Talk:Science of global warming

!

Due to the controversial nature of this article, it has been locked by the Administrators to prevent edit wars or vandalism. Sysops, please do not unlock it without first consulting the protecting sysop.

/Archive 1

Editing This Page

• Please refrain from wholesale editing, rollbacks, re-directs. Adding pertinent information is encouraged, however please discuss here first before major changes are implemented. It does not do the site a service to keep making drastic changes, then having someone else roll them back ten minutes later! Will will start with the basic FACT that the Earth does appear to be in a warming cycle, and that its natural occurrence is aggravated by man's burning of fossil fuels in increasing amounts. It is simply not a proven fact, among a preponderance of scientists that warming cycles are only caused by Humans. In any event, from what I have read by the most alarmist backers like Al Gore, all mediating efforts that we could undertake, cannot and will not reverse what they claim is going to happen. So, we should treat this as a theory, and one that is at least as much a political item as one of Natural Science. --~ Sysop-TK ^Talk2Me! 21:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Celsius

How come the article states the degrees for temperature in Celsius? Shouldn't we be using Fahrenheit which what Americans use? If we are supposed to use American spellings for words shouldn't we also use the American system for measurements? --AdrianP 17:28, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

I would prefer to use Fahrenheit. The near-surface temperature has increased one degree Fahrenheit since the lowest point of the Little Ice Age in 1850. --Ed Poor 17:45, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

I would prefer Kelvin. --Java 18:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Maybe because Celsius degrees are bigger, so the changes seem smaller? Anyway, I agree that deg. F should be used, as they what are used by people in the US (except scientists...). Human 18:46, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh man, I am so embarrassed, I just saw what my edit summary "looks like". I can't go back and remove it now, either. Sorry about that. Human 18:48, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Suggestion, since this is a science topic, failure to use Celsius or Kelvin is an issue. On the other hand, many Americans (who I presume are the primary readers) have so little understanding that they won't be helped much by degrees in Celsius. Why not give both? JoshuaZ 18:50, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

That's flippin' brilliant! Would you mind doing it? My 9/5erizer is broken today and the parts won't be in 'til Tuesday. Human 19:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll do it later. I need ot get dinner now. JoshuaZ 19:31, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

has anyone noticed the conversions from celsius to fahrenheit (at the bottom of the page where the links to the references are) are completely incorrect? not only that, but the reference claiming the global temperature since 1850 has only risen 1 degree Fahrenheit was misquoted. whoever wrote this article neglected to make the correct conversion from celsius to fahrenheit. -- user talk:Dodo

• Are you offering to fix the problem? Let me know, and I will open the article. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 20:24, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Political bias

The essay by the science history teacher who supports the Kyoto Protocol contains no information about the percentage of climatologists who support or reject AGW. And Science might be a popular journal, but it's notorious for rejecting valid science on specious grounds that it's "not of interest to their readers". I guess this means their readers only want to hear things which fit their preconceived notions. --Ed Poor 18:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Um, what? Science isn't a "popular journal" but is one of the two most highly thought of journal (the other being Nature). They reject the vast majority of material they get and only accept the highest quality material that is relevant to a broad range of audience. The only people to whom Science is notorious are the people who can't accept science. And while were at it, whether or not a percentage study exists isn't that relevant when the consensus measured in other fashions (such as the fraction of major scientific organizations which agree with it) is clear. JoshuaZ 18:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

No? This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect. --Java 18:24, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Where does it show this? Please quote one peer-reviewed article in which the author says "I agree with the IPCC about (anything)." --Ed Poor 18:34, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

I posted a reference to one (Jones, P. D., M. New, D. E. Parker, S. Martin, and I. G. Rigor (1999), Surface air temperature and its changes over the past 150 years, Rev. Geophys., 37(2), 173–200.), but you deleted it. Why did you do that? I'm trying to make this page accurate with the science, and people keep putting politics into it. This is a science topic.

And a recent examples:

Good SA, Corlett GK, Remedios JJ, Noyes EJ, Llewellyn-Jones DT (2007) The Global Trend in Sea Surface Temperature from 20 Years of Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer Data. Journal of Climate: Vol. 20, No. 7 pp. 1255–1264 Ifixthings 18:53, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Hegerl GC, Crowley TJ, Allen M, Hyde WT, Pollack HN, et al. (2007) Detection of Human Influence on a New, Validated 1500-Year Temperature Reconstruction. Journal of Climate: Vol. 20, No. 4 pp. 650–666

Excuse me, but I read Science and the articals they publish are on the forefront of scientific thinking. I have also never heard any allagations of them rejecting top-quality scientific material. True, they don't agree with young earth creationists, but who can blame them? They are a scientific journal that looks at hard evidance instead of farfetched beleifs. 12:36 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Independent scientists such as ... Fred Singer

Fred Singer and organizations for which he has worked for appear to have received grants and funding from the oil companies.[1] Is there evidence to the contrary of this? Is it appropriate to categorize Fred Singer as an independent scientist with these associations? --Mtur 18:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

That's what the courts say, and Liberals usually abide by court decisions. The last guy who tried to slander Singer lost his shirt. --Ed Poor 18:49, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

My question is not one of slander but rather if the word 'independent' is being used to describe one scientist in an effort to lend support to his views, and not to others who are equally independent who hold contrasting views. In that case, the word is being used in an inconsistent and biased way. Why is one scientist independent when another is not? --Mtur 19:11, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh, well by "independent" I just meant "speaking for himself", "not constrained by his employer to toe the organizational line". Like Lindzen at MIT, having tenure, can say what he wants. --Ed Poor 19:13, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Like James Hansen - the NASA scientist who was told not to talk about global warming?[2][3][4]

Then how come he can talk about how he was told not to talk about global warming?Jaques 20:22, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

False citation: #11 doesn't say he was told not to talk about global warming, it just says that official press releases would be scrutinized. #12 doesn't mention his ability to talk at all; in it Hansen accuses Bush of stifling evidence (but without giving any examples of this supposed stifling). #13 says "Hansen says threats from NASA officials came only by phone, with nothing in writing" but doesn't give the wording of this supposed "threat" or even a summary of it.

This is typical of liberals: they make claims which have no evidence. The entire case on global warming consists of claims that "the world's top scientists agree" but they give no polls to support this "consensus" claim. They say that "models predict" but when the models are contradicted by observations they say that "models aren't predictions". They say it's carbon dioxide, but CO2 levels have been much higher in the past when there was cooling, and anyway the climate record of the last 400 million years show an 800 year lag between temperature change and CO2 change - CO2 follows temperature, rather than driving it.

They are politicizing science while running a well orchestrated PR campaign of calling the kettle black. --Ed Poor 20:41, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

--Ed Poor 20:29, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Climatology is not a well established science and some staunch conservatives are environmentalists so......

Climatology is not a well established science that can even predict what the weather is going to be like in two years or even 3 weeks from now. With that in mind, could we please hear both sides of the argument and leave it at that. I realize that environmentalists have made bad predictions in the past. [5][6] On the other hand, corporate America has certainly had their shares of environmental abuses (Love Canal, etc).

Lastly, I would point out that many conservative evangelical Christians are environmentalists. [7] Dr. Francis Schaeffer for example, cited the importance of taking care of the environment.

Therefore, considering that climatology is not a well established science and considering the fact that staunch conservatives are sometimes environmentalists, could we just give both sides and be done with it? Conservative 18:41, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Gen. 1:28 pretty much says it all, as far as the environment goes.

• And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Sounds like it's ours to use or lose, so I reckon we best take good care of it. Getting all the scientific facts ought to help us do that. --Ed Poor 18:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

removed uncited statement. can anyone give a citation?

I removed this uncited statement:

"However, the UN offers no proof of a scientific consensus on the subject, and all polls of scientists show anywhere from 25% to 75% disagreement with the UN position."

Can anyone give a citation? Conservative 19:25, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I can't prove that the UN offers no proof; I just never saw any proof from them. So the "no proof" claim should be taken out.

