Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:56, 11 May 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of climate change controversies article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about editors' personal beliefs about global warming. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about editors' personal beliefs about global warming at the Reference desk.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

For future reference as to the proponents and opponents of Global warming see: /sides

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Environment Low‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

A new global warming theory?

I have run across this paper which suggests an alternate theory: Michal Kravcik, Jan Hronsky, Jaroslav Tesliar, Robert Zvara The New Theory of The Global Warming 2002-01-26 Their cause is not CO2 in the atmosphere, but systematic world-wide deforestation. Is there any merit in including it under alternate hypothesis?

I don't think so. This does not look like a reliable source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the idea that deforestation has contributed to global warming is not new. It's been recognized in the AGW science from the 1979 NAS report to the 2001 IPCC report. Additionally, like Steve said, what you're referencing would not be considered a reliable source. It's just an environmental NGO.--CurtisSwain (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually this report is from scientists who argue that lack of water in the soil contributes to global warming. That is different from the argument that deforestration causes global warming by releasing carbon from trees into the atmosphere. Here's a link to their website: http://www.waterparadigm.org/

However, before including their work you would have to know whether the theory has any acceptance and also whether they are claiming that this is the main cause of global warming. You should not use their report as a source, but instead a review of their work. I don't think though that this is the right article, because this article is covering the controversy, and this argument has not played a part in the controversy. Global warming sceptics would reject this theory anyway, because it's critical of deforestration. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Reject inclusion - I want to see more of these alternatives mentioned (if only in passing, such that a "Search" of the article for key-words, names of authors etc, turns them up). But I can't see that one badly-translated report that's presumably never been picked up even in the "popular" press deserves inclusion. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

2009 Layout, Coordination, and Copy edit Log

This article, Global warming controversy has been identified as too long at 154 kb, which under WP:SIZE is over 54 kb above the limit. It receives on average 750 hits per day as to Global warming which osculates from 10K to 20K hits a day. We can therefore safely edit this article directly without concern over creating a major disruption. Sandbox editing may not be necessary, however if we choose do to do so, it should not be a challenge. I will log all content moved, removed, or changed in this thread; and will accompany each edit with the necessary rationale and potential alternatives for such actions. All previous threads of discussions have been archived with the exception of "A new global warming theory?", which appears to be ongoing. ChyranandChloe (talk) 08:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Removing subsections "CFCs and ozone layer" and "Passive smoking and global warming"

• Removing subsections "CFCs and ozone layer" and "Passive smoking and global warming". The core subject is the Global warming controversy, these two subsection are irrelevant to the central focus of this article and I am therefore proposing for its removal. We have enough trouble covering the primary subject than in going off and covering less relevant ones. In the first subsection, it possesses two points which may be reintegrated at a later time: (1) the Kyoto Protocol is modeled off of the Montreal Protocol, and to a lesser extent (2) than the former the scientific basis of ozone depletion has likewise been disputed by Global warming skeptics. ChyranandChloe (talk) 08:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Although you stated that you were proposing removing these sections, I note that you in fact removed them. I agree however that they have no place in this article. The article already mentions that leading global warming sceptics were involved in similar campaigns questioning the science of second-hand smoke and CFCs. If readers are interested in these topics they can go to the relevant articles. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree to removal - there are lots of things I'm expecting to find when I come to these articles, but these are not amongst them. Less of this material might improve some of the problems I keep finding when visiting as a non-specialist. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Controversy concerning the science

• This change is more challenging than the first. This section, "Controversy concerning the science", is the single largest section in the article spanning eleven subsections and a number of sub-subsections. Under WP:SPINOFF, part of our objective is to condense the key points into a summery section WP:SS, which does not attempt too peddle itself as the main article. In the past, the lead from the main articles have often provided for the most reasonable means in creating summarizing a summery section. This method is available for two subsections: "Existence of a scientific consensus" and "Antarctic cooling". The remaining nine subsection will likely have to receive a more complex summery system, which involves a sharing the content between this article and the main as to a one-directional flow from the former. The third alternative is to create a new article for those particular sections which have grown too large. I am unsure about the popularity of the third option, you guys don't seem to appreciate stubs, but it is viable. ChyranandChloe (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Building upon previous methods (), the first step is nearing completion. Sections scopes too narrow to be notable on the TOC level are meged into section that are; section titles are truncated to (1) raise the scope of the section and (2) reduce the burden on the TOC; section that have grown to possess too large are spun off into their own article; and section titles which are inherently non-neutral are merged into a single section, the divisions are still fairly rough, but we can smooth it out at a later time.

  For the last action enumerated, the concept of classifying "those who agree" and "those who disagree" are inherenty non-neutral and lacks argumenative maturity; many groups rather than polarizing their position attempt to qualify theirs. In this system where we separate the "sides", we inherently favor of opponents as: groups either have to identify with the proponent's claims or—if they so choose to qualify their assertions—automatically become classified as opponents. Our purpose is to remain as uninvolved observers, not active participants or mediators, we cannot use this system.

