Talk:List of climate change controversies

Subpages:

• /sides in the GW controversy

Archives
February 2003 – December 2004 December 2004 – February 2007 Febraury 2007 – March 2007 /Archive_4 /Archive_5 /Archive_6 /Archive_7

Template:Unsigned -->

Train wreck needs trimming

This article is massively overblown. Can we split it? "Scientific controversy of Global Warming" and "Political, economic and social controversy of Global Warming" perhaps?

There is also alot of warbling on, and on, and on, and quotes that are probably far too long. There are sections that are barely relevant, broken links, and a table of "history" of public opinion that effectively covers from... 2003 - 2006... and includes two data points... 2003 and 2006 (no, seriously). Did someone create that with intent to expand and forget about it?

Anyway, anyone in agreement that this article needs serious downsizing attention? Jaimaster (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Definitely too long, definitely a train wreck. Mishlai (talk) 09:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a train wreck. The problem is, how to separate the "scientific controversy" from the political? Would the former, if we choose to split, only have references from scientists involved in climate change research? Even the term "scientific controversy" is politically loaded. --Skyemoor (talk) 10:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep its massively overblown - but i do not think that it should be split. Rather it should be cut down to a manageable size, preferably by removing the incredible undue weight that it currently gives to a handfull of persons. (try counting the number of things that for instance Pielke seems to have an opinion on - and ask yourself if he really is that notable). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Alot of WP:WEIGHT issues, agreed. Jaimaster (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree it should be split. The scientific controversies are the real interest here. The political stuff does not really fit into Politics of global warming. I'm not sure the political stuff is even worth preserving, but if it is maybe a title of "Political controversies of global warming." Separating the scientific controversies from the political is not difficult. The article is already pretty much divided that way. RonCram (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Kim, yes Pielke is that notable. Roger Pielke is an ISI Highly Cited researcher who is both respected and quite prolific. The article would look odd to anyone knowledgable in the field if it did not quote Pielke extensively. The article also quotes a number of others so it does not read like "Pielke against the world." RonCram (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Need a new section possibly

It seems the theory of global warming has run into new problems because of a dramatic increase in methane gas that is not possibly anthropogenic. [1] I have not yet been able to read the paper by Ronald Prinn and his post-doc Matthew Rigby because I have not found it online yet. If anyone finds it, please post a link here or notify me on my Talk page. Thanks! RonCram (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't be mislead by the headlines. This is nothing exciting. See-also [2] William M. Connolley (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This effect was predicted by James Hansen from NASA's Goddard Institute, among others. It was long predicted that as the planet warms, it would lead to releases of methane, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from natural systems, including through forest death, ocean acidification, the melting of permafrost and the deterioration of other natural ecosystems, producing a feedback or runaway effect. The great fear is that these effects would lead to climate change spinning out of the control of human beings to rein in climate change. It seems that, as with much of the peer-reviewed predictions on climate change, the predictions are starting to come true, meaning that the time for serious action on climate change has been heavily reduced. --Sumthingweird (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with W and S; the methane time bomb has been long expected, and the writer from the popular IT-focused media outlet shows no real sense of the subject. Use the published paper as the starting point. --Skyemoor (talk) 02:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Was it also predicted that the increase in methane would lead to lower temps? 2008 is cooler than 2007 which was cooler than 2006. It seems to me this is a pretty important finding. RonCram (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The article has an update dated today, Oct 31. Several comments suggest a massive 2007 Siberian permafrost melt accounts for the observed increases in atmospheric methane. If Siberia were responsible for the increases, that would still be a northern hemisphere event and would require normal atmospheric cycling of about a year to reach southern hemisphere monitoring stations. These increases were nearly simultaneous and world-wide. The authors are not linking the rise in methane to melting ice.RonCram (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

[3] William M. Connolley (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

William, I am assuming you believe that blog post has some gold in it. Can you identify it for me? I have mined its depths and came up nearly empty. The only value I found was the link to this. [4] RonCram (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we do indeed need a new section. We have now seen many examples of sceptics misrepresenting new scientific results as if they are contradicting AGW. This is clearly very relevant to the topic of this wiki article: "Global Warming Controversy". Count Iblis (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

If we do as CI suggests, what shall we call it? "Increase in Methane Gas", "World-wide Increase in Methane Levels"? Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said earlier, it's a bit of a stretch to say that the increases aren't anthropogenic, but they are part of the feedback effect. These releases of methane have been long predicted as a result of climate change, as well as a contributor. If you can find a peer-reviewed, notable source from a climate scientist that "contradicts AGW", let's see it. It seems as though what you are indicating either a) shows that there is some warming which is not anthropogenic (which has never been refuted by any self-respecting climate scientists), or b) is evidence that the feedback effects are occurring, and our time to cut emissions is running out. In either case, they do not represent any scientific controversy. --Sumthingweird (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Corrections

There is a typo in "2.1.2 Petitions" - "Oregon Petition". It says "31,0000" where it should be "31,000". The article is locked so I can't fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larrycz (talk • contribs) 10:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Scientific Consensus or Lack Thereof

I have a problem with this statement: "The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation." More specifically, the sources used do not provide evidence that there is a majority of scientists in agreement.