But I put in a survey which said climatologists are evenly split. --Ed Poor 19:35, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

If I read my current events right, some of the disagreement with the UN position was that it was not strongly worded enough. --Mtur 19:48, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Strong criticism against one of the sources

One of the citations: [8] claims that there is an study that shows scientist to be evenly split on the issue of climate warming. This "study" has been very strongly criticized and it's submission to Science on December 22, 2004 was rejected. Reasons being that it was done on internet, anonymously with no way of knowing who had answered to it. It was password protected in an attempt to limit the people answering but the password was posted to an climate skeptics mailing list [9]. Ill remove this entry from our pages from two reasons. 1. the citation is very unreliable 2. the text on CP is straight copy from the article it citates. Timppeli 20:50, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Seams i should have made the headline to say: against two of the sources. The article now claims: One scientist, Michael Mann, was investigated by the U.S. Senate for a scientific fraud uncovered by two persistent statistics experts (see Hockey stick graph). This really makes me wonder if the author has even read his own sources, Mr Mann was never investigated by the Senate or even accused of anything, thats an outright lie and the source never even claims this, so thats all made up by the author here. He was there just to testify on the matter of climate change. Mr. Soon and Ms. Baliunas challenged Mr. Mann's claims but for some reason there is no answer from Mr.Mann in the article. His response can be found here: [10] Where he refutes the accusations made against the study. Im going to remove the clear lies from the article and add Mr. Manns response to the criticism. Timppeli 21:45, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Image

I took out the graph; we can do better. It is not labelled on either axis, and does not tell us what it is measuring. --Hojimachong^talk 20:05, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Effects of global warming

Cut from end of article:

Part of the political motivation for acting on Global Warming may be the fact that there is wide agreement among the American public that Global Warming is a reality. A poll conducted March 11-14 of 2007 found that the majority of the American public (59%) believes we are already seeing the effects of Global Warming, an additional 3% and 8% respectively believe they will see the effects with in a few years or within their lifetime, and 19% believe that Global Warming will be seen, not in their lifetime, but in future generations—only a small minority 8% believe that Global Warming will never happen. .

This paragraph does not distinguish between "global warming", i.e., a rise in temperature and "the Global Warming theory", i.e., the idea that catastrophic warming will take place.

Also undefined is "the effects of Global Warming". What are those supposed to be? Rising sea levels? (These are unrelated to the recent rise, as even the UN assessment admits.) More frequent and severe hurricanes? (Not observed so far.) --Ed Poor 18:13, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

The poll itself didn’t appear to make that distinction. Politicians, like it or not, act on the basis of the poll numbers (even when polls don’t make distinctions). Find better numbers if you can, I couldn’t, but the fact remains that (however those taking the poll understood “effects”) the American public belies the “effects” will be seen, this large public interest in Global Warming is part of why politicians are talking about it (If the public thought it wasn’t going to happen most politicians wouldn’t care about it). This is why the poll was placed in the politics section rather than in some other, more scientific section.--Reginod 18:18, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Since, I think the paragraph has been well explained and I’m seeing no response to my explanation; I take it there is a consensus that this belongs where it was. I’ll return it if I see no objection in the next day(ish). --Reginod 15:38, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Seeing no objections I’m restoring the paragraph to the article.--Reginod 15:41, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Vandalism Edit

I am sorry Learn together, I did not mean to take out your edit.--TimS 17:50, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

That's ok, no problem. I was just surprised when I looked and right after my edit it said 'removed vandalism'. ;-) I didn't catch it myself until I saw your change. Learn together 17:56, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Ice ages and hypocrisy

"The Earth has experienced numerous ice ages over the past two million years" - not according to this wiki's article on Ice Age. You can't have it both ways, did they occur, and is the earth at least 2,000,000 years old, or did they not and is it not? Human 21:44, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

........--Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 07:51, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Creationary scientists believe that there was a single Ice Age that lasted around 700 years following Noah's Flood. (REF: Batten, Don, et. al., 2007, What about the Ice Age?, The Creation Answers Book, Chapter 16). I guess I was hoping for a clearer answer than "........", which I don't understand. Human 16:46, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Cite Leading Group of Climate Change Skeptics?

As the IPCC is included in the introduction to this entry, it's appropriate that the leading group of climate change skeptics be cited, instead of individual scientists. Does anybody know what the appropriate body to cite is? I'm aware of "The Friends of Science", but I believe they're exclusively Canadian. Dbarefoot 08:29, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Qualifers on IPCC in Introduction

I posit that if we're going to lay out the groups on both side of the global warming debate, they ought to be qualified equally, or not at all. I don't think these qualifiers are appropriate in introductions--they belong in the particular entries about the individuals or groups.

As I've queried above, I think it makes sense to describe the leading group of climate change skeptics or doubters, as they seem a natural counterpoint to the IPCC. Citing individual scientists seems too anecdotal for an encyclopedia, which ought to seek to be conclusive.

" removing liberalness"

Is now given as a reason to alter an article? Ironically, the rather few "non-liberal" qualifiers I have ever typed were all reverted. Maybe because a liberal is not allowed to say these things? Or perhaps, just because since I can't understand them, I can't push the POV appropriately? Human 23:05, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Look at the statement i removed. i removed it because it was unsourced. perhaps i should have said "removing unsourced statement"Bohdan

Remember, liberal sources don't count! --Gulik3 23:58, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

How about these changes?

Several prominent scientists have pointed out the politicized science of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.[Citation Needed]

I was going to use -> http://heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16806 <- this as a citation before the page got locked :)

....and also I must take issue with this statement. "The scenario most postulated is dust storms.[4]"

Dust storms are not the "most" postulated -- The sun's solar cycles are just as much of a plausable theory....

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

I have no problem with that change, and I'm the one who entered the original information. Learn together 12:42, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Neptune

I just read today that global warming has been found to be occurring on Neptune. It matches the same pattern for the time period found upon Mars and earth. It may be safe to assume that is not due to human intervention. ;-) Learn together 21:20, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Where did you see this? I'd be very interested in reading about this in more detail. JoshuaZ 21:50, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

The findings appeared in a recent issue of Geophysical Research Letters. The authors of the article, H.B. Hammel and G.W. Lockwood from the Space Science Institute in Colorado and the Lowell Observatory in Arizona, note that measurements of visible light from Neptune have been taken at the Observatory since 1950. I hope this is enough information to 'dig' it up. ;-) Learn together 04:05, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Found it. The paper is interesting. The correlation found was positive but not statistically significant between the brightness of Neptune and the Earth's temperature. Furthermore, from my reading it looks like one might expect a significant correlation even if most of the recent warming on earth is anthropogenic (note that this isn't my area of expertise so that could be painfully wrong). It should be interesting to see where this goes. JoshuaZ 10:56, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

I take no personal position on the issue, but I do believe any information that could be meaningful to form a complete picture should be included. That Mars and Neptune are both heating up over the same time period as the earth, and in the case of Mars even the temperature amount is similar, is certainly notable. It seems to me there is too much of an effort to dismiss information that would appear to be at odds with the concept that global warming is caused by humans, and that is unfortunate. (Note: I don't count global warming on Pluto due to Pluto's strange orbit. It has too many oddities, from my point of view, to be put in the same category.) Peace to you. Learn together 11:10, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

• Learn, you posted on my talk page, and I replied. Let me know. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 07:42, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I changed the header title before posting here, I hope I didn't step on any toes. The Header was Global Warming on other Planets Which I changed to Warming of other Planets. I did this to prevent confusion, though indeed the other planets are also globes but usually, (in my experience) "global" means the sum and totality of Earth. Feel free to change it back if'n you want. - Rob Pommer_talk 14:36, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for the talk message, and no offense taken. I've found that articles that discuss other planets usually still use the term global warming. For instance it has been popular to talk about global warming on Venus over the last decade or so, and the term global warming is used. The source about global warming on Mars also used the words global warming and Mars in the title. For these reasons I felt it was appropriate to keep the header title with global warming. Thanks. Learn together 18:09, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Secular scientists 'believe'

This is surely an error. This should read 'secular scientists have experimental evidence that indicates'. Nobody gets peer-reviewed work published on the basis of 'belief'.--Britinme 12:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Is it an error? No. It is correct as it is. "Belief" means to give assent to an idea. It does not mean, despite the way some atheistic types think of it, as accepting an idea without evidence or good reason.

Is it the best way to word it? Maybe not, but I'm not happy with your suggestion either. If I remember, I'll have more of a think about it.

