Talk:Global warming/Archive 1

Global warming

Current talk page

Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4

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 http://www.globalwarmingart.com/. ~ 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)

Great!

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?
   • Or is arch-AGW advocate Michael Mann's hockey stick graph correct, as the UN's more recent assessment 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 constables@citizendium.org. 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) (...so 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: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/

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)

Controversy

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)

"claim"?

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 constables@citizendium.org. --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) "...is 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 "...is 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 (talk • contribs) 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

Hi,

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

• Al Gore’s Movie meets its match in Stockhom,
• 'An Inconvenient Truth': climate change is indeed a moral issue,
• Mother-earthism infects climate change debate,
• Cool rationality shatters greenhouse hype,
• Modern 'global warming' may turn out to be just a lot of hot air,
• The Great Barrier Reef is doing just fine: a precautionary tale.

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)

Papers which cast doubt on the anthopogenic origin of global warming

One prominent alternative to the anthropogenic hypothesis for global warming is the heliogenic hypothesis. The following papers support that hypothesis, including showing feedback effects which amplify the effect of solar variability:

Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate by Nigel Marsh and Henrik Svensmark Space Science Reviews, Volume 94, Numbers 1-2 / November, 2000 DOI 10.1023/A:1026723423896

Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate by K. S. Carslaw, R. G. Harrison, J. Kirkby Science 29 November 2002:Vol. 298. no. 5599, pp. 1732 - 1737 DOI: 10.1126/science.1076964

Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years by S. K. Solanki, I. G. Usoskin, B. Kromer, M. Schüssler and J. Beer Letters to Nature, Nature 431, 1084-1087 (28 October 2004) | doi:10.1038/nature02995

Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability, and Earth's temperature by H. B. Hammel and G. W. Lockwood GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L08203, doi:10.1029/2006GL028764, 2007

Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperature record. by N. Scafetta and B. J. West GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. ???, XXXX, DOI:10.1029/, (preprint?)

Insignificant Change in Antarctic Snowfall Since the International Geophysical Year by Andrew J. Monaghan,1* David H. Bromwich,1 Ryan L. Fogt,1 Sheng-Hung Wang,1 Paul A. Mayewski,3 Daniel A. Dixon,3 Alexey Ekaykin,4 Massimo Frezzotti,5 Ian Goodwin,6 Elisabeth Isaksson,7 Susan D. Kaspari,3 Vin I. Morgan,8 Hans Oerter,9 Tas D. Van Ommen,8 Cornelius J. Van der Veen,2 Jiahong Wen10

Altitude variations of cosmic ray induced production of aerosols: Implications for global cloudiness and climate by Fangqun Yu JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 107, NO. A7, 10.1029/2001JA000248, 2002

The role of solar forcing upon climate change by B. van Geel,, O.M. Raspopov, H. Renssen, J. van der Plicht, V.A. Dergachev, H.A.J. Meijer Quaternary Science Reviews 18 (1999) 331–338

The influence of cosmic rays on terrestrial clouds and global warming by E. Pallé Bagó, C. J. Butler (2000) Astronomy & Geophysics 41 (4), 4.18–4.22. doi:10.1046/j.1468-4004.2000.00418.x

On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget by Nir J. Shaviv JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 110, A08105, doi:10.1029/2004JA010866, 2005

The following papers cast doubt on the validity of the data used to demonstrate the existence of global warming:

Reexamination of instrument change effects in the U.S. Historical Climatology Network by K. G. Hubbard and X. Lin GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33, L15710, doi:10.1029/2006GL027069, 2006 (indicates that temperature data has not been appropriately adjusted to reflect instrument changes in the 1980s)

Is the World Ocean Warming? Upper-Ocean Temperature Trends: 1950–2000 by D. E. Harrison and Mark Carson Journal of Physical Oceanography Volume 37, Issue 2 (February 2007) Article: pp. 174–187 DOI: 10.1175/JPO3005.1

Also see Wikipedia's list of Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.

---

I think that this sampling makes it clear that it is not a "settled scientific consensus" that global warming is anthropogenic. Anthony Argyriou 02:17, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Those 12 articles are useful references -- thanks for posting them. But as to whether these prove that there is no consensus, that would take further information and evaluation by people who are thoroughly familiar with the whole body of literature in this field. If the past eight years have seen, as I guess they likely have, hundreds of professional papers and publications, the significance of these twelve can't really be assessed without knowledge of their broader context. That there are scientists who, for a variety of reasons, are skeptical of / feel the evidence is insufficient to prove / utterly reject the notion that manmade factors are the primary cause of recent warming trends is not disputed; what is unclear is the degree of consensus. One can have a consensus even with dissenters. Russell Potter 15:56, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

I don't think we should be relying on wikipedia for anything; especially for contentious issues. We're smarter than that. --Robert W King 16:30, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

I disagree. If you bothered to read the article, you'd notice that pretty much every statement in that article is referenced, most to actual published scientific literature. Rejecting knowledge just because it has the "wikipedia" label on it is a fool's game. Anthony Argyriou 17:02, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

