Talk:The Great Global Warming Swindle/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

NPOV tag

I'm looking at "very damning" and refering to global warming as a myth and thinking this might not be the best we can do with WP:NPOV. I didn't see the documentary so I feel unqualified to clean it up. Mykll42 10:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Summary of claims

The claims section is long, and contains a large number of assertions about things that are already considered in models supporting climate change, the list, and presumably the documentary, gives the impression that these things are left out of models, which is misleading at best, damn intellectually dishonest at worst. There are claims that are plainly false, such as the troposhere warming claim (the troposphere is warming faster than the higher portions of the atmosphere, and this is completely consistent with models). There is simply to much in there that is wrong or misleading to NPOV it, and I think that it best taken out and rewritten in a short summary form, which can be nuetral. Mostlyharmless 20:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the assertions made by the programme are correct, they have been made and their inclusion here is reflecting on the programme rather than the situation regarding global warming - also, the claim made was that the troposphere should warm more quickly than the surface of the Earth according to Greenhouse Gas models, which the programme assert has not been observed. I'm not going to restore the Claims section at this point, but I may look into doing so (at least in part). QmunkE 22:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a page on the film itself and therefore it should contain detail on the film's claims. To remove this detail, unless you can show that the film does not make this claim, would simply be censorship. ~ Rameses 22:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Rebuttals

Rebuttals should have sources and have their own section, not be included in the list of claims. This is not a place for original research. That being said the claims section needs to be abbreviated. This is not the forum for listing every claiom the film makes. If reception to the film is skeptical, citing reliable sources that say the claims are false is appropriate, users saying the claim is false is not. Mykll42 00:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree. If the page on the film were not to list all of the claims the film makes, then it would be incomplete and should be added to, in order to provide a true and complete report on the film. That is the purpose of an encyclopedia. ~ Rameses 00:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

If the article references every claim the film makes, you'll start running into copyright issues. As fictional movies shouldn't have indepth plot summaries, neither should documentaries contain an exhaustive list of the films' claims. Also, nice job El1jah with the response section. Mykll42 00:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Having seen the film I believe each claim could be referenced without any fear of copy-right issues. Obviously, since there are so many claims to deal with, they should be grouped. OldDigger 07:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The original point still stands - the rebuttals should have their own section. The claims are important to list, but to attempt and rebut each point with an unsourced data and an unfair tone is ridiculous. The article should be flagged for weasel words and NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.57.201.223 (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

I agree wholeheartedly, putting personal views and rebuttals in the article is not at all Wikipedic. All criticisms should be from verifiable sources and be placed under the heading "Criticism and Reaction". Look, I realize that this is a controversial film and issue but let us not treat this article any differently than any other Wikipedia article. Remember there are rules and policies and respect them including NOR and Verifiability. Thanks. : ) ~ Rameses 05:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The rebuttals section is completely inappropriate - this article should be about the programme and any independent reviews from reliable sources (this does not include personal blogs or websites with inherently POV agendas). Criticisms of the scientific claims made should be in the various Attribution of recent climate change articles. QmunkE 20:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that the claims be presented in the order in which they appeared in the film, ie. original chronology. This order is correct, but loads missing:

• 40 year cooling
• Solar activity/solar cycle length
• Cosmic rays
• Under-developed nations must only use solar power.
• Fred Singer claiming UK Chief Scientist referred to 'breeding pairs'.

OldDigger 07:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Lawson noted as well in his article that Martin Durkin was known to have been closely associated with the Revolutionary Communist Party, a now-disbanded right-wing political network with strongly libertarian views.

What? And in any case, the link just leads to this disambiguation page Revolutionary Communist Party. A body with such a name might be many things, but right-wing and libertarian? TharkunColl 00:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, this information is not particularly of relevance to the article - if it is verifiable it should be in an article on Martin Durkin since it is entirely opinion whether his political views are directly related to this documentary. QmunkE 20:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Right wingers aren't libertarian. Lol. ~ UBeR 04:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, libertarians are right wing, mostly. Lol back at you. Bombot 09:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope you are kidding. ~ UBeR 17:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely the RCP was not a right wing party. What it says in this WP article false. Also the connection between the RCP and the movie's director is not as strong as the article suggests. Read an excerpt from here:

Scour the web for commentary on Against Nature (only if you have absolutely nothing else to do – seriously) and you will find shrill, green-ink enviro-babble about how we sinister Marxists at LM pulled the puppet-strings of Against Nature in order to do big business’s bidding against the poor, beleaguered environmentalist movement. Or something. In fact, a few people who contributed articles to LM appeared as talking heads on Against Nature. That’s all. Not as exciting as the crazed and wide-eyed web conspiracy theories make it sound, I know. Sorry.

--Featured 16:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting. I think this should be added to the article as a counterweight to all the ad hominem attacks against Durkin that have been added by other editors. TharkunColl 16:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well yes this is a communist group. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Communist_Party_%28Furedi%29 and I recall Durkin confrming this membership in a dicsussion on Channel 4 after the Against Nature program. In fact I recall him shouting rather loudly about MCKARTHYISM and having to be told repeatedly to calm down by the chairman of the discussion. Spiked-online is a highly biased source in this regard since it is actually the replacement for the magazine Living Marxism which was sued out of existence. I realise there are POV issues here but I do think the RCP links of the contributor are important to include somewhere. Incidentally people complain about ad-hominems. An-hominems that are factual and talk about the credibility of a source or witness are not ruled out in logical debate. This program has a clear political motication, what every your point of view is an encyclopedia should contain reference to this to be accurate. I am not sure how to word it. People contributing should look up the articles on living marxism and the Revolutionary Communist Party Neilj 13:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

All entirely, obviously irrelevant. This is not an article on Martin Durkin, even less on what political parties he’s been involved in, and even less on the parties themselves. (Oh and the doc actually under discussion contains a scathing attack on the left...) Loxlie 00:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it's not relevant to the topic at hand. Raymond Arritt 00:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Important Question

- - Long live the Death of Global Warming! How do I get a DVD of this great flick in the US? Arvin Sloane 21:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's available on DVD yet. However there are TV-rips available on BitTorrent sites such as The Pirate Bay. /Slarre 05:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Arvin Sloane 22:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Also on http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle&hl=en

I think you will get it here soon: http://www.wagtv.com/acatalog/store.asp --Featured 16:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore doesn't want you to see it, reports Fake Steve Jobs. --216.79.147.192 20:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The film's claims

The claims are sourced to http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/arguments.html. However, many of the purported claims don't seem to be there: I can't see Carbon dioxide is a tiny proportion of the atmosphere in there; nor is Solar activity is claimed to currently be at a high level, and I'm dubious about and this is likely to be the cause of the current global warming. Now is Vostok mentioned. If these claims come from some other source, please indicate it William M. Connolley 17:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Then it should be fine to cite the documentary as a source, as it most certainly is. Not a big problem, nonetheless. ~ UBeR 04:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

All of those claims were in the film. Perhaps you should see it? Paul Matthews 16:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are there all those rebuttals?

