Talk:Climate change

Important notice: This is the talk page for the article Global warming. Some common points of argument are addressed at Wikipedia's Global Warming FAQ, which represents the consensus of editors here. If you are new to this page please take a moment and have a look at some of the frequently asked questions before starting a new topic of discussion. Thank you.

Archives
Chronological archives
December 2001 – October 2002 October 2002 – February 2003 February 2003 – August 2003 August 2003 – May 2004 May 2004 – February 2005 February 2005 – April 2005 April 2005 – June 2005 May 2005 – October 2005 October 2005 – November 2005 December 2005 – January 2006 January 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August – October 2006 October – November 2006 December – February 2007 February – March 2007 March 2007 March 2007 April 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007
Topical archives
Extreme weather extrapolation graph

Callmebc's revert

With regard to the following sentence in the article's introduction: "Remaining scientific uncertainties include the exact degree of climate change expected in the future, and how changes will vary from region to region around the globe."

Callmebc, please explain how "climate change" makes more sense "in context" as opposed to "global warming," especially since this article is specifically on Global Warming and not on the more general Climate Change. Diophantus 23:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Because "global warming" is a less scientific term for what's happening to the world's climate than "climate change." The earth is not warming up uniformly -- some areas are warming up drastically while other areas are actually cooling, and there have been shifts in precipitation patterns as well. And the main article itself has a "Terminology" section that pretty clearly states: The term "global warming" is a specific example of the broader term climate change, which can also refer to global cooling. In common usage the term refers to recent warming and implies a human influence.[6] The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) uses the term "climate change" for human-caused change, and "climate variability" for other changes.[7] The term "anthropogenic global warming" is sometimes used when focusing on human-induced changes.

Satisfied? If so, you should do the revert this time. -BC aka Callmebc 16:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc, no I'm not satisfied.

The fact that some parts of the Earth are cooling is irrelevant, since "global warming" denotes an overall warming trend. The very first sentence of the article says that global warming refers to the "increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation." I'm not sure why you even bring this up. My only guess is that you believe that the clause "...and how changes will vary from region to region around the globe" will lead readers to conclude that all regions of the world are warming. I don't think that will be the case.

The terminology you quote supports my point.

It makes no sense to use "climate change", because this term also includes "global cooling," while the article deals specifically with global warming. If you look at the introduction, you'll see that except for this one sentence it only talks about warming. This sentence is inconsistent with the rest of the intro and the article as a whole. And you were saying something about context? Diophantus 03:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Outside the U.S., popular use of term "climate change" is essentially synonymous with "global warming." It's more accurate in a way, because it's impossible for the atmosphere to warm without other changes to the climate also occurring. We're approaching how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin territory here. Raymond Arritt 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Raymond,

Relevant wikipedia entries are pretty clear on the meaning of "climate change" and it's not synonymous with "global warming," regardless of what the popular use of the term may or may not be. Shouldn't Wikipedia be consistent? Diophantus 04:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

What I said about context is exactly that. Your version: Remaining scientific uncertainties include the exact degree of global warming expected in the future, and how changes will vary from region to region around the globe. The original version: Remaining scientific uncertainties include the exact degree of climate change expected in the future, and how changes will vary from region to region around the globe. The context is that having "scientific" and a reference to "changes" in that sentence makes the orginal "climate change" phrase more appropriate. Justifying it by referencing another part of the article makes little grammatical sense -- you have to look at the context of the sentence first. Also you shouldn't make a change like that without running it by the discussion page first. So are you going to revert it or what? -BC aka Callmebc 03:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

With regard to "changes." The sentence is very much grammatical. Warming is, indeed, a change. Now if you're feeling very adamant about it, then a proper course of action would be to replace the word "changes" with something else, like "degree of warming," instead of reverting. All things considered, your reservations about context within the sentence are specious at best. This becomes especially problematic when your version compromises the broader context, which is just as important unless one has an attention span of one sentence.

No, it's not grammatical. The original sentence flowed from "global change" to "changes" while your version inconsistently went from "global warming" to "changes". A term like "warming" is a vector, meaning it has direction and at least some sort of implied rate, so you should have used a term like "rate of change," but even then, as I already pointed out in my first reply, it would still not be entirely appropriate since "global warming" is not consistent in different areas of the globe, with some areas, as with some sections of the Antarctic actually cooling. The bottom line is that your change made the sentence less sensible.

There is nothing inconsistent about going from "global warming" to "changes". It's perfectly clear what is meant. There is no implication that all regions of the world are warming. The word "changes" doesn't have to be previously referenced within the same sentence. The paragraph that precedes the sentence in question explains all the changes related to global warming. I expect a reader will remember what he read a few sentences back. (And not that it matters, but warming is not a vector -- it has no direction.)

With regard to science, I would like to hear how "climate change" is more scientific than "global warming."

This again was already covered in my first reply, with the most pertinent excerpt being The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) uses the term "climate change" for human-caused change, and "climate variability" for other changes.

This doesn't even come close to answering the question.

With regard to editing Wikipedia, could you point me to a page which says that one must discuss changes in the talk page first. On the other hand, I do know there's a Be bold policy. Diophantus 03:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest you look at the top of this page and read the banner that starts off This topic contains controversial issues -- it specifically covers making changes to the main article, including stating After making any such changes, please also carefully describe the reason(s) for any such changes on the discussion-page. Which you didn't do.

Nice try, but this banner talks about making "substantial changes," and the reason it's there is due to the controversial nature of the article. My edit was minor and was neutral with respect to the controversiality of the article. Also, it presumes that all editors will visit the talk page before editing.

And in regards to "being Bold," I suggest you also actually read the Be Bold policy, especially the section titled but don't be reckless. So....? -BC aka Callmebc 13:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You have a poor understanding of what is meant by reckless, if you think that my edit was reckless. An edit is not reckless just because Callmebc deems it reckless. There was no "disregard for verifiability, neutrality, and the other guidelines that comprise the five pillars of Wikipedia." By your standards, your revert was reckless as well. Diophantus 04:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Enough -- I think I've humored you well more than enough. You've failed to come up with a single logical -- or even coherent -- rationale to justify your popping by and arbitrarily changing a phrase in a highly politicized article, especially with no reason given in advance, even as a courtesy. I suggest you brush up on both your grammar and physics (if the temperature of a room is steady at, say, 78 degrees -- that's a scalar quantity; but if the temperature is going up at, say, 1 degree per hour, you have both direction and movement -- hence a vector quantity.) I'm again reverting your change. Please do not change it again unless you can come up with much more convincing reasons than you've offered so far. - BC aka Callmebc 05:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you've humored me indeed. You've failed to come up with a single logical -- or even coherent -- rationale to justify your revert. All your "arguments" have fallen short, so now you're resorting to the "my way or the highway" argument. Please, stop imagining yourself to be the owner of this article.

I suggest you take your own advice and brush up on grammar and physics (and reading comprehension while you're at it). You clearly have no clue what "faulty parallelism" is. Go back and read up on it again and again until it sinks through. Your argument that "warming" is a vector reveals your shallow understanding here as well. Warming is by definition temperature "going up." There is no other choice of direction. To describe a vector such as velocity, one needs to give both a direction and magnitude. To describe warming, you don't need to give a direction. Essentially, warming is a direction. "Temperature change", on the other hand, is a vector -- a trivial one-dimensional vector. To describe it you need to give a direction (warming/cooling, or up/down, or plus/minus, or whatever other words you want to use) and magnitude (measured in degrees Celsius, or degrees Fahrenheit, or whatever other units you want to use). Diophantus 17:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure.... Anyway the argument is moot now (see below) and I have moved on (with a vector). By the way, the temperature outside has changed 20 degrees since 2 days ago -- should I put on my shorts or a sweatshirt? -BC aka Callmebc 18:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"Yeah, I'm sure..."? I suppose that's all one can say when he was shown to be consistently wrong. And yeah you've "moved on" with vectors. I suppose that's another way of admitting an error. Good job to save face. Diophantus 01:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm....it was already changed by Raymond_arritt. Hmmm, I don't know if I'm crazy about that rewording either, but it's late, so I'll sleep on it. -BC aka Callmebc 05:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no objections to Raymond's edit. Diophantus 01:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diophantus (talk • contribs) 01:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Theory

There may be evidence for and against global warming - the global climate is an incredibly complex system which we are yet to understand fully (i would say we are a long way off this!) Thus global warming is a THEORY. It is yet to be proved true or false, and i think the article should reflect this. "Global warming is the theory that..." rather than "global warming refers to..." The rest is good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.215.11 (talk) 12:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

As usual, the term global warming is overloaded. But the actual warming is a fact. The explanation for it is a scientific theory. Science does not do "proof" anyways - a theory is the best you can get. There is a longish discussion of this somewhere in the archives. --Stephan Schulz 13:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

How did anyone let you get away with that? Science does not do "proof"? The scientific method states that hypothesis - experiment - conclusion must always be performed in order to explain any phenomenon. Oh wait - has that been done with anthrpogenic global warming? Tractorboy60 09:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. From the article you quote: "It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2". Math does proofs. Science only has theories with varying degrees of support. As for your question: Yes, of course. Some examples:

• Hypothesis: If the increase in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic, it will be depleted in C13 and C14. Observation: Oh yes, it is.
• If the warming is caused by greenhouse gases, the high stratosphere will cool. Oh yes, it does.
• If the warming is caused by greenhouse gases, it will in general be stronger in higher latitudes. Oh yes, it is.
• If the warming is caused by CO2, it should be possible to find a correlation between temperature and CO2 in the past. Oh, look at these ice cores - there it is.
• If you are a big-picture guy, there is Arrhenius's original prediction "if you add CO2 to the atmosphere, it will warm."

...and so on. --Stephan Schulz 13:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You are falling for the very error you illustrate - global warming alarmism does exactly that - using 3 (deducing a prediction) to prove 2 (the conjecture). All your examples above (apart from being plain wrong), fail this test. The experiment (4) has not yet been performed. This is not science.

