Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by UBeR (talk | contribs) at 19:57, 16 February 2007 (Please stay on topic.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Archives
February 2003 – December 2004 December 2004 – February 2007

Problems with 4AR SPM

It appears Lord Monckton may have rushed into print too early. Since William said he was waiting for my rebuttal, I decided to post a few thoughts even though I have not completed a thorough analysis. Here are the facts as I see them:

1. The 4AR SPM is a political document not based on the science. This is seen first in the reasons given by Christopher Landsea on why he resigned from the IPCC. It is also seen in the fact the science document is not being released until it conforms to the SPM, written by and for policymakers.

Wrong on several counts....--Stephan Schulz 22:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Not true. The statement is accurate on every level. RonCram 13:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

2. In several places, the 4AR SPM does exactly what Landsea was afraid of – it changes the science. Here are some examples:

a. The negative contribution to sea level rise by Antarctic. In the charts, it makes it appear Antarctica is shrinking and adding to sea level rise but ALL of the science indicates Antarctica has more ice now than before.

b. The 4AR SPM has accepted the Mann “Hockey Stick” claim that temperatures are higher now than in the last 1000 years. The Wegman Report sided with McIntyre and McKitrick. National Academy of Sciences Report was polite to Mann but would only say temps are higher now than the last 500 (or was it 600?) years. Other multiproxy studies that produce a hockey stick (Briffa, Wahl and Ammann, etc.) use the same discredited proxies (bristlecones, etc.) the NAS panel rejected. Multiproxy studies have proven not to be robust. By accepting Mann’s reconstruction, the 4AR SPM has distanced itself from the science.

Ron, you have often shown the ability to do some research. Why do you keep blindly repeating crap from sources like the Heartland Institute? Even if you disbelief the "Hockey Stick", there is plenty more evidence to conclude that temperatures are higher now than in the last 1000 years. Even Wegman does not contradict this. Contrary to your claim, the NAS report explicitely confirms it (with a very high certainty for the last 400 years, and lower certainty for the longer period - but still accepting that the balance of evidence is pointing towards this). Bürger and Cubash did not "prove" anything, but they made a number of simulations that suggest more care may be needed. But all 64 simulated reconstructions still show the present much warmer than any other time in the 600 year period they used. And check the SPM language for yourself: "Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least the past 1300 years. Some recent studies indicate greater variability in Northern Hemisphere temperatures than suggested in the TAR, particularly finding that cooler periods existed in the 12 to 14th, 17th, and 19th centuries. Warmer periods prior to the 20th century are within the uncertainty range given in the TAR". This is by no means extremist, and fully compatible with the NAS report. --Stephan Schulz 22:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, you are misrepresenting the NAS Report. They were much kinder to Mann than the Wegman report was (Wegman's committee was made up entirely of statisticians and NAS spent a great deal of time arguing for the value of proxy studies), but the NAS agreed with McIntyre on every disputed scientific point. The NAS agreed the bristlecones were not credible proxies and should not be used. The NAS concluded it was possible temps are warmer now than 1000 years ago but said that Mann's evidence did not prove it. Every reconstruction that shows the MWP was not significant has relied on bristlecones or other unreliable proxies. There is no "independent" support for Mann's work in the true meaning of independent. They all rely on the same sloppy methods and bad data. If the NAS had examined all of the "independent" proxies, they would have come to the same conclusion. Unfortunately, the IPCC has shown itself to be an advocacy organization that is not interested in the real science. They should have checked Mann's work more closely before featuring it in the TAR but now they are truly without excuse.RonCram 13:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

3. The 4AR SPM makes no mention of the report by Bratcher and Giese of a possible shift in climate change regime to pre-1976 conditions. The oceans have cooled since 2003 and surface air temps were lower than expected in 2006. Both of these facts are consistent with the observations and prediction of B+G and were completely ignored by the IPCC.

Sorry, but nobody but you thinks that B&G is significant.

4. The 4AR SPM pretends the oceans are warming when in the fact the oceans have been cooling since 2003. RonCram 03:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Great peer-reviewed source, MSNBC. But no-one claims an even monotonic increase in temperature in all parts of the climate system, as MrRedact points out below. Check out e.g. Image:Short_Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png. While the overall trend is up, there have always been periods up to several years where the temperature drops a but (or even a lot). 1990 was much warmer than 1992 and 1992, for exmple. --Stephan Schulz 22:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

We are not talking about a one-year drop in ocean temps but several years. B+G are predicting a climate shift. The last two climate regimes lasted about 30 years (see response to MrRedact below). The fact the IPCC does not treat B+G as significant is further evidence of advocacy on its part and not attention to science. RonCram 13:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I found an interesting webpage devoted to news clippings of scientists on global climate over the last century. Very interesting reading. Too bad the SPM does not seem to understand the variability of climate. This report makes the same mistakes certain scientists have made for a long time.RonCram 19:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you actually look at it a bit deeper? While nearly all of it is popular press, most of the clippings still refrein from predicting laternate immediate doom. The first two are very general (and still compatibe with current scientific opinion. Absent human interventon, there will be another ice age "one day"). The next one is just cute fluff. Two more from 1923 look like they come from the same press release and promote one expedition without claiming any current climate change, and the "next great deluge" speakes about a time frame of 30000 to 4000 years... --Stephan Schulz 22:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The 4AR SPM never makes the claim that the warming of the oceans has been or will be monotonic, merely that there is a warming trend if you look at the temperatures over the course of a century. If you look at short enough time periods, a plot of any of the variables involved in global climate will show wiggles above and below the overall trend line. For example, a major volcano eruption can cool the lower atmosphere by about 1/2 degree F for one to three years, which is much greater in magnitude than the global warming effect over the course of a couple years. But the effect of a volcano eruption is negligible a century after the eruption, unlike the effect of global warming over the course of a centure. There's something similar with atmospheric CO₂ concentrations. For about 6 months out of every year, atmospheric CO₂ concentrations decrease, during the time when the northern hemisphere is pointing more toward the sun, resulting in plants in the northern hemisphere consuming more CO₂. But it would be incorrect to say "CO₂ concentrations have been decreasing for the past 3 or 4 months, therefore rising CO₂ levels must not be a concern anymore," because the long-term trend if you look over the course of multiple years is definitely that CO₂ concentrations are increaing. I'm not an oceanographer, so I don't know about the kinds of things that cause short-term rises and dips in ocean temperature, but I'm sure it's the same kind of thing. I'm sure William Connelly could give you examples of effects that cause short-term ripples in ocean temperatures. MrRedact 21:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

MrRedact, I suggest you read the Bratcher and Giese paper that has been discussed on the Attribution of recent climate change Talk page. The authors are predicting a return to pre-1976 climate conditions based on their observations of the Pacific Ocean. The two previous climate conditions, 1945-1975 and 1976-2005 lasted about thirty years. I do not think we are talking about a short-term fluctuation here, but a thirty year long climate shift. The fact the oceans began to cool in 2003 and temperatures began to drop in 2006 is consistent with their prediction. RonCram 12:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Place for the "Pro Global Warming" arguement

From what I understand, this page is for the "Global Warming Controversy" not for "Debunking" it. The "Global Warming" Wiki section is pretty well set up for that. Is it too much to ask to keep the sections and the politics between those who don't agree with one side or the other out of the respective section? I have made some edits today, for example, that removed allot of the "yea, but..." junk from some areas of the "Global Warming Controversy" Wiki, because if everything has a "yea but..." on it, its not really "Controversy" is it? If this article is in deed for “Controversy” then that’s what should be here, whether or not environmentalists agree with it.--Zeeboid 19:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

See my explanation in the other section. Also notice that I left the "yea but" you removed out of the article...--Stephan Schulz 20:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting the amount of interest that the editors on wiki seem to have on both sides of an issue. Few politically sensitive articles and their oppsoing piece are not controlled by the same group. It is often hard to tell which article is worse - they are always both pretty bad.

Zeeboid's edits

Hi Zeeboid. I see the purpose of your first edit (the he said/she said style is bad and does not fit the article), the rest of your edits is controproductive. There is indeed a consensus about global warming in the scientific community (see scientific opinion on climate change and attribution of recent climate change) that has just been reinforced by the IPCC AR4 SPM release (and will be further explained in the full AR4 reports later this year). The number of scientists opposing this consensis is small - there are about 3000 scientists with input into the AR4, uncluding more than 850 authors. There are, if I count correctly, 23 people on List of scientists opposing global warming consensus, and many of these are not even climate scientists. Many others are not active scientists any more and haven't published anything relevant in many years.This is just "a few". --Stephan Schulz 20:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I will put together the information and sources I have on my other computer and layout an explanation of why the way its written is incorrect. The implication of the way the opening is worded appears as if there is no reason to have a "Global Warming Controversy" page.--Zeeboid 20:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I am still ammassing the info, but does this help to refute the "few" scitentists part and the "Consensus about global warming in the scientific community" part and the "number of scientists opposing this consensis is small" part? List of over 17,200 scientists who have signed the following statement:

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

Would it be helpful to have the individual names of each scientist on the List of scientists opposing global warming consensus, as I can add them if you think that would help correct some of this.--Zeeboid 18:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the infamous Oregon Petition, which already has its own article. Raymond Arritt 19:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and as demonstrated by Stephan Schulz, without the names spelled out on the List of scientists opposing global warming consensus, people end up with an incorrect count (as Stephan Schulz counted 23) of the number of scientists in opposition to the "Consensus". The number of signatures on the wiki link is 19,700 and if Stephan Schulz (heavy wiki editor) can miscount the number of PHDs apposed down to 23, and use that to support the opposition to the wording that I had corrected, then apparently it Is not clear enough. So, it has been demonstrated that the names NEED to be spelled out, and that there is not a "consensus" about human caused global warming, and that there is not "a few" scientists against it. Correct? after all, 19700 opposed is Greater then the 3000 who contributed to the IPCC AR4 SPM release...--Zeeboid 19:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Signatories to the Oregon Petition includes such illustrious scientists as Sexy Spice (Geri Halliwell), Dr. B.J. Hunnicutt (one of the surgeons on M*A*S*H), and a "Dr. Redwine", whoever that may be. I'll enthusiastically agree that those three names should be added to the list of scientists opposing the global warming consensus. Raymond Arritt 19:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you refuting all 19700 signatures because of those three examples? Are you willing to say that it is impossible that someone with a PHD could have names that resemble or duplicate the names of fictional characters or actors or singers?--Zeeboid 19:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about all 19700. Just make sure those three are at the top of the list. Raymond Arritt 19:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

So then, the three on the list you do not believe, but the other 19697 you do believe? Also, Are you willing to say that it is impossible that someone with a PHD could have names that resemble or duplicate the names of fictional characters or actors or singers?--Zeeboid 19:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I didn't say anything about the other 19697 one way or the other, just Geri Halliwell, B.J. Hunnicutt, and "Dr. Redwine". If you're convinced that they are coincidentally the names of qualified scientists then they should be easy enough for you to track down. Please be prompt; we're waiting... Raymond Arritt 20:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Prompt answer below, but you still have not answered the questions I asked as far as wether or not you believe it to be impossible for someone to have the last name "Redwine" or a name that is shared between more the one person.--Zeeboid 20:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The Oregon Petition does not help refute the "few scientists" because it's not, in fact, a reliable list of scientists; this is well documented. You don't necessarily need to spell out the names individually, you just need to use reliable, verifiable sources. Also note that the petition does not say global warming is not primarily caused by humans; it says there's no evidence for "catastrophic heating" caused by humans. --Nethgirb 19:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

In the Global Warming argument, the heat island effect is minimized by altering the measured data by the scientist's guestimate of what the alteration of the surface temperature by the heat island effect would be. If there are some false signatures in the Oregon Petition, could this not be corrected in the same way?

According to what the scientific American said in your well documented link, 3 out of 30 sampled were accurate. Using this example, then 1970 of the 19700 would be accurate. even at 10% of the signatures on the list, that is far from "a few," correct?

has anyone here scrutinized the signatures of the 3000 signatures on the IPCC AR4 SPM release in the same way? Perhaps only 10% of those signatures are valid as well. This should be looked into.

as far as the “catastrophic heating” comment… this is a poor attempting to play on semantics. Global Warming is Global Heating is Climate Change. To be more specific, it says that our output of greenhouse gasses is not or will not cause a disruption to the Earth’s climate. To quote the petition AGAIN:

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

Are you also refuting not only the signatures, but the data in the Oregon Petition? And what about the ? This has been signed by 80 academics and 25 weather presenters. should they be added to the list as well? were you using those examples when counting to "23?" What about the other "five prominent efforts intended to show that a "scientific consensus" does not exist on the subject of global warming" that is listed under that Wiki article about the Oregon Petition?--Zeeboid 19:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This is all a complete waste of time. Many of the OP sigs are dodgy, but that hardly matters, because the petition is largely consistent with the IPCC position, which doesn't predict catastrophic heating either. So no problem William M. Connolley 20:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You are very wrong here, as I would argue that the IPCC position and the OP position are far from consistent, as the IPCC didn't say "there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” Would you like to re-phrase your comment to something more accurate?--Zeeboid 20:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems you have not actually read the IPCC reports... Raymond Arritt 20:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter to anyone that the IPCC excludes anyone that is "skeptical"? Even with that 'stacking the deck' they still downgraded their alarms (when compared to the TAC). That is like removing Clubs and Spades from a deck of playing cards, dealing the cards again and then proclaiming how great your luck is because you keep getting red cards.