You have seriously misunderstood the conclusions of several of these papers. For example, the ones you characterize as supporting "heliogenic" warming (a neologism that is not used in the literature) do not contradict an anthropogenic role in warming. Perhaps you are falling into the common trap of looking at climate change as a binary problem; i.e., it's either natural or anthropogenic. The prevailing scientific view is that that both natural and anthropogenic processes are at work, with anthropogenic forcing probably dominant. Several of the others have little if anything to do with global warming, much less "cast doubt" on the hypothesis. Raymond Arritt 17:05, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

The claim has been made that there is a scientific consensus that current global warming is primarily anthropogenic. The papers above do not support that so-called consensus, as they show that solar forcing is a significant factor, possibly greater than anthropogenic forcing. These papers do not show a consensus that solar forcing is larger than man-made and/or other natural sources of climate change, but the disagreement here is whether a scientific consensus exists that global warming is primarily anthropogenic. See statements above by Benjamin Seghers, Robert Tito, and Yi Zhe Wu, for example. The papers I listed are intended to show that there is not such a scientific consensus, not that AGW is, in fact, wrong. There isn't enough evidence yet to show that AGW is right or wrong. Anthony Argyriou 17:50, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

I must voice the same opinion as Dr. Potter, as they are very much correct if we're to look at the whole of the scientific literature. Twelve papers out of hundreds published on the topic of global warming each year is hardly proof that there is no consensus within the scientific community. How many papers should I link to for each one of yours to show that these numbers are meaningless? Ten? Fifteen? Thirty? I don't think anyone denies that solar forcings are a significant factor in our climate. Whether it roles is significant in recent warming has been researched by many scientists, and each time is has been shown that its impact since 1980 has significantly waned in comparison to human activities.

I must also agree with Mr. King pertaining to Wikipedia. The said article, while referenced, is incomplete, and inclusion standards are arbitrary. No doubt, there are scientists who distance themselves from the mainstream views on global warming held by a majority of scientists, but it's helpful to look carefully at who these dissenters are and what qualifications they have to adequately say they understand the complexities of climate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benjamin Seghers (talk • contribs) 17:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If the article referenced is incomplete (which it is), that tends to argue even more that there is no consensus, as it means that there are other scientists not listed who also do not share in the consensus. I am also not willing to casually challenge the integrity of those scientists who have argued against the majority. (And remember, a majority is not a consensus.) Anthony Argyriou 22:01, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

I'm pretty sure that's a logical fallicy. Incompleteness does not always correlate with nonconsensus, although it *can*. If the majority of scientists in a given field can discerably accept something as proven fact(when it has been proven), then those who argue against the majority are dead wrong. We should not be spending so much time on the debate of consensus or nonconsensus; this is a complete waste of time. We should present the verifiable evidence, no matter how weak or strongly supports it's conclusion (if it does at all--even if it has a 1% effect of the overall scope), and let the reader judge. It's not our place to dictate what people should believe; we should be presenting the facts as they are.--Robert W King 22:51, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Starting from Wikipedia

I've taken a leap of faith and replaced the rather weak article that was here with the very good one from Wikipedia. We can now refine the material from a sound basis, instead of starting from a blank slate. If anyone thinks I've overstepped my bounds, let me know. But we've got to have something better than what was here.

By way of introduction, I've been active on earth science related topics in Wikipedia for about a year but my disillusionment with that project is growing daily. Thus, I plan to spend more of my time here. If you want to know a little about me you can see my user page. Thanks. Raymond Arritt 21:48, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

If you've been an active member of that community on WP, I'd suggest to re-write the total article than to just import the wikipedia version. Chances are a much better article would be produced as a result. Additionally, it would conform more to the goal/aim of CZ--as I understand the idea of "Forking" from WP was long since scrapped because we believe we can do better.--Robert W King 10:39, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

I have to agree with Mr. King. Just as I opposed Ed Poor making this a fork of Conservapedia, I oppose Dr. Arritt making this a fork of Wikipedia. Benjamin Seghers 11:21, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Also, I quarrel with Wikipedia's article as it is a hodgepodge of compromises that resulting from their large and unnecessary arguments. The way in which the users over there bicker is the result of their article so, yes, I would suggest something more original. I would also like to suggest we not become a summarizer of the IPCC like Wikipedia has become, but rather we summarize the scientific papers on which the IPCC reports are based. Benjamin Seghers 11:30, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

I agree with all the sentiments here. The idea is to use the Wikipedia article a starting point to create something much better. It'll take some time. Raymond Arritt 11:39, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

If you find that cleaning up the article is a hassle, I'd just wipe the whole thing and start new. --Robert W King 11:53, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Cleaning up the Wikipedia article is not that hard. It'll take a few days. Everyone is saying to start with a blank slate, but no one was actually building the article. Raymond Arritt 12:17, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Another problem I see is that many portions of the article summaries of other Wikipedia article, which leaves many statements unreferenced. Thus, the {{main}} templates help little here. Benjamin Seghers 12:13, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Of course. Delete them. Raymond Arritt 12:17, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Rebirth