To draw the distinction you make above between maths and science demonstrates that you misunderstand the nature of science. Science is not done by consensus; that is the domain of politics. I believe we should all step back from this post-modernist idea that ideology is more important than facts. Until we do, a balanced view is impossible. Tractorboy60 14:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Before making any further statements about this, you might want to actually read scientific method. Hal peridol 15:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If it's to do with not being able to prove a theory false in the absence of evidence to prove its truth, then so what? I'm not proposing the theory, the alarmists are and in my mind should prove the theory before forcing everyone else to conform to the doctrine. Stephan admits above, that all we have is a theory but presumably is happy (together with millions of other people) to have the world's population coerced into certain deprivations involving the spending of vast amounts of money for an insignificant return. That's a bit rich for a theory, but then need we seek any more proof that this is above all an ideological and political argument and not a scientific one? The propaganda has been brilliantly masterminded, though. If it can convince you, a physicist, Hal, then I am truly in awe! :-) Tractorboy60 18:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I second Hal's suggestion. You miss the point, namely that a scientific theory can never be proven. It can only be disproven. Regardless of how much evidence for a theory you assemble, it is always possible that it will fail tomorrow. That's why we talk about the Theory of Relativity, the Theory of Gravity and the Theory of Evolution. A theory that has a lot of explanatory power and that has made several non-trivial predictions gains support, but it never becomes certain in the strict sense. If people talk about "scientific proof", they either don't know what they are talking about, or they refer to a deductive proof under the assumption that a given, usually well-supported (but never certain) theory is valid. I don't know if that is relevant for you, but there is some evidence that suggests I do know something about science and proofs. ---Stephan Schulz 23:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Relativity and Gravity are supported mathematically (QED), and the equations derived have operated correctly ever since without significant dissent. Evolution is the best we can come up with to explain certain observable phenomena and the evidence is very compelling. Such understandings underpin the technology we all enjoy today. No such advantages exist with global warming theory in which a quasi-political body, the IPCC, steamrollers on the world, a political "consensus" from what amounts to pure conjecture disguised as science. There is no 'proof' that GW comes from anthropogenic CO2, and worse, no proof of the disastrous consequences we are told will happen. Mass acceptance has come about largely through political sympathy rather than scientific criticality. You say yourself that "Regardless of how much evidence for a theory you assemble, it is always possible that it will fail tomorrow". Well that reinforces my argument. I resent the implication of political interference, the spending of vast sums of money, the redistribution of wealth by carbon credits and political control of world energy markets, all on the back of this spurious claim and its associated shameless propaganda, reinforced by the despotic tendency to avoid debate by claiming "consensus", and pretending that debate is over before it even began in order to eliminate dissent.

I feel we are straying from the point somewhat, which was the idea of pointing out in the article that GW is a 'theory'. Lastly, Stephan, I apologise for the rather patronising tone of my earlier comments. That was not my intention, I assure you. My name is Tom, by the way. Tractorboy60 07:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tom! Apology accepted, no bad feelings her. I assume you refer to Quod Erat Demonstrandum, not to Quantum Electrodynamics, as both are somewhat apropos here? No, these theories have not been proven. Newton's theory of gravity failed to predict the precession of Mercury, and mis-prediced the effect of gravity on light. The successor, Einstein's general theory of relativity, has been very successful, but it also is almost certainly "wrong" in the strict sense. On the low end, it is incompatible with quantum theory, another extremely successful theory, and on the upper end, cosmologists cannot currently explain the large-scale evolution of the universe without adding things like dark energy or cosmological constants. The theory does have a nifty mathematical derivation from certain assumptions, but these assumptions are likely either wrong or incomplete, and they allow for more than one solution. Evolution and global warming are both more "messy" in the sense that they describe very complex systems. But if you want "simple" math, Svante Arrhenius derived the core prediction (increased atmospheric CO2 will lead to warming) from first principles in 1896 (and arrived at a result that is very similar to the best current estimate. The scientific consensus for global warming, assembled by the IPCC (which is not "quasi-political"), and reaffirmed by a large number of very well-respected scientific organizations and academies, already describes the uncertainties. Whatever your political goals are, labelling global warming as "(only) a theory" is not a valid attack but at best content-free, and at worst misleading. You could argue that the theory is wrong or only weakly supported (though that would be hard to argue). As far as I'm concerned, it would be more productive to accept the state of the science (with the associated uncertainty) and argue for solutions that are compatible with your economical and political convictions and ideals. Anyway, to sum up: No scientific theory is ever proven. At best it is tentatively accepted as an excellent decription. --Stephan Schulz 01:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Tom is simply arguing that GW is "just a theory," though I could be wrong. What I think he's trying to point out is that no where is it mentioned the AGW theory is in fact scientific theory. ~ UBeR 02:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[cut per WP:SOAP William M. Connolley 08:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)]

Addendums to the FAQ recommendation

I see that William Connolley removed the rest of this discussion for essentially being redundant. I'm not so sure that was the best move: a lot of the anti-global warming sentiment revolves around very confused notions of what exactly a "theory" is in scientific terms. I think when a discussion like this forms, especially if it's a recurring one, a FAQ on it should be created as the first response to address the underlying concern, and have that added to the main article FAQ as a matter of course. And only when this is in place, then delete the bulk of the discussion, but with a reference to the FAQ added. Even though there is already a "Theory" wiki article, it would still be helpful to at least reference that with how this applies to the current global warming/general climate models. As it now stands, there is no "Global warming is only a theory" section in the current FAQ. This would seem a more logical and thorough method to address recurring confusion and build up a more complete and useful "Frequently Asked Questions" page. Ya think? -BC aka Callmebc 17:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I may have been too severe. The boundary where it had become junk was unclear. Adding to the FAQ is a good idea William M. Connolley 17:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Predictions of temperature change

We don't seem to have a good article on predictions of temperature change. There is a bit here; a bit in climate sensitivity; probably something over at GWC. Maybe there should be an article, on global mean and regional and ocean and so on? William M. Connolley 14:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Here are two articles that are related (although these analyze previous predictions): [1] [2] Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There is actually yet another global-warming related Wikipedia article here that discusses the goings on at Climateprediction.net -- a distributed computing project meant to "produce a forecast of the climate in the 21st century". And still another one about the Effects of Global Warming, which also includes forecasts. How many climate change/global warming related wikis do we need? With that said, the Hadley Centre has some interesting stuff worth especially noting. -BC aka Callmebc 16:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The NAS also has this cute exploratorium-type virtual exhibit. -BC aka Callmebc 03:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You may want to hold off a little on predictions as there seems to be a rather large problem in data quality shaping up [3]. It's incomplete data so far but that chart looks very bad for the ground station data in the US. No doubt other countries are going to go through similar reviews once it gets out how bad the US is. According to what I understand, quality 1 and 2 stations are acceptable according to CRN and that's only 13% of the USHCN stations. The other 87% of the network looks to be not good enough. No doubt the data will firm up once the rest of the network is audited. TMLutas 03:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

On Environment stuff

I think adding stuff about environmentalism is not good because it takes us into the realm of normative analysis. I suggest we try to stick to the positive analysis. So, I reverted Hybridboy's changes and everything that resulted thereof. The most that merits weight, in my opinion, would be a link in the 'see also'. There may be important normative stuff, but I do not think this is one of them Brusegadi 16:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting: global warming is not interested on environment. This is illogical. On the other hand, global warming is used in some countries to try to promote nuclear energy with nuclear waste, instead of use the less pollutant renewable energies . This is clear: USA promotes nuclear power and building of new power plants. I can cite it with clear sources. Can you indicate any other sources about USA is not promoting nuclear energy ?. There is a fight between nuclear and renewables to replace petroleum. --HybridBoy 07:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you are not on the same wave as I am. I understand that this article is about the science. Anything that people decide to do with "the science" belongs elsewhere. Thus, this article is best suited to answer the question "What is going on?" and not "What should we do about it?" The last question should be dealt with on some other article. So, a statement that belongs here might be "CO2 causes warming" but a statement like "we should reduce CO2 emissions" does not belong in this article. Perhaps you should try Mitigation of global warming. Brusegadi 22:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Per Capita measurement

Per capita GHG emissions in 2000, including land-use change

Per capita responsibility for current anthropogenic atmospheric CO2

I take issue with the two images at right which appear under the Causes section of this article. Both of them display CO2 emissions on a per-capita basis, but this is a somewhat deceptive way to display this information. Looking at the images displayed in this article, China and India appear as minor contributors, shaded in the same manner as most of the nations of Africa. In a per-capita sense, this is accurate. Yet the following table contains information from Wikipedia's list of countries by carbon dioxide emissions. As we can see, China (at the time of this table's creation) was second only to the US in terms of CO2 emissions, and other nations like India and Japan were also major contributors.

Rank	Country	Annual CO2 emissions in thousands of metric tons	Percentage of total emissions
1	United States	6,049,435	22.2 %
2	China	5,010,170	18.4 %
-	European Union	3,115,125	11.4 %
3	Russia	1,524,993	5.6 %
4	India	1,342,962	4.9 %
5	Japan	1,257,963	4.6 %
6	Germany	808,767	3.0 %
7	Canada	639,403	2.3 %

The images which appear in this article do not reflect this, and the reason is obvious. China's per-capita CO2 emissions are approximately one-fifth that of the United States, but China's population is also nearly five times that of the United States. Canada produces less than half the amount of pollution that comes out of India, but in the graph this trend appears in reverse. I wouldn't say it's necessary to remove both of these graphs from the article, but it's obvious that they are not representative of the major global contributors of CO2 and changes are needed. The best way I see to do this and maintain balance would be to generate another chart which shows emissions on a per-nation basis, or in terms of land mass, and replace one of the above images with the new one so both methods of measurement are displayed right next to each other. I don't have the software to do something like this, but perhaps someone here who does would be willing to volunteer. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 15:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

China has already surpassed the U.S. in total emissions (and if I'm wrong, it will most certainly happen before 2009). There's a reason China wants to have everyone look at their emissions per capita, and that's because it makes them look better. Whether or not this was the intention of the map maker, that's what it's doing. ~ UBeR 16:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This is one case where I believe the solution to a perceived "bias" is to add a second "bias". I.e., an image that shows GHG and/or global warming contributions per square kilometer of land area or something. If I had the skills, I'd do it. Per capita is important, but I think per area is also important. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why emissions per unit area are relevant at all, but I'm willing to listen. Have you seen any scientific discussion of why this should matter? Raymond Arritt 16:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll answer the second question first — no, I haven't seen any scientific discussion of it. As to the first, it's partly a matter of politics (so perhaps is more appropriate in the global warming controversy article), but it's also a matter of sustainability. It's easy to say that China is (now) the biggest contributor of carbon emissions, but considering how large China is (in area), perhaps other countries' contributions are more significant (in a non-statistical sense). Per capita is very relevant, but it "punishes" countries that have more sustainable population densities. A country with a very high population density will be unable to generate as much CO₂ per capita as a country with a much lower population density. Sure, there's a POV hidden here (although presumably quite different than others who feel this way) — I feel that population control is a very important component of global warming control. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no scientific discussion as far as I know about why this should matter, but there is also no scientific discussion on why per capita rating is better or more relevant than by nation. This is not so much a scientific debate as one of interpreting statistics, and as such there is no 'right' way to analyze the numbers we see on emissions. Being as both analysis have political consequences, the best way to maintain neutrality is to represent both points of view. Sort of like how when the US government formed there was disagreement on how states would be represented in Congress, resulting in both the Senate (by state) and the House (by population): neither solution could have stood on its own. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 16:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The measures I've seen most often are per political entity (i.e., national emissions), per capita, and per unit of GDP. The point is not that any of these are better or worse in an absolute sense, but that they each give different useful information. It would be nice to have all three but that may be too much for the present article. I'd argue for having all three or having none. Raymond Arritt 16:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately, I think the best solution might be to have none here, but to have a link to a (probably new) article that contains all of these (and possibly my pet, as well). I say this mainly because Global warming is already a large article. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dr. Arritt. The ways CO2 and other GHGs are most commonly displayed is either through total CO2 per nation, total CO2 per capita, or total CO2 per USD in GDP (PPP). I agree that all should be shown or none. At the current moment, there is little room to add more images, and last time I was here we were looking for images to actually remove because some sections get so clustered (and begins to alter where the edit buttons are). ~ UBeR 23:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, emissions per GDP is the most useless measure. In the US, for example, there are high rates of insurance and litigation, to name two, the actually provide no productive 'work' per se, but are pervasive and extravagant in cost. On the flip side, China is producing prodigious quantities of products for other nations, though the CO2 emissions are being assigned to them. Such lopsided calculations only play into the hands of those who wish to obfuscate. --Skyemoor 01:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