This is not the way to objectively report this film. The pro-global warming articles aren't made up of 50% rebuttals, so why should this one be? It is pure original research and has no place in Wikipedia. TharkunColl 19:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The GW articles are science. This isn't. In any discussion of GW *science* there should be a balance reflecting the state of publication on the science: not some 50-50 split.

Would an appropriate compromise be a disclaimer at the top saying "this film is a polemic not a documentary; please see global warming for the science"? But as it stands it pretends to be a documentary, and if it purports to be about science it invites replies William M. Connolley 19:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Then I can only assume that you have no conception of what Wikipedia is about. We report things. We don't comment on those things. TharkunColl 23:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

TharkunColl, I fully agree with you - the purpose of Wikipedia is to objectively report on the film. I note that despite WMC's suggestion, a similar film "An Inconvenient Truth" does not have a disclaimer at the top saying "this film is a polemic not a documentary; please see global warming for the science" ~ Rameses 03:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

But also per wikipedia, this article should not be listing every point the movie makes. The idea in reading an article about a movie is to find out what the movie is about and facts about the movie, not to relive the entire movie. Mykll42 03:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of this article is to repeat the claims of the film uncritically, and not have them exposed to their counter-arguments. That's why valid material which would put the claims of the film in a less sympathetic light has been removed. Why else are legitimate criticism of the scientific claims in the "documentary" being removed? Mostlyharmless 08:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That's absolutely correct - so why did you just try and put them back in? All articles in Wikipedia must adhere to the following standards: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:No original research. TharkunColl 09:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I was pointing out the reason this article was created - it's a POV fork, written in such a way as repeat the claims of the "documentary" uncritically (that is to say repeat them and give them legitimacy), and leave no space to detail the fact that many of the claims are just plain wrong, and that the doco relies on these to denegrate AGW. Currently, we just have comment from a whole bunch of journos. If I was looking for whether the doco was right or not, I'd like to see how the bold scientific claims it makes stand up.... That the irony in my statement passed you by doesn't suprise me however. Mostlyharmless 09:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an independent article, and should report the subject matter fairly. The "irony" here is that you appear to be using the very same tactics of instant, unthinking vilification that the makers of the film warned about. TharkunColl 11:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) POV fork? From what? This article should be about the content of the programme, as I keep stating. Discussion of the science involved belongs on Global warming controversy, Attribution of recent climate change and other Global warming related articles. This article shouldn't be a battleground to put forward and discredit claims - it should be at most a list outlining the films claims and a section on critical reviews of the programme, not of the claims - links in the text should direct the reader to the pages which contain the science behind the claims and any contradictory viewpoints. I don't want to edit war over this so I'm refraining from editing the page for now - however unless a really convincing counter-argument can be come up with (not just "I don't agree with the claims and so I'm going to post lots of sources which agree with me") the rebuttals really should be removed. If too much edit warring goes on I suggest this goes to an WP:RFC or WP:RFM. QmunkE 11:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It's POV fork, because it has been written in such a way as to argue global warming etc. It currently lists the claims of the film in way more detail than is justified.I'd be quite happy to see this as a simple summary of the film noting the points that are disputed, rather than a point by point laydown of the entire content (and point by point summary of where scientific opinion strongly disputes these claims). Mostlyharmless 20:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This article should indeed be about the content of the programme (and reactions to it; I don't see why it needs to exhaustively list them all and claim to be a "summary" though). With the current intro, it should be clear to the reader that this isn't science William M. Connolley 12:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case, the intro needs to be changed. Just because you don't like its conclusions, doesn't mean that it isn't science. TharkunColl 12:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

TharkunColl, the fact that the polemic makes numerous serious errors about the science it uses isn't a matter of opinion. Mostlyharmless 20:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

William, it appears from your remarks above that you havent seen the programme. So how are you qualified to criticise it and say that it isn't science? Paul Matthews 16:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Your assumption is wrong: [3]. Also, a TV show that is "science" would be something rather new - at best TV presents a usful but shallow overview. The medium is simply not suited for real science. Just try to read one scientific article out aloud to get a lower limit on how much time you would need to give an in-depth treatment of even a single specialized topic. --Stephan Schulz 16:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The channel that aired the program calls it a "polemic". Raymond Arritt 16:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you read this article yet, RA? Just wondering. ~ UBeR 17:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it seems some others on this talk page haven't. Raymond Arritt 17:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio?

Is the copy hosted at google video legitimate? If not, we should not link to it by WP:COPY#Linking_to_copyrighted_works.--Stephan Schulz 10:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be rather unlikely to be legit William M. Connolley 11:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC) (do we still link to it? William M. Connolley 11:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC))

Anything beyond speculation yet? ~ UBeR 00:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The copy linked to provides no information on source - it could have been posted by anyone and appears to be a rip from the original Channel 4 broadcast. The film states clearly it is copyright of WagTV productions (see the end credits). QmunkE 09:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The BBC and Google have a video agreement, but no mention is made of entire programs.[4] (SEWilco 18:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

This isn't the BBC, BTW. ~ 18:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Channel 4 is separate. OK, then I don't know of any agreements. (SEWilco 19:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

Responses and Criticisms

Somewhat obnoxiously, someone linked Paul Joseph Watson to the page for Paul Watson. The latter may in fact be a founder of Greenpeace, but the former is most certainly not. Paul Joseph Watson is a correspondent with Alex Jones' radio program in his mid-20's, living in the UK. He has posted a MySpace profile under his own name where he mentions his employer, while the 56-year-old Paul Watson likely has better things to do. Attributing the comment to the better known figure, who appears to be a strong supporter of the movement against global climate change, could lend undeserved credibility to a marginal claim. I have removed the false information from the article, but wonder whether the quote should be included at all considering the true identity of the source. 12.216.63.168 05:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Good find. ~ UBeR 06:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Talking of "co-founders of Greenpeace", I didn't know Patrick Moore was one; I thought he was just an early member. Richard E 00:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Every source I've read so far has stated he helped found Greenpeace. He says so himself, as well. ~ UBeR 00:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Even Greenpeace used to say he was [5] but they dont any longer! [6] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thincat (talk • contribs) 12:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