If I had to start this article over from scratch, I'd roughly follow this outline:

• Definition: What global warming is defined as (not an expression of theories as to why)

• What is scientifically known and observed:
  • Graph of documented and recorded temperature changes
  • graph of recorded levels of CO₂ in the atmosphere.
  • graphs indicating amounts of UV levels over time.
  • Tables of recorded weather patterns that show increase or decrease in the following over time:
    • Thunderstorms
    • Hurricanes
    • Floods
    • Heatwaves
    • etc.
  • Agriculture changes:
    • crop levels
    • tree levels

• List of every known and scientifically backed theory in this format:
  • Theory 1: What is it
    • Who supports it
    • The evidence provided
    • Is it or is it not funded by special interests or lobbyists
    • How accepted is it
    • Proposed solutions

• • Theory 2: What is it
    • Who supports it
    • The evidence provided
    • is it or is it not funded by special interests or lobbyists
    • How accepted is it
    • Proposed solutions

• Effects of chemicals in an environment
  • What do we know about CO₂
  • What do we know about UV
  • What do we know about temperature

(All theories should be properly cited and referenced, and there should be absolutely no unsubstantiated claims)

This article should not cover the following topics

• Political differences of global warming
• Whether or not people believe in science
• Theories with no foundations in science; that is "pure thought" theories, speculation
• Whether global warming is real or not; that's not for us to decide. That's for the person reading the article to determine. We are simply here to inform and present evidence.

--Robert W King 12:26, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

This could be a good start although it needs some tweaking (e.g., UV has very little relation to global warming). I strongly agree with keeping politics out of it. Raymond Arritt 13:12, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Edit the outline as you see fit. I was just making a quick listing.--Robert W King 13:14, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

What then of the Kyoto protocol? Benjamin Seghers 13:22, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Create a separate article on responses to global warming? Greg Woodhouse 13:25, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

THe Kyoto Protocol was specifically drafted to reduce something due to the presence of something else, was it not? So it's one of the solutions to a proposed/accepted theory. Disassemble the requirements of Kyoto into the Who, what, when, where, and why.

• Who:
  • Who supports it
  • Who drafted it
  • Who provided evidence for it
• What:
  • What is its aim?
  • What is the background?
  • What are the claims?
  • What is the evidence?
• Where:
  • Where is it accepted?
  • From what countries was it drafted from?
  • Who has signed and agreed to it?
• Why:
  • Why did those nations sign it?
  • What was their reasoning for applying it?
• When:
  • What year?
  • What criteria by when?

When you break these issues down, the classification of them becomes evident. The Kyoto protocol is a proposed solution to something, as a result of a recognized problem with a theory supported by evidence and we should present it as such.--Robert W King 13:29, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Deleted Kyoto for now, but put it back in if you like. It would be good to have a separate article on Kyoto and link to it from here instead of giving details of Kyoto in the main article. Then the present article could focus on the science and give a pointer to the Kyoto article for people interested in geopolitical aspects etc. Anyone want to give it a go? Raymond Arritt 13:34, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

It should have it's own article, but we should at least summarize it here.--Robert W King 13:36, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Good idea. Would you like to go ahead and write the Kyoto article, so we can extract bits of it here for a summary? Raymond Arritt 13:51, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

I can contribute to it, but it will happen slowly as I have other things on my plate. For now I'd just mention it's existence and a background of it rather than summarize what the kyoto is about(until we can get there).--Robert W King 15:28, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Kyoto Protocol, and other policy changes enacted or proposed in response to global warming, should be briefly mentioned in a separate section. The more important policy changes, like the Kyoto Protocol, should have their own articles, the rest should be in a more general "Global Warming policy" article, which can discuss various proposals, and the arguments advanced for and against each. Anthony Argyriou 16:50, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Citation Needed

I would remove anything that was previously tagged as "Citation Needed" as anything that is speculative and unverifiable does not belong in this context, given the contentious nature of the subject.--Robert W King 12:34, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

The things I tagged as needing citations are not necessarily unverifiable, but simply are without proper citation. If they are in fact false or inaccurate, then they should be removed. If no one can find a reliable or proper source, then they should be removed. Benjamin Seghers 16:12, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

My issue is that I believe we shouldn't have unattributable information; technically those could be considered "rumors" or "theories", and CZ shouldn't be representative of either.--Robert W King 17:25, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

All right, I'll remove them. If anyone ones to re-add the information, they'll need proper references. Benjamin Seghers 17:47, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Economics

There is a rich area of economics involved in projection of future costs, with a diversity of conclusions (Eg The Stern Report on one hand to Bjorn Lomborgs books on the other.) Where should this be discussed- in the mitigation section, or in another article? David Tribe 17:54, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