Philip J. Rayment 22:55, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

How about "Secular scientists think"? Human 00:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

To my mind, "believe" is the better word. "Think" to me indicates some doubt, whereas "believe" can be a very strong conviction. But not everybody sees it that way, so I'll agree to changing it to "think", and in fact I've just done that. Philip J. Rayment 08:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

• This article has taken on drastic changes, it is a diluted, semi-neutral piece. It needs to be overhauled without the Liberal bias, and the removed material from warming skeptics added back. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 08:47, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

What is wrong with semi-neutral??? Is it only good if it carries a right wing arch-conservative bent?Prof0705 09:18, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Britnme, it is not true that getting peer-reviewed work published is a guarantee that it is based on experimental evidence. It only means that no obvious errors were found, and that the editor thinks it will interest his readers.

Peer review of journal articles is the gold standard of publishing, but it is NOT the essence of the scientific method. Nor is it directly related to how science advances. Reading an article is one thing. Reproducibility of results is another. It can take years and even decades for enough scientists to confirm or disprove an idea which has been reported in a scientific journal. The History of science shows this. --Ed Poor 09:37, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

AGW

Cut from article:

... contrasts with the effects predicted for anthropogenic global warming.

What effects are predicted? And on what basis? --Ed Poor 10:07, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Scientists who believe in global warming

Hi Dan, I'd like to point out that it is possible for Creation Scientists to believe in global warming as well, but they would not attach a 2 million year period of ice ages. ICR, for instance, takes a neutral view on global warming believing so far that the case has not been made satisfactorily, but they are open to ongoing evidence that may steer their opinion one way or the other if more concrete information is found. But even if they did feel global warming has been shown to be caused by humans, they still would not believe the earth is 2 million years old. Learn together 00:26, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

First, the age issue would apply only to Young Earth Creationists. I will freely admit that more creation scientists are global warming skeptics than other scientists, but I don't think we need to make the distinction here, especially because, as you said, groups like ICR take a neutral stance on it, so it's a separate issue. DanH 03:06, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

The edit was to a paragraph about ice ages, not about global warming itself. That's why it is appropriate to qualify it somehow. Philip J. Rayment 05:39, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Liberal Falsehood

The article's defintion of global warming in the first line is merely that the temperature is going up slightly over time. Since nobody really disputes the slight increase, and that the dispute is more over whether it's natural or human caused, I think that it's hard to apply to term "liberal falsehood" to the topic as a whole. Maybe there would be an easier way to make the distinction. DanH 03:09, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree with DanH. You can't deny that global warming is happening. The real question is whether or not it's natural or if it's caused by us. An article about global warming itself and not about a specific cause of it can hardly be ca;;ed a "liberal falsehood" can it?Nsmyth 03:03, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

I think another point of dispute is what global warming actually is. Is it a real problem of the planet getting inexorably warmer, or just the rising part of a regular (or irregular) warming/cooling cycle? It's not that long since the alarmists were telling us that we were headed for another ice age! The term "global warming" doesn't suggest the latter, so depending on just what the term means, I would suggest that some do dispute whether it (the former definition) is a real phenomenon at all. Philip J. Rayment 03:51, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Liberal bias, as it has just been changed to, sounds much better. Falsehood sounded like too big an elephant to chew. Learn together 04:57, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

• Thank you, Learn together! I am so use to people calling me an idiot or disagreeing with anything I do, I will save this post of yours! --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 05:12, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Hockey Stick

This seems like an inappropriate graph to me. The gray are the real values, but they've been averaged to get a blue line to smooth out large fluctuations. Highlighting the ups and downs of the gray would give a very different picture. Also, it only deals with the northern hemisphere, which makes the overall numbers incomplete for the 'global' part of global warming. (I realize the ice samples were only taken from the north pole, but we've got another pole that needs to be checked for balance if those figures are to be as meaningful as they are made to appear.) Just my thoughts Learn together 21:24, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

AEI and Exxon-Mobil

The linked citation reads: AEI climate science skeptics include James K. Glassman, also of ExxonMobil-funded Tech Central Station. ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond is on the AEI board of trustees. ExxonMobil gave AEI approximately $925,000 between 1998 and 2003.

Jacques, why do you keep cutting out the part about the AEI trying to buy scientists? It's got a citation. --Gulik3 23:04, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Clay mathematics institute also offer money rewards, do you think it's trying to buy scientists?Jaques 23:05, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

I won't have any idea until you put a link in there for a cite, so I can read it for myself. --Gulik3 23:08, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

By your logic, the Nobel Prize Committee is also trying to buy scientists, since Nobel Prize comes with money reward. Jaques 23:09, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

The Nobel Prize committee make their award on the basis of what someone has done (i.e. a reward) not on the basis of getting someone to prove or do something (i.e. a bribe). Arjen 23:44, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Let me guess--you own stock in Exxon? Such defensiveness ill-becomes someone with no money in this fight. --23:14, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

And you own stock in solar power companies.Jaques 23:15, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

I have a cite with a very long list of opponents to the global warming theory who have been sponsored by Exxon-Mobil. This is relevant to support the statement that such large oil industry companies are leading opponents of the theory. The line about offering $10,000 can be omitted if it's felt to be irrelevant.--Britinme 23:17, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Please do--then at least I won't get banned for an 'edit war'. And Jacques, PLEASE post a list of scientists being bankrolled by the massive Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy, once you get it together. --Gulik3 23:19, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

well, your thinking seems to be: tax money = good, donation = evil. Private donation automatically corrupt people and tax money does not, and any scientist who accept private donation is an Evil Communist.Jaques 23:22, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

man what

oooookay. Let me make sure I understand your 'logic' here. Basically, you're saying that all these scientists, both the goverment-funded and the Exxon-funded, are equally corrupt, and should be treated with exactly the same amount of credibility, the same way that 'researchers' for the Tobacco institute were treated when they were the only doctors on Earth who failed to find a connection between smoking and lung diseases. Am I understanding your 'reasoning' here, so far? --Gulik3 23:31, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

So you are saying that you would have believed it when Soviet Union government funded Scientists claimed they have 'disproved' Darwinian evolution?Jaques 23:36, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Considering how many Darwinists they had to ship off to Siberia to do it? Maybe not. Anyway, working off of your apparent belief that the Government is funding Global Warming research for its own insidious ends, what's the Bush-controlled US government's incentive to _support_ the Global Warming Theory? (Especially seeing how George is an oilman himself.) --Gulik3 23:50, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Of course, Soviet government would never tell you that they ship dissenters overseas now would they. And despite what you may think, George Bush does not control the distribution of science funding.Jaques 00:12, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

You don't know where Siberia is, do you. And what's the rest of the Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy's reason for their immense hoax? --00:34, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

"equally corrupt", or "equally likely to be corrupt"? Surely nobody here is claiming that either side is corrupt, merely suggesting that they might be account where the money is coming from. From that point of view, I would say yes, each side is equally likely to be corrupt. Philip J. Rayment 23:41, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

I am quite happy with the current version, which is a simple statement of fact - thank you for the edit, Jaques, which I think improves it. Regarding tobacco/lung diseases mentioned, I wonder if on the article about Richard Lindzen it should be mentioned how much money he received from the tobacco industry to dispute the connection between tobacco and lung diseases. Not that I would suggest for one moment that the gentleman does not believe what he advocates. I'm sure he is quite sincere--Britinme 23:42, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Oh, I'll bet he's sincere. Nothing produces true sincerity like a regular paycheck. --Gulik3 23:50, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Richard Lindzen has already responded to this sort of smearing tactics by enviornmentalists. Jaques 00:07, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

"If a man's paycheck depends on him not understanding something, you can pretty well depend on him not understanding it." -- Upton Sinclair's Law.