Also rather dubious is how the summaries are (a) for 'policy makers' though coming out months in advance of the actual reports, thus meaning policies should be made/altered without having the full reports available, (b) have significant differences from the actual reports (though with the removal of opposition from the panel this is becoming less of a problem--kind of like a homogenous Germany, eliminate opposition and everyone remaining eventually will agree), (c) are released with fanfare while very little fanfare is used for the actual reports.

I have read the reports, but I also understand that a flawed process of panel selection destroys the credibility of the study and conclusion. A fact of scientific methodology that I know Global Warming alarmists will ignore or dismiss.

-- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 20:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

IPCC participants are nominated by their national governments. (Sorry, it's not a sooper-seekrit cabal of global warming alarmists in black helicopters.) It defies credulity that the George Bush administration is "stacking the deck" in the way that you propose. Raymond Arritt 20:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

What is your source for that. I mean, I want to know the name of the people doing the nominating for the US, UK and, whichever other nations have a say in the IPCC panel creation, just out of curiosity. However, considering the methods of silencing opposition being used globally (the USA included) and the SOP by Wikipedians of REVERTING edits if they intimate at all facts contrary to absolute allegiance to Al Gore's vision of Global Warming, I tend to believe the numerous scientists who saying that such a blacklisting is occurring. I mean, we're talking about a group of people that want AMS certifications stripped, jobs to be lost, etc simply for not being a member of the Global Warming Alarmists community. -- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 21:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

For the call for IPCC AR4 participation by the U.S. government (you know, the one headed by George W. Bush and his clique of rabid environmentalists), click here. Raymond Arritt 21:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that link was about the nomination process. I missed (1) the part that said who decides on the actual panel members for the IPCC (not the US delegation), and (2) the part that says Bush did the nominations, sorted through them or even had a say in the selection. -- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 21:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

How does the statement "there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth" logically contradict the IPCC report? The IPCC report only discusses changes in climate. It doesn't contain any discussion of how climate change may positively or negatively affect various species of plants and animals.

By the way, the statement "increases in atmospheric CO₂ produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth" doesn't even logically contradict the statement "increases in atmospheric CO₂ produce many harmful effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth." It's all a matter of perspective, i.e., which species you're talking about, in what location. A climate change can cause one species to proliferate, which is beneficial to that species. But the same exact climate change can cause another species to go extinct, which is harmful to that species. MrRedact 22:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

To quote the Oregon Petition, which it appears people are dismissing without reading: "Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist."

So, we're down to 17,800 scients who have been independently verified to not agree with Human Caused Global Warming. Is that enough to support the edits to the article I made earlier changing "A Few scients don't agree" to "many scients don't agree" ammong other changes? Also, Did you Raymond Arritt, actual read the Oregon Petition? Because I have read much of the IPCC.--Zeeboid 20:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No, we're down to an assertion of independent verification but no evidence for said verification at all. You're awfully trusting when it suits you to be. Now, as to the text of the petition: notice how easily you slip from what it says to what you want it to say. It doesn't say to not agree with Human Caused Global Warming - those are your words. You're abandoning the catastrophic warming bit, it seems, as not contradicting the IPCC (even though you quoted it as such earlier) and are left with only the "greening the earth" bit? William M. Connolley 21:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

After your edits, the The neutrality of this article is disputed. It is quite clear that there is only one side that many here wish to view, even though in Science, the deffinition of what IS ACTUAL science is something that stands up to open dispute. The edit history on a page set up for the Global warming controversy shows that an open dispute of the topic is far from what is going on.--Zeeboid 21:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverted references to www.newsmax.com as self declares as a POV source. There is no way it looks like a reliable source for this kind of thing. --BozMo talk 21:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Was the data incorrect, or did you not agree with the way the site "looked"?--Zeeboid 22:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The other source, worldnetdaily.com, is of equally illustrious scientific rigor. (A recent headline: "Stunning documentary links Darwin, Hitler.") I used to have to listen to late-night shortwave radio or mail order for this stuff, but with the Internet it's available any time. Raymond Arritt 22:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Was the data incorrect, or did you not agree with the way the site "looked"?--Zeeboid 22:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

See WP:RS. Raymond Arritt 22:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would you refute sources that do not suit your opinion, and yet also not take down ones like these, which are currently listed:

Exxon Secrets.org? Democracy Now.org? Mother Jones.com? MonBiot.com? Sheldon Rampton's World? --Zeeboid 22:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

What about the source then that is refrenced Sci American that listed back when this study was done (when there were half of the scientists that is listed on the site now as having PHDs in related fields) that

" Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers--a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community."

200 is quite a bit higher then the 23 listed by those of you who have been completly unwilling to read this information! and as I said, that was then. this information, as all informaiton, is updated over time, and there are twice the listed "Related PHDs" then there were when Sci-American reviewed this. This type of item is the exact reason this is now under review. No one here who has an alternate opinion to the data that is comming out, is just hiding it. there is no discussion, there is no alteration, there is no Improvement, just Deletion. And this is against WIKI's standards and rules. Improve upon what is here, not remove what you don't agree with.--Zeeboid 03:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Connolley's revert

Connolley reverted edits with no explanation. I put my edits back and would like to remind Connolley of a few things regarding reverts. From the Revert policies and guidelines.

"Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously."

Cannot say if this was done or not, but in light of the following items you can draw your own conclusions.

"Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism."

The edits that were reverted were not in any manner able to be construed as vandalism.

"If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it."

As I mentioned, there was no summary explanation and if an explanation of the revert was made in the talk page then I missed it as it was NOT its own subject and would have been buried somewhere else.

"If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it."

This is pretty self-explanatory. The revert was done to remove content that, prima facia, opposes the views of ONE side of the discussion on this page. Nothing more than that.

Let us review some more from the Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines about revert wars (which, basically are

Revert wars are usually considered harmful for the following reasons:
   1. They disrespect the work of the contributor. Being reverted can feel a bit like a slap in the face: "I worked hard on those edits, and someone just rolled it all back"
   2. They cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles
   3. They make the page history less useful, waste space in the database
   4. They make it hard for other people to contribute, and flood recent changes and watchlists
Editors are discouraged to revert because there is disagreement, or the edit is bad or problematic. Users are encourage to explore alternate methods like raising the objections on a talk page, or following the processes in dispute resolution.

Someone that is a member of the "Harmonious Editing Club should know better.

However, this is not an isolated incident. Just going through talk pages one will notice that ] to develop.

. -- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 21:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

William W. Connolley has stated before he is unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages's policies. This is troubling and often interferes with the normal processes which should take place prior to his edits. I'm starting to wonder if this "admin" understands what a NPOV is.~ UBeR 04:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I reverted some of William M. Connolley's big changes that pushed a spicific POV back into the intro of the article.--Zeeboid 19:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverted the changes once again, this time from Stephan Schulz on Connolley's behaf. ADMIN POV PUSHING. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zeeboid (talk • contribs) 19:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Reverted edits

I will ask this only one time...and I'm looking for answers from each of you.

User:Raymond_arritt, User:BozMo and User:William_M._Connolley:

1. Explain why you reverted the edits (essentially deleting them) as oppossed to improving them?

2. What policy was violated to cause you to justify reverting?

3. What other avenues of correction/improving did you take before reverting?

The reverts I am referencing are:

1. (cur) (last) 16:53, February 12, 2007 BozMo (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by Zeeboid (talk) to last version by Raymond arritt)
2. (cur) (last) 16:38, February 12, 2007 Raymond arritt (Talk | contribs) (→Funding of believers - delete unencyclopedic ranting and raving unsupported by reliable sources)
3. (cur) (last) 16:08, February 12, 2007 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) m (rv Zeeboid and Mynyakko)

-- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 22:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

As above, get some reliable sources please:

Reverted references to www.newsmax.com as self declares as a POV source. There is no way it looks like a reliable source for this kind of thing. --BozMo talk 21:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The other source, worldnetdaily.com, is of equally illustrious scientific rigor. (A recent headline: "Stunning documentary links Darwin, Hitler.") I used to have to listen to late-night shortwave radio or mail order for this stuff, but with the Internet it's available any time. Raymond Arritt 22:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

So, your positions are that you deleted the edits because the information about funding of global warming 'believers' was not from a "scientific" source? (also, you did not answer the other questions) -- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 22:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I reverted you because your edit didn't appear to be serious . Global Warming industry isn't even pretending to be NPOV. The source you quote from is hopelessly biased. Rants about scientists being pressurised into silence are far too common, and always badly sourced William M. Connolley 22:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I speak only for me of course. For me reliable was the issue: see WP:RS. newsmax.com is such a bad site it keeps coming up on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam. Also the drop-in wasn't terribly well written, and had been reverted in twice which decreases the odds the author might be prepared to put the work in to improve it. Personally I don't have any problem about including issues of funding for Global Warming scientists and any significant allegations of intimidation. But raise it properly and discuss it properly. --BozMo talk 22:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"keeps coming up on..." I used your link to check on your claim. There was 1 reference to NewsMax and it was about a user that used only NewsMax sources and in large quantity. The only item that comes up regularly is a constant effort to remove NewsMax from Misplaced Pages...the article referencing the news organization itself, baseless efforts to discount the organization itself, etc. So, please explain again what you meant with "newsmax.com is such a bad site it keeps coming up on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam", because quite honestly as I compile your comments and reverts throughout Misplaced Pages it seems more and more like a strong case of your own biases being exercised against content you do not agree with and users who provide that content. -- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 03:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

My reasoning was similar to that of WMC and BozMo. Again, please see WP:RS. You might also have a look at WP:V, WP:WTA, WP:NOT#SOAP, and probably a half dozen others that I can't think of at the moment. Raymond Arritt 22:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Still do not see why you all DELETED content rather than corrected it. That seems to be the part you three do not want to answer. Should I point out again the policies your reverts went against or would you rather just answer why you DELETED instead of IMPROVED. -- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 22:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It was so full of holes that repairing was not a reasonable course; there would have been nothing left. Sort of the Misplaced Pages version of a 1971 Chevrolet Vega. Raymond Arritt 22:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, bit harsh maybe. But you reverted in the same text twice without trying to adapt it in the face of criticism so maybe you should answer your own question about trying to improve it? --BozMo talk 22:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thats because the best someone had come up with for a reason not to allow it was: "Funding of believers - delete unencyclopedic ranting and raving unsupported by reliable sources" which doesn't sound much diffrent then the links to Exxon Secrets.org Democracy Now.org Mother Jones.com MonBiot.com Sheldon Rampton's World. you can't in the same breath defend any of those (which you defended based on your inaction when it came to their removal) and still speek out against the others. Nor did you attempt to fix it. This still comes down to soposid "Admins" DELETING information rather then IMPROVE it.--Zeeboid 02:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism from biased viewpoints does not offer feedback for reverting edits. Simply put, you do not like the sources and it has nothing to do with if they are credible or not. They are to you what the New York Times is to me...biased and agenda driven over content.

The bottom line is that you three chose to delete content rather than fix the content. We can play the insipid 'you violated this and that' game. In the end you deleted content which, based on your User pages and your comments in this and other articles, disagrees with your personal viewpoints. So, decide now...will we apply the standards you have set forth in deciding to delete content or will you put the content back and discuss it (and "make it better") like adults that can accept disagreements? Your chance to set which standard of "source credibility" and content entrance is up to you. I will abide by those standards and do so in a way you have not...by applying them to both sides of the discussion.

There is plenty of content in this article alone which fails to meet the standards you have set forth when justifying deletion of content that disagrees with your POV. So, the standards you three have provided is this: (1) must not be biased source (according to the person deciding on the revert), (2) must have been discussed PRIOR to being placed in the article, (3) sources must be a "scientific" source, (4) must be deleted (not fixed) if the above 3 conditions are not met (according to the person deciding to delete the content), (5) assume the author of content you disagree with is 'not serious'. I am betting none of you three will acknowledge the double standard that is in existance on this article and its talk page, thus you will not replace the edits that were deleted. As such, I will also conclude from that lack of replacement that you have chosen to have the standards applied to my edits to also be applied across the board, instead of having the standards offered to your POV to be applied across the board. As such, a list of content on this article which fits the standards you have exhibited today will be forthcoming...just so that it is all out in the open PRIOR to action being taken (a courtesy not extended to my edits).

Each of your reverts ignore the Do's and Dont's of Reverts.

1. Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute.
2. Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end."
3. Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly.
4. ...it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of what appears to be biased material will not be induced to change it, editors have sometimes taken the step of transferring the text in question to the talk page itself, thus not deleting it entirely.
5. Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate.
6. Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.
7. If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it.
8. If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.

That would be all 5 of the "dont's" and 3 of the 4 "do's" (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt on the 4th, that you took the reverts 'seriously' even though this seems to be a pattern for years for some of you, a pattern that has been before the arbitration board).