The first source (editorial news article) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/04/AR2007020400953.html) writes: "a document drafted by hundreds of scientists representing 113 governments [supports the theory of global warming]".

The second source (editorial news article) (http://www.csm.ornl.gov/PR/NS-10-25-03.html) writes: "American and international researchers have reached a consensus on the role of industrialization in climate change, though consensus doesn't equal unanimity." and

"There's broad agreement that the burning of fossil fuel and deforestation are causes," Tom Wilbanks, a senior researcher in ORNL's Environmental Services Division.

The third source (http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html) writes: "Most of the literate world today regards "global warming" as both real and dangerous."

"Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far)." and

"The petition [in support of global warming] was eventually signed by 700 scientists including a great many members of the National Academy of Sciences and Nobel laureates. Only about three or four of the signers, however, had any involvement in climatology." and

"One might think that such growing skepticism would have some influence on public debate, but the insistence on "scientific unanimity" continues unabated." and

"Why, one might wonder, is there such insistence on scientific unanimity on the warming issue? After all, unanimity in science is virtually nonexistent on far less complex matters. Unanimity on an issue as uncertain as "global warming" would be surprising and suspicious. Moreover, why are the opinions of scientists sought regardless of their field of expertise? Biologists and physicians are rarely asked to endorse some theory in high energy physics. Apparently, when one comes to "global warming," any scientist's agreement will do." and on, and on.

The first source does not state a "majority" and only talks about some scientists (not "climate" scientists) agreeing, the second source says there is a consensus, but with absolutely no evidence (and again does not reference "climate" scientists at all), the third source (amusingly) actually refutes the idea that a majority of "climate" scientists (and, in fact, scientists in general) support global warming. The first sentence in the third source says "literate world [agrees]" and the article actually discusses the mislead public perception (literate world being the public). The rest of the article states that most of the "scientific consensus" is politically created and there is no such consensus from climatologists.

I think the evidence I provide above warrants an immediate deletion of the statement: "The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation." It is political propaganda, unsupported, and (in my opinion) disgusting. While I'm not very familiar with wikipedia guidelines, I don't think wikipedia would accept propaganda

Conclusion: The lack of evidence to support that statement makes it inappropriate for wikipedia and I will delete it shortly (pending arguments).

Side note: The third source does provide very valuable insight into the politics behind global warming and should be read by anyone writing this wikipedia article and anyone interested in a good and informative (if somewhat long) read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.241.11 (talk) 15:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that wikipedia should not accept propaganda. What matters is that there are thousands of peer reviewed publicatons that support AGW and almost none that deny it. So, if anything, the statement about the consensus in this article is not strong enough. As far as the scientific point of view is concerned, there is almost unanimity, not just a vast majority about this issue. Count Iblis (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The statement claims that a majority of climate scientists support AGW. Two of the sources are just editorials with no evidence. The third source says that a majority of climate scientists do not support AGW (maybe you should read the third source).

Two important points:

1. While the first two sources support the statement, they are just editorials.

2. The third source does not support the statement, it actually contradicts the statement (again, I highly suggest you read the third source, whether or not you believe in AGW).

If you don't have a source (other than your personal feelings) that can reliably prove a majority of climate scientists support AGW, then the statement should be deleted or revised until it is accurate. You could replace the statement with: "An editorial in the Washington Post says 'a document drafted by hundreds of scientists representing 113 governments [declares support for AGW]'." (By the way, I don't think "hundreds" makes a majority, and note that they are "scientists" not "climate" scientists).

Maybe there are "thousands" of peer-reviewed publications, I haven't counted them all. If you have a source that says this, you could quote them if you want, but encyclopedias are not places for personal interpretations (i.e. "thousands" of peer-reviewed publications doesn't prove a majority of climate scientists, or even non-climate scientists, support AGW.)

