

Note that I am not asking what the various contributors to this article believe, nor am I asserting anything or arguing anything myself. I am only wondering aloud what proportion of climate scientists have taken a position for or against these ideas (or have declared themselves undecided).

Democrats and Greens (see also Environmentalists) state that there is a "scientific consensus" on all these points - or at least on the overall conclusion. Republicans, conservatives and several independent apolitical scientists say (1) that there is NO CONSENSUS among scientists about these points and (2) that there are dozens of peer-reviewed, published scientific papers in leading journals that DISPROVE each of the key assumptions of the pro-AGW arguments.

Larry, maybe I was wrong to open this Pandora's Box. Maybe Citizendium is not prepared to handle one of the world's top political controversies. Maybe we can't agree how to write about it. Maybe NPOV can't get us to agree to disagree even about whether the global warming issue is "political" or "scientific", let alone whether there is a "scientific consensus" or "the science is not settled".

I did not intend to open a can of worms. If you want to me shut up (or withdraw the article), I'm willing to do so. In fact, I'll do whatever you tell me while I'm here. I'm an "ignorant, easily led Christian", so just give me my orders! :-) --Ed Poor 19:53, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.

Mr. Poor, maybe if you did not delete the science section, you may have very well found your answers. First, however, 1998 (not 1999) is said to be the warmest year on record, but this was also the year of a rather extreme El Niño. For this reason, 2005 is typically regarded as the warmest year on record. Second, It's unlikely the MWP was in fact global. And if you consider the WMP be to be a period of typically higher temperatures, then, yes, it did occur. Third, of course. No one disputes this. It bears little relevance on the Industrial age warming, however. Fourth, if the models are incorrect, this does not mean global warming isn't happening, no. Benjamin Seghers 12:15, 28 May 2007 (CDT) (Edit: Sorry, forgot to sign.)
I'd like to answer some points raised above. First of all, could the previous comment be signed please? I assume you forgot the signature in absolute good faith, of course! It's just "you" is an impolite way to call you... (I suppose you should cancel this line as soon as you post your signature) ( it was you? Sorry if I called you "you"...)
Was there a worldwide Medieval Warm Period, as the UN's assessment previously stated?
As far as I know, no. The MWP seem to be not global in extent, but actually this is a very difficult issue. The main reason for this difficulty is, the climate shift called Medieval Warm Period seem to be much smaller than, e.g., the present one, hence the difficulties in characterizing it.
Or is arch-AGW advocate Michael Mann's hockey stick graph correct, as the UN's more recent assessment stated?
Yes it is, substantially. There were problems raised with the statistics used to build the curve, but further investigations ended up witht the conclusion that yes, the "hockey stick" is the temperature curve you get from land-based and satellite instrumental data. cf. Hopkins, 2007 - Climate sceptics switch focus to economics, Nature, v. 445, pp. 582-583.
Has there been significant, periodic, natural warming (and cooling!) over the last 900,000 years - all over the world (not just in Europe)?
Not sure about their global significance, but yes, Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles exist. As many other natural climate shifts, even more terrible. This, however, has no bearing with the issue of Global warming. After the 8200 y bp event, climate (as described by global temperatures) was rather stable. The first substantial shift in global temperatures begun with the 20th century.
there are dozens of peer-reviewed, published scientific papers in leading journals that DISPROVE each of the key assumptions of the pro-AGW arguments
One should start with a citation, and show how it compares with other papers. But for my understanding of literature, there are hundreeds of papers disproving each of these negative analyses.
More generally, there is no problem in discussing science. A good start might be posting a comment on a specific topic (e.g., role of solar forcing? One of the most controversial points) and how it could be shown to disprove AGW. Such post should be supported by literature, papers are better than web pages because were peer-reviewed, but a good web page could do it as well in the beginning. Then of course the scientific argument is to be discussed scientifically. It cannot be like "someone say this, we must let him room in the article". If "someone"'s points were then disproved by scientific argumentation in published papers, mr. "someone" is not worth a citation. Can we agree on this?
--Nereo Preto 12:12, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

Stay focused on the issue

Hi all, I have removed some content above just so we can get a fresh start. I am making no judgements concerning content, but see that perhaps some miscommunication may be occurring. Please keep it professional. No-one expects everyone to agree, but lets keep the tone scholarly and the only arguments should be those related to global warming please. This is not a warning to anyone in particular at this point. --Matt Innis (Talk) 20:37, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

Snowball earth

I thouht that the snowball earth theory was still somewhat controversial. We need an expert in this field to clarify this beore we include snowball earth in the article. Greg Woodhouse 15:37, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