There definitely are problems with CO2 emissions per unit GDP (as there are with CO2 emissions per unit of anything) but the measure is widely used as a point of reference. See for example the IPCC Working Group 3 reports. Raymond Arritt 01:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The map that replaced my GHG per capita map is labelled "GHG emissions per nation based on total CO2 emissions". What does that mean? That CO2 emissions have been extrapolated to include all GHG emissions? I doubt that the map actually does that - and why would anyone do that, anyway, when estimates of total GHG emissions are available ready-made? The replacement map is almost certainly mislabelled - and it was such mislabelling that prompted me to make my own maps. If you don't like 'em, fine. But be aware that there is more to global warming than GHG emissions, and that there is more to GHG emissions than CO2. So any maps used by Wikipedia must say exactly what they include and what they do not include. Labelling a CO2 map a GHG map is BIG no-no. Such antics create sceptics. (Re the per-capita point, if I get time I might do a per-nation GHG-including-land-use-change map from the same data to keep everyone happy.) Vinny Burgoo 20:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be my bad, sorry. I was getting ahead of myself a little, and if I made changes in error I apologize. As far as the images go, it's not a matter of liking or not liking them, simply an attempt to maintain balance by presenting multiple analysis of the data. Anyway, if you would be willing to make a map based on emissions per nation that would really be great. I liked the style of the other ones and it would be good to keep things consistent. Thanks. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 21:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Per capita information is useful, but we need to add a similar map with 'CO2 emmissions by nation' or remove the per captia maps. The per capita by itself can be deceptive since it hides the fact that the no 1 and no 4 emmitters are China and India. Those per capita maps make them look 'green' and environmentally friendly. Living in China rightnow, I can attest otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.37.9.106 (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added a GHG-by-country map using the same data (or I will in a minute). I agree that there probably are too many images in this article - but also that per capita, per PPP GDP dollar and per nation should probably be shown together. So it's probably best to have all three or none. (I don't mind which.) Vinny Burgoo 13:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't put it in. There's no room for all three. (The new one is called GHG_by_country_2000.svg.) Vinny Burgoo 13:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Cut Solanki

I've cut this one (in the context of sun-spots/solar being an hypothesis for warming):

• Leidig, Michael (2004-07-17). "The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame". Telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 2007-04-29. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Its a directly (and provable) distortion of Solanki's research. See for instance this and this. Find a reference to Svensmark or Veizer who are actually saying this - instead of using a piece of popular press that is (unintentionally i'm sure) misleading and directly wrong. --Kim D. Petersen 18:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted Uber's revert -- we had gone over the Solar Variation/Friends of Science nonsense further up. The Solar Variation comment is, as I posted earlier, now obsolete and basically refuted in the article's own Solar variation section, and there wasn't a single good reason given to keep it. -BC aka Callmebc 19:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The FOS had nothing to do with the section you deleted. If the FOS were in the article, then you might have a point. Either way, see my response in the thread below. ~ UBeR 20:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Attribution / 50 years

Callmebc made what looks like an odd edit to me: [4]. As far as I'm concerned, the attribution is clearest over the last 50 years timespan: this fits in with what the IPCC says (tar or ar4). *Not* that the attribution (of an unspecified period) became clearest starting in 1950's. It didn't. Formal attribution doesn't start till SAR times-ish I think. Informally who knows. I don't think it had a great deal to do with Keeling anyway - by the time people started doing attribution inc CO2 was just background well-known info William M. Connolley 19:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, that "50 years" stuff is directly attributable to Keeling's work, and he was singled out in this detailed AIP history. Can you specify a more likely scenario? And why also revert back in the solar variation nonsense? -BC aka Callmebc 19:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Keeling: his stuff only started in the IGY, so "late 50's" has to be wrong: you would have needed a decade perhaps of CO2 to know it was rising. But knowing CO2 is rising is only the first and easiest step in the entire process. Finding out is that CO2 was likely to affect climate was nothing to do with Keeling.

SV nonsense? You mean: One such hypothesis proposes that warming may be the result of increased solar radiation associated with greater numbers of sunspots.? - I think they are wrong, but its certainly one hypothesis. Its one of the factors IPCC considers within its attribution analysis, after all William M. Connolley 19:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Keeling started his measurements in 1958, and from the AIP article, "With painstaking series of measurements in the pristine air of Antarctica and high atop the Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii, he nailed down precisely a stable baseline level of CO2 in the atmosphere. In 1960, with only two full years of Antarctic data in hand, Keeling reported that this baseline level had risen. The rate of the rise was approximately what would be expected if the oceans were not swallowing up most industrial emissions." And the problem with leaving that solar variation comment in is that: A) the reference associated with it is obsolete and had been removed by KimDabelsteinPetersen for reasons stated above; and B) It's directly contradicted by more up to date info in the article's own "Solar Variation" section, most especially by a reference to a 2007 paper by Lockwood and Fröhlich. -BC aka Callmebc 19:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Basing a trend on 2 years would be madness. And since the airborne fraction is only 50%, there is something wrong in that quote somewhere. But it doesn't matter - say it was the end of the 60's. Whatever. The most important part of what I was saying is that Keeling only establishes that CO2 was going up (and you need to go back to ice cores for pre-Keeling to complete the picture anyway). All the rest is harder.

Solar: yes the ref may have been obsolete but we all know its a widely-touted hypothesis. You can ref the ar4 chapter 2 p188 if you want. L+F isn't the end of all things - one paper doesn't do that, pro- as well as anti- William M. Connolley 20:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Connolley. Solar variation as a cause is most definitely a hypothesis, and to delete it would be saying otherwise. True, there are probably better references than the one that was previously used. If anything, the SV section proves there is still the hypothesis. So, please, don't delete the introductory to the section; it's useful. ~ UBeR 20:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Which is why i didn't cut the sentence - but only the reference, better references exists (iirc), look up Svensmark, Veizer, Shaviv and others. - the current one was both misleading and wrong, since Solanki doesn't argue this line. (quite the opposite actually). --Kim D. Petersen 21:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

So is the general opinion here that a hypothesis with no good supporting references is just as worthy of mention as heavily supported theory with truckloads of supporting refs? I did a quick check on Connolley's ref and backtraced the key source data -- guess what that's showing as the solar radiation trend for recent years. "Controversial" doesn't exactly mean you have to humor the badly misinformed.... -BC aka Callmebc 20:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No, solar isn't worth mentionning as much as CO2, which is why we don't. But it does need to be mentionned William M. Connolley 20:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't continue this discussion any further today, but consider well the passage in question: "This attribution is clearest for the most recent 50 years, for which the most detailed data are available. In contrast to the scientific consensus that recent warming is mainly attributable to elevated levels of greenhouse gases, other hypotheses have been suggested to explain the observed increase in mean global temperature. One such hypothesis proposes that warming may be the result of increased solar radiation associated with greater numbers of sunspots.[citation needed]"

1) Where is the ref support for the "This attribution is clearest for the most recent 50 years text"?

2) If you are going to mention "one such hypothesis" with no good supporting ref, then why not mention the "hypothesis" that human-caused global warming was never more than a big ol' hoax? Give a crackpot a cracker and he'll take the whole box, and maybe even your pot. -BC aka Callmebc 21:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, the previous reference that was used was probably not the best. Don't pretend as if the hypothesis doesn't exist. Again, see the AR4 chp. 2 sec. 7.1 (p. 188). ~ UBeR 21:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

1: see the attribution article 2: hoax means denying the t record so isn't credible. Here I am agreeing with Uber, and only a few days ago with CE! William M. Connolley 21:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"Probably" is not a ref, and just because a hypothesis "exists" doesn't exactly justify including it. I will make an issue of this if I don't start seeing some actual bona fide refs to support reverting my stuff, which hasn't exactly been un-sourced. Word. -BC aka Callmebc 21:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course. There are plenty of hypotheses, many of which we do not include, mostly because of WP:WEIGHT/WP:NPOV. SV is included because it's the most prominent of the alternative theories and has quite a bit of scientific and peer-reviewed research on the matter; even the IPCC discusses it. ~ UBeR 22:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"Of course" is not ref, and neither is "There are plenty." I'm not playing games here -- I'll give you some time to come up with some actual refs before reverting your unsupported (and more and more malicious/spiteful seeming) reverts again. You claim that nobody agreed with me, but the only objection was a not exactly convincing cite of a piece by a member of the grossly misnamed "Friends of Science." Remember? If there are truly "plenty" as you claim, then it should be easy for you to come up with just one legitimate one at least. -BC aka Callmebc 04:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course. ~ UBeR 16:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate you making the effort, I have to point out some issues with those refs:

1) Not only is the Henrik Svensmark ref in regards to galactic cosmic rays and their possible affects on cloud formation, and not "solar radiation" per se, but Svensmark's claims have had little or no support among the overall scientific community. See this review.

Also you have two refs for Svensmark listed, the first as being from 1998 in the Physical Review Letters and the second as being from 2007 in Space Science Reviews, but the date of the second ref is actually August, 1999, and is essentially a rehash of the first cite.

2) A close reading of that IPCC "Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing" ref does not support solar radiation forcing being a major or even a significant factor for the current round of global warming. Indeed, one of the lead authors, Piers Forster, said in reference to a Royal Society's journal Proceedings report debunking the link, "This paper reinforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity."

3) The "Climate change and solar variability: What's new under the sun" ref also doesn't support solar radiation forcing, a point made much clearer in the abstract for the report: "Overall, the role of solar activity in climate changes -- such as the Quaternary glaciations or the present global warming -- remains unproven and most probably represents a second-order effect. Although we still require even more and better data, the weight of evidence suggests that solar changes have contributed to small climate oscillations occurring on time scales of a few centuries, similar in type to the fluctuations classically described for the last millennium: The so-called Medieval Warm Period (900–1400 A.D.) followed on by the Little Ice Age (1500–1800 A.D.)".