The hard science in the film

Solar activity / Solar Cycle Length plus other stuff

There were some graphs including one of temperature and solar activity plotted together. These are very interesting and important because they show quantitative information and are the main reason I think this film is worth looking at. Does anyone know of links to copies of these graphs? They would be important additions to articles related to this one. Man with two legs 20:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Had you been sensible enough to read the RC article on this propaganda, you wouldn't need to ask this question. Or you can try http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/the_use_of_damon_and_laut.php, which points out how they've faked their pic William M. Connolley 20:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC) Oh, and it looks like they've faked the 20th C T pic too: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/more_tggws_fakery.php William M. Connolley 20:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You should not mock those who are not blessed with the good fortune to be as sensible as you. Man with two legs 11:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, being selective with the data is not the same as faking it. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It is, actually. Discarding data that inconveniently disagrees with one's hypothesis is tolerated in advertising, but not in science. Raymond Arritt 14:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Except that everybody does this, consciously or unconsciously.--Michael C. Price ^talk 14:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

And they faked Singer's credentials, too. He was never Director of the National Weather Service.[7] He was director of the National Weather Satellite service (which eventually turned into NESDIS), a much smaller operation. Raymond Arritt 20:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The National Weather Service and the National Weather Satellite Service (now National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service) are both organizations within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. I could see how the confusion could incur. As for the graphs, they were graphically created images based on this image. ~ UBeR 21:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the images are clearly not based on that graph. In the wiki page, 1945 is a (local) minimum. In TGGWS [8] 1945 is a max (though mislabelled 1940, persumably because of the axis-shifting that they've done) William M. Connolley 22:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(Aside) Do you plan to let Channel 4 know about this? I'm sure they'd appreciate the correction. It would be a real shame if they heard about this first from one of their competitors, a reporter, or a regulatory body. Raymond Arritt 22:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I rather doubt they care a lot. If they did, they wouldn't have braodcast this junk in the first place :-( William M. Connolley 22:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I am the only one who notices the overlain graph is not on the same scale? ~ UBeR 22:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC

That's the whole point. They took the data series ending in 1988 and replotted it as though it ended in 2000 (i.e., their "2000" is really 1988, their "1999" is 1987, and so on). This had the effect of chopping off the warming that occurred from 1988 to 2000. Raymond Arritt 01:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Right

In case it is useful, I have traced the screen capture of the graph and compared it to NASA data. Obviously there seem to be some issues. I may try plotting the rescaled 1878 to 1980 approach out of interest. -- Leland McInnes 01:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Moved from way below:

I have no idea what this sentence means: "Solar Activity levels are far more relevant than the microcosm described in other false prophesies." Unless someone can explain (and reword), I propose it's deleted. --Merlinme 08:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It sounds POV to me Lurker ^oi! 10:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It's supposed to be one of the film's claims, so if they actually said that it should stay. But someone should check, because "a microcosm in false prophecies" sounds kinda weird. Raymond Arritt 13:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Cosmic Rays

Someone found the source of the fake: its http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm figure 12. The wiggles match, but crucially the time axis doesn't, so TGGWS people have indeed faked their graph by stretching it to 1880-2000 William M. Connolley 10:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Er... what is being faked? The two graphs I wanted to see are there. I can't see anything wrong with them; they show a correlation between earthly temperature and solar activity. What is the error? Man with two legs 11:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, lets try this slowly: the programmes graph is here. Notice that the timescale starts before 1880 and ends after 2000. Notice that the point labelled "1940" isn't; nor is the onle labelled 1975. If you're used to seeing these plots, then notice also that it doesn't look like what you expect. Now see here; figure 12. Notice the exact wiggle match between the two plots. Notice the little downturn at the end; similarly at the beginning; the little point at 1900. *Now* look at the timescale on this plot. The graph starts after 1880 and ends before 1990. So: we conclude that TGGWS have used that pic, and rescaled its time axis to stretch it as far as 2003. Ie, they faked their picture William M. Connolley 11:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The screen capture graph that goes to 2003 ends higher than the 1940/45 peak while the other one does not. This is what you would expect if the screen capture also included more recent data. One of these graphs is not derived from the other. Man with two legs 11:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No. The SC graph ends at about +0.7, with 1940 at +0.5. The same is true of the other graph. You are loking at fig 12, yes? William M. Connolley 12:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at figure 3 which is the one comparing warming with solar activity. Figure 12 does not purport to show a correlation and one of the curves is smooth, more or less exponential, and plotted on a different y-axis. If the x-axis were corrected, it would be possible to produce an identical graph by legitimate rescaling of one of the y axes. You are correct in saying there is an error, you are wrong to suggest that it undermines the message. Man with two legs 12:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. Why you looked at fig 3 when I said fig 12 I don't know. Anyway. Let me try even slower. Fig 12 shows a temperature curve (forget the CO2 curve, which is irrelevant for now). Inspection reveals that this is *the same* curve used by TGGWS. Go on, have a look, compare them (or see here: the thin black line is the OISM curve. But. Inspection reveals that the time axes on the two curves are different. Yes? That means that the temperature curve used by TGGWS has had its time axes adjusted. In other words, they have faked their figure and lied to us. They have done this to minimise the warming seen after 1975. I'm a little puzzled as to why you are quite so forgiving of their data manipulation: do you really not see the problem? Are you saying that its OK to simply adjust the time axis and that this produces a valid result? William M. Connolley 13:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

1. I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous answer. Man with two legs 13:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

2. Because figure 3 is the interesting one. Figure 12 shows nothing unusual and the error you have spotted makes no material difference as I explained before. Now kindly calm down. Man with two legs 13:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be intellectual dishonesty on your part. You previously said that the rescaling can be corrected by changing the Y axis. This is wrong. On the original, there is a peak in the curve in 1940. In the TGGWS, there is a peak in 1945. The original ends before 1990. TGGWS version ends after 2003 *but its the same curve*. I don't see how I can make it any clearer to you that their data manipulation results in a false graph William M. Connolley 13:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be possible to correct the error and end up with two curves that have exactly the same relationship. Anyway, as I said, it is the other graph that I consider to be important because that is the one that shows a correlation. Man with two legs 13:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Now I look again, there is nothing to correct. It appears that your whole beef is that the screen capture graph is shifted a few years which makes no material difference unless you are comparing it with something. Man with two legs 14:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