The wording that Jaques keeps deleting was previously approved by sysop Phillip J Rayment. These deletions smack of vandalism are against the CP commandments. Arjen 23:44, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Standard Wikipedia tactic. Come into channel, blame someone for rules violations, get him booted, take over, right? It worked for SlimVirgin over there. Karajou 01:15, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

• I will be the decider of that sock, not you. I suggest you keep to productive edits, and off the talk pages. Unfortunately, Arjen was a sock of BrianCo, and actually even posted on the user page. Both gone now. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 01:13, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

I am still not getting what's wrong with an oil company funding global warming research. Or what is significant about some of that research being different from the consensus. What do the critics think -- that ExxonMobil should ignore the issue? That all research should just endorse what has already been published? I made a change to drop some of the goofy conspiratorial innuendo. RSchlafly 02:54, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

There's no innuendo about a statement of fact - this company gave this much money to these organizations over this period of time, and the organizations all had one thing in common. It's not a conspiracy - it's a perfectly straightforward transaction as far as I can see. There's no secret about it and the figures are public. --Britinme 12:22, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

The innuendo is that that oil companies only gave money to skeptics, that they funded bad science, and that there is something improper about them funding research. Your sources don't prove any of those things, and are just goofy left-wing conspiracy rants. Can you please explain the point of the statement on the Talk page? RSchlafly 12:44, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

There is nothing improper at all about a company only funding researchers whose views are in their commercial interests and I don't think the statement says it's improper - it says E-M is opposed to this view and they fund people whose views agree with theirs but run counter to the mainstream. As I said, there's no conspiracy about it - conspiracy implies secrecy and this is no secret. Moreover, it could be argued that it's entirely proper for a company to defend its own commercial interests and that of its shareholders. I can't understand why there should be a problem about making their stance clear, as it's unarguable that this is their stance.--Britinme 22:02, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

The problem with your claim is that it is just not true that ExxonMobil only funds research that runs counter to the mainstream. It has given $100M to Stanford Univ. for mainstream research. Your sources on this do suggest a kooky conspiracy theory, it is just not plausible and not reported in any reliable source. RSchlafly 00:20, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

• Thank you! It needs a because it is mostly inserted UN material. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 03:18, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

For the record, the fact that I copyedit something rather than remove it should not be taken as "approval" of it. It might just mean that I have no knowledge of its accuracy, or haven't bothered to research it. Philip J. Rayment 05:29, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

• Philip, I didn't see anyone blaming you....the edits can all be seen. No worries. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 06:48, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

No, no-one "blamed" me for anything, but Arjen cited me as approving the paragraph in question, simply because I edited it and didn't remove it, so I was just making clear that my editing should not imply approval. Philip J. Rayment 07:24, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

• Oh! Well it was his snippy remark that lead me to research him, and I found him to be a smelly old sock, Philip. So no need to bother with him anymore! ;-) --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 07:44, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Re-write Time....

Has anyone actually read this article? Not with an eye towards editing it, but from the POV of someone seeking information? I doubt it. It is overly technical and wordy, cumbersome, IMO. Sort of what one gets via committee, lol. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 09:05, 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. Learn together 11:19, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

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.

Of course the response will be to point out the poor quality of the models, as done on the Climate models page, and the rare and unusual level of current solar activity per Solanki, and how poorly solar activity is understood per Foucal (sp?).

There is also a possible significant and underappreciated role for aerosols, with the trend from solar dimming to solar brightening, in the late 80s and 90s.

I am not sure what the purpose of the "Natural variability of the climate system" section is, it doesn't go anywhere, and the information it describes is not particularly controversial. Even scientists who don't "believe in global warming" accept the ices ages.--Africangenesis 02:25, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

Creationary scientists don't believe in multiple ice ages, regardless of whether or not they believe in global warming. Philip J. Rayment 04:23, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

• Wouldn't that be covered by a note or sentence in the body, Philip? 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. Being that we have many who are YEC's, we need to strive more for inclusion, rather than exclusion, by at least noting where some Christians differ, eh? --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 04:28, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

Ah, but it is covered by the commandment that says every article must be true and accurate! :-)

Seriously, as far as I'm aware, there is no YEC POV in this article. What there has been, however, are anti-YEC beliefs presented as true. For example, stating that there have been multiple ice ages over millions of years is an anti-YEC (and anti-biblical) POV. All I have done is qualify any matter-of-fact statements that assume an anti-YEC position so that they are not presented as undisputed truth.

Philip J. Rayment 05:23, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

I was mainly addressing the bringing up of the ice ages themselves, the section doesn't seem to be serving a relevant purpose. Separately, labeling everything purported to be older that 6000 years "evolutionary", seems a bit paranoid and fearful, as if the "believer" might be seduced by the evidence if not properly fortified with a warning. We are not serving the broader conservative community by projecting this appearance.--Africangenesis 19:51, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

I've got no objection to removing any reference to YEC ideas, as long as old-Earth/evolutionary ideas are also removed. If there is no need for the section with the mention of ice ages, I'm happy for it to go.

Labelling everything older than 6000 years as "evolutionary" is an attempt to avoid it being written as though the old ages are correct. If there's a better way of doing that, I've no objection. But I don't want any part of the article to be written as though hundreds of thousands or millions of years is just accepted to be correct. That would be like me asking an evolutionist to accept it being written it as though the Earth was only 6000 years old. Philip J. Rayment 08:58, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

• This is a place Andy needs to consider and post in. Personally, I agree with you, Africangenesis. But Andy is the man, so I will point him this way. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 04:31, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

The "Natural variability of the climate system" section has no purpose that I can see. There is a role for the glacial ice core data, that has been cited by both sides. Those pro-global warming cite the correlation between CO2 levels and temperature in the ice cores. The skeptics point out that the temperature rises PRECEDED the CO2 rises. It is pretty much a wash, so I'm not sure it needs to be mentioned. This section doesn't deal with either argument. The "evolutionary" label was used elsewhere in the article, not just in this section. I think it will detract from the perceived quality of our work. Frankly, it was so unusual to see in this context, that I didn't know what to make of it at first.--Africangenesis 05:00, 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? --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 05:05, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

---

YEC POV Or Not?

TK said: "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. --Aulis Eskola 13:46, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

• Thanks. But the answer seems to have been given by PhilipR, just after my post, which you quote.... --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 13:53, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

I want to discuss this topic not only to decide what is the contents of this article but how different views are handled in CP. Is this site for YEC? Does this site say directly it is? Or is this site going to be something else - wider views... --Aulis Eskola 14:14, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia does not suppress the YEC view, but neither does it endorse the YEC view, nor the evolutionary view. So statements that are worded as though the evolutionary view is correct will be changed so as to read that it is the evolutionary view rather than fact, but the evolutionary view is still allowed. Is that clear enough? Philip J. Rayment 21:54, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

Direction of research efforts

Cut from intro:

The focus of the science surrounding global warming has been to determine whether it is the result the natural internal variability of the climate, or due to other influences such as solar or human activity.

Is it determining whether or trying to prove that the recent warming trend is man-made? --Ed Poor ^Talk 09:46, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

It is supposed to be the former, but has become a religion so certain that its issue is urgent and that its thesis will ultimately prevail, that some of the WG1 authors are willing to suppress contrary evidence perhaps seeing it as a mere blip in the road and to exploit general ignorance of the subject with simplistic fear mongering.

Some of it is simple denial, if you had spent two and a half years and millions of dollars of computer time, would you want your "projections" of the future climate based on GHG scenerios relegated to a mere intellectual exercise by a simple study such as Roesch's (see Climate model). The models are 5 or 10 years away from being accurate enough to attribute and project a 0.75W/m^2 energy imbalance. There is the distinct possibility that 5 or 10 years from now, they will still be 5 or 10 years away. --Africangenesis 19:44, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 01:38, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

Equilibrium and Energy Imbalance

This is the name of a new section I'm not yet ready to write. What I intend to point out is the climate commitment studies of Wigley and Meehl, that show that most of the surface temperature response to a change in forcing, occurs within a few decades, but the energy imbalance continues, even after the initial response of the land surface and the top layer of the ocean, for centuries and can be continuing even after a thousand years, as heat is either stored into or released from the deep oceans. Since there has probably never been a thousand years without a volcanic eruption or some variation in solar activity beyond the 11 year cycle, the climate has never been in equilibrium, and thus is ALWAYs changing, either warming or cooling, and there is always an enery imbalance. Cites from Hansen and Pielke and others will quantify the current imbalance. (its much smaller than the documented errors in the models of course).