So, well, do you have any other refs? -BC aka Callmebc 18:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should go beyond reading the abstracts. There is really is much more to be said. What's being referenced is that such a hypothesis exists ("Several scientists have proposed that part of the global warming of about 0.8 °C since the mid 19th century has been related to a slow increase in solar irradiation from 1750 up to the present-day"[5]). Do you seriously doubt such a solar variation hypothesis exists, even after the IPCC discusses it? As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not here to tell its reader what is and what is not truth. In fact, Wikipedia is not truth, it's verifiability. We're to discuss the facts that surround the topic ("It demeans the purpose of an encyclopedia, which is not to advance a particular theory, but to present the browser with the current state of knowledge. Wikipedia is not here to say what is the truth, it is not here to evangelize your idea, it is here to provide a summary of what is being said—even if you don't like it"). The fact is that the hypothesis of solar variation exists within the field the climate study, and to deny that would be wholly un-encyclopedic. ~ UBeR 19:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that there is currently no support for the hypothesis that solar radiation is a significant factor in the current round of global warming. None. Yes, it has been discussed and studied, as well it should be in the interest of honest science, but....the end result is that the IPCC and everyone else seriously engaged in researching these things have found it, and are finding it, to be relatively insignificant. That's the bottom line, and to suggest otherwise, directly or indirectly, is to be deceitful and misleading to anyone coming to Wikipedia to get some good, solid info on the topic of global warming. That would be truly "un-encyclopedic." -BC aka Callmebc 19:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong to say that there is *no* support. From Bard+Frank: we also critically assess recent claims that the variability of the Sun has had a significant impact on global climate. You cannot regard L+F as the definitive last word on this issue (*I* think L+F are right, mind you) William M. Connolley 19:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see where I'm wrong. We're not talking about long term millenia cycles -- we're talking about this current, relatively extremely spike-ish warming trend, the thing we're actually referring to when we say global warming. There is no support for this by the Bard and Frank study -- they were primarily looking at the evidence for overall effects of solar radiation in both the long-long term and for recent decades, and they found squat to support the notion that it has much, if any, to with what's going on now. If you think I'm wrong, point out where. I went through all of UBeR's refs and did not find a single instance of legitimate scientific support for the "hypothesis" that the sun is a factor in what's happening now. If you guys don't know it by now, you should be warned that I do my homework (yes, I knew exactly what I was doing using that particular graph). -BC aka Callmebc 20:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You're looking for the wrong thing. The sentence in the article does not say "solar variation is the cause of recent global warming and here are the references to support that." It states that there is a hypothesis out there held by some scientists that suggests variation is the sun can explain global warming, and the references I provided support that sentence quite well. Considering the Bard and Frank paper was written in 2006, and they still state that "several scientists" hold the hypothesis to be true, you are incorrect to say that no one supports this hypothesis, when in fact I presented to you references that state quite the contrary. ~ UBeR 20:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed, exactly what I'm arguing. B+F don't say solar *is* the cuase; they say that people are indeed saying it. As, for example, Svensmark is. Or Shaviv William M. Connolley 20:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is what the Wiki article says: "In contrast to the scientific consensus that recent warming is mainly attributable to elevated levels of greenhouse gases, other hypotheses have been suggested to explain the observed increase in mean global temperature. One such hypothesis proposes that warming may be the result of variations in solar activity.[12][13][14][15]"

Please explain how any of your refs or excuses justify tying "variations in solar activity" to "the observed increase in mean global temperature"? -BC aka Callmebc 20:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. The article says, "other hypotheses have been suggested." The references I provided support this. The article says, "One such hypothesis" is the solar variation one. The references I provided support this. Quite frankly, this has reached the high school level of dissecting sentences. It would be much better for you, and for the sake of not continuing this ridiculous argument, if you just conceded. You misunderstood what the article was saying, and that's fine. Just leave it at that. ~ UBeR 20:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The meaning of "other hypotheses have been suggested" seems plain enough. There are serious people studying the role of solar variation on climate change. Yes, some of the reflexive denialists also have latched on to the solar hypothesis, but ideas aren't responsible for the people who believe in them. Raymond Arritt 21:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This is beginning to feel more like grade school than anything. Let's recap, shall we: I removed the reference to "solar variation" under the section "Causes" because there was no good ref to support it. UBeR put it back claiming that it was "most definitely a hypothesis" but without supplying a reference to support it. When I made an issue of it, he came up with "4" references": 2 essential dupes of a pretty much discredited one (Svensmark); and two more that actuallly pretty much refuted that solar radiation was a significant factor for the current global warming trend. Alright, so on one hand we have a bona fide theory supported by tons of every growing evidence that the current round of global warming is overwhelmingly caused primarily by human activity; on the other, we have tons of unsupported hypotheses claiming otherwise, including that it's just some sort of natural cycles and/ot that it's all just some sort of liberal hoax.

All I've asked for is some sort of legitimate cite to show that including a reference to "solar variation" was a reasonable thing to do for an encylopedia article on the hot topic of global warming. So far I got a lot of excuses that boils down to "Well, we can't find any legitimate science references that support it, but since it gets talked about a lot, we have to include it." But according to this, WP:UNDUE: NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth notion, a view of a distinct minority.

So are you really saying we need to include giving prominence to another "Flat Earth" view, in this case, that our current round of global warming could somehow be caused by a natural sun cycle despite not a shred of good scientific evidence to support this? -BC aka Callmebc 21:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The sentence states there people within the scientific community who hold the hypothesis that solar variations are behind the cause of global warming. That's what has to be referenced, and that is what's referenced. This is a very simply concept, so I'm not sure why you cannot grasp it. So why is it reasonable for us as an encyclopedia to discuss a hypothesis that you feel is incorrect? Because it's a notable hypothesis; as such even the IPCC discusses it--it's not a fringe theory. It's discussed with scientific scrutiny. As I stated above, we're here to discuss the facts that surround the topic, whether you agree with them or not. This is the purpose of an encyclopedia. ~ UBeR 22:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Then why your inability to come up with any good, legitimate supporting refs? As I already pointed out, the solar radiation factor had been indeed been discussed, studied, but found wanting by climate science -- so why include it now? It may have been worthy of a mention several years ago, but science has moved on well past it, so to what purpose should it be mentioned as an alternative "hypothesis"? Is the purpose of an encyclopedia to be obsolete as well as misleading? -BC aka Callmebc 22:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how many times I am going to have to repeat myself, my patience is wearing thing. The references I added fully support the content of this article. Notable alternative theories should be mentioned, and they are. Encyclopedias, notably Wikipedia, are not here to tell its readers what is truth and what is not. If you want to discuss the topic as it is in the scientific community, then the solar variation theory should very well be mentioned. If you cannot get this through your head, then feel free to start a dispute resolution, because your inability to understand these simple concepts is nearing irritability and ridiculousness, unless someone such as Connolley, Mr. Petersen, or Dr. Arritt can do better explaining to you. ~ UBeR 22:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Do I really need to point out that I demonstrated that your refs did not at all support, never mind "fully," keeping in solar activity as a reasonable alternative hypothesis? In any case, we seem to be at crosspurposes here: I have the silly notion that an encyclopedia should enlighten with up to date, verifiable info backed up with legitimate sources and references; whereas you seem to think -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that if some people have alternative ideas regardless of origin, context, verifiability and/or lack of good supporting sources and references, they should be included as well. Whatever. I'll leave this be for the time being and ponder what would be the best approach to resolve this little disagreement.... -BC aka Callmebc 23:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No, that would be a strawman. My view is that content, such as stating alternative hypotheses exists, should be verifiable, accurate, and neutral. At the moment, the content that I specifically support being included fits this criteria, and that is the criteria for Wikipedia. There is no merit to saying alternative hypotheses do not exist. But by all means, if you think Connolley, Dr. Arritt, Mr. Petersen, and I are all wrong, feel free to go through the dispute resolution. I can only say you will be thoroughly disappointed, especially as it is much easier to concede now. ~ UBeR 02:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You offered up 4 refs that turned out to be worthless upon close inspection in terms of supporting the very dubious point you were trying to make. I'm looking at the bigger issue of letting agenda-laced, anti-science, crackpotty notions infect issues like global warming. For what it's worth, you've elected yourself to be a test case. Stay tuned for further developments.... -BC aka Callmebc 04:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hah! The point I was trying to make is that the solar variation theory exists, and my references are completely supportive of the indisputable fact. While you might get a kick out of calling multiple scientists anti-science, agenda-laced, and crackpots infectious to the scientific discourse on climate change, there will be very few people sympathetic your meritless cause that has served to do nothing more than to waste the time of these very pro-science people who have done nothing but to want the very best for this article. So by all means, continue your disingenuous tirade and ado--just know that in the meantime I've begun a RfC on the issue. ~ UBeR 05:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, this is getting out of hand. BC, all Uber's addition says is that there exists scientists that seriously consider/ed solar forcing as a cause. This is informative because a reader might ask herself 'what if it is the sun?' and when she reads the article she will see that the sun has been considered by the scientific community. On top of that it meets requirements. Here is one paper discussing this hypothesis. Brusegadi 05:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Check the date on that paper -- November, 1992. As I already stated, the solar activity hypothesis may have been worthy of a mention several years ago, but science has moved on well past it. Look at what happened when UBer tried to find refs to replace the deceptive one that had been there -- what you guys apparently aren't quite getting is that as far as present day science is concerned, there are now no legitimate alternative explanations for the current round of global climate change. And to even imply that there are in an encyclopedia article is to be deceptive and misleading, pure and simple. I dare anyone to find an up to date science ref that even allows for the possibility that there could be another explanation other than human activity -- the evidence and refinements in the science is just now so overwhelmingly lopsided in what they point to. The best you can do for accuracy's sake is only mention things like solar forcing in a historical context regarding global warming research, but not for the current science. I may be a newbie to this Wiki article, but that's not exactly the case in regards to the global warming "debate" for what it is. With that said, I am an info freak, and if there really are all those legitimate dissenting opinions/hypotheses out there, well...you know what to do. -BC aka Callmebc 11:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I added that paper because I thought you wanted more reliable sources. Concerning your view about the way the hypothesis is being presented, I really cannot find a way of adding anything new to the discussion. That is, anything I say will simply be a repetition of Uber, Dr. Connolley, or Dr. Arrit. Ciao, Brusegadi 02:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, BC, but I think you are missing something somewhere. Solar variation is a prominent hypothesis. That's why there are several papers discussing (and, for the most recent period, convincingly refuting) it. Describing an hypothesis is not the same as endorsing it. On a meta-level, when I see William and UBeR on the same side, I'm fairly certain that the issue is rather one-sided. And suggesting that especially William and Raymond are not "quite getting" the current state of global warming science is rather patronizing. --Stephan Schulz 14:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

To say that the solar variation hypothesis is not worthy of mention in this article based on your opinion is original research, especially considering that it goes counter to the sources that I found. In their most recent report published in 2007, the IPCC still brings up the matter. In the Bard + Frank paper written in 2006, they still state the hypothesis exists. So for you to say it shouldn't be mention, whilst it's being mentioned and discussed in the scientific literature... well you hold absolutely no ground. ~ UBeR 22:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that's a very odd argument tack. Lots of hypotheses "exist," but are they all valid and should be included just because they exist? While Bard + Frank examined the solar issue, in the end they decided is was not a major factor. My basic point is that by mentioning the hypothesis under Causes without any indication of how they fit in with current research is highly deceptive and misleading.