It's sort of controversial, but I think you'll find most scientists agree with the major parts of the theory. At any rate, I'm sure there are proper references that could be found for sentence. Benjamin Seghers 16:43, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

It's not my field, so I'll certainly defefr to th judgement of others, but I wonder if the article shouldn't say something like "it is widely accepted that..." (with appropriate references, of course). Greg Woodhouse 18:12, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

Snowball Earth is not so important. It is just I thought we need some extreme example to clarify how climate changes naturally. That huge glaciations occurred in the Precambrian, this is pretty much accomplished. That all the planet was covered by ice, this is still disputed (central parts of the oceans may have been still exposed). Anyone having another good example is welcome to change the sentence! --Nereo Preto 11:39, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

Page move + Ed Poor

It looks like we have a lot more than we bargained for, unless the Citizendium higher-ups actually do act as they say. Needless to say, we ought not let Conservapedia's administrators make this encyclopedia their mirror. I find Ed Poor's edits rather unconstructive, heavily biased, and without foundation. Apparently, science has no involvement in global warming. Benjamin Seghers 20:57, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

Text here was removed by the Constabulary on grounds of civility. (The author may replace this template with an edited version of the original remarks.)

Climatology as a science

  1. What are its accomplishments, if any?
  2. Which of those accomplishments, if any, have achieved practical use in the world outside the science?
  3. Is it more than just a bunch of people studying computer models (which it sometimes seems to be)? What are the accomplishments of those models, if any? How do they compare with the accomplishments of other computer models?
  4. Has the field had any scandals like THIS scientific one and THIS scholarly one?
  5. What guards against such scandals in climatology?

In other words, why should non-climatologists give climatology any credibility, how much credibility should they give it, etc.? Louis F. Sander 20:51, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

I don't see the point of attacking an entire field of study here -- the false claims of two scientists ought not indict an entire field! Russell Potter 21:00, 26 May 2007 (CDT)
Hey, I'm just asking about the field, which doesn't seem to be a very solid one. Louis F. Sander 21:05, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

Text here was removed by the Constabulary on grounds of civility. (The author may replace this template with an edited version of the original remarks.)

