Tony Sidaway (talk | contribs) |
Tony Sidaway (talk | contribs) →No return to old, disreputable practice: new section |
||
Line 148: | Line 148: | ||
I've removed an offensive comment that, aming other things, accused other editors of this article of editing for money on behalf of advocacy groups. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 01:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC) |
I've removed an offensive comment that, aming other things, accused other editors of this article of editing for money on behalf of advocacy groups. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 01:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC) |
||
== No return to old, disreputable practice == |
|||
This is an article about a well established scientific topic. As such, it's relatively easy to identify when people are being unencyclopedic in their approach to the material. |
|||
I've removed one discussion section which provided no credible and specific discussion of needed enhancements or emendations to the material or its structure. In particular, handwaving denunciations of scientific material are not welcome anywhere on Wikipedia. |
|||
Specific and well supported identification of problems, on the other hand, are welcome. Finally, a reminder is due: the editing on this article, and related conduct, are governed by ARBCC, which is basically Wikipedia policy with sharper teeth. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|TS]] 22:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:39, 25 December 2013
Climate change is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 21, 2006. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Better and more pictures showing also the temperature scale inside and time frame before
Lots of images interfering with page readability. Click to show.
|
---|
97% Consensus
In the senate climate change hearing Dr. Roy Spencer made a claim that he is part of the 97% consensus, even though he is considered a skeptic (he also includes some other names). He claims this is because the 97% includes researchers who thinks humans have some influence on climate. If this is correct the phrase "97.2% supported the consensus view that it is man made" should probably be changed. Can anyone prove or disprove his statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanKB (talk • contribs) 08:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think we're interested in his statement. Our statement is 'A meta study of academic papers concerning global warming, published between 1991 and 2011 and accessible from Web of Knowledge, found that among those whose abstracts expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.2% supported the consensus view that it is man made.[201] which is well supported by its reference William M. Connolley (talk) 08:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that it is well supported by the reference. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but reading through the referenced document "Endorsement" is level 1-3 in table 2. That includes level 3 (Description: "Implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause", Example: "...carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change"). That this has been is a part of "is man made" seems misleading to me. If that phrase is to be used I would say that it should be the percentage of level 1 and 2. Of course the 97.2% is a result of the self rating, which was based on an e-mail sent to the authors. I can't find the e-mail sent for self-rating, but it seems the authors where given a choice between the levels of endorsement. Checking out the data (http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/self_vs_abstracts_private.txt) level 3 is the one most has chosen of the three. JanKB (talk) 12:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- The reference clearly states Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. You are (of course) entitled to disagree with the methodology of the paper, or the way in which it drew its conclusions; if your views have merit, you should consider publishing them. But wikipedia doesn't publish WP:OR William M. Connolley (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
FAQ, scientists and money
Since at least October 2009, our FAQ has included the following...
- Do scientists support global warming just to get more money?
- No,
- Scientists participate in international organizations like the IPCC as part of their normal academic duties. They do not receive any extra compensation beyond possibly direct expenses.
- Scientific grants do not usually award any money to a scientist personally, but only towards the cost of his or her scientific work.
- In the U.S., global warming was seen as a politically sensitive topic under the Bush administration, which discouraged scientists from working on the topic.[1]
- It could also be argued that more money lies in examining the policy debate on global warming.[2][3]
- No,
- ^ Paul Harris (21 September 2003). "Bush covers up climate research". The Guardian. Retrieved 11 January 2009.
- ^ Juliet Eilperin (05 February 2007). "AEI Critiques of Warming Questioned". Washington Post. Retrieved 11 January 2009.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ "Bribes offered to scientists". The Sydney Morning Herald. 03 February 2007. Retrieved 11 January 2009.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help)
In gross 3RR and ARBCC violation, 205.131.188.5 (talk · contribs) has recently deleted the last two bullet points six different times. As I understand it, the IP deleted those bullet points on the IP's assertion that they do not address the FAQ question "Do scientists support global warming just to get more money?".