At last, I think you've got it: yes the graph time axis has been adjusted, by 10+ years at one end and the other. But hey, of *course* you don't consider thats any problem, or wonder why they didn't just use an accurate one. We're trying to compare their graph to reality. They have arbitrarily removed the temperature record after 1988 from their graph - why might they do that? And... the OISM fig 3 is wrong too (of course). See [9] fig 3 William M. Connolley 17:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll buy that! On first perusal, Laut's versions are rather more inconclusive; they do not manifestly discredit the conventional view in the same way that the programme suggested they would. But they don't kill off the sceptic point of view either (as Laut points out). I'm ready to believe that the information presented in the programme was more likely fiddled for dramatic effect than honestly cocked up. The fact that there is a correlation at all is interesting though. Man with two legs 18:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

CO2 Lag

Whilst we're talking hard science, what about the claim that temperatures have historically risen before CO2 levels -- with an 800 year time lag? This is the central claim of the documentary, which John Houghton concedes is correct (and was deleted from the article).--Michael C. Price ^talk 11:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That does not seem to be disputed, but does not prove that greenhouse gases have no effect. A bit of both could be true. Man with two legs 13:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes -- it falls into the "true but irrelevant" category. The most obvious reply is that humans weren't putting CO2 in the atmosphere during prehistoric times. Raymond Arritt 13:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Right - so prehistoric CO2 doesn't cause GW, modern CO2 does? --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note what I actually said: the source of CO2 is different. The physics of radiative transfer obviously are the same. Raymond Arritt 14:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, so "natural" CO2 doesn't cause GW, but "artifical" CO2 does? --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course prehistoric CO2 causes an enhanced greenhouse effect, and increased levels of CO2 will cause increased warming. But at least some prehistoric temperature rises seem to have been initiated by something else (and then been enhanced by a CO2-driven feedback). Noone claimes that CO2 is the only factor affecting climate. It just happens to be the major factor responsible for the current warming.--Stephan Schulz 14:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If CO2 is the "major factor" in GW (modern or ancient) then I would expect to see it leading temperatue changes, not lagging it. --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz, you are assuming the thing that is explicitely questioned here. 0/10 for good science. Man with two legs 14:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ancient temperature changes were caused by changes in the way the earth orbits the sun.They were then enhanced by the CO2 since more CO2 is given off by the sea AFTER it warms up. This explains the ancient happenings BUT NOT the modern ones. CO2 affects temperature. The business about it lagging is an irrelevant read herring here. Neilj 14:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the simpler hypothesis that the causes of the ancient warming were the same as the causes of the modern warming are? And didn't the warming start in modern times before the CO2 started rising, as it did in ancient times?--Michael C. Price ^talk 14:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me as though nobody knows what is going on and the IPCC statement that we are "90% certain" that man-made CO2 is causing global warming is questionable, or even dishonest. Current policies include measures to curb emissions that are harmful in other ways (including cutting down rain forests to grow palm oil diesel) so I think that getting at the reliable truth matters. If these graphs are genuine, and it looks as though they are, they ask a question that deserves a full answer. Man with two legs 13:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to know why people think CO2 causes warming, don't start with the "documentary", which is just disinformation. Try attribution of recent climate change - and you'll notice all the things that the film, somehow, didn't have time to mention. And of course the pics are not genuine: as I've demonstrated, they've been faked William M. Connolley 13:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The graph that I consider to be the interesting one is corroborated by the source you have identified. The graph is what matters, not the dodgy reputation of the film maker who brought it to our attention. That was the whole reason why I started this section. Man with two legs 13:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

And if you look in SciAm Feb 2007 pg 44 you'll see that the contention that temperature drives CO2 levels rather than the otherway around is borne out by the CO2/temperature plots. --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we just stop blogging about the historical lag? It proves nothing whether you are a CO2 believer or a CO2 sceptic. Nobody disputes that heating causes CO2 and CO2 causes heating. The question is about how much. Man with two legs 14:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It does not prove something, but is certainly suggests something, namely that the temperature => CO2 effect dominates the CO2 => temperature effect. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to use the scientific argument, then any documentary is not a good option. Use IPCC report at: http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf. Remember that IPCC doesn't make any research on their own, they review all other researches available and come up with the final decision.Ollyn 10:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The disparity between temperature rise and CO2 rise is a key premise in the film. It appears to have been addressed back in 2004.

Jeff Severinghaus, Professor of Geosciences at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego explains in a posting on the commentary site “RealClimate” (a commentary site run by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists) the ramifications of the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores vis a vis global warming:

This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.

It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.

From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.

In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.

So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't tell us much about global warming. (But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.)

[10] I have obtained permission from Professor Severinghaus to post his 2004 commentary.

The original article which is the basis for Professor Severinghaus’s short commentary is title ‘’’Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antartic Temperature Changes Across Termination III’’’ by Nicolas Caillon, Jeffrey P. Severinghaus, Jean Jouzel, Jean-Marc Barnola, Jiancheng Kang, Volodya Y. Lipenkov www.sciencemag.org Science Vol 299 14 March 2003 [11]

JPar

Thank you for your editorial, but please be aware this talk page is reserved for discussion about fixing the article at hand, not the topic. ~ UBeR 03:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

UBeR, this was my first post. However I think you misread the post. These are not my editorial musings. To the contrary, the post contains the commentary of one of the scientists who first identified that the CO2 lag exists. The post also has a citation to the original scientific article dealing with the subject for those who care to read the original article. If this is not relevant to how to ‘fix the article’, I don’t know what is. If this discussion is the norm, I can see why the academic world generally holds Wikipedia in such low esteem and why so little high quality information makes it into these discussion groups. JPar