What separates climatology from astrology? Both study natural phenomena, then make predictions about the future. There is no doubt that astrologers basic data are accurate; the movement of the stars and planets has been studied for centuries, and the observations are not open to question. By comparison, climatologists' data is very, very shaky. (Studied by not-so-solid methods, studied not very long, not universally agreed on, etc.) I leave it to others to show the validity of their predictions from this not-so-solid data, but my sense is that those predictions are less reliable than those of astrologers.
What separates climatology from Newtonian physics? The measurements of Newtonian physics are accurate, repeatable, and independently verifiable by almost anyone. Those of climatology are not. The practical applications of Newtonian physics are legion, and prove the validity of the science. As far as I know, climatology has a zero on that score.
When writing articles based on the work of climatologists, one should avoid starting from "climatology is believable because it is a science" as far as I can see, it is not a very solid one. Its accomplishments are analogized HERE. Louis F. Sander 06:57, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
I don't believe that it's within the purview of an encyclopedia to reject an entire field of scientific study. Astrology is not science, or even a pseudoscience, really, the comparison makes no sense. Climatology seems less "reliable" than Newtonian physics because it is *much* harder to limit the variables and the systems (chemical, thermodynamic) are many orders of magnitude more complex than, say, a simple mechanical system such as a wheel on an incline. Russell Potter 07:15, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
I'm not attacking climatology, or rejecting it. I'm just asking to see some of its accomplishments. That should be easy, shouldn't it?
Not only does climatology seem less reliable than Netwonian physics, but as far as I can tell, it has no practical accomplishments whatsoever. Complexity doesn't excuse that. Obscure journal articles don't make up for it.
The comparison with astrology makes considerable sense: both fields study data from the world of nature, and then they make predictions based on what they see. (And, as stated above, astrological data is orders of magnitude more precise, reliable, and widely-agreed-on than climatological data.) What doesn't make sense is giving unconditional credibility to climatological predictions because they are "scientific." What IS it that makes them credible? Louis F. Sander 08:39, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
Well basically everything we know about climate comes climatology, and that's quite a bit. We now understand historical climate fairly well, and we're able to predict future climate fairly well. Climatology has already identified global warming and have identified it as a big problem; it's now up to the rest to listen to them. They identified gaping holes in our ozone, and that problem has been exceedingly reduced. Climatology has brought benefits to agriculture, and other areas that impact everyday life. You may want to read this. You might get something out of it. Benjamin Seghers 12:12, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
Two examples. Predictions on global warming 1988 match actual global warming:
A second comes from deep time. Using GCM, Kutzback and Gallimore (Kutzbach, J.E., and Gallimore, R.G., 1989, Pangaean climates: Megamonsoons of the megacontinent: Journal of Geophysical research, v. 94, p. 3341–3358.) suggested that huge monsoons were active at pangean times (e.g., Permian, Triassic, Jurassic). Later, geologists found evidence that monsoons were present in the tropical belt of Pangaea, even in localities where they shouldn't have been found with monsoons as strong as today (e.g., Dubiel, R.F., Totman Parrish, J., Parrish, J.M., and Good, S.C., 1991, The Pangaean megamonsoon – evidence from the Upper Triassic Chinle Formation, Colorado plateau: Palaios, v. 6, pp. 347–370; Loope, D.B, Rowe, C.M., and Joeckel, R.M., 2001, Annual monsoon rains recorded by Jurassic dunes: Nature, v. 412, p. 64–66). Note that I'm not climatologist, so I have immediate access to a rather limited set of examples.
I suggest we should stop discussing the merits of climatology here.
About astrology, data of course are good, as they are astronomical data and predictions, the problem with astrology is that the way data are interpreted brings to wrong results. Astrology is not science because wrong results are not a problem to astrologists. In science, wrong results are real problems and imply either the data were wrong, or the interpretation (or the theory used for interpretation) is wrong. But, again, this has nothing to do with Global warming.
--Nereo Preto 11:30, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
I read the AIP stuff that "I might get something out of." It said nothing about the accomplishments of climatology. What I did get out of it was that climatology is a very young "science," and before the 1980s or so, it was pretty much a zero. I looked briefly at one of the papers proposed by Nereo Preto. It read like an astrology paper demonstrating that a horoscope had accurately forecast somebody's life. (Astrology does that sometimes. So does tea-leaf reading.)
As an open-minded skeptic about the "science" of climatology, I can see why non-skeptics might not want to discuss its merits. 1) Those merits, if any, are extremely hard to discern. 2) People who answer simple questions about those merits do so by referring questioners to esoteric journals. (One doesn't need journals to show the merits of other new sciences, e.g., computer science, computed tomography, semiconductor physics. At least one open-minded skeptic wants to know why they are needed for climatology.) 3) The similarities between climatology and pseudo-sciences like astrology must be very disconcerting to those who defend climatology.
To quote Wikipedia, "The scientific community generally considers astrology to be a pseudoscience or superstition, as numerous Western astrologers have failed empirical tests in controlled studies." It's a convenient truth that climatology, like Methodism, scientology and ufology, just isn't very amenable to empirical tests in controlled studies. How, then, can we tell it from a pseudoscience? Louis F. Sander 14:50, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
And which paper did your read? Climatology requires a pretty good understanding of the natural sciences if you want to grasp some concepts and terminologies they use. Needless to say, I don't see how papers being published in Nature and Science could be a bad thing. Benjamin Seghers 14:58, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
I'm not interested in understanding climatology. I'm just a layman interested in identifying its accomplishments. The closer I look, the more I see that there aren't any. Louis F. Sander 15:14, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
I reckon I listed a few for you above. But by your standards, I don't even think geology would be important, so I don't think this argument is worth arguing over. Benjamin Seghers 15:20, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
You said "we're able to predict future climate fairly well." No, we aren't. Louis F. Sander 15:34, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
Climate predictions of the last two decades were accurate within calculated errors once compared with actual climate observations of the 90s and 21st century. Thus, yes, climatologists predicted future climate fairly well. There is literature about that. If you want to make a case against this statement, please provide literature. But, most importantly, this is not the climatology article.
So, please, stop discussing climatology here. If you find false statements in the article, provide evidence from the literature that such statements are false. If sentences of the article needs, in your (I mean, any reader) view, to be supported by literature, ask for it or look for it. But stop discuss climatology as a field here. --Nereo Preto 15:52, 28 May 2007 (CDT)


Well, I suppose the article move was inevitable! My own view is that the claim that global warming is controversial is itself controversial -- but I'm going to bow out of this whole area and go back to work in the fields of literature and history -- where, at least, I know a hawk from a handsaw! I hope and trust that others at CZ will bring enough expert opinion here to, as it has in other instances, manage the admirable and difficult balaning act of blending expertise, neutrality, and scope of views Russell Potter 20:59, 26 May 2007 (CDT)


Global warming is a solid fact, it does exist and the scientific community does agree it exist. The temperature did rise, and it was because of carbon emission. It's undeniable and common-sense. Please move it back to "global warming", we have to do better than Conservapedia, alas! Yi Zhe Wu 21:25, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

Agreed - and I was about to do so, but Larry beat me to it. :-) Can we please avoid moving controversial pages without discussion. John Stephenson 23:57, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

Text here was removed by the Constabulary on grounds of civility. (The author may replace this template with an edited version of the original remarks.)