I can see that you folks would rather delete facts that do not support your points of view rather than allowing a presentation of the whole story. That is especially galling when it occurs on a page specifically about the controversy on the topic, and will stop at nothing in doing so. The shame is you are affecting the credibility of Misplaced Pages. And it doesn't take long for the internet or radio waves to spread the word (and documentation) of how Misplaced Pages participates in the slighting of controversial topics. Rather than admit and correct your biased deletions of content (which you have already admitted to doing, btw, thank you very much) you choose to rationalize the double standards applied in this article. -- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 03:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Could either of you so called admins explain how the deletion of information instead of the correction or improvement of the differing views about the Global warming controversy falls into the " WikiProject Climate Change, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Misplaced Pages related to climate change and global warming."?--Zeeboid 03:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No objection at all so long as it's supported using verifiable statements by reliable sources and presented using neutral fashion. Pete, you and Tony have been advised on WP:RS before (in the Race to the Right RfD), and really need to recognize that it's a core tenet of Misplaced Pages. Raymond Arritt 03:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Advised yes, so it is clear that we understand what we were advised on. The problem though is you, and others ( William M. Connolley who has been warned here before not to get into revert wars) removed information instead of correcting it, or talking about it, or asking that it be fixed. You, User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]], do really need to recognize that the core tenant of Misplaced Pages (including articles that are part of Misplaced Pages Projects) is about sharing as much information as possible. That is the whole point of this site. According to Wiki's introduction, this site asks users to "Find something that can be improved, whether content, grammar or formatting, and make it better." but all this group of so called admins are interested in doing (based on their actions) is limiting the information, no matter the source, to a topic that agrees with their opinions on this topic. Again, we come back to the "Improve, not DELETE" The bottom line here is you all have REFUSED to improve on this "Global Warming Controversy" topic, to limit "Controversial" items that are posted here. The entire tone of the article even displays this. Multiple users have listed items with verifiable sources, that you don't agree with, and even though many of the sources listed are of good quality, you still just "don't seam to agree" with what they say, so you delete them. This goes against what Misplaced Pages stands for. If I was wrong, you all would have edited what was posted that is "Controversial" to the "concessions" to improve upon it, instead of DELETING it. Your Actions speak far more accurately then any of you can, and this is exactly why requests for moderation and flags for the neutrality of this article have been requested.--Zeeboid 04:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, seriously, if you cannot see how biased the reverts were then this is pointless (discussing anything at all with you). The entire article is biased. The reverts are one-sided. The interpretation of "verifiable sources" is selectively applied in a biased manner.

Warned previously, yes, and considering we were both new it goes to show how wonderfully embracing the Misplaced Pages community is, especially to new people that do not march lock-step with the selective-application of Misplaced Pages's policies.

So, how is the best way to proceed? We have two choices within Misplaced Pages, as I see it. One, we take these standards that are currently being selectively applied and put the entire article, phrase by phrase to them. No hair-splitting, no exclusions, inclusions or exceptions. You have applied general standards...and those are what should be used throughout this article. Two, arbitration, which is not a fun process if it is even accepted. And considering how well admins stack the deck for themselves I would not be surprised to read more juicy rationalizations justifying 2-weeks probation for the biased reverters and 6-months for the users with different views that are being censored.

Frankly, you can point me to whichever sets of abbreviated policies you have sifted through to find ones that somehow apply magically to support deleting 'newsmax' but keeping some of the other pulp used as a source here. I can do the same...though I think the most applicable is the Revert page. That one has 5 Dont's and 4 Do's...of those 9 items every single revert has violated no less than 8.

So, how do you propose we fix the double standard? Restore the edit y'all have wantonly deleted; or revert all of the edits that fit the same criteria; or request arbitration? I can tell you which one actually strives towards making the article better...and it has nothing to do with reverts, deletes, rollbacks, censoring dissent, etc. -- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 04:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"It demeans the purpose of a encyclopedia, which is not to advance a particular theory, but to present the browser with the current state of knowledge. Misplaced Pages is not here to say what is the truth, it is not here to evangelise your idea, it is here to provide a summary of what is being said—even if you don't like it." ~ UBeR 04:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources not sufficient

As set forth earlier today, text based on sources that are not "scientific" should be deleted. Here is the first part of a list of text that qualifies and should be deleted immediately. Reasons for the deletions are provided (in greater detail than previously provided).

1. "Global warming is an even more central and sustained issue for the European Union. Both 'global warming' and the more politically neutral 'climate change' were listed as political buzzwords or catch phrases in 2005." --Source is 'hopelessly biased' including its top article for 2/12/07 "Top Bushisms of 2006"; also is of 'illustrious scientific rigor' on the same scale as previously deleted texts.
2. "However, in Europe, the global-warming theory has gained wider acceptance than in many other parts of the world, most notably the United States." --No source at all...the standard on this article is to have solid writing and sourcing or have the content deleted.
3. "Kevin E. Trenberth provides evidence for the controversy that occurs when science meets the political arena...greenhouse-gas concentrations."" --IPCC's bias is in question, especially from its earlier years (inc. this source from 2001)
4. "A 2006 op-ed by Richard Lindzen in The Wall Street Journal challenged the claim that scientific consensus had been reached on the issue, and listed the Science study as well as other sources, including the IPCC and NAS reports, as part of "a persistent effort to suggest . . .that the theoretically expected contribution from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected."" --WSJ is not a "scientific source" and is a biased news service.
5. "Gas bubbles trapped in ice cores give us a detailed record of atmospheric chemistry and temperature back more than eight hundred thousand years, with the temperature record confirmed by other geologic evidence." --BBC is a biased news service.
6. "The recent rise in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is greater than any in hundreds of thousands of years..." --AAAS rec'd $135 billion in 2006 in research grants leaving to fair question the bias of their reporting (similar to the criticism of those receiving money from oil companies and researching global temperature fluctuations).
7. "...and this is human-caused, as shown by the isotopic signature of CO2 from fossil fuels." --unsourced and no definitive, unbiased, uncontested source provided.
8. "The historical temperature record shows a rise of 0.4–0.8 °C over the last 100 years." --unsourced
9. "Climate models can reproduce the observed trend only when greenhouse gas forcing is included." --source is biased, obtains over $30MM for 2007 in research grants
10. "Humankind is performing a great geophysical experiment, and if it turns out badly—however that is defined—we cannot undo it. We cannot even abruptly turn it off. Too many of the things we are doing now have long-term ramifications for centuries to come." --Not a statement of fact, not encyclopedic
11. "The current warming trend will accelerate when melting ice exposes more dark sea and land that will reflect less sunlight; and when the tundra thaws and releases large quantities of trapped greenhouse gases." --source is Misplaced Pages, which is being proven to be biased relating to controversial topics.
12. "Atlantic, hurricane trends have been recently linked to climate change." --source is requires registration; ignores the fact that there were zero hurricanes to make landfall in 2006 thus making the claim dubious at best. Submission thus must not be serious.
13. "Betting over global warming...A number of scientists have proposed bets with global warming skeptics concerning whether future temperatures will increase. With the exception of two Russian physicists betting $10,000 that the average global temperature during 2012-2017 would be lower than during 1998-2003, all other skeptics have either refused to bet on terms that pay out before the year 2100, have refused all bets, or, like Richard Lindzen, have only accepted odds that indicate temperatures that are much more likely to increase rather than to decrease." --sources are either not encyclopedic or are 'hopelessly biased'. POV or poorly written, the section adds little to the advancement of the content of article and poorly states that global warming alarmists want their wagers to be based on short term payouts while global warming skeptics want the wager based on the long term results.
14. "The BBC's long-running current affairs series Panorama recently investigated the issue, and was told that "scientific reports about global warming have been systematically changed and suppressed."" --source maintains a bias for pro-global warming articles/stories and is thus not credible enough for encyclopedic purposes.
15. "According to an Associated Press release of 30 January 2007 ...to delete reference to "global warming" or "climate change" from a report.”" --AP is the same news organization that was discovered to doctor photographs and stories to suit their political agendas, source is not credible and is 'hopelessly biased'.

That is just the tip of the iceberg.

Understand that I am presenting the content that fits your criteria. You have subjectively applied some rationalizations for deleting/censoring content and using the same standards I compiled this first list of qualifying content for removal. The only question is which standard do you choose to be applied EQUALLY and without splitting hairs: delete content that is questionable, poorly written, etc OR fix the content? Do we restore the content you DELETED or do we remove these texts of equal qualifications? Just as you dismiss outright the validity of my sources, the validity of these sources is also equally disqualified. -- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 04:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Let us not forget, the subjectively applied rationalizations for deleting/censoring content, if true, should apply to ALL OF WIKIPEDIA, not just this subject.--Zeeboid 04:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"It demeans the purpose of a encyclopedia, which is not to advance a particular theory, but to present the browser with the current state of knowledge. Misplaced Pages is not here to say what is the truth, it is not here to evangelise your idea, it is here to provide a summary of what is being said—even if you don't like it." ~ UBeR 05:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I am exiting this conversation, because however reasonable and engaging we are you people or person seem to come back with personal attacks about bias. I have no financial interest in Global Warming, but considerable financial interest in exactly the opposite. I never said sources had to be scientific only reliable. I am also not an owner or indeed contributor to the current article; it has loads of issues with it but the fact some sections are bad doesn't justify putting in other bad sections or weak content. You don't seem to want to help the article just pick a fight. However I will continue to revert changes which make the article (even) lower quality. None of your changes in my view made the article incrementally better. --BozMo talk 08:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I also strongly suggest you apologise for the personal attacks above. --BozMo talk 08:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There was a trio of people who made reverts yesterday. All of the reverts ignored 7 of the 8 "do's and dont's" of Revert policies. And taken together with the one-sided manner in which the standards have been applied throughout this article alone demonstrate an incredible bias. If those are the personal attacks you refer to then I apologize for the ones which specifically do not apply to you individually. -- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 14:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

In my turn, I accept you are right and I was wrong on one issue: Newscast has only had one significant entry at Wikispam, albeit very recent: it did look like a straightforward link campaign by an employee but given the stated slant of the journal it could be just a "supporter". But please accept it is a rubbishy news source, go and look. Something as important as bullying toward consensus is bound to be reported in proper places (e.g. the Daily Telegraph has a strong anti-Global Warming bias but is still regard as reliable in its reporting of non scientific matters like reported bullying). --BozMo talk 08:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

NewsMax is a legitimate news aggregator. The list, at this point, of the "Inside Cover" headlines for today: New York's 9/11 Freedom Tower May Go Private, Bank of America Offers Credit Cards to Illegals, Rudy Giuliani: Move Calif. Primary to February, Navy May Deploy Anti-Terrorism Dolphins, God, Darwin Clash Again in Kansas, Joe Kennedy's 'Shameless Support' of Hugo Chavez, Mitt Romney to Officially Enter 2008 Race. These stories came from AP, CNS and Reuters. Any news aggregator and news outlet has stories that could give an opponent fodder to claim they are illegitimate. I have not seen the evidence to warrant labeling NewsMax as 'rubbishy' while not leaving Yahoo, AP or Reuters as equally 'rubbishy'. They have editorials, sure, which by the very nature of editorials are always suspect as far as news content (just read the MPLS Star Tribune for examples of editorials absolutely devoid of fact). That does not necessarily reflect on the news department. NewsMax to you is what the NY Times or AP is to me. We will not change each other, but we should recognize that both sources are equally legitimate. -- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 14:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

BozMo is right here. I don't agree with many of Tony's assertions discrediting various sources, but it certainly is true that this article is poorly written and contains quite a lot of unsourced statements on both sides. But two wrongs don't make a right. I suspect that a lot of the removal of edits that goes on here happens because some people are trying to make sure that at least no more unencyclopedic material gets put in the article. --Nethgirb 10:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The article has been continually handicapped by back-and-forth POV pushing by both sides. Raymond Arritt 13:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Nethgirb says: " lot of the removal of edits...here happens because...people are trying to make sure that at least no more unencyclopedic material gets put in the article." Uh, two problems with this. One, if "unencylopedic material" exists already it should be fixed or deleted. Two, if new material gets deleted without tagging it or fixing it then there is a problem with one-sided application of standards.