I think the last two items are within the scope of the question and should remain (as they have since 2009). Perhaps they could be improved and/or supplemented, but they should not be deleted.
Comments? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- For one thing, the question itself is phrased in a strange way. I know a lot of scientists. They don't "support" global warming. They research it, and try to quantify global warming, project it into the future, and provide information about it to government and the public, but they don't "support" it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- NewsAndEventsGuy that question sounds a bit off indeed. How about something like: Do scientists receive a direct monetary compensation to endorse global warming?. Regards. Gaba (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- I guess I didn't speak clearly. They don't "endorse" global warming per se any more than they "support" it. I think we're trying to talk about their tendency to endorse the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, not the phenomena itself. In addition, we're talking about scientists who get money related to global warming research and we are (apparently) not talking about any other scientists. So we should qualify which scientists also. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Would you mind making a proposal to see what you're aiming at? Thanks. Gaba (talk) 09:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- I think the original question and the first two bullet points have originally been written by me, at a time when we were less nit-picking. Another, less incorrect version, would be: "Do scientists support the mainstream theory of anthropogenic global warming just to get more money?" --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- That better; we can pick additional nits with "Does nearly all of the research published in the professional scientific literature support the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (see FAQ Q1) just so the scientists doing the research can get more money?" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Too complex for my taste, and does not really hit the spots. Scientific support for the AGW theory goes quite a bit beyond the literature - conferences, press statements, statements by academic societies, work for the IPCC, ... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- That better; we can pick additional nits with "Does nearly all of the research published in the professional scientific literature support the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (see FAQ Q1) just so the scientists doing the research can get more money?" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- I think the original question and the first two bullet points have originally been written by me, at a time when we were less nit-picking. Another, less incorrect version, would be: "Do scientists support the mainstream theory of anthropogenic global warming just to get more money?" --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Would you mind making a proposal to see what you're aiming at? Thanks. Gaba (talk) 09:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- I guess I didn't speak clearly. They don't "endorse" global warming per se any more than they "support" it. I think we're trying to talk about their tendency to endorse the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, not the phenomena itself. In addition, we're talking about scientists who get money related to global warming research and we are (apparently) not talking about any other scientists. So we should qualify which scientists also. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- NewsAndEventsGuy that question sounds a bit off indeed. How about something like: Do scientists receive a direct monetary compensation to endorse global warming?. Regards. Gaba (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Why not simplify the question as ":Do scientists investigate global warming just to get grant money?". Similar "no"s and the point could be added that in 1998 plans were revealed for "a campaign to recruit a cadre of scientists who share the [oil] industry's views of climate science and to train them in public relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases" . Cushman, John H., Jr. (26 April 1998), "Industrial Group Plans To Battle Climate Treaty", New York Times, retrieved 5 December 2013{{citation}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) . . dave souza, talk 20:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- That's the best yet, Dave, at least IMO. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Forgot to mention they had a budget of millions. See Hockey stick controversy#Kyoto Protocol for a couple more sources, and Hockey stick controversy#Soon & Baliunas and Inhofe's hoax accusation for Bush's finest, with a petrol funded chief of staff using a petrol funded study to justify censoring an EPA report. Not quire so relevant, but fun. . dave souza, talk 22:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I've removed an offensive comment that, aming other things, accused other editors of this article of editing for money on behalf of advocacy groups. --TS 01:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
No return to old, disreputable practice
This is an article about a well established scientific topic. As such, it's relatively easy to identify when people are being unencyclopedic in their approach to the material.
I've removed one discussion section which provided no credible and specific discussion of needed enhancements or emendations to the material or its structure. In particular, handwaving denunciations of scientific material are not welcome anywhere on Wikipedia.
Specific and well supported identification of problems, on the other hand, are welcome. Finally, a reminder is due: the editing on this article, and related conduct, are governed by ARBCC, which is basically Wikipedia policy with sharper teeth. --TS 22:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)