JPar, I was not trying to be disparaging. I just hope you can understand talk pages of controversial subjects often get filled with supererogatory discussions not on the article themselves, but rather the topic of the article. The talk page is meant for discussion on improvements to the article, rather than the article's subject. There is no doubt the film makes the claim CO₂ lags behind temperature rise by ~800. There is strong consensus of this within the scientific community. Obviously, the film attempts to use this to explain how temperature change isn't necessarily dependent on CO2 change. I am not quite grasping what exactly you want to change in the article. We cannot say that the film did not claim this, as they surely did. I think, perhaps, your commentary of Dr. Severinghaus' is better suited in articles such as global warming, global warming controversy, greenhouse effect, greenhouse gas, attribution of recent climate change, and scientific opinion on climate change. However, I do believe the CO₂ lag has been addressed on those articles already. ~ UBeR 04:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi JPar. Welcome to the discussion. Wikipedia can be frustrating at times for those with an academic background, but common sense (and the correct answer) prevails more often than you might think. The enyclopedia certainly contains an enormous amount of information, the difficulty sometimes is in grading that information and providing perspective. On the quote you found, I think this is largely addressed at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change#Warming_sometimes_leads_CO2_increases, which is linked a couple of times within the TGGWS article. The quote you found is good, but I can understand why sceptics find it unconvincing. It's a bit too neat, to say that CO₂ doesn't cause the first 800 years, but causes the next 4000. You could reasonably ask, why? And you certainly can't be sure about how much of the rise CO₂ causes. However, if you take into account the fact carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and science says that (other things being equal) it should raise temperature when more is released- then it becomes a far stronger argument for CO₂ amplifying the temperature rise. Anyway, as UbER says, this is somewhat off topic for TGGWS. Your article improvements at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change#Warming_sometimes_leads_CO2_increases would be very welcome. --Merlinme 08:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Very hard science

Please put in this section links to reliable versions of the allegedy quantifiable information that was shown in the program, and no interpretation. Man with two legs 14:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Solar activity / Solar Cycle Length

here- contains graphs including graph of temperature vs solar activity and temperature vs CO2.

Hmm, a non-peer-reviewed essay from a staunchly partisan source. Think I'll decline. Raymond Arritt 17:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Case in point. ~ UBeR 00:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's have Laut's version then:-

Contains graphs including graph of temperature vs solar activity Man with two legs 18:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Would be funny were it not sad. Lauts paper (fig 3) points out the errors in the graph used in the prog and by the OISM William M. Connolley 18:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

(Moved from below) Please forgive a newbie! Surely presenting fabrication as fact on the TV contravenes the broadcasting regulations? Anyway here is a piece I think should go in. I've adapted what follows from [12] which has other stuff too. It's perhaps best to discuss what to put in the article (how to handle images?), and then to produce and upload thumbs (dealing with copy-right, I'm new at this, I can provide an alternative to the first image from my own camera, but it's not so clear):

The programme claims that solar activity can be used to predict temperature. The presented Solar Activity graph is actually showing Solar Cycle Length (Eigil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen, Science 1991), and is incomplete in 2 ways. It is missing the last ~10 years of temperature data, and a further ~15 years of solar cycle data, ie. a total of ~25 years of prediction is missing. This latter period covers the most recent period when global temperatures have been rising and the prediction has been falling. That the prediction goes the wrong way for recent years, has been known since April 2000, and as such there can be no excuse for presenting it.

Sources: Currently the earliest report found is from the BBC, Sun 'minor player' in climate change (3 May 200) [13]. The Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut reported the problem (May 17, 2000) [14], as discovered by New Scientist [15] magazine 'Don't blame the Sun' (6 May 2000) "GREENHOUSE effect sceptics may have lost their final excuse.", which plotted a graph using the updated data available in April 2000.

These images and their footnotes explain further:

File:I157.photobucket.com/albums/t63/izzy bizzy photo/capture3.jpg As presented on TV on 8 March 2007, blue = temperature, red = solar cycle length. The prediction data stops short 25 years ago.	File:Web.dmi.dk/fsweb/solarterrestrial/sunclimate/soltmp s.jpg Old (pre-April 2000) understanding showing "most striking comparisons" [1], black = temperature, red = solar cycle length. Note: the last ~15 years are missing because it is redundant science.	File:Http://web.dmi.dk/fsweb/soljord/solklima/TKL99fig1.jpg Updated (April 2000) understanding in which "they start to diverge noticeably by the 1980's" [2]. Note: at least the last 7 years are missing (simply because it's old news).

Sorry, forgot to sign OldDigger 21:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC) OldDigger 22:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Concerning 'Solar Activity', 'Solar Variation' and 'Solar Cycle Length': this old document [16] says "According to the Danish researchers, when the cycle is longest, the Sun is least active and the temperature on the Earth falls." Although the program presented it as 'Solar Activity' (obfuscation?), the science actually references 'Solar Cycle Length'. OldDigger 22:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Solar_variation says "depending upon the lengths of the concurrent 11 year solar cycles" so they do vary. That quote is under "Galactic cosmic rays" but I believe that is a red-herring in this context. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by OldDigger (talk • contribs) 22:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

If you can find a sensible way of summarising this (with sources), I would have thought it should go in the "Responses from scientists" section. --Merlinme 08:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Summarize by what percentage, or are you meaning incorporating the other relevant sources already present in this discussion which I have noticed throughout this discussion? A claim can be very short, the 'analysis' is always likely to be much longer. Would the images be included? OldDigger 19:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article is about the programme The Great Global Warming Swindle. It's not "Why we think the Great Global Warming Swindle Is Wrong", even if we do think the TGGWS is wrong. Having said that, it seems a bit silly for an enyclopedia to report claims on matters of scientific fact without giving the reader any guidance at all on whether they are correct or not. The approach we seem to have settled on therefore is to quote all reaction to the programme, positive and negative. Where a particular source makes a claim which contradicts what TGGWS says, it seems reasonable to me to provide a source (as independent and reliable as can be found) which gives the most up to date research on a particular scientific matter. This means you must have a reputable source who says "TGGWS is wrong on X". You can then give a further reliable source (not Wikipedia) if it would be helpful to the reader's understanding of why source Y says that TGGWS is wrong on X. You must not write too much about any one claim, or that could be considered undue weight. i.e. if the programme made 100 significant claims, and we spent half the article writing about the one which is wrong, ignoring the 99 which were correct, that would be undue weight.

With all that in mind, I think you could reasonably provide a link to Laut's research (or, even better, a comparative review by a third party of Laut and Friis-Christensen's work) in the Armand Leroi section of "Reactions from scientists", as Leroi specifically disputes TGGWS use of Friis-Christensen's paper. That's only one suggestion; you may well be able to think of better ways to do it. --Merlinme 20:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

CO2 Lag

"800-Year Lag" Research Paper This appears to be the original paper in which the 800-year lag was identified. If you can understand it you are a better man than I. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.228.106.137 (talk • contribs).