The article has been deleted. --Nereo Preto 01:31, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

Moved back

I've moved the article back to "global warming" from "global warming controversy." Obviously, it is possible to discuss any controversy about X in an article about X. We might have, in addition to global warming, an article about the controversy surrounding global warming. But whatever we do, we won't simply redirect the former to the latter, so that there is no more to be said about global warming than the controversy. That in itself is quite obviously contrary to our Neutrality Policy.

I've taken a break today (Saturday) and am just checking in before going to bed--or else I might add more here. --Larry Sanger 23:59, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

I've reverted edits of 27/05. Sorry for the drastic move.
The edits, however, mostly introduced statements which are substantially wrong. It was easier for me to start over from a reasonably good version rather than edit all.
The text in Global warming period is now back in Global warming. The article Global warming period should thus be cancelled, also because there is no such thing as a global warming period. I kind-of understand what the concept is meant to be, but than either his name is greenhouse world, or (if the concept is simply a period of time with average high Earth's temperatures) the concept is not worth an article.
Please, discuss changes so strong as these before edit. Addition is easy to manage, but all these changes of titles and mixing-up of parcels of text are hardly edited or reviewed and may even be took as vandalism.
Won't revert a second time, but I'd like to avoid this article becomes a battleground. If changes are introduced as single corrections or additions, BETTER IF SUPPORTED BY LITERATURE, discussion will become much easier and cool. Thanks in advance.
--Nereo Preto 10:57, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

Dr. Preto, thanks for explaining the reversion. I thought I should clarify: as an Earth Sciences editor, you are within your rights to cut the science section if in your opinion it would be easier to esier to start over from scratch.

You are also in your rights to make the decision to delete an article, particularly if "there is no such thing as" the topic of the article. See Article Deletion Policy. Please simply leave a message on the article's talk page, or send a mail to --Larry Sanger 11:12, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

Thanks Larry, I did it already. --Nereo Preto 11:14, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

Facts, please...

The article says that global warming (in the narrow meaning specified in the article) " believed to be mostly attributable to human activity." IMHO, that phrase should be struck, at least until the not-yet-completed "controversies" section is in place. There are two problems with it: 1) the unattributed, weasel-worded (WP definition) "is believed to be," and 2) the unreferenced "mostly".

It is equally true to say " believed to be attributable to natural causes, with perhaps (but this is not settled) a small component due to human activity." Louis F. Sander 13:12, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

No it wouldn't, the former statement is quite easy to reference, unlike the latter. I'll add references in a bit. Benjamin Seghers 13:24, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
It would help if we all could see a summary of the accomplishments of climatology, examples of climatological work that has found practical application in the non-scientific world, etc. I'm no climatologist, but from all I can see, it's a pretty accomplishment-free field. From what I can tell, its practitioners mostly study computer models, then publish papers about it. Unfortunately, their papers are great fodder for propaganda. Louis F. Sander 13:53, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
Well then I hope a knowledgeable author begin working on climatology. I'm sure a more astute studier of climatology can answer your questions for you, but I assure you it is a very scientific field of the natural sciences. Also, not everything is model-based in climatology; a major part of it is based on observation, theory, repeatability, and prediction. It does, after all, follow the scientific method. But like I said, I'm sure a more knowledgeable person would be glad to help you. Benjamin Seghers 14:06, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
How do you think those models they study came to be? These models are -as all science- models created based on observation, and verified by the accuracy in predicting more observations -which can just as well be other proxy data. This is perfectly solid science. Second, climatology is involved in long-term planning of re-insurance companies which have to pay the bill for natural disasters of all kinds. Which is not the least why Munich Re et al. are very much interested in this topic -as you can see for example by looking into their annual reports. I think that as an engineer, you focus too much on direct and short-term applications. Even in biology/medicine, applications sometimes take decades. Climatology studies long-term trends, and as such, it is somewhat far-fetched to expect to see short-term connections to applications. However, all the technological efforts directed against climate change or towards mitigating its effects are, in a way, applications of climatology, since they address its predictions. --18:44, 30 May 2007 (CDT) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oliver Hauss (talkcontribs) 15:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A modest proposal

I suggest that we keep this article politics-free, and focus primarily on the science. There's a lot to more to say about global warming in the scientific aspect, probably because global warming is independent of one's political ideology. Or at least can we complete a fairly stable scientific article, and then perhaps start working on the politics and other controversial aspects? Benjamin Seghers 13:30, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

I agree, and probably we should have a separate article on Politics of global warming. Yi Zhe Wu 13:30, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

I am compelled to agree with you both. Sorting out the political from the substantive would be a good way of alerting the reader to the differences and their possible motivations, i.e. their political origins. --Thomas Simmons 15:59, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

Text here was removed by the Constabulary on grounds of civility. (The author may replace this template with an edited version of the original remarks.)