Also, while this doesn't have anything to do with the subject at hand, I suppose I should mention that my Wiki time here may dry up for a while -- I'm sort of one of the main editors at the Killian memo wikis, as well as an accidental expert on them, and Dan Rather has just filed a lawsuit against CBS. I have the feeling this is going to suck up a lot of my time, so if I start being a bit nonresponsive here, that will likely be the reason. FYI. -BC aka Callmebc 23:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's our job to say what is valid and what is not valid. For the most part, that would original research. That, of course, doesn't mean we should include all hypotheses at will. WP:WEIGHT governs that concept. And because quite a bit of weight has been given to the solar variation hypotheses, whether it be through the IPCC or a number scientific papers on the subject, then that should be represented likewise in this article. Additionally, saying that we discuss the solar variation hypothesis without any context is completely inaccurate, as we devote an entire section discussing the relevant research that explains our current knowledge on the subject. ~ UBeR 23:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, look at the best evidence -- where are the refs for solar forcing being a legitimate alternative hypothesis in this day and age? If it really was true that "Solar variation is a prominent hypothesis," there would be legitimate scientific reports and papers at least giving it a mention, but go look and the only thing you will find are old, utterly out of date papers like the one Brusegadi brought up. UBeR gave 4 references, but as I pointed out, 2 were nearly the same and from the late 90's, but involved galactic cosmic rays, not solar radiation, and that idea has been pretty much completely discredited, and the other two refs, which were very techical, actually said in that solar activity was not a significant factor for what we're calling global warming. So if there is literally no current scientific support for solar variation as being now a legitimate alternative hypothesis, why present it as though it still is? Well? -BC aka Callmebc 15:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This is becoming tiresome. See chapter 2 of the IPCC AR4 Working Group I report, especially at section 2.7.1. If you think the AR4 isn't good enough, well, I give up. Raymond Arritt 03:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Try "redundant" -- I've already pointed out that Piers Forster, the lead author for that very IPCC report, in reference to a Royal Society's Journal Proceedings report debunking the link between global warming and solar radiance, said that "This paper reinforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity." You and the others keep acting like just "mentioning" the hypothesis is good enough a reason to include it in the main wiki article when the very sources you're citing are actually debunking it as a valid alternative hypothesis!! What the heck?! Whatever -- let's see what, if anything, the RFC does. -BC aka Callmebc 15:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This isn't majority rules all, in the sense that we don't just represent what a majority of the people think. If there are notable alternative hypotheses, which there are, then they can be explained within the context of scientific debate, per WP:WEIGHT. It's either your inability to understand how Wikipedia and its policies work or simply your want to argue mindlessly that keeps this going. Please fix one or the other. ~ UBeR 16:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should try to explain what "notable alternative hypotheses" mean in the context of a scientific topic. Getting away from global warming, let's look at a different topic I know quite a bit about -- the "forged" CBS Killian memos. There were/are plenty of "hypotheses" regarding them, but they are all based on extremely faulty notions about the capabilities of early 70's (and even 50's and 60's) office tech, the nature and format of a "Memorandum for Record" and how the contents matched up with official records. You put all the pieces on the table, including the dates when key records were released by the DoD under FOIA duress, and all of a sudden the forgery scenario doesn't fit in. The forgery charge then becomes notable in the sense of a widely held urban myth, but does it mean you still have to include it in a discussion as still being a viable alternative hypothesis? Getting back on a more scientific topic, how about including "Creation Science" or "Intelligent Design" in regards to a discussion of evolution as an alternative hypothesis? The Evolution wiki handles this by placing this particular alternative hypothesis under a separate section called Social and religious controversies. If you want to include a mention of solar activity, I think it would only be likewise appropriate under a separate section to ensure that it's not seen as a viable alternative hypothesis by current climate research on the matter. -BC aka Callmebc 18:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

There are serious scientists who believe that the Sun might have played a larger and more important role during the last 50 years - than is generally believed. Afaik none of them are saying that the Earth isn't experiencing greenhouse-enhanced warming - they just have varying estimates of how large this is compared to solar forcing. There is really no pseudoscience here - its mainly a specific scientific view, albeith a fringe one, but its notable enough to make the IPCC write about it. So its notable in this context as well - as a fringe notable view (according to WP:WEIGHT). [and this has so far been said by almost everyone here - in various forms] --Kim D. Petersen 19:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. This is not an either/or situation, but rather a discussion of how much each casuse has contributed over time. --Stephan Schulz 19:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

But how fringey does something need to get? Here, try this experiment: you're someone who's not tech, but tries to be well enough informed via a daily newspaper and at least a half hour of radio news in the morning and another half hour of TV news after getting home for the evening. You've heard lots of contradictory things about global warming, including how serious it is or isn't, and whether it's caused by humans or is some sort of natural solar cycle. You've also heard that it's still a subject of debate among scientists. Curious, you get on your computer and find the main Wikipedia article on it. You read it through and click on a good many of the links. When you are finished doing this, will you really come away with an accurate notion about what's really going on and the science behind it? I'm just saying.... -BC aka Callmebc 20:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It has to uphold the requirements by WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. We are not here to promote a certain view or educate - we are here to present the science, in an encyclopedic way. Which means that we present the prevalent view and the minority views according to their relative notability (weight). --Kim D. Petersen 21:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I would say for the most part this article is rather accurate--more so than many other Wikipedia articles. It's not as if your hypothetical guy would be completely misinformed by reading this article. In fact, he would be in the know. He would have accurate information--such as knowing other hypotheses are still held by a minority of scientists, that most scientists believe GHGs are the primary cause of GW, and that there remain certain uncertainties. This is good for him to know. If he were to thoroughly review the scientific literature, he would come to same conclusion. ~ UBeR 22:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"On Environmental Stuff"

A possible source of information on this subject is the references and bibliography contained at the rear of the 2004 novel "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton. Of course, there may be bias in the references and bibliography cited by the author. No endorsement or agreement with the author's point of view as expressed in the novel is intended. George614 14:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

State of Fear is a novel. It is not a suitable source for a page on a scientific topic. I'll refrain from further commenting on the quality of the footnotes... --Stephan Schulz 14:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, he is only talking about the footnotes and not the novel itself. That said, although the motive of locating more sources is good, the best place to find sources is in other articles that are relevant to the topic (thus getting back to Stephan's point). Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The footnotes are part of the novel, and have been under the same "rigourous editorial review" as the rest of it. --Stephan Schulz 15:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Stephan and Ben, Your points are well made. I wasn't referring specifically to the footnotes in the text of the novel but to the references at the back of the book, especially the books in the bibliography. Some of those books, however biased, may lead one to additional information and perhaps even useful actual data.George614 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Henrik Svensmark

I note that there are now 3 refs to Svensmark's cosmic ray/cloud seeding theory (or rather, hypothesis) following the mention of "solar activity" on the main page. Anybody else see some problems with this? -BC aka Callmebc 16:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It's probably a WP:WEIGHT problem. But Svensmark's theory has several parts - one that galactic cosmic rays induce cloud formation (or, if that is refuted, low level cloud formation) and hence cool the earth, and the other that solar activity modulates galactic cosmic rays (more solar activity -> less galactic cosmic rays). Yes, I know you could not make this up if you wanted to... --Stephan Schulz 17:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have just read one of Svensmark's papers. It made a lot of sense. I am not sure why you think is is weird that sun spots affect the Earth's magnetic field and that those changes affect the number of high energy protons (cosmic rays) entering the Earth's atmosphere. As for cosmic rays initiating cloud formation, that is exactly how cloud chambers detect cosmic rays. What I see is a possible explanation of *how* a decrease in sun spots could have caused the Little Ice Age by simply allowing more clouds to form. Q Science 15:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is no one has ever shown that the laboratory mechanism has any importance at all to the real atmosphere. Very much the opposite if anything; there are many different types of cloud condensation nuclei, the vast majority of which have nothing whatsoever to do with cosmic rays. Raymond Arritt 16:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. And the correlations that Svensmark claim are all extremely tentative, with several of them refuted or at least very dubious. You should read some of the replies to Svensmark's papers. --Stephan Schulz 16:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

In the mean time, whilst we warm our britches...

We have less to cool them with [6]. Is it my imagination or is the predicted timelines for this sort of stuff keep having to be ramped up? -BC aka Callmebc 20:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[7] and perhaps [8] if you're confident. Maybe I should ask "death spiral" Serreze William M. Connolley 20:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know -- power law distributions are slippery slopes in more ways than one.... -BC aka Callmebc 05:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Polar/Arctic Ice Melt Section

Getting more prosaic, I just noticed how the main wiki article actually gives very little mention to the arctic ice melt despite most of the recent "global warming news" centering on that. Actually, try this little experiement out for size: go to the main page and do a word search for "arctic" and then one for "polar". Interesting, no? For all the guff I got for wanting to remove solar variation as a hypothesis just because, well, it's not really considered a valid alternative scientific explanation anymore, it's been overlooked that some not so hypothetical stuff involving a key indicator of global warming has been marginalized, intentionally or not. My feeling is that it perhaps needs a wee bit more attention as per WP:Weight and such. Ya think? -BC aka Callmebc 14:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#NEWS, and we do mention the ice/albedo feedback early on. Global warming#Attributed_and_expected_effects is only a summary. The main article is at Effects of global warming. But you do have a point - that section is badly disorganized and could need some work. --Stephan Schulz 15:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you at least agree that the section is badly disorganized, but I do believe WP:NOT#NEWS is hardly applicable when a key aspect of research in a supposedly science-based Wiki article barely gets a mention at all, nevermind any breaking news on the matter. The word "arctic" only shows up once and then in the title of an article in "Further Reading," and the word "polar" likewise only shows up in another article title, again only in the "Further Reading" section. The word "solar" though -- go try to count all the mentions of that. I'm just saying.... -BC aka Callmebc 16:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Try Effects of global warming, where most of the information should be. Also try counting how many times "greenhouse" comes up compared to "solar." ~ UBeR 16:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but what term(s) are best connected to the current state of climate research? In any case, and correct me if I'm wrong, the Global Warming wiki essentially acts as a summary wiki that links to other wiki articles delving more deeply into specific aspects of the whole, rather complicated global warming/climate change topic. As such, it should still give weighted info regardless if there is another wiki covering that specific matter in greater detail. Indeed Solar variation has its own separate wiki for itself, so by your reasoning, that should likewise be given as little or even less mention in the Global Warming wiki as the arctic issues. Logical, no? -BC aka Callmebc 17:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No. The solar variation hypotheses holds quite a bit more weight than a news report. There'd be a serious weight issue if we devoted just one sentence to the solar variation hypothesis and an entire section on Arctic ice. ~ UBeR 17:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ice melting is an effect. Of course that it may lead to a positive feed-back loop but ice melting is definitely not a forcing. Solar variation can only be a forcing. So, the solar stuff should be mentioned while the ice melting stuff could be added with details on the feed-back loops if you guys think it has not been properly covered in the article. On the other hand, talking about melting ice alone and polar bears does not belong here; it belongs in the effects of global warming. Brusegadi 19:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I need to only point to what supposedly the "Global Warming" wiki is suppose to cover. It isn't just about the Attribution of recent climate change, which would be more suited for delving into forcing effects like possibly solar variation, nor is it just about the Effects of global warming, which would be more suited for delving into things like glacier retreat. It appears that a broad topic like Global Warming should endeavor to give a balanced introduction to at least the key aspects of the matter. I think. -BC aka Callmebc 20:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT does not mean everything should be discussed equally. ~ UBeR 21:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with you adding in something about the arctic ice, just as long as you don't complain if it doesn't survive the usual review William M. Connolley 20:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks -- I will endeavor to make it sling and arrow proof. -BC aka Callmebc 14:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC on listing notable alternative theories

Template:RFCsci Should the global warming article state there are alternative hypotheses not widely held to be the cause of global warming in lieu of supportive and reliable references?

