287
edits
Changes
Talk:Science of global warming (view source)
Revision as of 17:46, June 4, 2007
, 17:46, June 4, 2007→Proposed direction
:There's not much that can be done right now; it's locked. I agree, in looking at it, that it lacks flow. Even the opening paragraph has redundancies. I wonder why we keep the hockey stick graph if we know there are problems with it? -- even 'wiki' has less liberal graphs. I also wonder why we don't use fahrenheit instead of celsius. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:19, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
:There's not much that can be done right now; it's locked. I agree, in looking at it, that it lacks flow. Even the opening paragraph has redundancies. I wonder why we keep the hockey stick graph if we know there are problems with it? -- even 'wiki' has less liberal graphs. I also wonder why we don't use fahrenheit instead of celsius. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:19, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
== proposed direction ==
== Proposed direction ==
I'd like to find a good source that concisely lays out the IPCC case for attributing the warming to GHGs. I know that in the TAR, the evidence was chiefly the inability of the models to reproduce the temperature trend without GHGs. Since then AR4 has reduced the estimated contribution of solar activity even further. But I don't think I will find a good layout of the IPCC case in the summary for policy makers. I need to look at the working group I report again.
I'd like to find a good source that concisely lays out the IPCC case for attributing the warming to GHGs. I know that in the TAR, the evidence was chiefly the inability of the models to reproduce the temperature trend without GHGs. Since then AR4 has reduced the estimated contribution of solar activity even further. But I don't think I will find a good layout of the IPCC case in the summary for policy makers. I need to look at the working group I report again.
*Yes, I can understand. However if you or I subscribed to the Young Earth Creationist's POV, you would. So better we put this to the boss, eh? --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 05:05, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
*Yes, I can understand. However if you or I subscribed to the Young Earth Creationist's POV, you would. So better we put this to the boss, eh? --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 05:05, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
=== YEC POV or not ===
TK: "I don't feel comfortable making each and every article here from a YEC POV, as that idea isn't covered by our Commandments or Guidelines." This is very important point for CP and I'm happy to see that this question is rising to be topic in earnest discussions. It is fair and clear for users (both editors and readers) to say that this site is limited to YEC articles - or to leave other possibilites for views in articles if decided so. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 13:46, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
==Direction of research efforts==
==Direction of research efforts==