The politics of global warming

This section reads as if the USA is the center of the universe. :-) Do they have a Democratic Party in the UK and Belgium? Might be a good idea to simply begin by referencing the topic as say "In the USA . . . ." --Thomas Simmons 16:58, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

I agree we should not be so American- or Western-centric. Benjamin Seghers 17:24, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
Maybe we should add mentions of the Kyoto Protocol in a global perspective, it's an international treaty. Yi Zhe Wu 17:31, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

politics section

The politics section needs rewriting. Besides the U.S.-centricity, it also conflates a number of different issues into "global warming skepticism". I'll dig up some references later, but there are several different issues about which people have expressed skepticism:

  1. Whether global warming is actually occurring, or whether it is an artifact of how (and where) temperatures are measured. This issue has been resolved to most people's satisfaction, but only in the past 5 or so years.
  2. Whether global warming is anthropogenic. This is very much an open issue, as there is at least one other hypothesis (heliogenic global warming) which explains global warming, and the anthropogenic hypothesis does not explain observed warming on other planets.
  3. Whether there is a greenhouse effect with CO2. There are climate models which indicate that natural processes will add significantly to atmospheric CO2 if the temperature is increased for other reasons.
  4. The extent of the effects of global warming. Starting with the amount of warming which can reasonably be expected to occur, it's not clear what the actual effects will be, even including sea level rise (as some models predict very unevenly distributed changes in temperature, it's possible that the polar ice caps may not be affected much).
  5. Whether human actions can slow or reverse global warming. If global warming is not anthropogenic, then it's very unlikely that human activity can reverse it. In some models of anthropogenic global warming, it's not possible to do much about it anymore.

Of course, some of this skepticism should be reflected in the science portions of the article, as they revolve around unsettled scientific questions. Anthony Argyriou 16:36, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

May I advocate a method to approach those issues? That is, not all at once. Each of these points deserve full discussion, and it would be best in my view if each of these discussions could be settled before we start the next. --Nereo Preto 01:13, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
CO2 as a greenhouse gas is pretty much climatology 101. I think the evidence that temperatures are rising steadily due to greenhouse gas emissions is rather robust. There really aren't any viable alternative hypothesis that actually work to explain current warming. For example, simply saying solar variation is the culprit would be false because it's been shown that based solely on solar records, 20th century warming would be much lower than it actually was (Casper et al, 2007). The effects of global warming definitely merit much discussion and attention. And since global warming is mostly the result of human activity, mitigation through human activities is also possible. But even if weren't responsible, it would still be possible to mitigate warming. Mitigation techniques merit much discussion and attention. Of course, all of this can and should be addressed in the article. Benjamin Seghers 01:28, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
I should restate that - while CO2 is of course a greenhouse gas, it is not clear whether the change in temperatures are caused by increased CO2, or whether increased temperatures caused some of the increas in CO2 levels. Global temperatures declined from the 1940s to 1970s, while human output of CO2 increased substantially. A simple global warming model assuming that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change cannot account for that.
To respond to Nereo Preto, I think there are two different things which need to be addressed. The sections on the science of global warming need to indicate that there is still some dispute over the anthopogenicity of global warming, and on a variety of ancillary issues. The section on the politics of global warming can address the scientific disputes in a much more cursory fashion, and then proceed to the dispute over policy recommendations, where there are disputes over the correct course of action even if the "standard model" is entirely correct. I can spend some time looking up the scientific arguments against the anthropogenic model, but it'll take some time. Summarizing the skeptic's argument and discussing the politics is much easier for me to do. Anthony Argyriou 15:36, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
Actually, it's very clear. The 1940s-1970s cooling is explained by sulfate aerosols, which increase Earth's albedo (thus causing cooling). So while CO2 emissions were high during the era, the sulfate forcings outweighed those of CO2. After efforts to decrease the pollutants, aerosol emissions decreased, while CO2 continued to increase, hence the warming in the latter 1970s. I think we've already mentioned that are several individual scientists who refute these basic conclusions espoused by the rest of the climatology community, but there's no reason we can't expand on that. I also believe the politics section needs a complete reform (or no section at all, for the time being. See my thread above). Needless to say, I am interested in hearing any skeptic arguments that there are. Benjamin Seghers 17:12, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Claims About Consensus section