For the record, I say absolutely not. If you are going to treat the topic of global warming as a matter of scientific study and research, then "alternative theories" should only be listed if they have some degree (so to speak) of current scientific support. For instance solar activity was once considered as another possible cause for this recent global warming period, but new data and research has shown that this is very, very unlikely the case, to the point that it's no longer considered a valid alternative hypothesis among scientists engaged in global climate research -- just try to find a a recent scientific paper treating it as such. So why give it a mention as though it is still a legitimate hypothesis actively being looked at? It would be OK to list this and other now discredited hypotheses under something like a "History of Research" section, but not in the general Wiki article as being somehow a legitimate scientific alternative to the much, MUCH more legitimate theory that has human activity as being the primary cause. -BC aka Callmebc 15:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If the comenter who states the Antarctic ice is increasing and others say the Arctic is decreasing then we have a QAGMA here. I have been to the Arctic recently and observed Glacier melting and spoke with the locals. there may be a new theory I can offer based on my readings that we are on the verge of discovering an ice age in the Southern Hemisphere (reasearch that)! Perhaps we are not out of the woods as www.polarbearsos.org references declining Polar Bear populations to come. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:HAZWOPER On the otherside of the world observed was Jeepne Desiel in Manila and Cebu City in extreme while Arnold Governor of California USA pushed stopping hydrocarbons. We still are left with the delima of facts that yes this could be very dangerous so everyon must get on the ball to SAVE THE PLANET that don't mean drinks at some Chain in Chicago Dallas and Paris for Rock N Roll DMHCHICAGO —Preceding unsigned comment added by DMHCHICAGO (talk • contribs) 02:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The RFC are for comments from editors not already involved in the matter. So far, you're the only person of the many who thinks this. The consensus is clear; there's really no reason for an RFC other than for you to finally drop the matter. ~ UBeR 22:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Should an article on Jesus mention the alternative view that he wasn't the son of god even though most of those who want to comment have preconceived ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.106.250 (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it should, and in fact does. Likewise, this article should include the prominent solar variability hypothesis, paying strict accordance to WP:WEIGHT. It does this, and gives a good summation both of the hypothesis and of recent research suggesting that this is unlikely to be the cause of most of the current warming. I'm not certain "in lieu of" is necessary, though, as the references cited seem to support that solar variability/cloud cover is both an alternative hypothesis and one that is not widely regarded as explaining most current warming. Hal peridol 17:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

My 2 cents is that they should at least be included in there own small section. For example, there is still quite a bit of legitimate scientific investigation into the solar activity question. Tons of papers have been published. Unfortunately anything published that even questions human caused global warming is automatically dismissed as being from an unreliable source. There is also a grown number of scientists who's material was used for the UN report that are now upset the way there work was "mischaracterized". The idea that not a single legitimate scientist questions the human caused theory is just silly. Basically an article about Global Warming shouldn't only include 1 view point. If there is a source that states there are scientists and researchers working on altnernate theories then there are obviously alternate theories and they shouldn't be dismissed. Elhector 21:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• I would say definitely no. Having just met someone on the street who refused to believe that global warming exists because they had heard that it was just solar flares. It is absolutely irresponsible to lend credence to their ignorance. Having just watched "An Inconvenient Truth" and seen how deliberate campaigns to cast doubt exist, as witnessed by 0% of scientific disagreement and over 50% of the popular press having doubt about global warming. People are too easily confused. Don't do it. Oh and does the article on earth say that it might be flat and held up by a tortoise? No. At the very end of the article it says that was an ancient belief that was discounted many years ago. Why should this article be any different? The sentence "However, a few individual scientists disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC" has no place being anywhere in the first 90% of the article. The earth has about $100 Trillion of oil reserves, and the oil companies want to cash in, and don't care if no one survives because of burning it as fuel, instead of using it as petrochemicals, which would net them even more profits by the way. Ditto for the coal companies. 199.125.109.134 08:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, the article on Earth does indeed mention that "In the ancient past there were varying levels of belief in a flat Earth." If we exclude any mention of widely-held misconceptions, then we both deny ourselves the opportunity to refute them and degrade Wikipedia's reputation as a thorough, neutral source. johnpseudo 00:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe per WP:WEIGHT that tiny minorities do not need to be mentioned. If we examine the scientific community, as opposed to general media, I don't believe there is enough support to mention it here. Global Warming Controversy seems a much better place. --Skyemoor 01:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment by editor from RfC. The current subsection on solar activity looks very good indeed. The possibility of a solar cause of global warming is much discussed in popular accounts criticizing global warming, and the current section lays out the current scientific consensus that the sun isn't the cause of the observed increase in temperature. Taking out this subsection would feel very false to readers skeptical of anthropogenic global warming, and would deny them both the good current summary and the prominent link to the article on solar variation. Science doesn't give us an edifice of truth; it gives us theories that there is evidence against and theories that there is not evidence against. Giving interesting alternative hypotheses along with the data that discredits them is probably the best way to present science. Enuja (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a good article overall. You have a section Issue debate, political processes and laws. Any disputes should go there. It seems to me that the NPOV policy works best if the main article is concerned with the topic, and dissenters have a chance to air their views in a different section (Criticism etc.) cf Sigmund Freud, Lacan, Charles Darwin, Fashionable Nonsense, psychoanalysis. The job of an encyclopaedia is to present the facts, not debate the issues. While it seems to me that human induced global warming is pretty much an open and such case, the fact is that there is debate over this issue. Let the dissenters link off to whatever place they want (cf you can find your way to Intelligent Design from Darwin). On that note, while I think ID is patent nonsense, it is a fact that some people hold this view and it is important to be able to read the arguments they put forward, if only to arm yourself against such loonies should you happen to meet one.MarkAnthonyBoyle 03:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I would be supportive of adding the proposed information if, as already mentioned by others in the RfC, it were for historical reasons (and stated as such, including that such theories have been fairly well debunked), but there are some issues that would need to be addressed first. There is a problem in defining what counts as "notable." I doubt that WP:WEIGHT can nor would be followed. Also, the Global Warming FAQ already takes care of a lot of information that would be needed for adding the information proposed. If there were a way to guide casual readers that could care less about the Talk page to the FAQ, this duplication would not be needed. Then again, a FAQ isn't really dictionary material. So to conclude, I am of the opinion that more commentary is needed to address the issues of notability and information duplication. Inclusion of alt. theories, even if for historical means, may bring more even more controversy to the article if these issues are not thoroughly addressed. Jason Patton 06:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that in some ways the article already handles these -- though not as well it should. I am not ad advocate of overly long articles and I think that if we were to put all the ideas that object to Global Warming in this article, it would be unweldy. Plus, I think it would lead to an article that reads badly. I think that linking in the article to other articles that handle these issues is probably best. So I tend to think the article does "OK" or perhaps almost OK in this area, even if it does not do "Great". --Blue Tie 06:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Addition of Global warming controversy to See Also Section

I've added a link to the article Global warming controversy in the see also section. I feel this is a good edit, it improves the overall quality of the article in that it provides instant access to alternate points of view directly relating to the subject matter of this article.Jaredbelch 22:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

My edit was removed reverted before I added the comment here, so I've added my changes back in, please lets discuss this if there is a problem.Jaredbelch 23:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The general policy is to only have links in "see also" that do not already appear in the text. Global warming controversy is already linked from the introduction (as public debate), as a "see main" in the "Issue debate, political processes and laws" section, and from the "Global warming and Climate change" infobox on the bottom. Don't you think this is enough? --Stephan Schulz 23:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You are probably right, I brushed up on the style guide, and the community seems to feel the same way [[9]]. With that being the case, I'm going to clean up the "See Also" section, I'll alphabetize it, and remove links that are already covered in the text of the article. Jaredbelch 06:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be very welcome. --Stephan Schulz 06:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed IPCC Fourth Assessment Report and Low-carbon economy, I've left Renewable energy since it really isn't discussed in the article. Jaredbelch 06:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Arctic Sea Ice Reduction

The National Snow and Ice Data Center has reported [10] that sea ice has decreased to record levels. This may have a place in the attributed effects section. Superm401 - Talk 22:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Shall we also include information on the near-record expansions of antarctic sea ice?

Sea ice around Antarctica has seen unusual winter expansions recently, and this week is near a record high.