It should probably go in the solutions section because, after all, the issue is the expendatures required for those solutions. That said, be careful because the line between economics and politics can be extremely blurred. --Robert W King 23:01, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

I agree with Mr. King in that in economics often lie things of political nature, whether intended or not. Obviously, global warming has many implication on global and national economics--both in the mitigation and expected effects areas. If we do choose to discuss the economics of global warming, we need to do it with scrupulous attention to sources, and must write purely in an eclyclopedic fashion. Benjamin Seghers 09:53, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Not only that Ben, but we should pay close attention to whether or not a solution is scientifically sound, plausible; example:

• Proposed solution: decrease oil usage, produce cars that get better milage
• Requirement: increase the cost of oil per gallon, government subsidies to auto manufacturers to produce more efficient oil-burning engines

In this example, there is an obvious slant toward the increase in oil price and giving money to the auto industry, while still producing cars that utilize gas. Is there any scientific basis in this argument? None that's listed. Is this the most efficient way to attempt to reverse the greenhouse effect? Not in the least.

I gave an intentional obvious example in hopes that I convey what kind of modular thinking we should approach when including accurate and unbiased information in this context (please do not comment on the contents of the example, that is not the point.)--Robert W King 11:44, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Well, I think if we are to discuss any sort of economic topics of global warming, we as the writers of the encyclopedia should not be making value judgments, but instead use wholly reliable sources to discuss what's needed to be said. Benjamin Seghers 20:39, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Controversy two

I'm not a subject expert, but I know there is a great deal of unsettled science, politics and economics on this topic. This article leaves one feeling there is little if any controversy associated with this topic. Will Nesbitt 07:53, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Could you be a little more specific? Benjamin Seghers 09:16, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Will, our job at CZ is not to report Controversy.--Robert W King 11:18, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Just to comment on the latter remark. In a way, it most certainly is. If a controversy exists, CZ:Neutrality Policy requires that we report it, rather than take a stand on it. --Larry Sanger 11:31, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Err, that's what I meant to say.--Robert W King 11:32, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Heh, thanks for the advice Robert. ;^)

Benjamin, it's hard for me to be a little more specific because then I would be pretending to know something about the subject. What I know is that from a layman's point of view, this reads as if there is little or no dispute or controversy regarding this issue. From a layman's point of view, this is inconsistent with what I have read/seen.

I take no position on global warming, but I've heard the din and hue off in the distance. I've read that the polar caps on Mars are shrinking, which is interpreted by some to mean that Mars is "warming globally". I don't like pollution. If this is what it takes for us to go nuclear (fusion preferably) then let's all shout global warming from the rooftops. I know mine is a completely non-scientific point of view.

My view of this issue is shaped by my memories of the fearmongers who said we were entering another Ice Age. At about that time in Northern Virginia, we had two different storms of about 36 inches of snow. I was pretty scared. If I don't fear global warming, it's not because I've got a clue about the science. It's only because I remember that alarmism. That, of course, is not a logical reason to be alarmed this time around, but it's my reason none-the-less.

Maybe I should be alarmed. Maybe I shouldn't. It's hard to tell when most sources only tell one version of the controversy. Any source that only reports one side of an issue leaves me dubious of the information from that source. Will Nesbitt 12:07, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

The problem then is that you're probably hearing or reading this news from news media, which tends not to be a very reliable sources in this case. I'm sure from the layman's point of view, because they do tend to watch and read a lot of media, there seems to be a lot of controversy and doubt surrounding the issue. For example, I'm sure some TV personality spouted off about how the Martian ice caps are melting, but I can almost guarantee you they didn't mention dust storms the researching scientists blamed the partial (not quite "global") warming on. Had the source you read actually been the scientific one published in Nature, then the connection between whatever warming is occurring on Mars and that of Earth's just seems incongruous. So if you were only being told one side of that story, then yes, you should be dubious. Benjamin Seghers 22:34, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

I actually read about the shrinking caps in a science journal. According to that article, the likely cause of the melting ice (and dust storms) was sunspots. The stated implication was that sunspots have a much greater impact on the climate than the internal combustion engine. I honestly don't know if that is correct. I am dubious of that side of the story because it didn't stand the arguments side-by-side.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that Al Gore's science background is about as strong as mine, so I'm dubious of his side of the story as well. I recently read of plants found a mile and a half below the ice in Greenland. These plants lived and died well before Henry Ford's ancestors were born. I wonder how the 1930's Dust Bowl would have been reported in an era of enormous government. Like many other laymen, I will have a hard time believing any resource that does not fully examine experts on both sides of this issue. I've heard Chicken Little cackle one too many times.