I know I'm writing a lot, but it seems you didn't get the point from my first post. The statement uses non-reliable sources and the third source contradicts the statement, so it does not have any sources that support the statement.172.190.19.92 (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Read the article carefully. It was written in 1992, and predates a lot of the scientific work that has been done since. The author, Richard Lindzen (who has received payment from fossil fuel lobbyists and also downplays the risks of smoking, which was also the target of a heavy PR campaign) has since heavily tempered his position (based on the scientific progress since 1992). He is currently in a wager with another climate scientists that average global warming will not exceed 0.2 degrees by 2024, but refused higher odds than 2-1 (for warming greater than 0.4 degrees). I would argue that because of the age of the source, it should be removed entirely as being non-notable or defunct. --Sumthingweird (talk) 03:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, according to Ross Geldspan "Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC."[5]. So there you have it - the article was commissioned by the Organisation of Petroleum-Exporting Countries. He doesn't stop there: "For the most part the industry has relied on a small band of skeptics—Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr. Sherwood Idso, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, among others—who have proven extraordinarily adept at draining the issue of all sense of crisis. Through their frequent pronouncements in the press and on radio and television, they have helped to create the illusion that the question is hopelessly mired in unknowns." The source should be removed as a matter of urgency. I will do it in 24 hours. --Sumthingweird (talk) 03:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The article speaks of the political process involved in deciding on global warming and the lack of scientific evidence. The science may have changed since then, but the reporting of scientific consensus when there is none (or an artificial one) is still true to today. (Richard Lindzen is a professor at MIT. I don't know if he received payment, but that's not important. Don't engage in ad hominem attacks. Accepting money is not proof, not even in the least, that he is lying) If he's heavily tempered his position I'd like to see a link to that, but my point was that the article was definitely supporting the statement but it was listed as a source. I don't see what the wager has to do with anything; completely irrelevant. Not wagering has no bearing on the accuracy of his statement. Stick to facts and logic, not supposition and personal attacks. I don't know much about wikipedia, I'll try to become a full member in a few days when my exams are finished.

Furthermore, Lindzen is a professional and can charge whatever he believes the market will pay for his consultation services. The oil company's will pay for an expert opinion that is favorable to them as the enviro's will pay for an expert opinion favorable to them. Accepting money is no indication of deceit (he is a professional and an expert that wants to be paid for his time, imagine that). So there I don't have anything but your idiotic statements. I'm not sure if underwritten means commissioned, but I don't think that matters. As scientist you can expect him to report the truth, whoever is paying the bills. (By the way, I have heard of people losing funding if their research does not support the IPCC position, but I can't substantiate this. The point is that scientists receive funding from people that will benefit from their research, in both directions this certainly does not imply deception, even if your personal, emotional, irrational feelings insist that it does). I'm assuming you're quoting Ross Gelbspan when you write "He doesn't stop there: ---". I don't see your point in quoting Ross. He says that the skeptics is a small band, is he objective or omniscient. (I'll answer for you since you probably couldn't hand simple reasoning: No and no.) Ross Gelbspan says they are a small band of skeptics, so it must be true. Oh save us all, all-knowing Ross Gelbspan. Ross Gelbspan says they are creating an illusion that the the question is mired in unknowns. They are actually reporting their knowledge and reasoned beliefs that climate science is very uncertain. "According to Ross Gelbspan" you say. So what. Try using rational and logical thinking in the future . (By the way, I don't know whether AGW is a fact or not, I think that the lack of scientific evidence makes this theory uncertain. My idea is that unsubstantiated theories should not be presented as fact). Thanks.138.67.4.243 (talk) 22:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi 134.67, welcome to Wikipedia. To create an account, you just need to click on "Log in/Create account in the top-right corner, and above the "Username field" you will see a link that says "Don't have an account? Create one". The whole process takes about 15 seconds (you just have to pick a username and a password). It's a good idea to read over Wikipedia's editing guidelines. One of those is no personal attacks. We try to discuss issues here rather than making comments about editors with whom we disagree. Another relevant guideline is that all sources on Wikipedia should be notable, reliable, third-party sources. If an oil lobby has paid for an article that calls into question the reliability of the source, because the oil company has vested outcomes in a particular outcome. There is no need for climatologists to be paid by private companies, since they are almost all employed through public institutions (such as universities, or NASA, or meteorological research institutions). The point is that scientists should be producing research which is verifiable and peer-reviewed according to the scientific method, not research which is favourable to the oil lobby or the "enviro's". (Exactly what private interests do you think "enviro's" have?).