I find it interesting (and perhaps telling) that this was the last line in a long article about the arctic ice lows and its connection to global warming. I noticed your reference, Superm401, didn't even mention these near-record expansions. Zoomwsu 23:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Addressing GW: mitigation, adaptation, technology and finance

GW addressing include mitigation, adaptation, techonology and finance. I suggest include clearly these as main sections in the article. --Nopetro 13:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Mitigation and adaptation are their own articles, and are already incorporated into this article as much as they need to be without being redundant. They are both mentioned and linked in the opening paragraphs. As for those other two nonexistent articles... what changes exactly are you trying to suggest? ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 19:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The technology and finance sectors of global warming can be found in the discussions on mitigation, adaption, and effects. ~ UBeR 22:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Few, many, some scientists, yet again

There has been a bunch of back and fourth today about the sentence "However, a few individual scientists disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC." The qualifier "few" has been changed to "many," "some," and deleted entirely. This has been discussed several times previously on talk, if memory serves, with "few" being acceptable. My own view on this, the purpose of the sentence is to charaterize the degree of acceptance of the IPCC conclusions. Not including this sentence would be unacceptable, since it would give the reader the impression that IPCC conclusions are universally accepted. Likewise, without a quantification, it would give the impression the IPCC conclusions are disputed by a substantial faction of scientists. Both would be misleading. I think few is a good word to use there; It acknowledges disagreement while noting widespread acceptance. The source does use "few" as well and I tend to think it is in line with the spirit of avoid weasel words. --TeaDrinker 16:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care if it says "few" or "some", but I find "many" misleading. That the source says "few" is a good reason to use "few", but presumably those in support of the other words could probably find other sources. Just my 2 cents. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "many" would be misleading. However, the problem is that the source provided to justify the use of "few" is an editorial complaining about Michael Crichton's "State of Fear." It was published by an organization so obscure it does not even have its own article on Wikipedia. Even if one were to dismiss these issues, the source is completely irrelevant in the context of the sentence in question. The article presents one organization's criticism of another on political, rather than scientific grounds. It fails RS, it fails NPOV, and it's a weasel word to boot. Simply put, this "source" is an attack piece, no more and no less, and the stubbornness of its continued use in light of these violations of WP policy would suggest a simple attempt to marginalize any opinion dissenting from the IPCC consensus. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 17:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The source might be a problem, but more importantly there is WP:WEASEL. ~ UBeR 17:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

How does one avoid this, though? As TeaDrinker correctly points out, omitting the qualifier is even more misleading. (Also, I notice that "few" is not listed as a weasel word.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

See WP:WTA. Needless to say, a good way to avoid this is to find a good source stating a fact. Of course, no one can find one. ~ UBeR 18:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "few" isn't in that list, either. Granted, it seems to go with the spirit of the guidelines. That said, a good, non-editorial source could be a way out of this quagmire. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

See the latter part of my reply. ~ UBeR 19:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If I understand that comment, the latter part of my post was meant to agree with the latter part of yours. Perhaps I didn't make that clear? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

My point is that nobody can find one. It's been on the table for quite a while to find a good source stating the fact, but no one can find one. ~ UBeR 19:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A simple way to solve this would be to just drop the whole sentence "However, a few individual scientists disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC." Apart from the AMQUA, there are not to many sources dicussing this. There are many reliable sources for the existence of consensus in scientific opinion on climate change, but I'm not aware of any reliable sources (i.e. not OISM or a republican congressperson) denying the consensus. If describing the number of dissenters is OR, and adding individual scientists is definitely a WP:WEIGHT problem, we could just drop the whole sentence. We will lose the link to the list in that case, so it should go e.g. into "see also". --Stephan Schulz 19:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That actually sounds like a reasonable solution, although I suspect there'll be a few complaints about it. (Maybe not, though. You did mention keeping the link in the "see also", which sounds like a good compromise.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

What about this source that was beat down in the Scientific opinion on climate change article: [11]? According to that study, approximately 40% of scientists disagree with the IPCC WG1 report. Zoomwsu 02:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It has a couple of problems (e.g. self-selection, no peer review), but your interpretation is more problematic. As I read the report, 100% of the scientist say the warming is real and the data robust enough to unequivocally say so, and 97% agree with the core findings of the IPCC. Your 40% seems to be rounded up from the 17% and 18% that say that the impact of CO2 is underestimated or overestimated relative to other forcings. But this is not complete deviation from the consensus. --Stephan Schulz 05:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"Many" isn't misleading, its vandalism/POV-pushing. As for "a few"... we've done all this before. Unless anyone is going to change their minds, or has any new arguments (none so far), this discussion is going nowhere, probably at great length :-) William M. Connolley 17:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, "many" has no place in this sentence, but the issue with the source being weasel words used in an editorial attack piece cannot and should not be ignored. If such a source were provided by the AAPG or another skeptical group substituting "many" for "few", would we even be questioning the need for a change? ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 17:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Out of the ten thousand or so climatologists in the world, a few dozen contrarians - many if not most of which are directly or indirectly supported by the oil industry and ipso facto have no credibility - is a negligible minority. It shouldn't say "few" - it should call them what they really are - a negligible but very vocal minority. Raul654 17:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Would there happen to be a source to back up any of those numbers? Or the assertion about widespread present-day support from big oil? The issue at stake is the source's complete lack of impartiality or relevance in the context of the article, and (dare I say) attempts by Wikipedia editors to marginalize and discredit a position that they happen to disagree with. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 18:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The IPCC alone has over 3,000 combined reviewers and authors. 10,000 is conservative estimate of the total in the field. The "few dozen" contrarians is from List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, and my funded by the oil industry comment comes from that fact that off the top of my head, I recognize a number of the ones listed on that page as being tied to the oil industry (including Singer, Seitz, and Legates). And as far as what is at stake here - this is not a he-said-she-said. We do not give equal time, and we do not make misleading statements like "many" when there are in fact very few relative to the size of the field. The fact is that the contrarians are a tiny {vocal, oil-funded} minority, and that's the weight we are going to give ot their position. Raul654 18:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

They're not all tied to the oil industry. Pat Michaels is being paid by the coal industry. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As opposed to being supported by the OSI? ~ UBeR 19:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Also a small fraction, right? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course. ~ UBeR 19:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's many scientists, without question:

• "Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists -- the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects -- and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled. If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the scientific community may run in the opposite direction. Not only do most of my interviewees either discount or disparage the conventional wisdom as represented by the IPCC, many say their peers generally consider it to have little or no credibility. In one case, a top scientist told me that, to his knowledge, no respected scientist in his field accepts the IPCC position."[12]
• "A great many scientists, without doubt, are four-square in their support of the IPCC. A great many others are not. A petition organized by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine between 1999 and 2001 claimed some 17,800 scientists in opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. A more recent indicator comes from the U.S.-based National Registry of Environmental Professionals, an accrediting organization whose 12,000 environmental practitioners have standing with U.S. government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy. In a November, 2006, survey of its members, it found that only 59% think human activities are largely responsible for the warming that has occurred, and only 39% make their priority the curbing of carbon emissions. And 71% believe the increase in hurricanes is likely natural, not easily attributed to human activities."[13] 74.77.222.188 19:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this was meant to be humorous, but it does prove the point that perhaps this sentence should be removed altogether (per Stephan's suggestion above). Now I'm just waiting for someone to find the source that uses the word "some". Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no, the Oregon Petition is not anywhere near a reputable represntation of the Climatology community. Not only did their lists of PhD include a fictional lawyer and a spice girl, but as Scientific American pointed out based on their sampling of the list, Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers--a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community Raul654 20:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Your cite says nothing of a fictional lawyer and a spice girl, who are hardly going to dilute a poll of 17,600, regardless. Your cite says they questioned only 30 of those who signed. Also, you have completely ignored the 2006 poll of 12,000 of whom 41% do not think human activities are largely responsible for global warming. That's not "a few" by any stretch. Clashwho 20:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

(1) [The Oregon Petition] was touted as a collection of thousands of scientists debunking global warming. So was that Perry Mason on the list? And John Grisham? What about that Spice Girl? - The Seattle Times. (2) Yes, that's called sampling. It's the basis of most statistics. You don't have to ask everyone on the list to get an accurate view of the total population distribution. (3) I suggest you read this - which is a peer reviewed, reputable paper that found no scientific support for contrarians amoung peer reviewed literature. Literally, not one paper. Orestes' paper and findings have survived numerous oil-industry back attempts to debunk it, most famously by Benny Peiser (whose work he himself has retracted). Raul654 20:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Their "sample" was crap, as they somewhat acknowledge by calling their extrapolation "crude." You're still ignoring the 2006 poll of 12,000. Why is that? Clashwho 20:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

0% opposed it, but less than 2% supported it. Wow. ~ UBeR 21:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As Orestes herself has said on numerous occasions, less than 2% explicitely supported it for the same reason that only a tiny minority of papers in biology explitely support evolution - the vast majority of papers simply assume it to be true. Something like 25% of the papers sampled supported it implictely. Raul654 21:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's an interesting twist on the 2%/25% figure—it effectively refutes the claim that climatologists are only supporting global warming because that's how they get their funding. Evidently, around 75% of climatology studies have virtually nothing to do with global warming. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The Oregon Petition article contains a lot more detail on that document -- I'd never heard the Spice Girl bit before, that was pretty funny. The Sci Am research is about the best followup we have on that.

As for the National Registry of Environmental Professionals, that's hardly a list of climatologists, but a pretty random set of "environmental" "professionals" of all stripes. Calling it a survey of 12,000 environmental professionals is rather misleading, too, considering there were 793 responses. [14] 71% of respondants hold the REM (Registered Environmental Manager) accreditation -- these are unlikely to be climate scientists. 62% of respondents are in the private sector -- these, too, are unlikely to be climate scientists. All in all, that's a pretty hopeless survey if you're looking for scientists with expertise. bikeable (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Fully protected page

There's no way a user, who claims scientists skeptical of a human cause for global warming are all in the pay of oil companies, should be permitted to fully protect this page from editing claiming "POV pushing". Clashwho 20:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad he did. And you can always go to Conservapedia and edit the global warming article there. :) Count Iblis 20:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who says all scientists skeptical of Global Warming are in the pay of oil companies should only be permitted to edit the liberalopedia. Wikipedia ought to run him out on rail. His POV is apparently so ingrained that he doesn't even recognize it. Clashwho 20:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well he knows that that is a sweeping statement and not 100% accurate. He did not change the sentence in the article to somehing like: "A few scientists who are in the pay of oil companies disagree". Also, note that on most issues the Left is Right and the Right is Wrong, so there is no need to create a separate "Liberopedia", because its contents would be very similar to Wikipedia. :) Count Iblis 22:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks for wearing your extraordinarily liberal bias on your sleeve. You probably aren't the most impartial user to be editing this page, either. He has not said that he knows it was a sweeping statement and not 100% accurate. Why are you speaking for him? Here is his exact quote from the edit history:

"rv per long discussion on talk page - "some" gives weigh [sic] too much weight to a a tiny oil-financed minority"

That's saying that every skeptic of IPCC is oil financed, which is preposterous. Wikipedia deserves better than to have such an important article locked by someone with such obvious POV issues. Clashwho 01:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"During edit wars, administrators should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people. Administrators should not edit pages that are protected due to a content dispute, unless there is consensus for the change, or the change is unrelated to the dispute. However, this should only be done with great caution, and administrators doing so should indicate this on the article's talk page." ~ UBeR 21:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't even much of an edit war. I made one edit. One. And then he promptly reverted it and locked the page. Clashwho 01:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It is commonly accepted practice to revert to the long-standing version, which is "few" Raul654 21:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Um. Sorry to say this but I don't think you should be protecting the page, you are involved. I'd unprotect it but I don't want to get into a war. I'm not really sure that protection is warranted at all. This is going to be yet another tedious round of some/many/few that will settle back to few after a little while, but protection won't help.

What might help to decrease the violence is to declare a 1RR rule on this page while the SFM war plays out. How about that? William M. Connolley 21:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The some/few/many thing is a ritual dance we go through once in a while. (The equinox just passed; maybe that has something to do with it.) I don't think it's a big enough deal to warrant protecting the page. Raymond Arritt 23:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The 1RR rule is more difficult to enforce than the 0RR rule :) Count Iblis 01:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This full protection is driving me nuts. Take this for example:

An increase in global temperatures is expected to cause other changes, including sea level rise, increased intensity of extreme weather events, and changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation. Other effects of global warming include changes in agricultural yields, glacier retreat, species extinctions and increases in the ranges of disease vectors.