I would not have a problem with edits being removed for whatever general reason if the same were true of the 'other side' of the issue. Take one specific example from yesterday (though, scores are available as the beginning of my list shows). Content was deleted because someone assumed the editor did not "appear to be serious". That can easily be said of entire sections in this article. Another example is the removal of 'oppossing' content because the sources were not "scientific" enough while leaving 'supporting' content in with a "citation needed" tag. THAT double standard pollutes this article and it is exactly THAT which has me speaking out. (It is especially onerous that this is occurring on a page about the controversy.) -- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 14:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Funding of global warming theorists"

I've removed this section added by Mnyakko. It starts out with baseless accustations by Jim "Global Warming is the greatest Hoax" Inhofe, ends with a similiar one from James Spann (best known for the weather channel fight he is involved in), and the middle two paragraphs contain raw research dollar figure for research by "global warming theorists" (in other words, everyone but the tiny minority that are the skeptics) - meaningless given the group size. Raul654 05:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Its gone back in. So, I didn't remove it this time but tried to make it clear what it is. I think these claims are notable and the article is about the controversy. --BozMo talk 09:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Funding from Exxon is part of the controversy, but such funding issues should be discussed in the same context with monetary motivations by the pro-AGW group. The pro-AGW group gets much more funding that Exxon gives out. Plus, the best anti-AGW science is not being done by Exxon funded scientists. Giese, Lindzen, McIntyre, Svensmark, Veizer, Von Storch... these people do not take money from Exxon. Yes, I know these scientists are not all hard core anti-AGWers, but they have all published research that supports the cause. I will gladly put the quality of their work up against Mann, Hansen or Jones any day of the week. RonCram 13:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Supports "the cause" -- from which we gather you're here to promote a specific point of view? (And classifying von Storch as "anti-AGW" is absurd.) Raymond Arritt 14:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, I specifically said they are not all anti-AGW. Von Storch is someone who cares about getting the science right. That alone means some of his research supports then anti-AGW cause. For example, Von Storch was critical of Mann and his attempt to photoshop the WMP out of climate history.RonCram 18:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, so now you're equating "getting the science right" to "supporting the anti-AGW cause." Glad to see you don't have any preconceived conclusions... Raymond Arritt 18:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, this is tiresome. Von Storch is interested in getting the science right. He is not like Michael Mann, et al, who were caught red-handed with sloppy methods, fudged data and failure to report results that were contrary to conclusions. Because Von Storch will not fudge his data, his conclusions may not always take him into the same camp. So while Von Storch himself holds to AGW, he was able to publish a piece that was critical of Mann. The piece he published did support the anti-AGW cause. Why is that so hard for you to understand? RonCram 18:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not hard to understand at all. If I'm reading you correctly, you're now stating that unbiased science may coincidentally support the anti-AGW camp. No problem there. Had you had said that plainly at the outset, instead of saying von Storch was performing "anti-AGW science" and then stating "getting the science right alone means some of his research supports the anti-AGW cause", we wouldn't be disputing the matter. Raymond Arritt 18:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Funding as a possible scientific "pollutant" is an interesting topic. Has anyone found a correlation between (1) source of funding and (2) conclusions given, in research related to climate?

I've heard that Canada and the U.S. provide over half a billion dollars annually to fund pro-GWT research. How much is the budget for anti-GWT research? (GWT = global warming theory) --Uncle Ed 15:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Why your insistence that research be divided into pro- and anti-AGW camps? Do you really find it incomprehensible that a researcher can approach a topic without preordained conclusions? Raymond Arritt 16:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Raymond Arritt asked: "Do you really find it incomprehensible that a researcher can approach a topic without preordained conclusions?" I would suggest the answer to your question lies more with the people who constantly use source of funding in an attempt to discredit GWT opponents. It is obvious that those who attach 'big-oil' to 'opponents' find it "incomprehensible that a researcher can approach a topic without preordained conclusions"; yet when pointing out the amount of research funding that pours into GWT proponents the response is cliche: 'one can do good research independent of the views of the benefactors.' Additionally I find it interesting that the 'oil'&'opponents' links include passive, indirect and old ties counting those as entirely discrediting. Meanwhile the 'global warming industry/research funding'&'proponents' links have parsing to exclude passive, indirect, nebulous or old ties counting them as illegitmate links. BTW, that occurs with recent edits on this article. -- Tony of Race to the Right 18:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed, apparently Bush is very keen on pro-GWT research. How anyone believes that is beyond me. But this is a common skeptic canard. Most (all?) of the research money is distributed n scientific merit (apart from pork like bridge-building in Alsaka, of course) William M. Connolley 16:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I would be pretty surprised if much funding was tied to being "pro-GWT". At least it doesn't work like that with Government funding in the UK. The US I am not so sure, but it seems unlikely. More likely that of the open research funding of half a billion dollars almost all researchers ended up concluding pro GWT... which is kind of the opposite? --BozMo talk 16:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

My understanding, based on my the way the money works for my own research group, is that there are two ways to get government funding. There are competitive grants given by the NSF - you write a proposal, they read yours and a bunch of others (and I believe there may be peer review involved here), and decide on the basis of what is proposed who gets the money. There are also non-competitive line-item appropriations (where 99.99% of so-called "pork barrel" appropriations come from) for research. Line-item appropriations for research are considered taboo. Raul654 18:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Gore's bad science

Interesting article in Human Events, a conservative weekly publication that has been around for decades. I guess it should not have been news to me that Gore was such a poor science student in college, but it was. According to one observer, now even the NY Times is telling Al Gore to "cool his jets."RonCram 14:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

And this is relevant to the present article... how? Raymond Arritt 14:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

How is it relevant? It is relevant because Gore is controversial. It is relevant because the Times telling him to back off is probably controversial. As I understand it, this page is about the controversy. RonCram 18:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If the NYT has information as to why Gore should back off a bit it could become the article.

Abstracts

Do article abstracts say things like, "This article affirms/denies the theory of anthropogenic global warming?"

Or is it more like, "We examine the relationship of cosmic rays to cloud formation, and the consequent effects on global average air temperature. Changes in the sun's magnetism are found to affect the amount of sunshine which reaches the earth's surface."

Would the latter be counted as one of 928 abstracts not contradicting the GW consensus? --Uncle Ed 14:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Good questions. I'm interested to hear the answers. I have a hunch the latter is counted as not contradicting. Anecdotally speaking I have observed that articles with the word "skeptics" in it count as offering 'the other side'. Even if all that is said is something along the lines of "Skeptics still have their doubts." -- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 15:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Organizations and individuals

I just thought of something. All the advocates on one side or another seem to be either "groups" or "indidivuals". Is it just me, or do the groups tend to be warmers and the individuals skeptics?

I can't think of more than a handful of individual scientists supporting GW theory, but there seem to be dozens of skeptics. And only a couple of small organizations oppose GWT, while the big (gov't-linked) orgs seem overwhelmingly for it.

Is it money, or power over money? Does ideology drive politicians to provide funding?

Are individuals, especially retired scientists, merely people with nothing to lose? --Uncle Ed 16:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Another hypothesis is that there just aren't enough skeptical scientists to form an organization. And what few there are tend to be old because older people tend to have a harder time adapting to new ideas. Also, retired scientists are likely to not be as well-informed about up-to-date information, since they don't keep up-to-date as part of their job anymore. But how specifically does this topic relate to improving the Global Warming Controversy article? MrRedact 17:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are so many "advocates" for the consensus that they do not stand out individually, and we do not list them as such. It's more economical to say "the IPCC" than to list more than 850 active contributors. --Stephan Schulz 21:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That was basically my point in my first sentence. When a large group of professionals come to believe that an important minority viewpoint isn't adequately being presented by the mainstream organizations in their field, they tend to form contrarian organizations to promote the minority viewpoint. For example, in the field of medicine, there's the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, at opposite ends of the political spectrum. If a large number of climate scientists thought that mainstream climate science was way off base, one would presume that they would form an organization to promote their viewpoint. If that were to happen, Misplaced Pages articles about the minority viewpoint would focus on the minority organization, not on a few contrarian individuals. The simplest explanation for why that hasn't happened is that there simply aren't enough sceptical climate scientists to form a meaningful organization. MrRedact 02:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It relates to the motivation for taking sides. In public policy debates, the two top motives are ideology and personal gain. (I neglect for the moment the sincere considered belief that a certain policy would actually be better for all concerned. ;-)

Partisans on both sides of the controversy which the present article describes, have accused each other of bias and corruption. Liberals call skeptics "deniers" (see Holocaust denial) and lose no opportunity of suggesting that Big Oil is funding junk science. The arguments of conservatives are basically equal and opposite.

Organizations can move around huge sums of money without attracting attention, but if an individual or small group gets funding this seems to attract a lot of attention: Joe Blow got ten grand from Exxon.

Shouldn't 'motivation' be described in the article? --Uncle Ed 17:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't equate those who accept the evidence for AGW and those who dismiss it with liberals and conservatives respectively. My observation is that scientists who accept the evidence cover the whole political spectrum while those who dismiss the evidence are overwhelmingly conservative. In other words most skeptics are conservatives, but many conservatives are not skeptics. Outside of the scientific community you're more nearly correct in making this connection. Raymond Arritt 17:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, scientists are not always politically-awake. Outside the scientific community, the average liberal and the average conservative both understand that the IPPC is the UN's Kyoto-support engine and that Kyoto comes mostly to a worldwide wealth-redistribution plan. Everyone's aware that there could have been other solutions (like investing in new technologies), and that's what conservatives want, while liberals want Kyoto for its wealth redistribution effect more than for its oftenly not understood climate change capacities. --Childhood's End 17:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not doing that, Ellen Goodman of the Boston Globe is.

• "American politics has remained polarized. There are astonishing gaps between Republican science and Democratic science. Try these numbers: Only 23 percent of college-educated Republicans believe the warming is due to humans, while 75 percent of college-educated Democrats believe it."

My only extrapolation was to link libs & dems, cons & reps.

But which came first, the chicken or the egg? Are cons biased, and is "most S are C" proof of this?

Correlation is not causation, which reminds me: how are we doing on our writing about the causal link between CO2 levels and air temp? Are there any proxy records showing that one tends to follow the other, or do they both rise and fall together? --Uncle Ed 17:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You need to make it clear when you're talking about scientists (as you were in your original comment above), and when you're talking about nonscientists like Ellen Goodman or the broad population of college-educated Republicans (as you are now). Drifting back and forth from one to another as it suits your purpose does not promote useful discussion. Raymond Arritt 17:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like the article to give percentages of AGW supporters, broken down by

Sun activity fallacy

"...and solar variation. A 2004 study at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany concluded that "the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years" and attributed recent global climate change to this increase in solar activity"

I cannot wait to see how this gets trimmed down and altered so as to create the illusion that it is unworthy of being mentioned. Sadly, this tidbit should be in every single Global Warming article...and I know it would not last 24 hours. -- Tony of Race to the Right 18:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The definition of POV pushing is not letting views which you disagree with, remain in an article. For a 10,000 word article, if 300 words are about a view which opposes the mainstream, this could give the impression that the minority comprises 3%. If the minority is smaller than that, the article should make this fact clear, lest bulk seem to dictate importance.

What do surveys show? Do around 25% of individual scientists have doubts about GWT? (see Max Hans von Storch). Or is it 0.0%? (see Naomi Oreskes). Can the article describe the percentages of climate scientists on each side, or is even this a matter of dispute? --Uncle Ed 19:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh the logical fallacies of appealing to numbers and authority! ~ UBeR 19:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Especially when you can't even get the authority's name right... Raymond Arritt

Thanks for noticing the mis-peeling. Have a banana! :-) --Uncle Ed 19:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Could Uncle Ed or someone please provide a reference for where the 25% figure above comes from? I found von Storch's mention in Spiegel about there being some such survey but there were no details as to who conducted the survey, what the exact questions asked were, what sampling methodology was used, etc. Did someone just ask four climate researchers who happened to be standing around the water cooler at a climate convention? I can't tell from the Spiegel article. MrRedact 20:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's probably the 2003 Bray and von Storch survey, which has "serious methodological difficulties" to put it kindly. Discussed at Scientific opinion on climate change. Raymond Arritt 20:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The section title "sun activity fallacy" perked up my interest. Increased sun activity in recent years is old information - Astronomy magazine mentioned it several years ago. Mars, Venus, etc are all getting warmer - ditto and many other sources. The testiness of the editors seems to betray a flagging confidence. If man is causing some of the current warming I doubt ( I actually saw the percent that manmade activities are supposed to contribute ( forgot where ) but it is not impressive ) that is the cause of the moon's warming up - but that seems to be the consensus of "scientists". Do these "scientists" have degrees?

Percentage of support and scepticism

• General public:: 50-50 (?)
• College-educated registered voters:

  Democrats: 75% accept AGW (Goodman)

  Republicans: 23% accept AGW (Goodman)

• state climatologists: largely natural (44% to 17%) (CSE )
• scientists: ? (Bray & von Storch)

Are these figures accurate? Let's do some googling. --Uncle Ed 19:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Google is the panacea for all of our ails. ~ UBeR 21:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

And what percentage of the scientific community believed the world was flat? Numbers do not make science. It is scary what direction this country is heading when global warming theorists are among the growing list of groups who adopt a "we say so, no discussion allowed" philosophy and are trying to carry that out in legislation. -- Tony of Race to the Right 01:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

We as Misplaced Pages editors aren't responsible for playing scientist and attempting to determine what's true. Our job is to be concerned with verifiability, not truth. And the numbers of scientists who support a given position has a huge amount to do with verifiability. MrRedact 02:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, regarding your comment "It is scary what direction this country is heading": You may not have noticed, but not everyone here is from your country. It's important to keep that in mind in order to try to avoid geographical and nationalistic bias. MrRedact 05:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If the policy of wiki is actually "verifiability, not truth", then wiki is destined to keep on putting out a very low quality product. Much/most of the wiki history articles are worthless, except for the discussion pages. Too bad that the science articles are following the same vein - of course if you can count climatology as a science, at least in present day political conditions.