I don't know how you define consensus or lack of consensus, but in my mind when no peer-reviewed climate science article in the last 15 years has contradicted the theory that the average increase in world temperatures is in fact due to the increased levels of greenhouse gases (although there is a debate about the extent to which this poses a problem), that is consensus. Science is not about opinion, it is about testing hypotheses against observed facts. If you can provide any evidence of a debate in the scientific literature about this hypothesis, post it here. I have been following the climate change debate for the last several years, and I have to date found no evidence of a debate in the scientific literature (even though fossil fuel companies and politicians have attempted to paint such a picture). What I have seen is a track record of fossil fuel companies paying scientists (generally not climate scientists) to cast doubt about the science (but not in peer-reviewed journals, rather in public fora). I'm sorry, but the source is still going to go. --Sumthingweird (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure it takes 15 seconds. I'm also referring to the time it takes to read through the policies, find info, and write responses, etc. Like I said, I have an exam to study for. I may have overreacted when I called you irrational as a whole, but the main problem I had was that your criticisms of Lindzen are irrational. I'll discuss further in a few days, when I have time.138.67.4.215 (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi 138.67, no hard feelings. I'm looking forward to contributing with you on Wikipedia. --Sumthingweird (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a strong believer in the (obvious) existence of a consensus on this issue, but as some other folks have noted, there have been a few contradictory papers published in peer-reviewed journals. Not many, but a few. I don't think any reasonable concept of consensus demands unanimity, or else we'd have to let creationist attacks into the evolution article, etc.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Brian, we wouldn't, because there aren't any peer-reviewed scientific journals that support creationism (unless you count "Creation" magazine, which doesn't claim to be a scientific journal). I would be interested in any case to read peer-reviewed articles which contradict the theory that increased greenhouse gases are leading to climate change, because I have yet to find any. As you say, such an article wouldn't necessarily mean that climate change is not human-made or not occurring, but it is very irritating to constantly hear people say that there is a debate in the scientific community without being able to provide any papers which demonstrate a debate in the scientific community. The idea that there is a debate in the scientific community about the existence of anthropogenic climate change is leading to massive delays in addressing the issue (for example, there are many Australian parliamentarians who claim that such a debate exists). That is why it is of such critical importance and why it is so irritating to have people claim there is a debate without providing any sources to back up their claim. --Sumthingweird (talk) 02:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the "consensus" is that it is misrepresented, especially by those holding somewhat more extreme than mainstream views. It is used by catastrophists defending their arguments - "I am right because of the scientific consensus on global warming". However the consensus is not and never has been that anthropogenic effects will cause doomsday, or even widespread death, or even have any net negative effects at all. The consensus is that, according to the basic laws of physics, increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere mostly through burning fossil fuels should / does have some heating effect on the climate.

The extent is still very much not a matter of scientific consensus at all. Just this week a very well written piece appeared on wattsupwiththat supporting my own view that AGW is real but overstated - pointing at a climate sensitivity to CO2 of ~2/3rds what the IPCC projected, while "tipping point" pos feedback theories are being progressively toppled by reality failing to comply and kill us all.

As an aside - you want to start playing "follow the money" to doubt credibility? Consider just for a moment the amount of grant money that would disappear from climate science and related areas if AGW was found to not be a catastrophic threat. Many reputations and careers of scientists and politicians ride the doomsday train now, long since departed from the scientific consensus "something is happening" station. If the temperature continues to flatline much longer... the derailing might not be very pretty. Jaimaster (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

This is starting to turn into a more generic discussion about climate science, rather than the reference. The reference is supposed to cast doubt on the theory that human activities are having an average warming effect on the climate (which you aren't disputing). As far as your argument goes, I agree that there is some debate about the extent to which climate change is a problem. However, it's worth noting that the IPCC predicted that the Arctic ice cap would be at its current state of melting 80 years from now. This is observed evidence which suggests that the IPCC's predictions were conservative. The thing about scientific theories is that they are refined and confirmed as reality unfolds. The number of extreme weather events has already multiplied, the amount of arable land has decreased, the seas have been steadily rising, there has already been flooding in low-lying Pacific nations, the Great Barrier Reef organisms have mostly died, etc. We all have differing views of value, but from my point of view we have already passed the point of unacceptable climate change. Nobody knows what will happen if the Arctic continues melting at its current rate. --Sumthingweird (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Its also worth noting that the northern ice cap since the summer of 08 has refrozen to well within recorded average limits, and thats without pointing out that total polar ice is trending up. I could take apart most of the rest of your points in the same manner, which would be of no real value to anyone. I dont take any of these weather events as serious evidence either way. If the artic melt of 07 is proof of AGW, what is the temperature plateau of 98-present proof of? Cant have the cake and eat it too. Jaimaster (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Missing Reference

Reference 60 is missing as of 11/23/08. I suggest deletion of the corresponding statement, or if anyone knows the reference, they can add it in.172.190.36.181 (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually it wasn't missing - it was a badly formed citation template. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)