Common sense and logic seem to agree that the Earth is always either cooling or warming. The part I have a hard time believing is that man is affecting the weather. Like many others, I will never be moved by arguments based upon the majority of opinions in a controversial topic. The majority opinion is not an indicator of correctness in a controversial topic. Instead, I'm moved by arguments that appeal to reason and allow me to make an informed decision. If you don't want to tell me the other side of the story, I'll just assume you have an agenda and doubt your claims too. Will Nesbitt 09:09, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

Yes, the Sun is playing a role in creating the dust storms that result in the melting of polar ice on Mars. However, to say that because the Sun affects dust storms on Mars, therefore Earth is warming is quite simply a non sequitur. We have no real change is dust storms here on Earth as a result in Sun output. So while you, or some TV personality, may have tried to connect the two, they are very separate. (For this reason, the scientists in no part of their research suggest a link between Mars warming and Earth warming.) Thus, putting it in the article to act as some sort of so-called "other side of the story" would be wholly deceptive.

And Al Gore's scientific qualifications are moot. We're not here to discuss him or his film or what he says. We're here to discuss global warming. Beside the point, discussing what Al Gore's qualifications are instead of discussing the actual basis for his claims in the documentary is little more than an ad hominem fallacy. So instead of keeping with the usual discussion on who's saying what, lets try to discuss what exactly they're saying. You say you take no position, but now you say you can't believe man has an impact on climate. To me that seems inconsistent. But this too is moot, because we're not here to discuss our opinion on the matter; we're here to write an article on global warming that is both thorough and accurate. So for example, when we say every major scientific body accept anthropogenic induced global warming, this is only secondary to the fact that science, not majority, confirms the argument. By us saying a majority accepts the truth of anthropogenic warming, this does not mean that it is truth because they are a majority, but rather there is a majority in addition to scientific support. Do you see what I'm saying? Benjamin Seghers 12:53, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

Mostly. I also agree with almost all that you're writing, although I'm not sure why you think that I'm getting my information from "some TV host". I understand your point exactly about Al Gore, and I think that same principal applies when one reconsiders your dismissal that the sun is causing global warming on Mars.

What I'm trying to tell you, and what I'm asking you to accept at face value, is that I have read sober reports by scientific people who have offered rational alternative explanations for Global Warming. I do not know if these reports are correct or not, quite simply because I'm not qualified to make such judgments. My point is that this article does not seem to explore or list any alternative theories or explanations. This article would lead one to believe that there is little controversy about this subject and that this is a matter of settled science. It is not my impression that this is in fact where this debate stands.

I agree that our personal opinions are moot on the subject. However, in a controversial subject, I sometimes find it helpful to state your personal — (The Constabulary has removed an initialism here. Please use plain English instead, for example, "biased" ) — so that someone doesn't wrongly assume — (The Constabulary has removed an initialism here. Please use plain English instead, for example, "biased" ) — or intentions. To restate the above more clearly: I do not take a position on the issue, because I don't frankly know the truth. You may interpret this to mean that I am an "opponent" of global warming. I am not. I think most credible resources tend to agree that the climate is warming. I think the argument lies in what is causing the Earth to warm. I would very much like to see less pollution in the air. I think that pumping greenhouse gases from our vehicles makes as much sense as a Victorian-era urban dweller pitching his chamberpot out the window.

That said, I am not alarmed but those who cry gloom and doom. I am not alarmed by Al Gore, et al, because I've seen too many false alarms about the climate and other issues which seem beyond the control of humanity but well within the reach of good government. Mostly, I am not alarmed because I've read credible alternative explanations to global warming. Perhaps myself and others like me should be alarmed about global warming. If your (referring to the reader's and not to Benjamin Seghers) opinion is that I should be alarmed, I would recommend that you use logic and not authority to make that argument. I would urge anyone involved in a controversial topic take a look at the result of arguments about Intelligent Design. It is possible to give fair voice to all sides and still empower the reader to make a good choice.

To Benjamin specifically, I hope that doesn't sound too preachy. To boil it down: this is a controversial topic but you would never know that by reading this article. The article ignores the controversy. Take for example this sentence: Existence of the greenhouse effect itself is not disputed. This sentence hangs in space inferring but not acknowledging controversy. The effect is to leave the layman puzzled, as if it is the reader's job to guess what facts are disputed. I'm not trying to make trouble. I can do some research if it would help, but I'm not a climatologist so I'm really not qualified to edit or author this article.

Please let me know if I can be of some assistance, and to the authors of this article I hope that this feedback is received in the good spirit in which it was intended. Will Nesbitt 06:12, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

I don't dismiss the Sun's role in how it affects dust storms on Mars (which may very well the because cause of ice melting on its poles). In fact, I acknowledge it just above. However, I do dismiss any link between the mechanism on Mars as a result of changes in solar output and the mechanism here on Earth. From what I can tell, only one distinguished scientists hints at any such link, but all of his peers have rebuked these claims. The only reason I point out that a TV personality may have tried to make such links is because I know one has. And I also know people resort to these types of TV personalities for news and opinions on such subject matters. Whether or not this applies to you, I don't know. I'm just saying it happens.