Thanks, that is a very nice paper. While the details of the methodology are beyond me (at least without a lot of digging), some things are interesting, namely:

• The lag only refers to Antarctica. Warming of the Northern hemisphere follows the rise in CO2.
• They only look at termination III, i.e. one deglaciation event, not at all of them (are there followup-papers applying this methodology to other ice cores?)
• They explicitly acknowledge that CO2 drives temperature, and that for the modern eopisode of warming the inital impetus can be provided by anthropgenic emissions, as well.

Is this really the paper Ball et al build their denial on?--Stephan Schulz 18:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The paper does not say: Warming of the Northern hemisphere follows the rise in CO2. It says that the start of the warming preceeded the start of the CO2 by 800 +/- 200 yrs. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read more than the pieces you like. Page 1730, rightmost column: "This sequence of events is still in full agreement with the idea that CO2 plays, through its greenhouse effect, a key role in amplifying the initial orbital forcing. First, the 800-year time lag is short in comparison with the total duration of the temperature and CO2 increases (5000 years). Second, the CO2 increase clearly precedes the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation" (my emphasis). --Stephan Schulz 20:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop making assumptions about what I have or haven't read. That the CO2 preceeded an endpoint effect (Northern Hemisphere deglaciation) of the temperature rise does not prove that the CO2 caused the melt. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

...which is a claim noone has made so far. Howeer, the authors indeed strongly suggest a scenario in which the CO2 feedback plays a major role in the warming, in particular for the Northern hemisphere.--Stephan Schulz 22:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming this data proves the CO2 caused the melt. The TV program claims it proves the CO2 DIDN'T cause the melt. The paper clearly proves nothing of the sort. Neither does it prove the opposite. Nothing to see here. --81.129.160.189 21:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad we all agree that the 800-year lag claim is well founded.  :-) --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

(Learning about indentation and signing now, sorry) I'm fairly sure but I am no climate scientist so this is just based on googline. How can I know when they they did not see fit to provide any references or to speak to the people who actually took the measurements they were talking about, whoever they are? I guess I'm doing them a favour, digging out their missing references for them :-)--81.129.160.189 20:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

A press release announcing the above paper. It's certainly more human-readable. You say 'no interpretation' in this section, but it's worth noting that this press release very clearly indicates that the authors of the paper do not think it contradicts the idea of CO2 as an agent of climate change (see the last paragraph). Since these people are the source of the measurements on which the central contention of the program is based, I'd say they are entitled to their opinions.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.228.106.137 (talk • contribs).

Its a good idea to realise that this "800y lag" stuff is not definite. For example Our finding suggests that the phase relationship between CO2 and EDC temperature inferred at the start of the last deglaciation (lag of CO2 by 800±600 yr) is overestimated and that the CO2 increase could well have been in phase or slightly leading the temperature increase at EDC. [17] (yes I know: its only submitted). Also people seem to site Monnin et al [18] for a lag of 800+/-600y; this for the last termination. NOte that Caillon is 2003; Monnin is 2001 William M. Connolley 20:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"close to pure propaganda . . . since WWII"

With my "modicum of research" into the claim that Wunsch stated the film was "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two" resulted in a total of one source stating that. The Guardian Unlimited, at that. Amazing! (Of course, countless blogs reference the Guardian's article.) Even in Wunsch's own response that he penned does that statement not show up even once. Perhaps, at least, a modicum of research should be done by those who say otherwise? ~ UBeR 03:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Is a single utterance inadequate, or do we require that individuals repeatedly make the same statement in order to include it? Raymond Arritt 03:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Seeing this comment show up in only one source is exactly what is to be expected if he gave the Guardian the comment in any setting other than a public statement (such as in a private interview). Is Uber claiming that the Guardian is not a reliable source - that they made the quote up? Raul654 03:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Arritt, you have grossly misinterpreted my comment. Lets not play so foolish; of course one need not utter a phrase twice for it to be cited by more than one source. When all the quotes, however, (often duplicated by many sources) are coming from a letter written by Wunsch are easily found within save one anomalous passage, it simply raises the question. ~ UBeR 04:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The Grauniad, for all its faults, is professional journalism -- and professional journalists like to get exclusive quotes. It would hardly be surprising that a Guardian reporter called Wunsch on the phone and asked for his reaction so as to have exclusive material. If you're going to contend that the Grauniad quote was erroneous (or fabricated) and cannot be used, you'll need better evidence than the simple fact that the quote doesn't appear elsewhere. Raymond Arritt 04:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If only the same logic could be applied to the countless sources you have deleted... ~ UBeR 04:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The many, many, many countless sources which you have deleted.... (Albeit, only when they were against your pro-GW POV ; )). ~ Rameses 19:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the first time this particular publisher has taken (false) information and printed it.[19] Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... ~ UBeR 03:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

UBeR i think that could be said about any newspaper or media. Do you have any particular reason to think that this one is any worse than the average? --Kim D. Petersen 01:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

My point is that this publisher is known to publish false information, and not even bother to correct themselves after the fact. I just find it peculiar they print a particularly pugnacious quote that no other source has concurred, including the letter written by Wunsch himself, out of which all other quotes are pulled from. ~ UBeR 03:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

UBeR - so has the Washington Post. But my question was: Do you have any particular reason to think that this (news source) is any worse than the average? --Kim D. Petersen 04:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't read my last post. ~ UBeR 07:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

UBeR i did. The trouble with interviews is that people usually don't say things the same way twice - so there is often only one source. Now you seem to dismiss this source under WP:RS. So i'm asking you why you consider this source any worse than usual for newsmedia. Are you going to answer my question? (that its pugnatious stands for your own POV - i can personally put myself into his shoes and quite imagine saying something like that). --Kim D. Petersen 00:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Dueling documentaries

We have one article on a prize-winning documentary film which sums up the liberal left's assessment of the science. Now here is another article on a documentary film which sums up the conservative right's assessment of the science.

Wikipedia should, ideally, "simply present" the science. But as William knows, there has been a dispute between Wikipedia editors over whether the "prevailing view" expressed in the media and asserted by the United Nations climate panel (IPCC) is a scientific consensus. Three quarters of U.S. liberals accept the UN assessment, and three quarters of U.S. conservatives reject it. (Maybe right-wingers are brain dead? ;-)

There is a dispute, if only a political one, over the science. Should Wikipedia say that one side of this political dispute is wrong?