Content deletion (107865385) by

User:KimDabelsteinPetersen deleted content earlier today from the "Funding of global warming theorist" section. The reason for deletion: "GEF's funding is all help to developing countries to live up to UNFCCC requirements (neither pro nor contra))" This is erroneous. Considering the nature of her nearly 300+ edits (about 95% of which are on global warming

A quick Google search of "Global Environment Facility" "global warming" turns up in the first hit a development summary for just ONE project involving GEF. Among the goals of this one project (for a mere US$7MM), "provide governments concerned with tools to assess the potential implications of climate change for their environmental and resource management policies". And the translation from poli-speak to plain English is "tell governments how the UN wants the governments to manage industry resources".

Why should this stay in the article? It would be the same standard that allows misleading comments about ties to Exxon being used in the neighboring section to discredit "opponents" without so much as an edit, much less a deletion. " Institute has received numerous large grants from ExxonMobil..."--curious how $630,000 over 7 years (avg $90,000/year) for an institute that also focuses on non-climate research such as "national defense, bioterrorism, and missile defense" Source: Exxonsecrets.org. THAT gets no challenge to date for either POV or accuracy while deleting information about Global Environment Facility and getting over $2billion for one year. What is GEF's function? "The Global Environment Facility (GEF), established in 1991, helps developing countries fund projects and programs that protect the global environment. GEF grants support projects related to biodiversity, climate change, international waters, land degradation, the ozone layer, and persistent organic pollutants." That hardly seems to match with 'funding is all help to developing countries to live up to UNFCCC requirements'. Additionally, GEF is not a 'wall flower' in the global warming debate. -- Tony of Race to the Right 03:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It may well be that the GEF is funding climate change related things that are not UNFCCC help - but the section was deleted because the reference didn't show that. It showed instead that the money was going to UNFCCC help. If you can find valid sources to include the GEF - then be my guest. We actually do check the references here. Oh and btw. you may want to check what "environmental and resource management policies" entail - if this is support to a local government in adhering to requirements that are put down by international treaties - then its neither pro- nor contra. --Kim D. Petersen 05:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Sources and deletions

Source checking is a great thing...the issue is that if a source on the 'contra' side of the issue is deemed "biased", or unworthy in the slightest degree and the entire content is deleted. If a source on the 'pro' side is biased, missing, misquoted, etc then nothing is done about it, much less does anyone delete the content. I check the references too, and if the source you deleted was incorrect then something should have been to request an update source...not remove it entirely. I am glad people "actually check sources here"...I wish for the sake of public discourse people would check sources more, and check sources from their own side at all. And as for Misplaced Pages editors, I wish they would check their processes for edit/deletion for all content rather than different processes depending on if the content agrees with POV or not.

Sorry - the trouble was not that the source wasn't good (i'd even go so far as to say that it was a grade-A source for verifiability). The trouble was that the source didn't show/say/support the claim of the text --Kim D. Petersen 22:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: organization function vs funding

Funny thing. GWT supporters split hairs and play semantics when trying to remove their pet organizations ties to global warming research funding. The brush to warrant removal is very wide. However, the opposite standard applies on the 'contra' side. For example, why did you not also delete the text about the funding of opponents that reads, "Patrick J. Michaels and Frederick Seitz have both been linked to the George C. Marshall Institute--Michaels as a "visiting scientist" and Seitz as "Chairman Emeritus.""? I mean, GW theorist supporters are deleting content here that discusses a direct funding link between an organization and 'climate change funding' yet play 6-degrees between Michaels and Seitz to attempt discrediting them based on 'financial' biases. C'mon, you wouldn't take as fact if someone told you what someone told them about someone else...so why is that degree of linking considered "encyclopedic" enough to keep here and worse, considered "encyclopedic" for one side of the issue and not the other? And, a question I have relating to that section is How much funding did Michaels (or projects that he was the PI for) receive from Exxon? IMHO, THAT is worthy of being in the article.

Pick the across-the-board protocol...

1. Do we delete text if the funding is not explicitly lables "global warming research" or do we leave it in the article?
2. Do we delete text if the beneficiary does not have an explicitly stated purpose of "global warming research" or do we leave it in the article?
3. Do we leave in text making 2nd & 3rd degree links between "benefactor" and "beneficiary" (or as exists on this article between "benefactor of a group" and "someone tied somehow to the group") or do we require direct links?

I will take the forthcoming edits, deletions and reverts as the standard setter...so if something was deleted and you do not think that standard should be held throughout the entire article I would suggest putting the text back. I'm flexible, I just want each side held to the same scrutiny and standards, however high or low that bar is does not matter. Just fair and consistent. -- Tony of Race to the Right 16:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Tony of Race to the Right for raising this issue and taking the time to explore it. As for myself, I am of the view that the same standard should be held throughout the entire article. Doing so, if the "skeptic" side is more likely to be biaised because of fundings than the "believers" side, like the global warming activists usually suggest, it should normally appear from this exercise. --Childhood's End 17:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Poll: Text relating to Funding Beneficiaries with Global Warming positions

Do we delete text if the funding is not explicitly lables "global warming research" or do we leave it in the article?

This is NOT an official policy determination. It is to gauge from those who have been editing this page recently the standards that are to be applied to the page. It is also to help users understand and follow a set of standards for this article, its text and the sourcing of those texts. Discussion is open. Thank you. -- Tony of Race to the Right 17:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Funding that is not labelled as "global warming research" can only leave to speculation as to what is done with it. What it is used for is not verifiable, and neither are following claims of bias.

I would even suggest that all funding mentions be deleted, even if explicitly labelled as "global warming research". These mentions remain ad hominem arguments, and although I appreciate that they are relevant to credibility, I think that sophisms lower the level of the debate more than anything else since they do not allow to verify or falsify any position. At the very least, they dilute the article with information whose value does not fly high. --Childhood's End 18:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete. To quote Raymond Arritt: "Do you really find it incomprehensible that a researcher can approach a topic without preordained conclusions?" The implication is that we should be able to believe that researcher and think tanks studying research, etc. are able to come to their own conclusions regardless of their benefactors. It may be a bit optimistic, but I tend to believe money/funding follows positions and not the other way around. Since the research and commentary communities hold that standard for themselves it should be accepted. It is not the job of Misplaced Pages or its editors to guess, assume or otherwise make assertions not proven and verifiable (to quote UBeR: "Misplaced Pages is not here to say what is the truth..."). -- Tony of Race to the Right 18:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Much like anything else in Misplaced Pages, for the intrest of allowing all relivent informaiton, that which is not relivent should be removed.--Zeeboid 18:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Poll: Text relating to function of beneficiaries

Do we delete text if the beneficiary does not have an explicitly stated purpose of "global warming research" or do we leave it in the article?

This is NOT an official policy determination. It is to gauge from those who have been editing this page recently the standards that are to be applied to the page. It is also to help users understand and follow a set of standards for this article, its text and the sourcing of those texts. Discussion is open. Thank you. -- Tony of Race to the Right 17:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I suggest that all the funding stuff be deleted for the reasons stated above in the previous poll. If this stuff is to be maintained, then I guess that the fact that the beneficiary does not explicitly state its purpose does not warrant that the information is deleted, especially if on the other side, the funding has been provided for an explicitly stated purpose. --Childhood's End 20:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Poll: Text relating to Validity/Relevance of Associations between parties

Do we leave in text making 2nd & 3rd degree links between parties (such as "benefactor" and "beneficiary") or do we require direct links between parties?

This is NOT an official policy determination. It is to gauge from those who have been editing this page recently the standards that are to be applied to the page. It is also to help users understand and follow a set of standards for this article, its text and the sourcing of those texts. Discussion is open. Thank you. -- Tony of Race to the Right 17:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Direct links--I think my comments previously reflect this sentiment. Using six-degrees to prove a connection or discredit someone is a dangerous game. How many degrees is the limit? How loose of a link is acceptable? Giving a speech...does that warrant a linking of speaker to the event's organizer? Indirect links lead to less accuracy in statements of fact, less credibility, etc. -- Tony of Race to the Right 18:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Direct links Given enough degrees, you can link anything to anything.--Zeeboid 19:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Like the family tree chart that showed Kerry & Bush were related -- Tony of Race to the Right 20:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Direct links But I still suggest all of this is deleted. If kept, then the more degrees, the less relevant it is. --Childhood's End 19:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Somehow (thanks to my ADD?) that reminds me of another question. How old is too old? Prof. Smith supports nuclear energy, and in 1985 quit his position on the board of directors at Three Mile Island Electric...is that relevant or is it too old to matter? -- Tony of Race to the Right 20:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Viewpoint of intro

Cut from intro:

Among the governments of developed countries, there is little debate about attribution of global warming to human activities. As of December 2006, 166 states have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol, whose objective is to prevent dangerous anthropogenic climate change; and the administrations of both the United States and Australia—the only two developed nations not to have ratified the treaty—have acknowledged that global warming is anthropogenic.

There is, however, an ongoing political debate about what actions should be taken to mitigate or adapt to global warming.

For example, the Clinton administration did not submit the treaty to the Senate, after that body preemptively rejected such measures unanimously (95-0). The Bush administration also has not submitted the 1997 Kyoto protocol for ratification by the U.S. Senate on the grounds that it exempts 80 percent of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and that it would damage the American economy. The UK-sponsored Stern Review, commanded by Tony Blair's government in response to the House of Lords Economics Committee's report that had issued substantial scientific uncertainties about climate change, concluded that "the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting." In addition to economic arguments, concerns include social justice for the adversely affected including likely climate refugees, need for intergenerational equity, and loss of biodiversity.

The above implies that the pro-AGW side is correct, and in the overwhelming majority. Both these points, however, are disputed by the anti-AGW side.

It would be better to lay out the points of contention first, and to say what the various sides assert about them.

If numbers of advocates are at issue, then let's describe the dispute over the numbers. For example, the pro-AGW side says that scientists are virtually unanimous in their support of AGW theory; while the anti-AGW side says that 25% or more of climate scientists doubt or disagree with it. --Uncle Ed 21:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Erm..Ed, what happend to your reading ability. This does not imply that the "pro-AGW side" is correct, nor in the overwhelming majority. It implies that the overwhelming number of governments hold this position. About the only thing that is neither sourced not common knowledge is the last sentence (which I agree could go). --Stephan Schulz 22:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced back-and-forth

Global warming skeptics sometimes assert that not all of the IPCC authors support its reports. However, only two of the 120 lead authors of the TAR are known to have voiced serious objections. The adherents of a consensus say the statements of those who expend the effort to comment negatively on that consensus is moving in the opposite direction, toward more agreement. Others dispute this.

None of the above 4 statements are sourced. Why have them in an encyclopedia article. Is there some sort of rush, here? I don't want to see pro-AGW or anti-AGW stuff in the article, if it's just some contributor's opinion.

This is not a blog. We are not debating AGW here. We are contributing to an article about the debate. If we can't remember where we read or heard something, why put it in the body of the article? --Uncle Ed 21:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Just for clarification...I added the 'citation needed' tags to those. I agree, they should be removed. Unlike some editors, I don't just delete unsourced content (or content citing sources I don't like); so I'm giving the interested parties some notice that those statements each need sourcing. -- Tony of Race to the Right 21:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea, Tony. In fact, I'd say that if one editor's response to another's tagging is a text move, then it's a good sign that the passage is "not ready for primetime". Cheers. :-) --Uncle Ed 21:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Filled out one of the quotes with the equivalent from the IPCC page. (Note - this source would normally not be acceptable - but i believe it to be acceptable because its from a contra- source - ie. because of the bias of the source the statement becomes acceptable) - it shouldn't be too hard to find the original quotes from Lindzen or Christy though. --Kim D. Petersen 23:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

We have a standard for sources established

User:Raymond arritt has cemented the standard of this article. "Partisan sources" are absolutely not allowed. That includes Mother Jones, btw. And details about members of the debate are also not to be included (though typical of his POV edits, there is not any explanation). Additionally, the biased editors do NOT discuss these changes beforehand as common courtesy would dictate. I accept their standard and have made changes using the standards in practice. If this double standard continues and the obvious and blatant one-sidedness of reverts and content deletion continues then other steps will have to explored to remedy this continuing problem. -- Tony of Race to the Right 03:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC) --I should say that I am disappointed in the standards chosen, but accept them and shall carry them out. If you don't like them blame Connelly, arritt, et al. -- Tony of Race to the Right 03:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

None of us gets to decide what the standard is; it's already decided: WP:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources. --Nethgirb 04:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, so, since the standard is to delete the text outright...having trouble locating that part of those pages you just gave. A little help finding the "delete text" part of the standard. -- Tony of Race to the Right 05:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Non sequitur. But you knew that. Raymond Arritt 05:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No, seriously, Raymond, where is the part about deleting text 6 minutes after being added because "either give academic degrees for all individuals in the article, or none". First of all, I am intending to do that very thing. Secondly, you need to delete all "biased sources" and their related text or none of them.

Since you have been so busy deleting 'contra' text you may not have noticed that while trying to undo POV deletions like yours I have also been trying to apply the standards throughout. Silly me, I made the mistake of adding ] tags. I need to undo that and simply follow what you do...delete the text outright for reasons so broad and vague that nearly anything can be deleted. From claiming Kim deleting text falsely claiming the sources did not mention what was claimed in the article to you deleting seemingly any edit that is not favorable to the global warming alarmist POV...it is unbelievable. Certainly will have to use this ordeal on this air this week as we discuss how militant the effort is to silence GW opposition.