As for other rational explanations for recent (1980 onwards) warming on Earth, I cannot say I have heard of many. The largest and most rational theory that isn't quite labeled the consensus is the solar variation theory. We do discuss this theory in the section called "Solar variation." This theory holds that the solar influence is being underestimated, and this very well may be true. However, to say that there rational and reliable scientific arguments that say it is the whole cause or most of the cause would be inconsistent with fact. Quite frankly, even the absolute highest estimates put its contribution to no more than 35% of measured warming since 1980. The fact of the matter is that when accounting for natural forces only (i.e. solar output and volcanoes), it does not account for the observed warming since 1980. Natural forcings match pretty well up until 1950, after which point the IPCC consensus says the majority of the warming is a result of human activity. So while while it might seem humble to think humans can have little impact on such a complex and large system, the data says otherwise.

For other theories, I am sure there a few (intergalactic position of our galaxy, for one), they are dismissed as nonsense by the rest of the scientific community. While someone may actually hold the position that JFK death is the result of some alien influence, it isn't necessarily our responsibility to report on it. Because you are from Wikipedia, I believe you understand that fringe theories have no place in encyclopedias. What we should report on is the findings of scientific studies published in reliable venues such as scientific and peer-reviewed journals.

On the "Existence of the greenhouse effect itself is not disputed" sentence, it does hold true, but I think it also puts in context the surrounding material. That is to say, the greenhouse effect isn't what's being disputed, but rather "something else." I see it more as a clarifying sentence than anything else, even if a bit awkward. Benjamin Seghers 15:58, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

And yet more: my original comments and the responses above were written after reading the article itself. After my last entry, I read the entire discussion page and I can see that the editors and authors have made an attempt to grapple with the subject. Your intentions are well-placed and your efforts are Herculean, but I'm sorry to report the Augean Stables are not yet clean. I am under the impression that you have chased away the "right-wingers" rather than engaging them and finding a way to report their concerns. Sorry that I don't have more solutions despite being able to see many problems .... Will Nesbitt 06:20, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

I should make clear I'm not here to chase anyone away. I am here for open debate on the issues. My primary concern here is on the improvement of the article. In my view, this is not a political left or right issue. This is a scientific debate; the data remains fact regardless of one's political feelings. Benjamin Seghers 20:00, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

Would just like to note here that a recently published study by the Royal Society in the UK definitively shows that the Solar variation theory is not credible; read the BBC's coverage of these findings here. Russell Potter 21:35, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

Interesting indeed, but your characterization of the article is not exactly accurate. The study is not "definitive" so long as sober, scholarly critics remain in opposition. In cases like this, it's not uncommon for the advocates of a "disproved" theory to claim that the opposition never fully understood the theory in the first place. As your resource says:

But the organisation was criticised in some quarters for not taking into account the cosmic ray hypothesis, developed by, among others, Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen of the Danish National Space Center. Their theory holds that cosmic rays help clouds to form by providing tiny particles around which water vapour can condense. Overall, clouds cool the Earth. During periods of active solar activity, cosmic rays are partially blocked by the Sun's more intense magnetic field. Cloud formation diminishes, and the Earth warms.

In other words, the study does not definitively absolve cosmic, i.e. not man-made, influences. The fact remains that ice caps on Mars are shrinking. I don't dispute a single word in that article, by the way. (I don't have the credentials or education to challenge this.) But the article is an example of why I have a hard time finding a credible source about global warming. This article stakes out a pretty strong position in the intro and the conclusion, but still leaves a big hole in the middle that says this could all be wrong. Will Nesbitt

If indeed you do, as you say, wish for the input of experts, I would point out that the bulk of CZ's current article was written by Raymond Arritt, a credentialed climatologist, so it has had such input. And again, you are mis-stating the findings of the above study. In an interview about this study, Mike Lockwood, one of its authors was asked:

• Does this research close the door on the climate change debate?

"Yes it does. If I’m absolutely honest, it was closed already. I think it was difficult for people who weren’t trained in climate science to understand the evidence, because it was complicated and very technical. The idea was that this was a very simple demonstration that you couldn’t just pin it on the Sun as increasingly global warming skeptics have been trying to do.

"You think it would be the end. Unfortunately, it’s amazing how misrepresentation can carry on. A lot of people have picked on the idea that global warming has stalled, because recent temperatures haven’t risen in quite the same way as before. This is very much cherry picking the evidence. They are ignoring the fact that the long-term trend is steadily going upwards. They are picking the fluctuations that exist naturally in our climate system and those that suit them, which is an astonishing cherry picking of the evidence."

Quoted from Scitizen. Russell Potter 13:04, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

It's curious, Mr. Nesbitt, you state Mar's ice caps are melting, despite the fact I just noted above that there is no connection between that and Earth's global warming. It appears as if you're trying to make a link, when in fact there is none.