Is it really necessary to have the same article inlinked in two consecutive sentences? I had planned to change this earlier today, but the article had already been locked. Minor fixes like this happen all the time, but now they can't be made due to the protection. Wouldn't it be easier to simply enforce that the sentence in question cannot be changed during the course of the discussion, instead of locking the entire article down over the sake of a single word (albeit an important one)? ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 03:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion, but I have a hard time understanding why the some/few distinction is important. (Don't bother explaining it to me, I'm sure it's due to a difference of perception that cannot be easily explained.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and do this. It seems like an uncontroversial fix that isn't related to the reason for protection, per the criteria in WP:PROT#Full_protection. If anyone thinks otherwise I'll change it back. Raymond Arritt 03:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 03:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Since this thread stems from the some/few thread, I don't want to elaborate much to avoid starting serious discussion. I just want to make my position on the matter clear: So long as the sentence remains there in some form, I do not care so much about its actual wording. The biggest problem I have is the improper citation that is provided for it. I may personally feel that "few" is an understatement, and "many" an overstatement, but as you pointed out there is no real way to add any kind of descriptor without stepping on someone's toes. The big problem is the way that some editors hide behind the editorial as if it carries legitimate weight when, in keeping with policy (WP:RS-WP:NPOV-WP:WEASEL), it shouldn't be there at all. So whatever the outcome, if that citation is removed without taking the entire sentence with it, policy will be upheld and the article will be better for it. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 03:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"Some scientists disagree" seems like an appropriate compromise to me. I don't even know what the word "individual" is there for. To make them all seem like unconnected naysayers? Lone voices crying out in the wilderness? That's hardly the case. As for the cite, yes, there are certainly better ones out there like my cite to the "The Deniers" series that I added and saw promptly reverted and the page fully protected. Rarely have I seen such an overreaction on Wikipedia, and the editor who did it has made statements that out him as far from an impartial observer. Clashwho 04:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the cite that I intended:[15] Clashwho 04:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The Canada National Post series is certainly not a WP:RS. It's full of nonsense, and at least two of the described scientists have stated that they have been misrepresented. It probably was reverted quickly because we have been over this a couple of times already. --Stephan Schulz 05:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with the Canada National Post and that series? It's full of respected scientists who have deep problems with the IPCC's conclusions. It is emphatically not full of nonsense. Do you have a cite for the two scientists who feel they were misrepresented? Whatever they feel, they certainly do not support the conclusions of the IPCC. Clashwho 19:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at this one, for an extreme example, where the newspaper had to retract the story. There are quite a few more (Toll, Kirkby, Landsea, Solanki, Wunsch, Friis-Christensen, Nordhaus, von Storch ...) certainly all support the IPCC conclusions. Some of them have differences with specifics - but the overall IPCC picture they are in agreement about. (try researching some of these yourself). --Kim D. Petersen 23:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Being as the current source presented is about on the same level as the CNP article as far as reliability and relevance go, I don't see why we cannot simply eliminate the source altogether and leave the sentence there, worded in a way that we reach through compromise here. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 07:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually favor Stephan's suggestion above: remove the sentence altogether and add the link to the dissenting minority in the See also section. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Leaving the lead bereft of any mention of dissenting scientists is not an option. That will turn this article into propaganda, not an impartial source of information. Clashwho 19:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; this would obviate our quarterly some/few kerfluffle. Raymond Arritt 14:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose full protection. Why not restrict just to registered users to avoid vandalism? Zoomwsu 15:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

They had already done that. The page was semi-protected before this began. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 15:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Raul654 fails to understand how WP:DISPUTE works and would much rather revert others and lock articles he's not supposed to be locking. ~ UBeR 16:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Amusing, seeing as how I helped write it years ago. In the future, why don't you educate yourself before showing how ignorant you are. Raul654 17:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Says the guy who thinks all scientists who question the IPCC are in the pay of oil companies. After looking at WP:DISPUTE perhaps you should have a look at WP:OWN as well. Clashwho 19:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, thinking that all scientists who are skeptical of the mainstream position hold their views because they are paid by oil companies is ignorance. --Childhood's End 18:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Average temperature is computed, not *measured*

I strongly object to Obedium adding the word *measured* to the following text.

The measured global average air temperature near the Earth's surface ...

By definition, averages are computed, not measured. In the case of global temperature, a very complex model is used to perform that calculation. Q Science 22:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

In the very narrow sense in which you're using the term, all temperatures are "computed." I suppose you could replace it with some words about average temperature as computed from observations, but I can't see where that adds value for the reader. Raymond Arritt 23:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not say calculated instead? Seems like more precise language. Zoomwsu 02:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems like reasonable word usage to me. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not just say "The global average air temperature near the Earth's surface"? It's simpler, correct, and gets the idea across. Enuja (talk) 02:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

A sensible suggestion indeed. Classic writing advice for modifiers (adjectives and adverbs) is "when in doubt, leave it out." Raymond Arritt 02:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops, forgot it's protected at the moment. Raymond Arritt 02:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Calculated is more precise and contains information that your version would omit. Better to be more informative? Zoomwsu 15:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is not more informative. The temperature I read from a single thermometer is "calculated" from the expansion coefficient of Mercury or alcohol (or some more esoteric property of semiconductors nowadays). Using just "calculated" is not informative, but it may be misleading, as it might suggest that no measurements are involved (otherwise, if you mention one, why not the other? "calculated from worldwide temperature measurements" is a bit cumbersome). --Stephan Schulz 15:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you could have said it is "measured" from the expansion coefficient. A scale has been agreed upon to take these measurements from mercury expansion and from there, it becomes measurement, not calculation, just like you do not calculate an observable distance but measure it. --Childhood's End 17:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I think you're taking it too far with the mercury stuff. I think calculated is a better term than measured, and better than complete omission of a qualifier. Calculated leaves us with an out--it supposes the possibility of error. Using just "the temperature is X", doesn't indicate the possibility of error and gives the false impression that the surface temperature is a concrete fact, which it isn't. Zoomwsu 17:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd argue that any average is calculated in a way differently than a single measurement is. I see no problem with the word. That said, (with respect to Zoomwsu's comment) we're saying "the average temperature is X" which definitely does imply a calculation and hence room for error. Basically, I don't care whether it says "calculated" or not, so I'll argue both sides of the issue. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The temperature measurements taken outside my house are not computed. Global temperature is. I don't see why we are arguing over avoiding this language since it provides a very relevant nuance. I prefer "computed" over "calculated". But perhaps a good option would be "modelled"? --Childhood's End 17:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Modeled, of course, would be inaccurate because the temperature is not modeled at all- it is measured. A model would not require any measurement at all. I agree with Raymond Arritt that, if you want to mince words, all temperatures are calculated averages - they depend on the average pressure exerted by the collisions of the molecules in the substance you're measuring with your measurement device. But the internally-calculated output of a temperature-measuring device is generally called a "measurement", not a "calculation". I support Enuja's suggestion that the word be removed entirely. johnpseudo 18:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop playing with words. A duck is a duck is a duck, and same applies to a measurement. On the other hand, you cannot measure global temperature, so it should not be implied that you can. --Childhood's End 19:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you measure the temperature in Houston? In your backyard? In your body? Not according to you. You are implying that without absolute knowledge of the system in question, you are merely "calculating" the temperature....The fact that measurements are taken in multiple places around the world serves only to provide a more-exact measurement, just as taking an average of the temperature read at different places in your backyard would provide a more-accurate measurement. The only difference is that, because the earth is a very volatile system, it is more difficult to provide an exact measurement for the global temperature whereas the measurement of the temperature in your backyard is easier because the system is more uniform. johnpseudo 20:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

All temperature measurements incorporate a model, from mercury-in-glass to PRTs. The original addition of "measured" was a poor idea; just say "The global average air temperature" as its been for ages William M. Connolley 20:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I really think this is much ado about nothing, but William's suggestion makes sense. If you think that all averages must be calculated/computed/etc. (which no one is really disputing), then just saying "The global average air temperature" already contains that information. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I could bear with this phrasing, although I don't think it's as precise as having calculated in there. Zoomwsu 23:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus? What consensus?

Oreskes’ essay is now outdated. Since it was published, more than 8,000 further papers on climate change have been published in the learned journals. In these papers, there is a discernible and accelerating trend away from unanimity even on her limited definition of “consensus”.

Schulte (2007: submitted) has brought Oreskes’ essay up to date by examining the 539 abstracts found using her search phrase “global climate change” between 2004 (her search had ended in 2003) and mid-February 2007. Even if Oreskes’ commentary in Science were true, the “consensus” has moved very considerably away from the unanimity she says she found.

Dr. Schulte’s results show that about 1.5% of the papers (just 9 out of 539) explicitly endorse the “consensus”, even in the limited sense defined by Oreskes. Though Oreskes found that 75% of the papers she reviewed explicitly or implicitly endorsed the “consensus”, Dr. Schulte’s review of subsequent papers shows that fewer than half now give some degree of endorsement to the “consensus”. The abstract of his paper is worth quoting in full: “Fear of anthropogenic ‘global warming’ can adversely affect patients’ well-being. Accordingly, the state of the scientific consensus about climate change was studied by a review of the 539 papers on “global climate change” found on the Web of Science database from January 2004 to mid-February 2007, updating research by Oreskes (2004), who had reported that between 1993 and 2003 none of 928 scientific papers on “global climate change” had rejected the consensus that more than half of the warming of the past 50 years was likely to have been anthropogenic. In the present review, 32 papers (6% of the sample) explicitly or implicitly reject the consensus. Though Oreskes said that 75% of the papers in her sample endorsed the consensus, fewer than half now endorse it. Only 7% do so explicitly. Only one paper refers to “catastrophic” climate change, but without offering evidence. There appears to be little evidence in the learned journals to justify the climate-change alarm that now harms patients.”

[16]

--Alexander 09:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

From the first paragraph of the same paper: "Yet the scientific consensus is that...it is we who are chiefly to blame for the equally rapid warming from 1975 to the present."--Chaser - T 09:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is, verbatim, the first patagraph of the referenced report:

t is often said that there is a scientific “consensus” to the effect that climate change will be “catastrophic” and that, on this question, “the debate is over”. The present paper will demonstrate that the claim of unanimous scientific “consensus” was false, and known to be false, when it was first made; that the trend of opinion in the peer-reviewed journals and even in the UN’s reports on climate is moving rapidly away from alarmism; that, among climate scientists, the debate on the causes and extent of climate change is by no means over; and that the evidence in the peer-reviewed literature conclusively demonstrates that, to the extent that there is a “consensus”, that “consensus” does not endorse the notion of “catastrophic” climate change.

--Alexander 10:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)