Since the plateau in solar activity that was reached circa 1940 is continuing (per Solanki), to this day, some of the energy imbalance must be attributable to this new (in equilibrium terms) solar forcing that has not yet had time to equilibrate. Attribution can get trickly. There was a midcentury 50s to 80s, cooling that was probably due to aerosols, so what is the subsequent warming to be attributed to? It is to be attributed to the reduction in aerosols or to a resumption of the climate's equilibration to the continuing level of solar forcing, which had merely been delayed by the aerosols? And greenhouse gas increases contributed as well. It is not an easy pie to cut. I think the climate commitment studies tell us that a solar contribution cannot be denied, nor a contribution from the earlier greenhouse gas increases. Transient forcings such as volcano eruptions don't get attribution unless they are currently occurring and what we are trying to attribute is currently occurring.--Africangenesis 04:50, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

Solar variability

I also intend a section where solar variability and cycles are discussed. I think we should prominently feature Solanki's statistical work, based on analysis of proxies of past solar activity, that shows that the current high plateau in solar activity has only an 8% probability of lasting until the year 2050. We also should have some acknowledgement of solar conveyor theory which predicts that the next cycle will be active, but the following cycle is expected to be unusually low. Then some discussion of the multidecadal and centuries long cycles. The 1470 year cycle gets us into the ice core record however, it is difficult to detect in the interglacials but probably persists there, the climate just isn't near a tipping point that allows its signature to be recorded, like it is during the ice ages. The cosmic ray link should also be discussed, but the scientific support, like also that for the solar conveyor theory is very preliminary, and should be identified as such.--Africangenesis 05:14, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

Try this columnist

Someone might find something useful for this article in this newspaper column. Actually, if you want to trawl through his blog, you might find more stuff, such as a link to this site showing pictures of a high-qual..., er, a weather station. Philip J. Rayment 09:26, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

Stop Politicizing

• I removed several gossipy bits. Polls showing what non-expert citizens "think" are gossip. Since most will have little understanding of actual science, their opinions merit what in this encyclopedia? Speculation about how some possible legislation, at some point in the future, might effect Exxon-Mobile, is just plain crap as well. It is a given that the UN's panel was politicized, as its members were appointed by the governments involved, usually without some panel of experts recommending who to appoint. Please stop introducing material that explains away this fact. This article will now remain locked, and you can request a sysop to unlock it for editing, or post your wanted additions here. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 16:51, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Using this precedent, I would like to request that the part of creationism article named "Popularity and Scientific Community Consensus" be abridged so that it is only the "Scientific Community Consensus" section now, as well as the "adherenets and opponents of creationism" be removed because according to you "most will have little understanding of actual science, their opinions merit what in this encyclopedia?" And creationism really is all about the science behind it, right? Not the faith, even if it is a tenant of many a religion.--Stereophile 17:09, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

• You are out of line, posting about some other article here. Take your trolling someplace else. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 17:28, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Union of Concerned Scientists

This article cites a study by the Union of Concerned Scientists which foundthat many scientists studying global warming had come under political pressure to alter their findings. The article takes it out of context to make it seem like this pressure is coming from the United Nation, when in reality that pressure is within the US Federal Government, i.e. the Bush administration. Conservapedia does not include a reference. Here is the study it was referring to: http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/atmosphere-of-pressure.html

Also, it should be noted that only one "hockey stick" graph has been discredited. Here is a link to several more that confirm the general "hockey stick" shape: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121

Read the Sunspots

The following article was posted at http://www.projectalberta.com/board/viewtopic.php?p=34667&highlight=#34667

The mud at the bottom of B.C. fjords reveals that solar output drives climate change - and that we should prepare now for dangerous global cooling

R. TIMOTHY PATTERSON, Financial Post Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Politicians and environmentalists these days convey the impression that climate-change research is an exceptionally dull field with little left to discover. We are assured by everyone from David Suzuki to Al Gore to Prime Minister Stephen Harper that "the science is settled." At the recent G8 summit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel even attempted to convince world leaders to play God by restricting carbon-dioxide emissions to a level that would magically limit the rise in world temperatures to 2C.

The fact that science is many years away from properly understanding global climate doesn't seem to bother our leaders at all. Inviting testimony only from those who don't question political orthodoxy on the issue, parliamentarians are charging ahead with the impossible and expensive goal of "stopping global climate change." Liberal MP Ralph Goodale's June 11 House of Commons assertion that Parliament should have "a real good discussion about the potential for carbon capture and sequestration in dealing with carbon dioxide, which has tremendous potential for improving the climate, not only here in Canada but around the world," would be humorous were he, and even the current government, not deadly serious about devoting vast resources to this hopeless crusade.

Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about 3C warmer than now. Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thou-sand-year-long "Younger Dryas" cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6C in a decade -- 100 times faster than the past century's 0.6C warming that has so upset environmentalists.

Climate-change research is now literally exploding with new findings. Since the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the field has had more research than in all previous years combined and the discoveries are completely shattering the myths. For example, I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of all energy on the planet.

My interest in the current climate-change debate was triggered in 1998, when I was funded by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council strategic project grant to determine if there were regular cycles in West Coast fish productivity. As a result of wide swings in the populations of anchovies, herring and other commercially important West Coast fish stock, fisheries managers were having a very difficult time establishing appropriate fishing quotas. One season there would be abundant stock and broad harvesting would be acceptable; the very next year the fisheries would collapse. No one really knew why or how to predict the future health of this crucially important resource.

Although climate was suspected to play a significant role in marine productivity, only since the beginning of the 20th century have accurate fishing and temperature records been kept in this region of the northeast Pacific. We needed indicators of fish productivity over thousands of years to see whether there were recurring cycles in populations and what phenomena may be driving the changes.

My research team began to collect and analyze core samples from the bottom of deep Western Canadian fjords. The regions in which we chose to conduct our research, Effingham Inlet on the West Coast of Vancouver Island, and in 2001, sounds in the Belize-Seymour Inlet complex on the mainland coast of British Columbia, were perfect for this sort of work. The topography of these fjords is such that they contain deep basins that are subject to little water transfer from the open ocean and so water near the bottom is relatively stagnant and very low in oxygen content. As a consequence, the floors of these basins are mostly lifeless and sediment layers build up year after year, undisturbed over millennia.

Using various coring technologies, we have been able to collect more than 5,000 years' worth of mud in these basins, with the oldest layers coming from a depth of about 11 meters below the fjord floor. Clearly visible in our mud cores are annual changes that record the different seasons: corresponding to the cool, rainy winter seasons, we see dark layers composed mostly of dirt washed into the fjord from the land; in the warm summer months we see abundant fossilized fish scales and diatoms (the most common form of phytoplankton, or single-celled ocean plants) that have fallen to the fjord floor from nutrient-rich surface waters. In years when warm summers dominated climate in the region, we clearly see far thicker layers of diatoms and fish scales than we do in cooler years. Ours is one of the highest-quality climate records available anywhere today and in it we see obvious confirmation that natural climate change can be dramatic. For example, in the middle of a 62-year slice of the record at about 4,400 years ago, there was a shift in climate in only a couple of seasons from warm, dry and sunny conditions to one that was mostly cold and rainy for several decades.

Using computers to conduct what is referred to as a "time series analysis" on the colouration and thickness of the annual layers, we have discovered repeated cycles in marine productivity in this, a region larger than Europe. Specifically, we find a very strong and consistent 11-year cycle throughout the whole record in the sediments and diatom remains. This correlates closely to the well-known 11-year "Schwabe" sunspot cycle, during which the output of the sun varies by about 0.1%. Sunspots, violent storms on the surface of the sun, have the effect of increasing solar output, so, by counting the spots visible on the surface of our star, we have an indirect measure of its varying brightness. Such records have been kept for many centuries and match very well with the changes in marine productivity we are observing.

In the sediment, diatom and fish-scale records, we also see longer period cycles, all correlating closely with other well-known regular solar variations. In particular, we see marine productivity cycles that match well with the sun's 75-90-year "Gleissberg Cycle," the 200-500-year "Suess Cycle" and the 1,100-1,500-year "Bond Cycle." The strength of these cycles is seen to vary over time, fading in and out over the millennia. The variation in the sun's brightness over these longer cycles may be many times greater in magnitude than that measured over the short Schwabe cycle and so are seen to impact marine productivity even more significantly.