Bob Carter was referenced in a recent quote in the article. Professor Bob Carter is a researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University. [2]

I googled Bob Carter and came up with some good sources

This collection of articles written by someone who is qualified in the field basically casts significant doubt on the purported scientific basis of the anthropogenic global warming theory. --Thomas Simmons 22:11, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

I heartily disagree -- what is wanted here is, what are the specific ground of Dr. Carter's criticisms, and whether and how they should be incorporated in a reference work such as CZ. Russell Potter 22:16, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
Disagree with what exactly? He wrote the articles, the articles are about AGW Theory, . . . what? --Thomas Simmons 21:28, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
Bob Carter is also a member of the right-wing Australian think-tank, the Institute for Public Affairs.[3] John Stephenson 22:23, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
Excellent. More information. Thank you. Do you have a source?--Thomas Simmons 21:28, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
So? Are you maintaining that members of "right-wing think tanks" are incapable of donig science? Or that right-wingers in general are incapable of doing science? Anthony Argyriou 11:24, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
You're missing the point. Think-tanks are usually motivated by partisan gains and do not practice the objectivity that scientists are supposed to uphold. No one is saying that right-wingers cannot be scientists, but their results can be skewed by edits, exclusion or inclusion of questionable or irrelevant data that aligns with their political status. I would not put faith in science produced by a politically-based organization unless their results were confirmed or peer-reviewed by an independant, objective, accredited scientific organizational body and found to be scientifically accurate. --Robert W King 12:10, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

The problem is precisely the Googling approach. Anyone can put anything on the web, or indeed into an opinion piece in the right journal. If you search you will always find a standard press newspaper who will print you, and if all else fails, you can put up a website. That doesn't mean you are right, though. Science specifically acknowledges this issue. The individual opinion of one researcher isn't science -it's just that, an individual opinion. Since all humans are prone to see what they look at in the light of their own preconceptions, it is only when the conclusions are seen as valid by others that they start to be seen as science. More importantly, the very phrasing of these opinion pieces violates one of the most basic rules of research: "sine ira et studio" -without wrath (scorn) or fondness. It is one thing to be angry about issues of conduct or general procedure, but the moment a researcher tries to explain scientific issues in such a fashion, he disqualifies himself. This is precisely why peer review was introduced to begin with: To avoid data presentation solely in the light of individual prejudice --Oliver Hauss 00:19, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