I should also point the bulk of this article was not written by Dr. Arritt. It was simply copied from Wikipedia, with some edits that amend it. Benjamin Seghers 15:58, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

I'm not qualified to argue this debate with a scientist, so I won't pretend to be qualified. What I know is that many people believe the science that this article reflects. I know that some people do not ascribe to these conclusions. I know that political funding of research has tainted the credibility of some research. I am not here to argue for or against any particular position. I am merely pointing out that this article doesn't seem to indicate that there is any controversy related to this subject. Perhaps there isn't any controversy, but unless and until you explain why there might be controversy then every so often someone will arrive to challenge the article's balance. Will Nesbitt 11:01, 26 July 2007 (CDT)

Governments fund most all research. Note that's plural. It's hard to argue that the scientists are biased by political fundings when every major scientific academy of dozens of different nations come to the same conclusions. That pretty much amounts to independent verifications. We've already listed different viewpoints that hold scientific ground, such as in the "solar variation" section, and we also list certain uncertainties, such as cloud forcing. I don't know what you're looking for. Benjamin Seghers 19:31, 26 July 2007 (CDT)

Please correct me if I am misunderstanding your position. I take this to mean that it is your position that there is in fact little or no controversy about the causes of global warming. This is settled science. There is no controversy, just right and wrong. The majority position is worthy of reporting here because that position (in your editorial decision making capacity) is correct. The minority position is wrong and therefore not worthy of a full explanation here.

It is my position that neither you, nor I, nor a great many other people are qualified to know all of the research which as been done. It is a fact that many people agree with your assertions above. It is my opinion that a good many well-qualified, well-meaning people disagree with those assertions and assumptions. I agree that they might be wrong, but I know they might be right. That type of situation is the definition of controversy.

When there is controversy, it's not the editors job to decide which position is right. It is the editors job to give fair voice to all sides of the debate and let the reader decide which position is right. What I'm looking for is an article which admits there is a controversy then reports the various arguments involved in the controversy.

I predict that until this happens, some people will agree with this article as it stands, but others will either assume editorial bias or complaining about editorial bias on this page. Long after I'm gone and Ed Poor is gone, these questions/complaints will continue with other users. These complaints will never stop precisely because this is a controversial topic and because this article doesn't address the controversy without bias.

I assume is that those who support this article have a slightly different position. Their position is that those who disagree with the article are just ignorant of the facts. Those wrong-headed people simply need to be educated and this article will help them become more educated. Any further discussion about the misinformation about Global Warming will only lead to more uneducated people being more wrong about what is essentially settled science. Will Nesbitt 02:15, 27 July 2007 (CDT)

The problem, I suppose then, is in the definition of "controversy." If a layperson does disagree with the scientific facts of the issue, then they may very well be controversial. However, if we're looking for scientific controversy, then yes, I would agree there is little controversy. That is not to say there is no controversy whatsoever, but rather differences in opinion about certain aspects. However, when it comes to major conclusions, such as the Earth is warming, it's due to greenhouse gases, and the cause of said greenhouse gas emissions are the result of human activity, then there is even less controversy. Like I said though, there are scientifically supported differing opinions, such as the Sun's role is being underestimated, or that cloud forcings may play a more important role originally suggested. These are duly noted. Benjamin Seghers 09:57, 27 July 2007 (CDT)

If there is little or no scientific controversy, then why is it so easy for a laymen to find contradictory evidence and statements with a minimum of research? Will Nesbitt 14:17, 27 July 2007 (CDT)

A layman would not necessarily know which statements offer legitimate, well-evidenced criticisms, and would not necessarily be able to distinguish between valid and invalid evidence, or know the history of such claims in scientific literature. So I'd just say it's easy for a layman to collect statements and data that appear to contradict the general consensus, but it would take someone with knowledge of the field, its methodology, its criteria for study, its data models, etc. to know whether this material was contradictory or not. Russell Potter 15:49, 27 July 2007 (CDT)

Agreed. But any resource that ignores part of the story will lead the layman to believe not that the resource has authority, but rather the resource has bias. The reader wants the opportunity to know the competing theories so that he can make up his own mind. The reader doesn't not want the article to lecture the correct theory to him. Will Nesbitt 05:54, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

There already is the solar variation section that delves into the differing opinion held by a respectable group of scientists. We need to tell all sides of the story, but we have to make sure the views are both bona fide and scientific in nature. We're not going to report on fringe theories. That's not out duty as an encyclopedia. If we are to be a respectable source of authority, as you put it, then represent the scientific findings. Benjamin Seghers 11:16, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

Cow Belching & Politics

This article does not address or examine cow belching. Above Benjamin says that this is a scientific issue and there are no politics involved. But there are reasons to doubt this. For example in this article about cow belching:

They have become the fashionable target for environmentalists, but four-wheel-drive vehicles may be less damaging to the environment than the cows and sheep essential to the rural economy.

The methane emissions from both ends of cattle and sheep are causing so much concern in government that it has ordered researchers to find ways to cut down on the emissions from livestock, which account for about a quarter of the methane – a greenhouse gas 20 times more powerful at driving global warming than carbon dioxide – pumped into the atmosphere in Britain. Each day every one of Britain’s 10 million cows pumps out an estimated 100-200 litres of methane.