Our finding of a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators (called "proxies") is not unique. Hundreds of other studies, using proxies from tree rings in Russia's Kola Peninsula to water levels of the Nile, show exactly the same thing: The sun appears to drive climate change.

However, there was a problem. Despite this clear and repeated correlation, the measured variations in incoming solar energy were, on their own, not sufficient to cause the climate changes we have observed in our proxies. In addition, even though the sun is brighter now than at any time in the past 8,000 years, the increase in direct solar input is not calculated to be sufficient to cause the past century's modest warming on its own. There had to be an amplifier of some sort for the sun to be a primary driver of climate change.

Indeed, that is precisely what has been discovered. In a series of groundbreaking scientific papers starting in 2002, Veizer, Shaviv, Carslaw, and most recently Svensmark et al., have collectively demonstrated that as the output of the sun varies, and with it, our star's protective solar wind, varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep space are able to enter our solar system and penetrate the Earth's atmosphere. These cosmic rays enhance cloud formation which, overall, has a cooling effect on the planet. When the sun's energy output is greater, not only does the Earth warm slightly due to direct solar heating, but the stronger solar wind generated during these "high sun" periods blocks many of the cosmic rays from entering our atmosphere. Cloud cover decreases and the Earth warms still more.

The opposite occurs when the sun is less bright. More cosmic rays are able to get through to Earth's atmosphere, more clouds form, and the planet cools more than would otherwise be the case due to direct solar effects alone. This is precisely what happened from the middle of the 17th century into the early 18th century, when the solar energy input to our atmosphere, as indicated by the number of sunspots, was at a minimum and the planet was stuck in the Little Ice Age. These new findings suggest that changes in the output of the sun caused the most recent climate change. By comparison, CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales.

In some fields the science is indeed "settled." For example, plate tectonics, once highly controversial, is now so well-established that we rarely see papers on the subject at all. But the science of global climate change is still in its infancy, with many thousands of papers published every year. In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that "the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases." About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all.

Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada. As a country at the northern limit to agriculture in the world, it would take very little cooling to destroy much of our food crops, while a warming would only require that we adopt farming techniques practiced to the south of us.

Meantime, we need to continue research into this, the most complex field of science ever tackled, and immediately halt wasted expenditures on the King Canute-like task of "stopping climate change."

R. Timothy Patterson is professor and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University.

© National Post 2007

Source; http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4

Self-Induced Warming

Fiddler On The Roof INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 6/22/2007

Climate Change: The problem with warming predictions may lie in how we measure the present. Can we say that 2006 was the warmest year ever when the temperature is being measured mere feet from air conditioning exhaust?

We are all familiar with the scenario. Junior wants to stay home from school so he holds a match under a thermometer and then runs to mom to say he has a fever. We don't think it's deliberate, but something similar may be happening with our weather-monitoring methodology.

In January, the folks at the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration trumpeted the "fact" that 2006 was the warmest year ever recorded in the continental United States. This was based on daily temperature data gathered by NOAA's National Climactic Data Center and the 1,221 or so weather observation stations it monitors around the country.

Where these stations are and what is in the vicinity can make a difference. NOAA admits that stations have been moved and modernized as technology and the locales change. They provide input to the computer climate models that warming alarmists use to predict the day after tomorrow.

Bill Steigerwald of FrontPageMagazine.com reports on an enterprising former TV meteorologist in Chico, Calif., Anthony Watts, who wondered about the accuracy and reliability of these stations and a system that has been in use since the early 1900s.

So Watts and a few volunteers decided to check a few of them out, about 40 so far. They found one station in Forest Grove, Ore., that stands just 10 feet from an air conditioning exhaust vent. Another station in Roseburg, Ore., is on a rooftop near an AC unit. In Tahoe, Calif., one is near a drum where trash is burned.

Watts has set up a Web site (http://www.surfacestations.org) to chronicle and document his group's findings. Watts observes: "I believe we will be able to demonstrate that some of the global warming increase is not from CO2 but from localized changes in the temperature-measurement environment."

America is a lot more urbanized than it used to be. Lots of concrete and asphalt have been poured. Big cities full of tall buildings have gotten bigger and what greenies call urban sprawl continues. These cities are natural "heat islands" that can not only affect the weather but how we measure it. And if some urban dweller wants to put an A/C unit next to a station that records temperature on his property, what's to stop him or her?

In case you missed the headline in the New York Times, NOAA went back and updated its 2006 report based on "revised statistics." This is not unusual. NOAA does try to do its own station-checking to reflect changes in the station environments.

The result was that 2006 was determined to be the second-warmest year "on record."

The year 1998 still holds the honor. At an annual average temperature of 59.4 degrees Fahrenheit it was actually some 0.08 degrees cooler.

Warnings of imminent climate doom are based on computer models that are often based on agreed-upon assumptions and fed a relatively small portion of the immense number of variables that affect weather and climate. One of those variables is temperature, and it needs to be measured accurately.

Otherwise, as the computer geeks say: garbage in, garbage out.

Fahrenheit and Celsius

I believe it would make for a better article if we don't switch from one to the other. I would recommend either using one, or putting the values for both in each instance where temperature change is sited. Thanks Learn together 13:40, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

• I agree, and believe Ed will as well. Please make the changes, if you've a mind to. I have opened it. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 14:00, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

I would like everything to be in English units, because our readership is primarily Americans and most Americans are unfamiliar with the metric units used in Europe and elsewhere abroad. We can supply metric equivalents in braces, as needed.

Another advantage of Fahrenheit is it shows how imprecise the measurements and predictions are. There's only been one degree of warming, and it's not even very precisely measured. The "error bars" are bigger than the increase! In other words, temperature can only be measured within an accuracy of 3 or 4 degrees, while the 1 degree average increase is tiny in comparison.

It is only in industrial countries like the U.S. that accurate measurements are kept, which leads into the concept of temperature trends, the maintenance of weather stations, the "contamination" of the urban heat island effect and so on. Did you know that Atlanta (called "Hotlanta" by one US government website) is more than 5 degrees hotter than the surrounding rural countryside? --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:15, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

• Yes. See the info I just inserted above....very telling. I wonder how many measuring stations in London, Madrid, Rio and the like have the same conditions? --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 14:15, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

According to liberals (and Kyoto Protocol supporters) the Urban heat island effect is of little significance and has been properly accounted for.

According to scientists, the 5 degree rise of Atlanta has not been accounted for. There's also a trend in California.

The "contamination" of the temperature record rivals the supposed "human contribution" - but it can't explain it all away. Only liberals (and other cheaters) would dare to make a claim like that (see hockey stick graph). --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:20, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Politics of global warming

Cut from article:

and to some the warming appears to be related to increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The possibility of adverse consequences has become a major concern for environmentalists.

Does it "appear so to them", or are they making a claim whose scientific accuracy they don't know or care about?

And do environmentalists actually believe their own claims, or do they promote their alarmism for ulterior motives? --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:48, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

• http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/search/s_513219.html --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 15:32, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

False claims of consensus?

Firstly, for me it seams that it was year 1989 not 1992 when the poll was made, atleast according to the link you gave, and that is 18 years ago, which is 'huge' time in cases like this. Secondly it gives no refrenses to the study itself and personally couldnt find it from elswhere either. So, i suggest that this entry would be removed atleast untill better source is given and mention added that the study is out of date and a lot has happened in allmost 20 years. For a more reasent study i suggest the one puplished in science which gave completely diffrent result and should be offcourse the one to point out the current attitudes toward global warming, not study made allmost 20 years ago and which atleast i cant find from anywhere. HeikkiL 15:59, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

As i don't hear any objections, ill go ahead and remove the entry. HeikkiL 15:26, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

• This isn't some other place. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 20:21, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, i don't quite understand what you mean? i see you reverted the deletion, but why? As said, there was no citation to the "study" and even if there where one, it would be 18 years old, IPCC was found in 1988 so that study would be really out dated, even more so when more reasent studyes are available, why should this study be used instead of those if not blatantly to push POV, and in a way that is clearly deceitful. HeikkiL 20:31, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

And i see you locked the article, i don't see why, im not intrested on revert wars, so don't bother because of me, but i would like to hear some reasons for the revert. HeikkiL 20:40, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

But we are not interested in attitudes about global warming - but what scientists who study the climate actually think about it. If you want to help me write a spin-off article on the Politics of global warming, we can write about the attitudes expressed on the editorial pages of general scientific journals like Nature and Science. But this article is only about what climatologists say.