  One article, Consensus on climate change controversy, has been spun off and the scope of the section raise to possible includ three articles, although the thir article "Climate change denial" can be cut. I've used an express summery section, which takes the first paragraph of its containing sections. We may have to at a later time copyedit the main article so that we can use a lead flow systyem. ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Removing sections "See also" and "External links"

Related to debates

• A Public Debate on the Science of Global Warming: Dr. James E. Hansen and Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, November 20, 1998.
• Debate on March 15, 2007 sponsored by Intelligence Squared involving Richard Lindzen, Philip Stott, Michael Crichton, Gavin Schmidt, Brenda Ekwurzel, and Richard C. J. Somerville
• Blue Planet in Green Shackles:What Is Endangered: Climate or Freedom, by Václav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, first published 2007

Related to the hockey stick graph

• ClimateAudit: statistical criticism of "hockey stick" climate history reconstructions
• False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al. (1998) reconstruction: Contains links to several sources disputing the McIntyre and McKitrick critique of Michael E. Mann's famous graph.

Climate-specialized media

• New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (Considers global warming a "hoax")
• Friends of Science: Providing Insight into Climate Science (Skeptical of human-caused warming)
• National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration article, September 2006 Global temperatures 4th warmest on record/local U.S. temperatures 0.7 °F (−17.4 °C) below 20th century average.

Other media

• Climate change: A guide for the perplexed from New Scientist
• CO₂ or Solar? A discussion about the evidence for anthropogenic warming and the possible role of solar activity increase.
• CO2 Science Catalogs peer reviewed papers on Medieval Warm Period and other Global warming issues.
• Climate scepticism: The top 10, a list from the BBC of the top reasons why climate sceptics dispute the evidence that human activities such as industrial emissions of greenhouse gases and deforestation are bringing potentially dangerous changes to the Earth's climate.
• The Greenhouse Conspiracy: British television documentary aired in 1990, noting the lack of concrete evidence for global warming in 1990.
• MU Professor Refutes National Television Ads Downplaying Global Warming Engineering Professor Curt Davis says CEI TV Spots are Misrepresenting His Research.
• The Denial Machine: Information about a documentary arguing that the fossil fuel industry kept the global warming debate alive long after the science had been settled.
• Global Warming or Global Governance? (Google video) - the other side of the global warming story
• Kyoto protocol based on flawed statistics by Marcel Croc, translation by Angela den Tex, Natuurwetenschap & Techniek, February, 2005.

• Back to basics. The "See also" is partiucarly prone to link farming and have often been compulsorily added when it in fact is entirely unncessary. The function of this section is to link to related topics, which is already accomplished by the {{Global warming}} navigational footer box and throughout the article using the {{seealso}} and {{main}} navigational links. The "External links" is too easily prone to advocacy and likewise link farming with the utter lack of a serious criteria of inclusion; historically this section have either been used to "vouch" for the article (which is now accomplished by "References") or to provide a means to expand the reader's knowledge. Both these functions can be accomplished through the "References" section. Essentially, the criteria of inclusion is inherently implemented with WP:RS: if it's good enough to be used as a reliable source, it's good enough to expand the reader's knowledge. With the "External links" the "References" also recieves greater emphasis, from which we can accomplish both goals in one section. ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree to removal I suppose - I keep finding there's no link to material I come looking for. However, my NPOV meter will not deliver a better score simply because I find "Happer" or "soot" or "Antarctic" in the "SEE ALSO" section. That will only leave me wondering why, if those people/influences are important why they're not discussed. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

History

• "History of public opinion" has been renamed to "History", therefore raising the scope of the section. "Related controversies" may not become relevant to the central focus of the article as it provides context to the current controversy. In my opinion this section should be covered in greater detail, however, we can do so at a late time. ChyranandChloe (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Connolley Reference

"These criticisms have been described as "failed" by William Connolley." Is a reference to blog posts by someone who is famous because of wikipedia. Doesn't that violate some sort of credible source or relevance rule? 216.255.104.61 (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

See WP:SPS: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" - as is the case with William, who is a published climate scientist with publications in Science, GRL, B.AMS, and other peer-reviewed venues. Also, RealClimate is not your average blog, but a reputable source, produced by a group of expert scientists and positively discussed in the literature. It has been discussed and found a WP:RS before. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

And he's not "famous because of Misplaced Pages"; one of his papers is currently the #1 most-downloaded paper at the American Meteorological Society publications website. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Its wonderful isn't it? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Peer reviewed: FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS by Gerlich, Tscheuschner

In Print:

Preprint: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.136.47.95 (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It is trash. and elsewhere for why William M. Connolley (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

William, this is amusing don't you think? You are constantly asking for peer-reviewed references from "the other side", and yet when one is presented you point at blogspot to supposedly discredit it? Oren0 (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The blogposting is about an article that is almost ready to be submitted. This wiki article is about the controversy which exists mostly outside of the peer reviewed realm, so it doesn't really matter for this article. What matters for this wiki article is if there is some notable dispute going on.

So, if you had a dispute between Al Gore and Inhofe that is widely reported by the media then that could be far more notable than a peer reviwed article by a sceptic that is simply ignored. Count Iblis (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

In figure 7 of William's reference, the caption says CO2 emits "between 800 and 950 cm-1" and in the text it says "CO2 between 600 and 800 cm-1". Which is it? Misplaced Pages says 667 cm−1. Q Science (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if the paper has been published in a peer-reviewed journal then it should definitely be included. However, the International Journal of Modern Physics has it listed as a "Review Paper" . I'm not sure what that means. Does that mean it's in the process of being peer-reviewed? If that's the case, then we should wait for the outcome before including it.--CurtisSwain (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't really addressing the issue from the POV of wiki rules, but from the POV of Truth. G&T is trash; if you read the blog I pointed to you'll find its numerous flaws. I'm interested in Truth. As for You are constantly asking for peer-reviewed references from "the other side" - I think you'll find you are wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Is IJMP considered a respectable (e.g., ISI indexed) journal or is it like E&E? The paper's arguments are utterly daft and its publication represents an alarming failure of the peer review process. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It is a respectable journal, its impact factor is a bit below that of Physical Review, but it is ok. as a physics journal. There was indeed a failure of the peer review process, something the authors were probably gaming for by submitting their paper to a theoretical physics journal that specializes in topics like particle physicsm string theory etc.. Who knows, perhaps Lubos Motl was the referee? Count Iblis (talk)

Don't worry, if Boris or William say that something is trash (from their POV), trashing is what happens, regardless of Wiki rules. You must understand that when William says "I wasn't really addressing the issue from the POV of wiki rules, but from the POV of Truth" (3 paras up; note William's capitals!) he really believes it and therefore feels justified in trashing anything he sees as not conforming to his "Truth". --Damorbel (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

2. "Summary for Policymakers". Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2001-01-20. Retrieved 2007-01-18. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
3. The Trouble with Ozone - by Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D., and Willie Soon, Ph.D. - The Heartland Institute
4. An October Environmental Surprise?
5. ^ Weird Science
6. Ozone - Seasonal
7. "The Trouble with Ozone - by Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D., and Willie Soon, Ph.D. - The Heartland Institute".
8. S. Fred Singer (1996-08-01). "Testimony in the U.S. House of Representatives, on Ozone Depletion". SEPP. Retrieved 2007-02-26.
9. Advancing Science vs. Stagnant Policy: The Case of Assessing Ozone Depletion Risk
10. The Marshall Institute - A Conversation with Dr. Frederick Seitz
11. Children and passive smoking: a review | Journal of Family Practice | Find Articles at BNET.com
12. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. Issued June 26, 2006; accessed June 4, 2007.
13. US Environmental Protection Agency. Template:PDF
14. "Monographs Programme report on SHS". Retrieved 2006-07-26.
15. ""Passive Smoking:How Great a Hazard?"".
16. Fred Guterl (2001-07-23). "The Truth About Global Warming; The forecasts of doom are mostly guesswork, Richard Lindzen argues--and he has Bush's ear". Newsweek. Retrieved 2007-04-20.
17. "Smoked Out: Pundit For Hire", published in The New Republic, accessed 20 September 2006. Also available without subscription at FreePress.net.
18. The EPA and the science of environmental tobacco smoke /
19. Tobacco Control - Sign In Page
20. Cite error: The named reference crichton03aliens was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
21. Fumento, Michael (1997). "Truth about Second-hand Smoke". Retrieved 2007-08-18.
22. Fumento, Michael (22 July 1998). "EPA's Pseudoscience Goes Up in Smoke". Retrieved 2007-08-18.
23. "About GlobalWarming.org". Cooler Heads Coalition. Archived from the original on 2004-06-02. Retrieved 2007-04-24.
24. "Science for Sale? Industry-funded "Consumer" Groups Stand Up for Chemicals". E/magazine. Retrieved 2007-04-24.
25. Resources - The Tobacco Industry - Front Groups and Spokespeople
26. "smh.com.au - Deep pockets behind deep thought". Archived from the original on 2003-08-23.
27. ^ ExxonSecrets Factsheet: The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition
28. Cite error: The named reference autogenerated2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
29. "Our Stolen Future:Tobacco front groups attempt to weaken epidemiology". Retrieved 2008-02-23.
30. "Constructing "Sound Science" and "Good Epidemiology": Tobacco, Lawyers, and Public Relations Firms -- Ong and Glantz 91 (11): 1749 -- American Journal of Public Health". Retrieved 2008-02-23.
31. repeated reference

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Environment articles
• Low-importance Environment articles