Leave the academic degrees up for 2 weeks. If I have not made significant progress (at least 1/3 of the names being referred to in this article implicitly as scientists or for scientific expertise/info) then delete them all and I will support the deletion. Just because you obviously have a POV on this topic does not mean you have to be unreasonable. -- Tony of Race to the Right 06:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I threw a parser error at "From claiming Kim deleting text falsely claiming the sources did not mention what was claimed." I still can't understand why you insist on including academic credentials for Oreskes and not for any other person in the article. Presumably you have a reason for targeting Oreskes, but you haven't told us what that might be. Care to let us know? Raymond Arritt 06:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Funny thing...as I was going back through the history (documenting for possible mediation) and trying to find something in response to Kim's deletions and found something that I was going to add here just to explain myself better. Then BAM, your request for the very information.

Three things prompted my desire to add academic creds...the first 2 never motivated me enough to do so.

First, I want to have a list of proponents and opponents academic creds in my Global Warming files for my radio show. I do not give a d*** which side a caller is on, I want the whole story presented, and I was once caught flat-footed by the claim that both sides were loaded w/ scientists in disciplines not related to GW, much less its forecasting, etc. That essentially means that they are, as far as being 'expert' enough to sign petitions or reports, no more qualified than you and me.

Second, (and quasi-related to the first), I am sick of the back and forth about 'your list is full of non-scientists', 'nah-ugh, yours is worse' garbage. All the while NOONE has gone through in encyclopedic interests and compiled the actual qualifications of these names. I was more appalled to find a great majority of the articles for these people do not have the academic quals and have so little content that I'm planning on submitting them for deletion (and yes, they are on both sides of the issue). Zeeboid (who, in the interest of full disclosure, is one of the staff of my show and one of the show's researchers) & I decided this week that we would compile such a list and when it is completed add it to Misplaced Pages. In light of the past few days I may pull the plug on that plan just because I am willing to bet my house that the list, while being fair to both sides and silence one aspect of the POV garbage that pollutes Misplaced Pages, would be deleted. As a stand alone article it would lose a RfD, as an addition to all of the relevant articles it would be a constant fight. Pro-GW's would delete the references pointing out their people were under- or un-qualified and Con-GW would do the same. So, because of the behavior I have seen on GW and other controversial topics Misplaced Pages will not see the benefit of that project en toto.

Third (and directly answering your question), while we are not going to do the entire list of names for the major reports, summaries, petitions, participants, etc. I was inspired to do this with ALL of the names on this article. I saw the following: 11:40, February 13, 2007 KimDabelsteinPetersen (Talk | contribs) (→Debate over the existence of a consensus - Is Oreskes a "History professor" or a "Science professor" - both are part of the title.)" which actually deleted all reference to Oreskes creds instead of 'making it better' and answering Kim's own question. (Incidently that was the first of three text deletions, all of them of con-GW text and all of them justifed with false claims). I saw that during my lunch break and decided I would help answer the question. Thus Oreskes was the first on my list. Seeing some of the absolute crap that is left on this page I figured I MIGHT have until the weekend to get many more of these done (as one could probably sense from my summary, I was not optimistic that this information which was not heralding pro-GW people would be left alone.). As it turns out I had 18 hours on the first attempt and 6 minutes on the 2nd.

There you go. Why Oreskes first? Because the question was asked directly about her first. Ironic (at least to me) that the question was meant rhetorically to justify deleting the fact that Oreskes' doctorate is in history (something I did not know until literally 5 minutes before posting it). -- Tony of Race to the Right 07:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

My... what long rhetoric - for something i could've answered (if asked) in a blink: I deleted the credentials - so that Oreskes complied to the standard on the page (rf. Peiser). Her credentials are listed on her page - which is directly linked. I see no reason to fill up the article with unneccessary data, that is readily available on a single click. I still don't think that the credentials are relevant - and specifically not in the current form. --Kim D. Petersen 08:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There really is no winning with you guys. Explanations too short then what is left unanswered is used to justify actions against the editor's contributions. Explanations too long then the editor is calumnated for using 'rhetoric'. It is almost as if it is intentionally made hostile for non pro-GW editors.

1. Your answer confirms what I already concluded, and adds to the stockpile of subjectively applied standards.
2. Too many people are being treated on this page as having authority on the subject. Their qualifications should be next to them on this page, imo.
3. Not all of the "scientists" or 'authorities' have pages to click on thus making Misplaced Pages an incomplete source for that purpose. Fewer of those people have pages which are not candidates for RfD (and I will be doing that sooner or later). Considering the importance of their qualifications on this topic it is not unreasonable to include it here for the benefit of the reader and credibility of both sides of the issue.
4. Having this information on these pages will help editors because one less avenue for either side to engage in POV motivated deletions. To be NPOV the information should be for anyone being treated as an authority on this page.
5. The standard on this page regarding info duplicated elsewhere in Misplaced Pages is to include it here if it is also relevant to this page. Academic creds are most certainly applicable here since that is one of the major justifications for edits AND is one of the major points of the entire controversy.
6. Would you have deleted this text if it were for a con-GW non-climatologist? Please don't begin another avenue for double-standards on this page.

-- Tony of Race to the Right 17:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Response to Kim's text deletions (107865385) and reasoning

To quote Kim: "We actually do check the references here." and "the source didn't show/say/support the claim of the text"

Perhaps you should recheck (or even actually check) the sources you deleted. You deleted "In 1996 Global Environment Facility's quarterly report showed over $2 billion in research funding and donations." and 2 sources (http://www.gefweb.org/COUNCIL/GEF_C10/arintro.pdf and http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54074). On page 23 of the pdf file on the GEF website was the pledge page which states, "Contributions to the First GEF Replenishment (US$ millions)" and "Total Pledges 2,030.2". $2,030.2 in "US$ million" is $2.030 billion. That is the first source you deleted and it understates what was in the second source. The understating is not surprising since the GEF's report was on a shorter timeframe than the second source was referring to. However, the second source said

"global warming is an industry. In 1996, at the same U.N. meeting at which the Second Assessment Report was released, Mohamed T. El-Ashry, chief executive officer and chairman of the Global Environment Facility, released its quarterly report. He told the delegates that his agency had leveraged $462.3 million into $3.2 billion in climate change projects. And that was just the beginning."

So far we have the 2nd source being deleted by William M. Connolley at 22:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC) because " is hopelessly biased. Rants about scientists being pressurised into silence are far too common, and always badly sourced" even though the source was not being cited for the silencing of GW skeptics. I add additionally sourcing 'from the horse's mouth' and you (Kim D. Petersen delete the text and both sources claiming neither source supported the text (remember, the text stating GEF rec'd over $2MM in funding & donations).

So please explain again why you deleted the text?

Chapter 3 - page 16 in the PDF would explain it quite well i think - it lists the total allocated amount for Climate Change: $133.7 million for 13 projects. And the total amount FY97: $7.9 million (help in complying with UNFCCC communications). The billions must go elsewhere - for instance to all the other things that GEF do. Same chapter describes how the funds are used: Primarily on complience with the UNFCCC and Kyoto rules. This btw. shouldn't come as a surprise since GEF is/was the interim operating entity of the financial mechanism of the Framework Convention on Climate Change. --Kim D. Petersen 08:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This standard of parsing the specific outlays is not applied or supported in the section relating to opponents funding. More on that double-standard below...and I guess instead we should delete the similarly unparsed sections in the opponents funding. -- Tony of Race to the Right 16:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Follow up question: If you have the $133.7 million figure, and you feel that was more accurate, and Misplaced Pages's policy is to "improve" instead of "delete", then why did you delete the text? -- Tony of Race to the Right 16:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"Source" #2 is ruled out by Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources - its a partisan source making exceptional claims.

Define "partisan source" please so we all know how this applies to any other site. I'm not smart enough to go without it being spelled out, and so many sources seem to be deleted for being "partisan sources" in a highly subjective manner. Please help me out here so I don't use anymore of those "partisan sources" in the future. And wouldn't "partisan sources" include a politician? -- Tony of Race to the Right 16:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

How about checking WP:RS partisan sources WP:RS exceptional claims. --Kim D. Petersen 07:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC) (forgot to sign)

Follow up question...what specifically is the source in question claiming that is "exceptional"? (please copy the text here of the exceptional claim/claims). -- Tony of Race to the Right 17:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? The entire worldnet article is about conspiracy. Conspiracy is (imho) an "exceptional" claim. As a POV the article can be used on the page - since it evidently describes a particular sceptics view. Your addition of added GEF material to back up the source - can at best be described as ruled out by WP:NOR. --Kim D. Petersen 07:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Since these two sources are the documentation for including the text, and the third source merely describes the GEF - i deleted the text. --Kim D. Petersen 08:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course you deleted them.-- Tony of Race to the Right 03:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The third source and its text were also deleted by you. The text was "Global Environment Facility assists developing countries with environmental programs and local sustainable development projects, some of which are related to climate change." and the source was GEF...basically the first paragraph on the page. (Again, you said the source didn't show/say/support the text and we (imply you included) actually do check the references here." 100% of the references you deleted with that reasoning were nearly directly quoted in the text you also deleted. I am incredibly curious to know the thought process (and what you actually read in any of the 3 sources). Now the inclusion of this third source may seem odd, but that is because the funding info was previously deleted by you (edit #107865385) with the reasoning of "GEF's funding is all help to developing countries to live up to UNFCCC requirements (neither pro nor contra)" Clearly, GEF's own stated purpose is directly contradicting your claim, so in re-inserting relevant funding information I also added the source and text to address your previous deletion. The source, btw, GEF's What is the GEF webpage. So, please, again, since I am not a smart person, explain this to me again. Why did you delete all of the texts that you have? And if you are feeling bold could you please enlighten us all why you are not deleting text that is actually not supported by its citations which happen to be pro-GW? This is a recurring pattern with you specifically and nearly all of the editors on this article.

Finally, Kim wrote: "Oh and btw. you may want to check what "environmental and resource management policies" entail - if this is support to a local government in adhering to requirements that are put down by international treaties - then its neither pro- nor contra."

Kim, that implies that there must be a direct link between the funding and the research and the entity presenting a position. Review some of the pulp that has been allowed to exist on this article that use links to tobacco as discrediting someone for their GW positions, playing 6-degrees of seperation to diminish their positions...I noticed you did not delete any of those poorly linked benefactor-beneficiary passages but jumped all over this one (seriously--less than 12 hours to delete the contr-GW text. So, why did you delete all of these things? while leaving identically problematic passages in the article which support your POV? -- Tony of Race to the Right 07:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Despite your rhetoric - i imply nothing of the sort - my words are quite specific to the GEF and what it is that they specifically fund. But let me cut it out for you: If a country is required by international treaty or agreement, to do specific tasks - then economic help (whether directly or indirectly) for these task is neither pro- nor contra. --Kim D. Petersen 09:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like the contention on this point (relevance of GEF's funding) is summarized this way: You believe that GEF's purpose is helping developing nations to implement projects required by treaty. My position is two-pronged. And considering that you have not mentioned or fixed the texts you deleted on incorrect grounds, I have a hunch this is all just a waste of time to lay out as you have no intention of restoring the text or at least quit removing it. So, this is more to help document for future use the level of POV issues on this article.

GEF--pro- or con?. This part of my position on GEF's inclusion in the funding section of the article is specific to GEF. GEF does DO what you say. They however have sets of criteria within which they lend assistance For GEF assistance a project must be "consistent both with the country's national programs and priorities and with GEF's operational strategy and programs."

So, what is GEF's operation strategy?

Well, it "incorporates guidance from conventions for which GEF serves as financial mechanism: the Convention on Biological Diversity, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification." I know, POV pushing editors might think that is not specific enough to warrant including a pro-GW entity in the funding section (and I justify that comment in the next 'prong').

They also categorize what types of projects they will fund. The six categories are all part of "global environmental issues" and include "Climate Change". There is the first mark to warrant inclusion in the section relating to their funding of this article. (And still, I bet this is not a direct enough link for the pro-GW folks--so let's drill down deeper.) What is the GEF priority under "Climate Change" that projects must be "consistent" with? "Human activities have been substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases." Not enough declaration by GEF to accept their outlays being properly categorized as pro-GW? Another statement of their Operating Strategy (which projects must be consistent with) is "Long-term mitigation measures respond Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change...that it is the cumulation of emissions over time, rather than when emissions take place, that determines the impact of greenhouse gases on climate." ibid

What you call 'rhetoric' it seems is the necessary amount of explanation to even have a chance for a sliver of fairness, of non-POV edits and to even advance the hope that deletions are done so with honest cause. Additionally, what you dismiss as rhetoric is actually more for documentary purposes for (a) use on my radio show when we will discuss GW theorists' efforts to remove (not refute) opposition with this page being a case in point which damages Misplaced Pages's credibility and (b) more importantly, for future action here on Misplaced Pages. I know, you have to use words like 'rhetoric' to discourage other readers from putting any weight into that which you label. I understand it. If you were that confident in your positions and reasonings you would not such tactics...but enough of the meta-dialogue.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with the repeated removal of GEF from the funding section of the article.