We should quote specific climate scientists like Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer. If some recent graduate from a PhD program (like Michael Mann) wants to present a counter-argument, that's okay too - but we should not accept his new ideas if they run counter to the scientific consensus and they "cherry-pick" the data to omit evidence which disproves his ideas.

There is a lot of liberal bias on social science and environmental science - not to mention psychology, economics, religion, history, etc. We cannot be trustworthy if we report liberal ideas as if they were objective. They are not: they have an agenda, and a "dedication to reality at all costs" is in no way part of that agenda. --Ed Poor ^Talk 11:04, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Attitudes? uhm... The article in science is study made by Naomi Oreskos, Science magazine which happens to be one of the most respected science journals just published his work. And that study was based on 928 papers made from global warming by many diffrent climatologists. Allso there are several IPCC reports affirming the consensus and over 30 scientific societies and academies of science agree, actually allof the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.

Under this overhelming amount of evidence, i can't see how some one can actually claim that a allmost 20 year old study to which there are no refrences should be used to show the current attitude towards global warming among climatologists. There is just no way anyone can justify that, its platant POV pushing. When the IPCC report at 2001 concluded that there was around 66%-90% certanity that the warming was caused atleast partly by human actions, the latest report said it to be over 90%, So you can only imagine how much has happened in 18 years and how much the attitudes have changed. If that raport referred by Lindzen actually existed and said what he claimed, im sorry, it's not you, but i have hard time trusting Richard Lindzen after reading some of his comments about smoking and cancer.

Lastly i have to say that i really hope you can have open enough mind to get out from gategoricing things as liberal facts and conservative facts, there are no such things, just facts that should be packed by evidence no matter what way they point or does it fit into your political views. Mayby science and it's findings seam liberal because the world is that way. For me, the whole american liberal/conservative thing seams actually quite odd, none of the other countryes i have worked or lived have had such controversy. More i read this site the more i wonder if there is any field in science that dosen't conflict with the world view this site promotes. And im really worryed about that. HeikkiL 16:53, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

1. Oreskes is not a "him", and her bias was already noted by Peiser, et al.
2. Science is not an objective source - they have rejected papers which passed peer review elsewhere, purely on the ground that the contents would "not be of interest to their readers". A journal whose readers would not be interested in a paper which contradicts what everyone wants to believe precisely because the readers don't want to hear anything that contradicts their preconceptions is not a good source for an encyclopedia article.
3. The IPCC's bias is well known; it's a creature of the UN.
4. National academies are creatures of their own governments.
5. Anyway, science is not decided by votes. Rather it requires evidence and reasoning. To verify whether a theory is true or false, see Scientific method.
6. I agree that facts themselves are not liberal or conservative. The problem is that liberals and conservatives disagree on what the facts are. The hockey stick graph of Michael Mann is a case in point. The IPCC used his version of the temperature record precisely for the reason you condemned, i.e., because it fit into their political views: i.e., they want to endorse the Kyoto Protocol.
7. Science is not liberal; rather, liberals distort scientific findings; they ignore anything that contradicts their world view.
8. This site only seeks what is true. If you have evidence of any errors, please point them out. Using biased sources like Science journal or the UN won't help your argument; try citing a specific study by a particular scientist. And say what they observed and how they explain it. That's science. It's not science to say that a particular authority endorses an idea.
9. If you're "really" worried about people who appeal to authority instead of seeking out and reporting what is really true, then you should help us create a complete and accurate article. --Ed Poor ^Talk 15:54, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Well, here is my lenghty response in return :)

1. Peiser has taken back most of his critisism and states that he no longer doubts that overhelming majority of climatologists think that current global warming is caused by man. [11]
2. I can only say that you don't share that opinnion with many people. Science magazine is higly respected amongst the scientists. And offcourse they reject articles that have passed peer review, there would be thousands of scientists wanting their work to be published by science, but it has limited resources. The fact that it can't publish everything sent to it dosen't mean that the articles published would be any less credible if anything, just the opposite, they should reprisent cream of the crop. Allso, it should not matter where the study was published, as long as it's sourced right and you can observe the study itself and draw your own conclusions.
3. So, an conspiracy theory, that UN and IPCC would be out there to get US? And like most conspiracy theoryes, it really dosen't make any sense. What in earth could UN gain from it? How could they convince all the scientists to join this conspiracy without exposing it? Why would any scientist want to join them? Im sorry, but for me it seams like just an attempt to discredit them with vague accusations when there are not enough facts to do it.
4. And National academies of science are just one part of the great conspiracy?
5. True, most popular view isn't necesarily the right one, but it usually tells a lot when so many professionals dedicated to research that particular field of science come to same conclusion. It's not wise to just ignore that.
6. Hmm, what other options and research there was beside the hockey stick graph that the IPCC ignored? I don't think that any scientists, even the most skeptic ones doubt anymore the fact that the climate is getting warmer, the question just is why.
7. Thats just and generializing attack against all liberals without any evidence. I could make same kind of empty claims about conservatives and we wouldn't get anywhere.
8. This one really deserves and through out answer, because here i think you are doing just the opposite what you are preaching. Lets see, you want and reliable source, i offer science magazine, one of the most respected scientific magazines, you in other hand offer some unknown website. You want me to cite a specific study, which i have all along done, the specific study is the one made by Oreskes and to which you can find citation from the science article. You offer a study that has no author that we know, there is no refrence to the whole study no where to be found and if there was, it would still be 18 years old. You want me to tell what they observed, which is just what i did, they observed that the papers they studyed showed there to be widly accepted consensus amongs climatolgist that the global warming was caused by man. On your study there isn't much to observe as i can't find even an abstract from it, but if one can trust the unknown website you offered, it shows that 18 years ago the scientists in American Meteorological Society where divided if not sceptical about the global warming. What it dosen't of course mention as it's that old is that in 2003 that same organisation published an statement concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508 (2003)). So i can't really understand, why that article of yours got to the conservapedia entry, if you claim to have such a high criteria on what you trust, Unless it's because it supports your world view.
9. That is exactly what im trying to do. I dont think that the current article is accurate in any way, atleast the part we are discussing now.

But during the whole discussion we have had about this subject, you haven't answered anything to my enquiryes to why you are willing to use that source of yours, when there is no citation to it, no reasearh to be found and it's so old that it can't be in anyway considered to be representing the current views on the subject. HeikkiL 17:33, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

I'm not going to answer all your points, because this is not a debate page. We are trying to improve the global warming article, that's all.

Oreskes did not read 928 articles but only their abstracts. And she is not a disinterested analyst but an advocate of "action" on global warming.

But if you have some information of the absolute number of scientists (or a percentage from a survey) who give partial or full credence to the theory of anthropogenic global warming, that would be good to have. Please supply a summary, with a reference.

However, that properly belongs in Politics of global warming because polls and surveys are not science. Science is facts, along with theories which explain them. (Note that a 'model' which has been tweaked to fit a period of a few decades is not a theory.)

And if you really want to help, you can explain all about albedo, cosmic rays, sunspots, solar variation, and the various natural climate cycles. We need to know about these first, before we can judge the extend of the human contribution. Would you care to help in this way? --Ed Poor ^Talk 23:29, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

How does the fact that Oreskes her self believes the global warming to be caused by man anyways lessen the value of her reasearch? i once again ask, if the author of your investigation was neutral? oh wait, we don't even know who he was, but we know that the person who claims this reasearch to show something is all but neutral. You are allso moving the goal posts as we move along, first you want peer reviewed cited studyes which addres the consensus on the global warming, when i give you those you no longer think them valid but demand studyes made from invidual scientists, like that would have any change on the subject. There are over 160 countryes that have ratified the kyoto protocol, the joint science academies agreed on the consensus on 2005, All the known academies of science agree on the consensus and have publically announced so, the only science academy ever to doubt human produced global warming (American Association of Petroleum Geologists, suprise suprise) is changing their view as "the current policy statement is not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members" After that there are no notable or known academies to disagree. It's mind blowing that some one in situation like this can even suggest that there wasn't consensus. Where would all those doubtfull scientist be? They arent members of any academies? they don't make any studyes on the subject? There are offcourse few invidual scientist who disagree, as there allways is, but they are tiny part of the picture. And most of even them agree that they are on the opposing side of the concensus, like Peiser did...