Dr. Connolley is on one side in this dispute, and he generally does a good job of writing neutrally. But sometimes he lapses into advocacy, if only on talk pages.

The chief argument of the liberal side is that "there is a scientific consensus" in favor of AGW theory. The chief argument of the conservative side is that "the science is not settled."

Why not just summarize the main claims of the GGWS documentary? We needn't give every point, of course. That's like describing every scene in a romantic comedy: it could violate copyright. But the top 20 points seems okay. Then we can link each point to other articles in Wikipedia which support or oppose them.

Is every point the film makes 100% at odds with "the science", or are some points more disputed than others? --Uncle Ed 17:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Uncle Ed is wise. Mykll42 17:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Uncle Ed's tendentious characterization of scientific viewpoints as "liberal left" and "conservative right" is not useful, and can serve no conceivable purpose but to inflame. (For what it's worth, my views on global warming science are what Ed would pigeonhole as "liberal left" though my actual political views are not.) Raymond Arritt

Raymond, I'm sorry if I did not make myself clear. I did not mean than the scientific viewpoints were liberal-left or conservative-right. Science is unrelated to politics.

What I meant is that in the political realm the liberal left has one view of the science and the conservative right has another view. That is, the political sides disagree over what is scientific fact. It is possible that one of these sides is, so to speak, blind (or even corrupt). For example, Kyoto supporters often assert that Big Oil money sways climate skeptics. --Uncle Ed 19:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Its now pretty clear that several of the key graphs in the film are faked. Shouldn't that be mentioned? Or do we have to wait until Monbiot says it? William M. Connolley 18:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Pretty clear to you, not everybody else, as this talk page demonstrates. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he has now convinced me. The program left out the end of the graph, the bit where the temperature goes above what you would predict from solar activity, and missed out the correction that lowers the solar activity during the same years, further widening the gap. There is a correlation between solar activity and global temperature, but it is not as obviously important as the programme made out. We wuz robbed. Man with two legs 20:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Everybody is entitled to form their own conclusions. For me the key part is the doubt cast on the CO2 => temperature causal link, most clearly refuted by the 800 yr lag time, which everybody is telling me is just so irrelevant. Whether the solar sunspot activity model holds up is a secondary issue.--Michael C. Price ^talk 20:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

CO2 has a flux capacitor, that's why it's irrelevant. Plus you don't get research funding if it isn't irrelevant. Think, man.

When they re-ran the prog on monday, they used a different graph: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/spot_the_difference.php. Still holding out? William M. Connolley 22:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR ~ Rameses 19:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes - I thought you'd have to go for that. Its better than admitting they've faked their pix, eh? UbER is somewhat silent on this - I'd have expected better from him. I'm a bit surprised Ed hasn't looked either. Come on chaps - don't be shy. We're all interested in data quality, aren't we, and here is a nice easy issue with the graphs all prepared for you to click on William M. Connolley 20:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Just itching for a fight, huh? 'Tis the nature of the beast. Regardless, some others have more important real life things to tend to. Needless to say, I see that they've made a bad mistake with their original graph of 1880-1980; but I also see they've fixed it. ~ UBeR 00:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

a documentary film which sums up the conservative right's assessment of the science - interesting quote, Ed. I'm not sure what you mean by it. Do you mean (a) a fair proportion of the right has come out and said "this is a good film" (I'd be surprised); or (b) knowing what the right tend to say and think, this is the sort of thing they would support? I'm guessing you mean (b). But... isn't that a terrible condemnation of the right? They like faked graphs, Wunsch disowning the film, deliberate obfustication (no mention of sulphates; playing up the T/CO2 lag non-issue)? William M. Connolley 20:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't quoting anyone: that's my own assessment, which is why I posted it here on the talk page rather than inserting it into the article.

1. I have no idea about the proportion of the right which liked the film. I don't think it's been widely seen in the U.S., which has the largest conservative base. Do you think it's because of the time zone difference? ;-)
2. I merely recalled that Ellen Goodman of the Boston Globe compared the global warming views of registered voters by major party affiliation: There are astonishing gaps between Republican science and Democratic science. Try these numbers: Only 23 percent of college-educated Republicans believe the warming is due to humans, while 75 percent of college-educated Democrats believe it. [20]
3. I assume it's common knowledge that Democrats are liberal and Republicans are conservative, but I'm not a political expert. --Uncle Ed 20:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

What nice little scientists journalists make. ~ UBeR 00:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

CO2 Flux Capacitor?

We've been told for years that carbon dioxide causes climate change, but if I am to believe many of the detractors of this documentary, it still causes it even if the solar cycles match up with temperature changes and CO2 follows warming by 800 years. The lag is called "irrelevant." Does CO2 have a flux capacitor? Is there any research on this? 68.42.98.97 03:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it has been researched, save the flux capacitor part. Eccentricity, precession of the equinoxes, and tilt of the Earth tend to the largest factors in determining temperature on Earth. They cause ice ages, interglacials, etc. Now keep in mind the fact that oceans take in CO₂ when they are cool. The opposite happens then they are not. So now lets combine the ideas we've just learned. So now you got warmer oceans, meaning more CO₂. (See, the temperature comes first.) The additional CO₂ further drives the temperature upward. That is, until the next ice age or glacial period. =) My regards, ~ UBeR 07:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

So wouldn't we need a flux capacitor to stop essentially all CO2 from dissolving from the ocean if it were capable of driving warming by itself? If the world cools down without that happening, wouldn't we need a flux capacitor again? I ask because the "irrelevance" of whether the CO2 comes first or second is being used as justification for a lot of the GW apologetics being used in this discussion. If it's irrelevant if it comes before or after, then shouldn't the outgassing of the oceans "run away" until there's no CO2 left in them if it were capable of driving climate by itself? I'm not a climate scientist but I am capable of logic. 70.91.235.10 14:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

One problem is that changes in C12/C13 isotope ratios show the increase in atmospheric CO2 isn't coming from the oceans. Raymond Arritt 14:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Also relevant is the relationship of CO2 outgassing on temperature (I've no idea if this is sublinear, linear, or superlinear), the fact that the CO2 reservoir in the Ocena is large, but limited, the fact that temperature depends on CO2 approximately logarithmically, not linearly, and that the amount of energy emitted by earth grows with T^4. --Stephan Schulz 14:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