That really looks like a non-sequitur. Not sure what it means but here is a response on a literal basis. The Googling approach has all the same problems of the Library approach and the Mass Media approach and the Publishing House approach, and the . . . (pick your approach as long as it is about placing information in front of a lot of people) but fewer of them. "Nature" is on-line, "New England Journal of Medicine" is on-line, "LANCET" is on-line, British Geological Society is on-line, US Geological Survey is on-line, MedLine is on-line, U.S. Supreme Court decisions and briefs are on-line, "The Guardian" and the BBC are on-line, The "Sydney Morning Herald" is on-line and on and on. Find me a library with all this and I will show you a very good library.
Additionally peer review does not guarantee much of anything except possibily consensus amongst the appointed. Peer review is a filter process to weed out the cranks, for example. Not infrequently there is the possibility of serious malfeasance--if, say, members of the nuclear reaction research industry were asked to publish a paper showing their priorities and claims were based on faulty work and they were chasing moonbeams, they could conceivably decide not to publish on purely monetary considerations (Leslie Woods made an interesting point on this). Consensus is not actually the scientific method.
Three, wrath or scorn or fondness is irrelevant. The question here is can this be validated or invalidated. Let the proponent speak with passion if he or she must, does the argument hold? I imagine Szilard and Einstein were quite impassioned when they moved to persuade FDR to begin research on the bomb. Hardly means they were disqualified.--Thomas Simmons 21:28, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
You err on most accounts. Nature, Lancet and NEJM are all online, true. But their contents is out of reach for Google, because they are subscription only. It is NOT about placing information in front of a lot of people, it is about Google simply not separating the chaff from the wheat. Anyone can publish anything on the web. I can put up a website stating that gravity is just imaginary and that humans can fly if they just believe hard enough. That doesn't make it fact. Peer-review is not consensus. Peer review is the statement that others in the field consider the conclusions tenable. This very much IS scientific method, because modern scientific theory has recongized how problematic individual assessment of data is. Peer review indicates the conclusions presented are NOT subjective, but inter-subjective. That is the core of scientific theory as it is seen today. Lastly, for the very same reason, wrath or scorn or fondness are very much relevant. Because they increase the problem of subjective interpretation of data. When Szilard and Einstein moved to persuade FDR to begin research on the bomb, the issue was not one of physics -FDR would hardly have understood them if they had been. I never said that scientists can't have opinions and motivations. But these need to be kept at bay as much as possible from the interpretation of scientific data. Anything else is a hack job and propaganda, not science. If one approaches scientific data with such an ire, one is guaranteed to misinterpret it because you see what you want to see and miss what doesn't fit into your view -which is why self-skepticism is one of the foremost virtues of a scientist. The "of course I am right and anyone who thinks differently is corrupt" conspiracy theory is unlikely to ever produce solid science. --Oliver Hauss 15:54, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
Well put Oliver.--Robert W King 15:56, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
The "of course I am right and anyone who thinks differently is corrupt" conspiracy theory is unlikely to ever produce solid science.
This could be said of both sides of the anthropogenic global warming debate - above we have someone pretty much openly saying that some scientist's opinion is invalid because said scientist is a member of a "right-wing think tank", and another scientist's opinion is invalid because a foundation supporting him has received money - twice in the past 10 years - from ExxonMobil. I'm still working on a list of papers in journals to show a lack of consensus on the issue of anthropogenic global warming, but several people here insist that it's not possible for anyone to dispute AGW without being a crank, or in the pay of some political or industrial interest. Attitudes like that do not belong on Citizendium, or anywhere else where people may turn for accurate information. It's a species of intellectual dishonesty. Anthony Argyriou 16:37, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
No, it cannot be said of both sides that easily. Because in one case, we're talking about scientific assessments published in peer-reviewed journals. For the reasons described above, these are MORE than personal opinions of individual scientists. They are published not because the author wants to push an idea but because reviewers think that -even though they might personally not even agree with the author- they see his or her or their conclusions as valid conclusions from the data presented. This is scientific process. The publications of a think tank, however, are not scientific process, but rather political process. The point is not that people are crank because they dispute AGW. The point is that you keep presenting personal opinion of individual scientists or political publications as "evidence" -which plain and simply they are not. They are not scientific discourse at all. When researcher XYZ presents his latest results at a conference, people follow him with interest, but they also know to take what he says with a grain of salt, since he is likely to present his work in the best light. When he manages to get the self-same results published in "Nature", they treat those results quite differently. Even so, they still may be wrong, but at least someone else has found them to be tenable. This is neither the case with opinion pieces nor with the publications of a Think Tank. This is why I said that they are not part of scientific discourse at all. They are subjective at best, and deliberately misleading at worst. In no case are they inter-subjective. A think tank is no research institute, regardless of what it claims to be or what it calls itself. A think tank promotes an agenda, not knowledge itself. --Oliver Hauss 17:34, 1 June 2007 (CDT)
I'm in the same wavelenght with those who want the discussion to stem from peer-reviewed published papers. Anthony Argyriou wrote "I'm still working on a list of papers in journals to show a lack of consensus on the issue of anthropogenic global warming". Great! If discussion is about peer-reviewed materials, I'm positive we'll settle it much more quickly. --Nereo Preto 02:59, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

might it be appropriate to delete and start all new and fresh?

The discussion and the article seems to strand in both personal arguments, non-cienc=tific arguments and non-science based parts as well as good funded parts. So far there has not been any progress - apart from heated discussions here that all too often turned personal.

Can I ask to move for deletion and a fresh start? Robert Tito |  Talk  00:27, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
Rewrite history? I am of the opinion that:
  • a. there is no reason to believe the second version of history will not be like the first.
  • b. unless folks get seriously uncivil, I can not agree that the current arguments are without merit and should be deleted.
  • c. granted some comments seem to me to be dangling without much relevance but that it is a purely personal point of view as it is for anyone else here. If the connexions are not clear, simply request that they be made.
  • d. "heated" is a personal perspective and I can not agree that this is the case. Even so, it is absolutely no reason for wholesale deletions. --Thomas Simmons 22:56, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