But still i see that your post about the false concensus stays on the page. It violates all of the principles you have demanded from my studyes, it's so old that it's rediculous. But you just ignore these facts and don't comment it in anyway. You ask why im not helping on the other parts of this article? It's simply because im disgusted about it's current state and think the major errors should be fixed instead of adding new ones. This intellectual dishonesty reprisented here endagers the lifes of our children, i suggest that you carefully read what i wrote and really think if your comment on the article is intellectually honest one, the one you can proudly defend when your childrens ask you 30 years from now, what you where doing about the subject at your time. Im sorry if i sound harsh, but i really beliave this to be important for the future of us and the coming generations. And i do think there can be made intelligent arguments against the global warming, but denying the obvious concensus on the subject definetle isn't one of those. HeikkiL 19:43, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

How does the fact that some scientist who are skeptical about anthropogenic global warming have (1) "taken money" from Big Oil or (2) are "aligned" with Bush or the conservative movement?

You profess disgust, but is this political (because science is in sharp disagreement with the treaty ratifiers)? Or do you have some information about the Earth's climate which only liberals know?

Do you think that this encyclopedia should publish scientific work only by people who agree with you, or who are neutral? That is not our policy, because one-sided views aren't trustworthy. We publish the truth, even when it disagrees with the mainstream of liberal thought.

You are free to ignore the peer-reviewed, published studies cited by Singer, Lindzen, etc. Even a novelist like Michael Crichton has found out about peer-reviewed, published studies which disagree with the liberal POV.

But an encyclopedia cannot afford to censor the truth. We'll leave that to moribund publications such as Wikipedia, which makes a cottage industry out of intellectual dishonesty.

Meanwhile, if you find any scientific evidence in favor of AGW, please add it to the article. Unlike Wikipedia, we want to present both sides.

I have a note to add to this discussion. You (I am not sure of the author, they are not listed) say above, "we want to present both sides." Unless I am mistaken, this discussion is revolving around the acquisition of facts for an article on Global Warming. You cannot "present both sides" of a fact, because facts do not have two sides. There is not a 'liberal' side and a 'conservative' side of a fact. There are two sides to every story, every debate, every controversy, but facts have only one side: unbiased truth. The only way that you can present a fact is to present it without bias. You cannot fix 'liberal bias' on a 'fact' by instead presenting the fact with 'conservative bias'. You can, however, fix liberal bias on an article which interprets facts, and from them produces an opinion. You could, in this way, "present both sides" by reporting a study (a fact) along with two articles - one from a source widely considered to be 'liberal', and one from a source widely considered to be 'conservative'. But first, you must present the facts. Simple 09:59 (GMT -5) 3 July 2007

Simple, I'll answer this argument below. --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:30, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Ed, it seams to me that it's allmost impossible to get you to talk about the subject in hand, which was your claim on the article pages, that there is no consensus over global warming amongs scientists. You have in no way commented my critisism towards your source and age of the study nor have you commented in any way the other evidences i provide. You just keep ranting on liberal bias where there clearly is none to be found, just you trying to defend an entry that in no intelligable way can be defended. That is i presume allso the reason why you don't respond to me.

I allso got debressed when i read forward on the article, it's filled with same kind of mistakes, that are so blatant that they must be deliberatly made, for example in the talk about the "hockey stick" chart, to which you put too much emphasis anyways, it's in no way specially important to the study of global warming, you "forget" to mention that there has been response to all the critisism, and actually McKitrick and McIntyre are the ones who have some explaining to do. and thats not all, the Hockey stick graph has been defended afterwards by National Academy of Sciences, Nature, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and the American Meteorological Society. There is allso a new study by Ammann and Eugene Wahl of Alfred University, who have analyzed the Mann-Bradley-Hughes (MBH) climate field reconstruction and reproduced the MBH results using their own computer code. They found that the MBH method is robust even when numerous modifications are employed. i put the link to that study down below. So i hope all these facts get to the article as well, as they should if this site really tryes to be truthfull. But all this can wait, please answer first to my questions about the global warming consensus and then we can continue to this subject. [12][13] [14] [15] [16] HeikkiL 16:42, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

I have responded to you, but you have talked past me in a "pot calling the kettle black" fashion so typical of liberals. The issue is whether there is a scientific consensus.

Supporters of the Kyoto Protocol assert that a scientific consensus exists, and that it favors the Greenhouse Theory of anthropogenic global warming. Opponents say that the science is not settled.

If you know of any surveys or petitions relating to climatologists on the issue, please point them out. Or simply add them to the Politics of global warming article.

If you are less interested in consensus and more interested in science, we can change the subject back to the more important matter of whether there is any scientific support for the anthropogenic global warming theory. Perhaps you could add a citation to a peer-reviewed journal article which shows evidence for AGW.

But if you're only interested in political aspects such as what proportion of scientific papers support one side in the debate, this is not really the place. Our readers want to know how much global warming is occuring, how much of it is natural, and whether attempts to "stop" it will be successful.

Readers of the politics article will be interested in who's on what side, but the scientifically-minded just want to know the facts - and whether there are any theories which can explain those facts. --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:28, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

So... Still no comment on your "false claims on consensus" addition to the article, and to the "study" you base it on, alltho i have now asked atleast 3 times. I allso provided you with the study by Oreskes, which you don't from reasons unspecified accept as proof of consensus or the statements from all the national academyes of science etc. But you keep avoiding these and i don't really have any hope left that i get a decent answer or can get the article to reprisent facts even remotely. This is just as futile as debating with most of the creationists, too strong ideological views to be changed by any facts, you just look the other way. So ill just admit my defeat and leave this site alone. But i thank you from the debate, atleast you where willing to discus the subject, and not to block critisism right away for example under the 90/10 rule. And im sure you are convinced, that im just as blinded by my liberal ideology than i think you are, but seams we just have to continue disagreeing there ;) HeikkiL 19:24, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Solar variation and global warming

A recently published study discounts this. The full text of the study can be found in http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070702/full/448008a.html . For those that lack a subscription to Nature, various journalists commenting on the article: [17] [18] [19] [20] . I hope that this material can be properly integrated into the main article. --Mtur 14:02, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

And a link to the article published at the Royal Society [21] --Mtur 14:09, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Controversy over the facts

Despite the simple view above (pun intended! ;-) there is substantial controversy over what the facts are. The United Nations climate panel initially agreed with the scientific consensus about longterm temperature variation, i.e., the existence of the Medieval Climate Optimum and the Little Ice Age. A few years later, they decided to drop the facts in favor of Mann's hockey stick graph.

Another way of stating it is that they decided to make an issue about what the facts were. The UN created a controversy over what the facts are. That is what is meant by terms such as "controversial facts". It's not the facts themselves which are controversial, as I'm sure all liberals know, but whether the reported facts are actual facts. Those who pretend not to understand this have no standing in this discussion.

In fact, those who aren't interested in improving the article should instead voice their views at Debate:Is there any evidence for the global warming theory? and stop bothering the rest of us here. --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:36, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Until the section on Al Gore has better sources, it needs to be deleted

The whole section echoes this article by James M. Taylor. At the bottom it states he's a member of the Heartland institute. It's been consistently proven the Heartland Institute is funded by Exxonmobil 123. I mean, I'm pretty loyal to the guy who signs my checks. --hoboace

References

A number of the later refererences don't use the regular reference format so they show up under the References section. It may be wise to convert these for consistency with the rest of the article. Learn together 17:44, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

• Let me know if you want it open, and when, okay? --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 23:44, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

We could try right now as we're both on and probably some of the only ones up. ;-) It shouldn't take long. Learn together 23:49, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Lead sentence suggestion

The article leads with "The global warming warming issue ..." I don't think the second 'warming' adds anything. Of course, I would suggest that saying that Global Warming "is mainly used to justify support for the Kyoto Protocol" does not summarize this complex issue best. I might say "The global warming issue is a political battle over the possible anthropomorphic influence on recent anomalies in the Earth's average temperature".