And despite your very long essay. All you've come up with is exactly the reason for dismissal.

The GEF is only funding climate change related things, that are covered and required under international treaties - they are not a proactive funding source (in which case they would have been liable for inclusion). --Kim D. Petersen 00:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, so finally it is out there...to be included in the funding section the relationship must be direct and specific. Consider it done. -- Tony of Race to the Right 03:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)::Loose links vs straight links. This part of my position is specific to the standards used on this article alone. Contrary to Nethgirb's statement that the standards for text/source inclusion are decided, they are applied differently...sacrificed for POV purposes.

Are you deliberately putting words into my mouth? Or are you simply conducting a conversation in your mind, which isn't represented in the discussion? Read my (very specific) words: I did not at any time say or imply: "to be included in the funding section the relationship must be direct and specific". --Kim D. Petersen 03:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, considering that I applied took your GEF-deletion explanations and generalized them that left very little in the funding sections. Since you have not reinserted the texts I removed I must have properly interpreted your specific rationalizations into a general standard: regardless of a group's stated philosophies or positions their inclusion in the 'funding' sections is permissible ONLY for funds specifically to global warming projects and their income is only counted if it is specifically earmarked for global warming research. Not putting words in your mouth...simply doing what helps to prevent double-standards. That is understanding the broad philosophies in the pro-GW editors actions. -- Tony of Race to the Right 06:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That would be a Yes then. You are deliberately putting words into my mouth. And No you cannot take my inaction as properly interpreted your specific rationalizations into a general standard. --Kim D. Petersen 06:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is YOU provided a custom tailored rationalization to protect a specific group from inclusion but you have yet to offer the broad principle you followed that gives everyone else and idea of how the remainder of the article is treated similarly. It is, your deletions (and Connelley's) are easily demonstrated to be POV-centric, and in the interest of removing the POV I have been trying to understand the general principles being followed so they can be applied equally (NPOV) to the other side of the debate not being pushed by your edits. Forget it...done trying to get NPOV from you guys. Its time to explore other steps now that I have enough documentation. -- Tony of Race to the Right 18:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that these are only specific examples of the differing standards on this page for a few of the general methods of bias. There are many more examples within each method and many more methods of bias being used.

You delete GEF information because it is "not sourced" (and then when called to task you demonstrate that the source DID support the claim but did not match the level of drill-down). So obviously an explanation is required to even attempt keeping non pro-GW text on the article. That necessity of explaining text is NOT needed for pro-GW content.

You and others delete sources as "hopelessly biased" or "partisan". NewsMax (a news aggregation service similar to AP in both function and reliability) and WorldNet are not valid, yet Mother Jones is? Can't get any more biased than that in applying "source standards".

Frequently people use shorthand links (or not even links) to claim adherence to policies. Commonly thrown out recently are W:RS (Reliable sources) and W:V (Verifiability). What seems to actually happen is someone will perform an action that is at best in a grey area and site a page ("del source W:RS"). When question for further detail they will only say something like, 'read the policy: W:RS'. Why? Because they know that if their 'justification' is further scrutinized it will be discovered that they were wrong, or at least not on the professed concrete standing they present. The flip side is when this is applied to their pet text. 'Can't delete this for W:RS, it says it is not for all cases'. Double-standards. If you are that confident in your application then quote the part of the policy you are using to delete content. Otherwise it becomes clear that the policy link is just a facade to mask actions that cannot be justified. But directly relating to this article is how text and sources are deleted for "bias" or "partisan", the deletor hides behind W:RS and conveniently ignores the following from that very page: If you have questions about a source's reliability, discuss with other editors on the article's talk page, or if the source is already used in the article, you can draw attention to it with the {{unreliable}} template. Have not seen that happen at all from the pro-GW editors.

Company A gives money to Group B. Person C holds an honorary title with Group B. Is that sufficient grounds to discount Person C's viewpoints being influenced and "funded by Company A"? The answer on this article depends on if Person C is pro- or con- GW. If Person C is con-GW then the answer is Yes and 100% of the funding from Company A to Group B counts against Person C's credibility (see reference to Seitz in Funding sections). If Group B is pro-GW then it is off-limits to connect Person C through Group B to Company A. Additionally, if Group B is pro-GW then parsing of the funding from Company A to Group B is required...only expenditures explicity labled "climate change", "global warming", etc counts (see rationalizations for deleting GEF funding references).

"Global warming industry" = biased/POV. "Fossil fuel industry" = unbiased/NPOV. Bias in standards? Certainly.

That is just the tip of the iceberg. All of those contribute to my position that the text you deleted should be in the article based on standards applied in this article already. -- Tony of Race to the Right 16:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Tony, I have to agree with you on many of these points. RonCram 18:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Critique of AR4 SPM by Dr. Vincent Gray

Vincent Gray is a long-time reviewer of IPCC reports. He has published a critique of the AR4 SPM that has been accepted for publication in "Energy and Environment" and is available online. I would suggest anyone interested in this controversy read Dr. Gray's critique. He says: "I will therefore confine these comments to the aspects of the “2007 Summary for Policymakers” which I find the most distasteful. They come under the headings of unreliable data, inadequate statistical treatment and gross exaggeration of model capacity." Enjoy! RonCram 18:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. Just read it, now I have to do cross-referencing between it and the Summary to parse the distortions and accuracies. Makes for a good bus ride home. -- Tony of Race to the Right 18:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Grays ranting about the CO2 measurements is funny, and well worth a read. Just don't rely on it William M. Connolley 18:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What a hoot! I wouldn't be surprised if someone did a SCIgen on E&E. Raymond Arritt 18:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I notice William and Raymond like to laugh and that's good. I also notice neither of them have attempted to deal with any substantive points in Gray's assessment. :)RonCram 19:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Continued adding academic credentials to the people in the article and cannot find any for Grey. Help would be appreciated. -- Tony of Race to the Right 20:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, stop, as per WP:MOS. While this is a lousy source, it claims Gray (notice spelling) has a Ph.D. in Chemisty. --Stephan Schulz 22:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Tony, I apologize. I thought the wikipedia article on Vincent Gray was on the climate scientist. I see now that it is not. That should be remedied as Dr. Gray deserves his own article. Dr. Gray earned his Ph.D. in Chemistry at Cambridge University and published more than 100 scientfic papers in several different fields, including climate science, environment, sociobiology and theoretical biology. This paper has a short bio on page 30. Since 1990, he has been working mainly in climate science. He was until recently a visiting scholar at the Beijing Climate Centre in China. You can check Google Scholar for his climate writings. RonCram 22:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

RonCram i see some social science papers (read: political) by Vincent Gray - but no climate science papers at all at Google Scholar. (all the hard science papers where by other V Gray's (fx. Vivienne Gray) --Kim D. Petersen 07:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not attempt an audit of the results from Google Scholar. I did notice both a journal article and it mentioned a book I found on Amazon. I hope this is helpful.RonCram 12:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Betting on GW section

I fixed up the horrible section of betting on GW. Once that was done I realized that it actually has no place in this article. It is more along the lines of "trivia" and does not seem to fit the "important and interesting" criteria by Misplaced Pages. Additionally, it is problematic in a POV prism. It sets up the false impression that "skeptics" are not confident in their skepticism. This actually is not true, in that the bet requires a premise of warming vs cooling. The most widely held view held by the skeptics is, in a nutshell, that man is either not the cause of, or an insignificant factor in the warming. The source for the section perpetuates this misleading facade (no surprise from that source, is typical and should always be treated with a skeptical eye). -- Tony of Race to the Right 20:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point -- it is worthwhile to note that many skeptics do actually believe that the Earth is likely to continue warming. You removed one of the references; I'm assuming this was accidental and I put it back in. --Nethgirb 21:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Academic Credentials

I have an idea but am not sure how to implement it.

I think it would be very helpful to readers and editors if the academic credentials for each person listed was provided. There is little room for POV complaints/actions regarding someone's level of degree and field of study. This would also go a long way to eliminating POV problems regarding who is/is not credible, etc.

I agree that the article will get cluttered with the information. So, if someone know how to make a "Academic Credentials" section similar to the Notes and References sections then we can simply put the information there. Then we can also put the year & institution for each degree.

If needed, we could create a template for the in text tag so it would be something like:

Joe Smith<cred>Joe Smith|BA|Basket Weaving|Univ of Minnesota|1992</cred> and Mary Contrary<cred>Mary Contrary</cred> claim that Pluto's gravitational pull is causing catastrophic global temperature rise.

...and the in text result would be something like:

Joe Smith and Mary Contrary claim that Pluto's gravitational pull is causing catastrophic global temperature rise.

...and the Credentials section output would be something like:

1. Joe Smith, BA in Basket Weaving from Univ of Minnesota (1992)

2. Mary Contrary, no academic credentials

Help would be appreciated.

Thanks. -- Tony of Race to the Right 20:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well it is certainly relevant info to have somewhere in Misplaced Pages, so you could start by putting the info in the individuals' articles. As for putting it here, maybe you could point out some of the edits in which there were "POV complaints/actions regarding someone's level of degree and field of study" -- has this really been a bone of contention here? --Nethgirb 21:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we have Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Academic_titles (also check the following sections), which says to not add titles and qualifications arbitrarily. There is a place for this, and the place is the biographical page of the scientist in question. If he or she is not notable enough for an article, then what he or she says on global warming is not notable, either. If the article is bad, stubify or improve it. --Stephan Schulz 22:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The article from a NPOV and factual standpoint is horrid, but any effort to remove POV by balancing either inclusion or exclusion is undone. The goal seems to be not a good, factual, relevant article about the controversy but an article that diminishes the con- and augments the pro- in any way possible. There are blatantly-biased links that I have removed only to have them put back in within hours by the same people that delete news aggregating sources repeatedly for bias. I put credentials on a person being used as an authority on the subject matter. (See above to know who and how I edited that one first.) It happened to be that person's academic creds were not in a field related to climate...and BAM, deleted. Not once, but twice. The article is bad and fixing it is not a goal of most of the people here. Mitigating the avenues open to bias on this page is likely the only way to tame the destructive POV battle. -- Tony of Race to the Right 05:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Two things from there: "Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name. Verifiable facts about how the person attained such titles should be included in the article text instead. However, it also says "Adherence to the following guidelines is not required". So, the benefits outweigh the harms, it is not contrary to any policies and the guidelines do say information about how a person obtained their title should be included. The problem with relying on the individuals' pages is the many of them don't exist and those that do not really merit their own article. 71.215.220.197 03:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Erm, did you see that big word "biographies" at the top of the cited MOS page? The present article is not a biography. Raymond Arritt 03:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, saw that. I did not want to point it out but wanted as if falls in line with how people provide links to policies and fail to quote what they are using to justify their interference. Quite honestly I have read most all that I can find about cites/sources (both guidelines and technical how-to). There does not seem to be anything prohibiting what I intend, latitude is granted to allow exceptions that aim towards Misplaced Pages's overall goals. What I propose does that. It is just a matter of how to do so in a manner that is not more complex than triple-embeded transcluded tables in wiki-code. -- Tony of Race to the Right 05:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

What would be like totally way cool

If we had a section about how many people that graduate with a degree in climate-related majors keep whatever funding or grants they get aftwards if their research shows something different than the consensus view. Sln3412 06:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Statistics on the above coupled with a breakdown of USA-based researchers versus non USA-based ones might be interesting also. Sln3412 06:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Even if you had that data, it wouldn't tell you what you want to know. Suppose that more skeptics lose their funding than non-skeptics. The data wouldn't help you differentiate between the following potential explanations: (1) Funding is judged based on the results, with legitimate anti-GW outcomes being unfairly penalized. (2) Worse scientists get less funding, and worse scientists are also more likely to come to erroneous anti-GW conclusions. --Nethgirb 07:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, that is not how funding typically works. A grant is given for one project (usually not longer than 3 years, followups are possible), and is extremely rarely ever canceled or withdrawn. Furher grants ar applied for independently. So "keep whatever funding they get" is near 100% for wither group. BTW, acceptance rates for competent grant proposals vary between 5% and maybe 50%, depending on the subject and the specific funding agency. So you would need a very large sample for any statistically significant results.--Stephan Schulz 07:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Roger A. Pielke (Jr) pinned this down pretty well with the following comment on a Lindzen op-ed:

As far as certain scientists who are disfavored in the grants process or in peer-reviewed publication because of their political views, I guess I’d say: prove it. I have no doubt that extra-scientific factors often play a role in the publication process and in proposal reviews. However, the nature of peer-reviewed publication and funding is so decentralized that if you can’t publish your work somewhere or get it supported, eventually, well, there must be a reason, and, hint, hint, it’s not an environmental conspiracy.

--Kim D. Petersen 09:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Trenberth funding - WP:NOR - discuss.

Kevin E. Trenberth has received $5.575 million ($6.804 million in constant 2005 dollars) in grant funding for the 17 projects which he was Primary Investigator. Projects were conducted from 1978 to the present and the funding agencies were National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation, National Center for Atmospheric Research and NASA. All 17 projects were related to atmospheric observations, global water cycles, short-term climate fluctuations, climate modeling and global drought in 1988.