I wonder why

Among the climate researchers of this planet, and related scientists are all in agreement (95+%) that increased level of human produced greenhouse gasses are an important source to the observed changes in: ICE caps on thhe poles, globally increased general temperatures, local climate changes that cannot be accounted for by long term records (>3-5 centuries). If we can't follow mainstream scientists in that conclusion I think this article need not be here, as then all what remains is yes there is a change in climate opposing no there is not. This should be encyclopedic - as such the struggle of proponents and antigens to get their arguments heard may be part, but by now the antigonists should he burried by the enormous amount of proven data and consequences. Unless they do not wish to admit facts. When they are from the oil and coal industry these points of view can be understood, else I have and see no reason to. Robert Tito |  Talk  22:22, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Robert, I share your curiosity about this. My thinking all along here is a) It's the business of an encylopedia to give the current state of affairs in a field, not to denounce the field itself, or give enormous space to one or two angry skeptics; and b) while one can't cleanly separate politics from any other aspect of how people might regard science, we ought to be able to write a neutral entry here. The data is indeed compelling, but so apparently is the desire on the part of some people to accentuate every contrarian view, whether for political reasons or personal hardly matters. The idea of CZ, or so I thought, was that experts in various fields would oversee authors and others with some knowledge and interest in the area -- what seems to be happening here is that it's the experts who are buried (in innuendo, not data) rather than the highly vocal non-expert skeptics, who are creating an enormous amount of additional work for the rest of us. I am brought, rather sadly, to the view that we would be better off as an encyclopedia having no entry here rather than a portmanteau jabberwocky of "gotcha" and innuendo. Russell Potter 22:37, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
Since that seems to be the case, NO article seems the best oprion. All so far being used is far from based upon facts (by the climatologists) and more is about vague arguments juiced up and presented in a package but without funding. So I would opt for delete this topic for the time being unless it can be started by an authority or overseen by a climate authority. This way leads to dead ends without any contribution to understanding the problem and the possible consequences. Another things that comes to mind is, if you do not see the problem as a problem, why add non funded additions. Robert Tito |  Talk  23:11, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Sometime ago I was reading E. Rutherford's thoughts from a time before he and Soddy published their work that led to the Nobel (in chemistry not physics). He was afraid that he would be seen as a reborn alchemist. Good thing he did not say "Well 95% of the scientists will not be amused. Round file." A quote I am still trying to track down: "The energy produced by the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine." Oops. [And he did have a marked fondness for his field. He is often quoted as saying, ""In science there is only physics; all the rest is stamp collecting." Is that not a little biased? Not really. Just a Kiwi taking the piss out his colleagues. Rutherford was also quite impassioned about getting researchers to "...leave the madness," and exit Germany during the Great War. Can't say he was wrong even though his was obviously an impassioned plea.] A friend of mine, John Birks at the University of Colorado, worked on the SST exhaust problems some years ago. They found that well publicized assertions of adverse global impact on the ozone layer were based on faulty data and calculations. They published anyway. R. Gilbert actually rubbed a lodestone with garlic to test the old belief that it would eliminate the magnetic properties of the lodestone. Considered one of the first known scientific experiments, he went ahead, going against the accepted wisdom. While the consensus approach has the merit of letting us know where the researchers are at the moment, it does not make the case for or against anything, just what the consensus is. The guy who debunked Margaret Mead's wholesale fabrications about Samoan Society had to suffer the slings and arrows of those who insist on the consensus approach to reality. Popper makes this point as well, not me, but I am happy to relate it here. --Thomas Simmons 22:26, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

can the discussion return to facts?

I have deleted some controversial comments because they were aimed at persons and not at facts. Sometimes that meant I deleted well-ment comments but for the clearness of the discussion since they responded to rather red-headed, involved responses they could invoke new controversies. Robert Tito |  Talk  23:31, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

I've been discussing the facts as they've been discussed within the scientific literature. I don't necessarily agree that your massive blanking of the page was warranted. Regardless, if we could perhaps discuss how we could better this article, rather than ramble on about some other's agenda, we could make this a better place. Benjamin Seghers 23:43, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
I wasn't addressing individuals. The way the discussion went was not very basic and it involved people too much. I do agree, this article needs a factual basis, not any politics - economics or whatever basis. Stick to what is known and base an article upon that. If needed create a page with the economics about global warming, or the politics about it, or for all who are interested the religion about global warming. The best way however would be to start anew - else the article in its roots is too colored and far friom being neutral. Robert Tito |  Talk  00:02, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

I can not agree that politics and ulterior motives have left any field of science unscathed. Noting and discussing these are an integral part of science. --Thomas Simmons 23:01, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

Start from Wikipedia?

Wikipedia's article on global warming is quite good, as has been attested by a number of external sources (e.g., here). Instead of reinventing the wheel, why not use the Wikipedia article as a starting point? We can then improve it, e.g., by replacing some of the dodgier references with scientific literature. Raymond Arritt 21:46, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

Because Wikipedia is less of a wheel than it is a jagged block. :-) Benjamin Seghers 22:53, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
Many wikipedia articles are good. There are many users on CZ who are blinded by frustration at certain aspects of WP to see its worth. Importing is an option. I would not oppose it as long as you incorporate all the current edits in to the article. Tom Kelly 22:55, 15 June 2007 (CDT)