Aside from the fact that this non-scientist wonders what this all means when we consider that our native bison herds have diminished to about .5% of what they were when Europeans first arrived, there is a key element to this story that pops out to this native of the Washington DC area (and I paraphrase): the government has "ordered" researchers. Ordered in this case means "paid". Paid in this case means "earmarked". Earmarked means "helped out your district with a little pork barrel funding that no one can argue with politically because we are all in favor of reduced pollution".

My knowledge about this process is first-hand and practical, not scholarly. My son works for a Senator, and I have many associates that are government contractors. I have engaged lobbyists and I have participated in government contracting as a business. It is a known fact that perceived crises are the best place for politicians to hide money that they want to funnel back to their districts. I won't bore you or inflame you with past examples, but I will mention that the government (at great public expense) has lost the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs. The government has exploded expenses and agencies to fight the War on Terrorism. The borders are out of control. But now, the government is going to add to its plate a "War on the Climate"?

Because my brother-in-law in a nuclear research professor and because I've seen the process of going from government grant to government grant (as have many of our resident scientists), I know how many researchers receive funding from the government. We all know that in some circles this leads to a certain conflict of interest. We all know it's easier to fund a "hot" idea than pure unglamorous research.

Here's an interesting tidbit from Richard A. Muller, a 1982 MacArthur Fellow, is a physics professor at the University of California, Berkeley, where he teaches a course called "Physics for Future Presidents." Since 1972, he has been a Jason consultant on U.S. national security.

Progress in science is sometimes made by great discoveries. But science also advances when we learn that something we believed to be true isn't. When solving a jigsaw puzzle, the solution can sometimes be stymied by the fact that a wrong piece has been wedged in a key place.

In the scientific and political debate over global warming, the latest wrong piece may be the "hockey stick," the famous plot (shown below), published by University of Massachusetts geoscientist Michael Mann and colleagues. This plot purports to show that we are now experiencing the warmest climate in a millennium, and that the earth, after remaining cool for centuries during the medieval era, suddenly began to heat up about 100 years ago--just at the time that the burning of coal and oil led to an increase in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide.

The article is a must-read but he goes on to say:

Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called "Monte Carlo" analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!

The point is there remains controversy, both political and scientific. The Citizendium article does not seem to indicate where the controversy is, or what it is about. If I can be of some help, I'm glad to pitch in. If I'm an annoyance, I'm glad to go away. Will Nesbitt 06:56, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

I'd like to point out that when I say global warming is scientific in nature, I do not mean that politics are not intertwined in the solution to said warming. They very much are. But to get a grasp of global warming, one should look to science, not politics or politicians. But I really don't see what cattle belching has to do with politics. This is still a scientific issue. I recognize that rearing cattle is a large contribution to global warming (see, for example, this article that discuss a UN report arguing cattle rearing produces more GHGs than driving cars). Land use also accounts for a lot of greenhouse gas emissions--up to about 25%. However, power stations and other industrial processes are the biggest problems. But lets be clear--when we say "global warming is anthropogenic" or "due to human activity" we mean any activity, and this includes how we use land and how we rear animals. So yes, humans are the major contributor. The so-called hockey stick is something I consider to be one of science's less brilliants moments. But it's distracting to focus on just one set of data; there are in fact many. The trends are unambiguous. Benjamin Seghers 17:02, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

Here's an article called Global Warming: A Layman's Summary that seems to acknowledge the controversy and lists a good many references worth following up on. I would prefer an expert validate these claims and filter it for truth, but that article seems to accomplish the mission better than our article.Will Nesbitt

Likewise, here is an excellent link that I think you might be interested in. It discusses many topics you have brought up, and I'm sure other things you are curious about. Benjamin Seghers 17:02, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

Hydroelectric Global Warming?

"In a study to be published in Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Fearnside estimates that in 1990 the greenhouse effect of emissions from the Curuá-Una dam in Pará, Brazil, was more than three-and-a-half times what would have been produced by generating the same amount of electricity from oil."[4] Will Nesbitt 07:37, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

Yes, hydroelectric energy isn't very "clean," and in some instances large emitters than coal burning electricity producers. Other techniques for energy need to be considered, such as those outlined in the IPCC's WGIII report. Benjamin Seghers 17:08, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

This has nothing at all to do with global warming. The politics of energy, maybe, but not global warming. Greg Woodhouse 23:00, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

Is this a war of attrition?

I occasionally stick my head in here, and the same people are saying the same things over and over. It's just not right. By all means, create an "alternative views" article, or some such, but this shouldn't be allowed to go on. Greg Woodhouse 23:13, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

I agree, Greg. There must be a better way to resolve disputes. Of course, we have to identify disputes in the first place. --Larry Sanger 00:02, 26 July 2007 (CDT)

I point to Intelligent Design as an example of how a very controversial issue can be handled quite nicely. Will Nesbitt 06:33, 26 July 2007 (CDT)