I've cut the above from the article - it is classifiable as WP:NOR (imho). Apparently the section was created to lead support to the statements by James Spann. Please give references to external (for Misplaced Pages) sources for these numbers and the allegation that these are all support for a climate change "theorist" viewpoint. --Kim D. Petersen 09:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC) More specifically (but not exclusively) i believe the section to go against:

• It introduces a theory, method of solution, or any other original idea;
• It introduces an analysis or synthesis of published facts, opinions, or arguments in a way that advances a position favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article.

--Kim D. Petersen 09:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed -- the text you removed, when placed directly after the Spann quote, is suggesting that Trenbeth has a conflict of interests by accepting money from the NSF or NASA because they desire a specific result -- which, even if it were true, is original research. (Hmmmm, does Richard Lindzen have a conflict of interests because he is a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at NASA JPL? ) --Nethgirb 11:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Inadequacies of Climate Models

The article needs a section on the inadequacies of climate models. We could use sources like Gray's critique of the AR4 SPM and news articles like "Antarctic Temperatures Disagree with Climate Model Predictions." I am certain a great deal of info can be cited here that readers would find helpful. RonCram 12:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Gray is not a reliable source. The news article is not peer reviewed science. And anyways, drawing conclusions about the alleged discrepancy would be WP:OR. Some of us are not qualified to do this, and even for those that are (I suspect William and Raymond would be), it would still violate WP:OR unless they manage to publish it independently first. --Stephan Schulz 12:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, wikipedia requires verification not verification from a peer reviewed source. You are attempting to raise the bar to protect your own POV. The inadequacies of the computer models is part of the controversy and deserves to be discussed here.RonCram 12:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Right. But either you report it as a "Gray states" in the "Assertions by opponents of the global warming theory" sections (in which case I don't understand why you bring up the news article), or you report on a scientific debate of the alleged problems, in which case we need reliable sources, i.e. in this case sources with comparable weight to e.g. the IPCC reports. That means indeed peer-reviewed reputable papers.--Stephan Schulz 13:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, Dr. Gray is an IPCC reviewer. He has comparable weight when discussing the IPCC process because he was a part of it. Your argument is going nowhere.RonCram 16:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You can't disallow a "news article is not peer reviewed science" and at the same time include "news articles that are not peer reviewed science" Pick one or the other, because the standard applies to the entire wikipedia.--Zeeboid 14:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Of course I can. News articles are considered reliable sources for some topics. Scientific papers are considered reliable sources for other topics. Peiser's claims are unpublished (or at best self-published), so have low weight. Lambert adequately refutes him. The IPCC is published and multiply peer reviewed science. An editorial in a popular daily has essentially no weight compared to this. The mating behaviour of Britney Spears is probably best sourced to Rolling Stone or similar, and no scientific sources are ever likely to exist.--Stephan Schulz 15:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a rich debate about the accuracy and legitimacy of climate modeling and anticipatory science forecasts, especially when it comes to complex systems such as climate which contain chaotic or unpredictable elements. This is the core of climatology and it should be adressed. Henk Tennekes and Valerio Lucarini are other examples of valid critics about this issue, as are some mathematicians/statisticians. There should be a subsection in this article, indeed. --Childhood's End 14:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Rich debate about accuracy and legitimacy, thats exactly right. the climate modeling can't be run backwards with an accurate result. as I said in the section below:

--Stephan Schulz, If you don't even know what I mean by "run in reverse" you may give up all hope on being taken serious. Any accurate scientific prediction can be run forward or backwards and have a predictable outcome. The climate models vary by around 400% on a good day. This isn't science any more, it’s guessing. Also when you run them in reverse, you find they do not work out to the actual climate history. Much like the Tectonic plates, or the motion of planets in space, or anything of actual scientific value, that is un-molested by political agendas. The constant reduction of Co2 in the earth's history combined with the in-out-in-out-in-out-in-out-in-out of ice ages and warm periods without human activity seams to be ignored in these "climate models" and thus, the results of the models that predict huge temperature jumps in the next 100 years, when run in reverse, do not match up with in any way/shape/form, the measured climate of the earth... all 100'ish years of actual measurement that is... therefor not in any way accuratly reproducible.--Zeeboid 16:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It's mathematically impossible to integrate the fully-coupled nonlinear equations "in reverse", i.e., backward in time. This is why people construct adjoint models for data assimilation. Raymond Arritt 19:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like someone to explain how the guessing that passes for "Climate Modeling" is in line with the Modeling for tectonic plate shifting or charting a satalite through the solar system.--Zeeboid 19:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

At least, this article should note that contrary to normal science, the products of climatology, climate scenarios, cannot be tested in a lab or otherwise and thus are not falsifiable. The only thing that can be done is change the models, but the scenarios still remain unfalsifiable. --Childhood's End 15:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Backcasting and forecasting allow tests of climate models. Many fields of science are limited in their ability to be tested in the lab. And climate models are only a part of the proof of global warming.Brian A Schmidt 15:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"not Falsifiable?" Don't you ment "Not Verifiable?" I still don't know why people accept climate modles going forward a hundred years when: 1. Weather people can't predict out 15mn, let alone decades let alone a hundred years. 2. The climate modles, unlike any verifiable science, do not give identical results when run in reverse.--Zeeboid 15:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I cannot tell you the result of a single flip of a (fair) coin with any certainty. But I can give you a very good prediction of the head-to-tail ratio over the next 10000 flips. Likewise, climate is easier to predict than weather. If you keep up this tired old fallacy, give up all hope on being taken serious. And I don't even know what you mean by "run in reverse". --Stephan Schulz 15:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That's the old argument of the legitimacy of climate models, but it is wrong-headed. First, if you support climate models because of the odds that they give the good answer, it comes to the acceptance that model predictions are more random-based (what some mathematicians say) rather than science-based. Of course, if you keep on flipping coins, you will end up getting a tail, but not because you controlled something specific about it. Second, the IPCC's predications are not general odds but specific events such as "the Earth will warm by up to 4 degrees in the next 100 years". This can by no mean be represented by the 1000 coin flip analogy, which refers to an unavoidable event due to odds, not to a specific scientific prediction. --Childhood's End 16:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I make a specific numeric prediction. I predict there will be about 5000+/-150 heads (with a probability of about 99.73%) among the 10000 flips. --Stephan Schulz 16:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that Brian, you are confusing things. Models are tools, not the products of climatology. Also, past warming is not shown by models but by recorded data. Future warming is a different issue since it is predicated by models. You can argue that a forecasting model is incomplete or lacks something, but you can never test it by scientific method since its products (scenarios) will only happen in the future. --Childhood's End 15:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

--Stephan Schulz, If you don't even know what I mean by "run in reverse" you may give up all hope on being taken serious. Any accurate scientific prediction can be run forward or backwards and have a predictable outcome. The climate models vary by around 400% on a good day. This isn't science any more, it’s guessing. Also when you run them in reverse, you find they do not work out to the actual climate history. Much like the Tectonic plates, or the motion of planets in space, or anything of actual scientific value, that is un-molested by political agendas. The constant reduction of Co2 in the earth's history combined with the in-out-in-out-in-out-in-out-in-out of ice ages and warm periods without human activity seams to be ignored in these "climate models" and thus, the results of the models that predict huge temperature jumps in the next 100 years, when run in reverse, do not match up with in any way/shape/form, the measured climate of the earth... all 100'ish years of actual measurement that is... therefor not in any way accuratly reproducible.--Zeeboid 16:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Your entire argument is unfounded. The nonlinear coupled partial differential equations used in climate models cannot be "run in reverse". Raymond Arritt 17:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, On Track, i'm moving the climate modles back to their section, if you have an explanation of your opinion of "entire arguement is unfounded" Raymond Arritt, I would welcome your opinion in that section, as i've gatt'a hear this!--Zeeboid 19:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

(reindent): That's why I asked what "running backwards" should mean. I suspect Zeeboid talks about applying todays climate models to previous times. That works well within the known limitations of the models. They generally assume relatively small pertubations of the current state, and only model forcings that change within the time frame we are interested in. No climate model, as far as I know, deals with plate tectonics reconfiguring continents, or with large-scale orbital forcings, or with the slow transition of the sun towards a red giant. It's like modelling a falling body. As long as you deal with a small distance, you can assume constant gravity, and get excellent results. But if you move far enough away, your model will suffer. And if the body hits the ground, your model totally breaks. --Stephan Schulz 19:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

climate models that go forward 100 years don't accuratly "past predict" the last 20 years, let alone the last 1000.--Zeeboid 19:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS? --Stephan Schulz 19:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Datasets and Methods Are Not Available for Audit

The article also needs a section discussing how Phil Jones at the Climatic Research Unit does not make his data and methods available for audit. Neither does the National Climatic Data Center. The article should point out that this is contrary to normal science which is built around openness and reproducibility. How can other scientists check the work being done when the standards of science are being ignored? The article also should point out that these groups will occasionally change the way data is handled so that warmer years in the past are downgraded to make it look like the 1990s are the warmest years ever. RonCram 12:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Somehow this discussion has gotten off topic. The discussion of computer models is in the section above. This is about openness and reproducibility. Karl Popper was the most influential philosopher of science of the 20th century. He distinguished between science and pseudo-science. If someone claims to be doing science but does not make his methods and data available so they can be verified/falsified, they are doing pseudo-science. Most of climate science is producing pseudo-science. The keepers of the temperature record will not release their data or methods. And they keep changing the way they do things. Read this link and then come back and comment. RonCram 16:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Lets please keep the discussion on topic. This section is not for the discussion of climate model equations. Thank you. ~ UBeR 18:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Climatology perhaps also looks like protoscience, not only pseudoscience... --Childhood's End 17:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Improving the "Funding of Opponents" Section

The first paragraph of this section does not specifically mention any of the individuals or organizations mentioned under "Supporters and Opponents of the Global Warming Theory." I suggest the following as a replacement:

Some global warming skeptics have links to fossil fuel companies. For example, Frederick Seitz is currently on the board of directors for the George C. Marshall Institute, which has received several large contributions from petroleum-related organizations such as ExxonMobil, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, and the Carthage Foundation. Similarly, Richard Lindzen has received money from various coal and oil companies for consulting, for appearing before the Senate, and for giving a speech which cast doubt on anthropogenic global warming. Many organizations which deny the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming, such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, also have close ties to the energy industry. Many supporters of anthropogenic global warming claim that these energy-industry ties suggest a conflict of interest. Partly as a result of such criticism, ExxonMobil announced in February of 2007 that they would discontinue funding for the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

I welcome comments and suggestions on this proposed alteration of the first paragraph of the "Funding of Opponents" Section. Dicksonlaprade 17:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That seems like an improvement. I'm not sure about the claim that XOM changed their funding "Partly as a result of such criticism" of conflict of interests. I don't see where it was stated in the article, and it seems unlikely to be true. Also, there is a more complete treatment of XOM's funding of skeptics at ExxonMobil#Funding_of_global_warming_skeptics -- you might wish to summarize some of that material. --Nethgirb 19:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz's revert

Stephan Schulz reverted edits with no explanation. I put my edits back and would like to remind Stephan Schulz of a few things regarding reverts. From the Revert policies and guidelines.

"Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously."

Cannot say if this was done or not, but in light of the following items you can draw your own conclusions.

"Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism."

The edits that were reverted were not in any manner able to be construed as vandalism.

"If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it."

As I mentioned, there was no summary explanation and if an explanation of the revert was made in the talk page then I missed it as it was NOT its own subject and would have been buried somewhere else.

"If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it."

This is pretty self-explanatory. The revert was done to remove content that, prima facia, opposes the views of ONE side of the discussion on this page. Nothing more than that.

Let us review some more from the Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines about revert wars (which, basically are

Revert wars are usually considered harmful for the following reasons:

1. They disrespect the work of the contributor. Being reverted can feel a bit like a slap in the face: "I worked hard on those edits, and someone just rolled it all back"
2. They cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles
3. They make the page history less useful, waste space in the database
4. They make it hard for other people to contribute, and flood recent changes and watchlists

Editors are discouraged to revert because there is disagreement, or the edit is bad or problematic. Users are encourage to explore alternate methods like raising the objections on a talk page, or following the processes in dispute resolution.--Zeeboid 19:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

To those working around the "3 reverts rule" for WMC explain yourselves here.--Zeeboid 19:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

People who revert-war to insert spurious tags shouldn't Wikilawyer. Guettarda 19:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yea, Good example, I explained my change, neither of you have.--Zeeboid 19:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

1. S. Res. 98 25 July , 1997
2. Text of a Letter from the President to Senators Hagel, Helms, Craig, and Roberts, George W. Bush letter 13 March, 2001
3. Economic Affairs - Second Report House of Lords, Session 2005-06
4. STERN REVIEW: The Economics of Climate Change. Summary of Conclusions
5. Constant dollars were figured using the end year of the projects which understates the inflationary adjustments since funding is usually disbursed either entirely at the beginning or in lump sums front loaded. This understating is exaggerated for longer projects. Using the ending dates when computing constant dollars for Trenberth's climate research funding totaled $6,804,862 compared with $7,955,621 when using the starting dates which would be more accurate starting dates.

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics