Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:::I always wait at least 6 months on new research to let it marinate. My money's that after two months, everyone who cares enough will slam the paper with enough responses on how they royally screwed up their characterization of the physical system that it'll be all over. ] (]) 10:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
:::I always wait at least 6 months on new research to let it marinate. My money's that after two months, everyone who cares enough will slam the paper with enough responses on how they royally screwed up their characterization of the physical system that it'll be all over. ] (]) 10:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
William, you seem to have a POV problem, you have deleted my contribution about you pushing your "Truth" claim (i.e. your POV in Para above). You say "I wasn't (you weren't) really addressing the issue from the POV of wiki rules, but from the POV of Truth" (William's capitals!). That you believe it is the "Truth" is hardly an excuse for putting a POV. You may well believe you have "the POV of Truth" and therefore feel justified in removing something not conforming to your "Truth" but this Wiki article is not the place for such "belief" based activity.
You persistently present the view that there is something called the "]" that leads to ] caused by heat transfer from CO2 in the troposphere (at about 254K) to the Earth's surface (at 288K). This is quite impossible according to common experience and all established science i.e.(]), yet you try to justify it here where you say "Then the radiaton downwards at the sfc is S1 + erU^4. The radiation up is rT^4; hence rT^4=S1+erU^4" Your error is to add a heating effect on the surface from the "radiation downwards", it isn't correct because the presence of a (detectable) radiation field from the CO2 is insufficient condition for downward heat tranfer, the CO2 has to be warmer than the (supposed) heat destination. Thus your position is not supported by any reliable science. Your idea may be supported by thousands of believers in CO2 caused ] and ] but it is not supported by any branch of science dealing with heat, thus criticising the belief forms a valid part of the ]. --] (]) 13:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
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 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?
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)
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
I always wait at least 6 months on new research to let it marinate. My money's that after two months, everyone who cares enough will slam the paper with enough responses on how they royally screwed up their characterization of the physical system that it'll be all over. Awickert (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
