Talk:Global warming skepticism

The PR angle seems to have been adequately covered. Would someone now expand the one-line entry on the SCIENCE of global skepticism into a paragraph or two? --Uncle Ed 19:52 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

Sheldon, while I'm impressed by the fact that you can whip up a high-quality page in such a short time, I'm not sure this article is the best way to organize things. First of all, I think there's a reasonable amount of healthy skepticism within the fold of the scientific community (like Lindzen), and it should remain that way. Even Singer participates in debates in scientific journals, if he isn't actually doing any of the science. Setting all this aside as "these are the skeptics" creates a division that I don't think should necessarily be created in terms of science.

I do think some of what you've written has a place (the propaganda efforts by oil & gas groups), but I don't think it's fair to call this "skepticism" and put the likes of Lindzen in with them. Oil & gas groups don't give a fuck about the science - true or not, they want to see the global warming debate buried, and this is different from people who are interested in engaging in the debate, but are skeptical about anthropogenic warming.

I understand this is complicated by scientists who allow themselves to be used (or actively prostitute themselves) by oil & gas groups, but I think we should still make an effort to distinguish between these two categories of global warming opponents.

Graft 20:17 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

The attacks at the beginning are mostly based on poor arguments. Particularly as this is a document about skeptics, not opponents. If a list of opponents is wanted, it should be on a different page.

SEWilco 13:53, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The article should present the skeptical view in a neutral way, not adopt it itself. The thing about the fallacies shows a decidedly pro-skeptical POV. --Wik 14:00, Aug 11, 2003 (UTC)

I'm working on NPOV, but someone keeps blasting the changes instead of improving them. I'm untangling the facts from the arguments, which of course is more pro-skeptical than the present anti-skeptical POV. If you have a contribution, please do weave it in. - SEWilco 14:42, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Aww, you marked it NPOV while the neutrality was being fixed. - SEWilco 05:48, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Can we stop arguing about logical fallacies in the page? It is not a fallacy to say that Global Warming Skepticism exists mainly in the conservative news media. It may make no difference to the argument of truth or falsehood, but that is for the reader to decide. Likewise if very few scientists are global worming skeptics then that is a fact worth reporting here. Again it makes to difference to the truth of the proposition. We are an encyclopedia, not a debating society. DJ Clayworth 21:38, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

There isn't an entry conservative news media, can you define it and the percent of Skepticism in it? Perhaps the number of scientists on all four sides (any others than yes/no/undecided/ignorant?) of the issue is relevant, although I think we're dealing with science...Aha, there is a method to be included here. - SEWilco 07:38, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The page looks much better now, except for the initial statement, which I've made a stab at changing. While scientific skepticism may mean 'not making a judgement until the facts are known', the common use of skeptic means 'One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.' With that usage, 'saying 'skepticism is the result of studying the facts' is equivalent to saying 'if you study the facts you won't believe it'.

(SEWilco insert: I noted that difference and had used "-ism" meaning due to the name of this page. "Skeptic" does better fit the individual-focused part of this text.)

(just re-read my post above. Must try to add an article on Global Worming....)

DJ Clayworth 15:13, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 18:44, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)) The beginning is much better now. Well done. As for Worming, its a serious problem and has never been properly addressed by the pinko commie so-called liberal media.

(SEWilco 04:08, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)) I broke the intro concepts into a list, as the "two" reference indicated that some of the concepts hadn't been recognized. The Worming damage to the northern Minnesota forests was recently covered by Public radio.

I thought the "* action must be taken now to prevent warming." covered the issue of "wait for future technology" as well as others such as "watch a while longer". (SEWilco 07:47, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC))

Can we have a list of all those who have taken money from a coal or oil group, for future violen... ahhh.. reference? Thanks

Including those who got government grants which were paid from energy industry taxes?

Good Wiki linking, WMC. We all should have spotted that. (SEWilco 20:20, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC))

WV

(William M. Connolley 20:50, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)) WV point removed. WV is reactive. We can go through all that again if needed.

I think CO2 levels "correlate with -- and thus have caused -- global warming" is a strawman. Can anyone find it in, e.g., IPCC. Or anywhere else reputable? Whose words are those?

Re CO2-T lead/lags: bear in mind that co-dating CO2 (air bubbles) and D-O18 (ice core material) is difficult.

To ArcticFrog

The GW pages are complex. And so is the subject. Don't give up on it (on us) but do be aware that there are subtleties. For example, you replaced (I've reverted): the current warmth is unusual in the past 1000 years with t has been rising for the last 1000y. The latter simply isn't true. Look at the record on that page. The image is of natural variation (if anything, a cooling trend on millenial scales) with a recent rise.