So we have absolutely no idea. Well, we better destroy the world economy to be on the safe side, wouldn't want anybody to have to move inland. :) 68.42.98.97 15:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I wrote "I have no idea". Also, I have no idea if this 800-year effect is already considered in the IPCC reports, as they usually concentrate on the time up to 2100. As far as the economy is concerned, the EU has just commited to unilaterally reduceing CO2 emissions by 20%, and Britain aims at even 60%. They don't do that to destroy there economies, of course. I'm always surprised that Kyoto opponents believe in outrageously one-sided back-of-the-envelope estimates about cost, but deny the carefully considered and documented science about the effects. --Stephan Schulz 15:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Europe's population is on the edge of shrinking especially if you treat the EU as a unit. So basically if the US signed Kyoto they could contract, sit back, and watch the transfer payments from America roll in without doing much. That's why the developing economies were left out. They're where the real growth in CO2 comes from, we're only 25% and they are industrializing fast. But they're not about to send Europe money as a reward for dying. And as you probably know, nobody actually is willing to say Kyoto would make any difference even if you accept anthropogenic global warming. Chirac recently threatened to put a carbon tax on the US, an empty threat, but you understand, it's not about CO2, if it was they'd be trying to spend money to help the developing world be cleaner and more efficient. It's about money. And talk of setting limits? That's rhetoric. Show me one European country that's remotely come close to reducing emissions. I know France's have grown every year since they signed, and likely every other signatory as well. They are not and will not do anything substantive, except build nuclear plants, which is smart global warming or not. 70.91.235.10 16:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Purpose of this page

Let me remind everyone that the purpose of this page is to discuss how to improve the article, not "whether the documentary's main point is correct".

Can we focus on how to describe the various claims mentioned in the film? For example, if Dr. X said that CO2 is not a "driver" but a "follower" of temp, then that should be in the article. We could also put a handy link to an article which describes how CO2 drives temp (if we have one), or simply point out that this view goes against the mainstream (see global warming). --Uncle Ed 09:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be pedantic, but there is no contradiction between "driver" and "follower" (one is causative, the other is temporal, and anyways, the two are interdependent). This subtleness is one reason why the topic needs a lot of discussion.--Stephan Schulz 09:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ed's point, but I must also point out to Stephan that effects normally folllow causes, not the other way around (i.e. temporality and causality are related). --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This is only true in a simple monocausal world. If you have multiple and opposing cause/effect relationships, you can observe any order for individual causes and effects (i.e. you can have a cause with no effect, as another, stronger cause masks it (example: Sulfate aerosols masking the effect of CO2), you can have an effect without any specific cause (example: temperature rise without CO2 rise, as other effects like orbital paramters trigger the effect), and so on). And, to answer Ed and Paul, I think this discussion helps to get a clear view of the issue that we need to write the article.--Stephan Schulz 10:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

May I re-emphasize Ed's point. Wikipedia guidelines on talk pages wikipedia:talk_page_guidelines say that "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." Please see also wp:not. Talk pages are not a discussion forum for the topic. Paul Matthews 09:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

In defense of Stephan, I'm sure his "driver ... follower" remark was meant to shed light on the content, and not to score a point here. We need more information in Wikipedia about the various theories of what has caused temperature to go up and down throughout the geological ages.

Do we have, for an example, a distinct article on the connection between carbon dioxide levels and average earth surface temperature (or atmospheric temp)? That might be too important a topic to be relegated to a section of Global warming. --Uncle Ed 10:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Errm, you mean something like Attribution of recent climate change? William M. Connolley 11:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

My comment was a general one, not aimed at anyone in particular.

The GGWS programme was discussed on the Today Programme this morning. Is that worthy of mention? Perhaps not. Houghton accused the programme of telling falsehoods but appeared floored when asked by Ed Stourton to name one. Eventually he came up with 'they didnt say that that the rate of rise is faster than before' which at worst is an omission, and then just repeated the mantra 'global warming is caused by CO2'. The representative of the other side (cant remember who) was equally floored when asked to respond so overall it was not a very worthwhile debate! Paul Matthews 11:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

How much of Attribution of recent climate change addresses the role of carbon dioxide? I suggest a spin off to an article called something like:

• Carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect or
• Carbon dioxide and atmospheric temperature or
• Carbon dioxide and global warming?

The proposed new article should provide a summary of the peer-reviewed research linking CO2 to temp, as well as any peer-reviewed research calling that link into question. I imagine that the preponderance of refereed journal articles leans toward CO2 being a prime causative factor in temperature chance throughout the historical record, but the existence of even a handful of contrarian views in the published literature would be interesting to our readers. --Uncle Ed 11:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you *read* the attribution article and answer your own question. Why would you want an article on just CO2, anyway, since we all (other than the makers of TGGWS) know that other GHGs and sulphates are involved? William M. Connolley 11:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

On the topic of Wikipedia guidelines, it should not be necessary to remind people of wp:npov, but it seems that it is - some recent edits of the first sentence by those who ought to know better have attempted to break this policy. Paul Matthews 13:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is this particular piece of "Reaction" being removed?

I genuinely don't understand why 142.151.175.39 keeps removing the section I've added, as follows:

On March 14, 2007, The Independent published a further investigation of the programme's claims which uncovered the fact that the programme makers had selectively used data which was sometimes decades old, and introduced other serious errors of their own.

Mr Durkin admitted that his graphics team had extended the time axis along the bottom of the graph to the year 2000. "There was a fluff there," he said. If Mr Durkin had gone directly to the Nasa website he could have got the most up-to-date data. This would have demonstrated that the amount of global warming since 1975, as monitored by terrestrial weather stations around the world, has been greater than that between 1900 and 1940 - although that would have undermined his argument. "The original Nasa data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find," Mr Durkin said."

Can someone explain why this is irrelevant?

--Merlinme 13:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Its also rather funny... the real data was too "wiggly" for them to cope with... he doesn't seem to appreciate that William M. Connolley 13:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Considering they're making a science documentary, it's strange that they're reduced to re-drafting lines from other people's graphs. Odd they don't have someone on staff who can plot a line chart in Excel. Raymond Arritt 14:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda or polemic?

There seems to be a mini revert war going on over whether to call this a 'documentary film' or a 'propaganda film'. This is coming from editors one would expect better of, and I would suggest that they stop editing the description away from documentary until a consensus is reached on this talk page. Spugmeister 15:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats an odd comment from someone who has been here 8 days and has only a few edits. Or are you a sock? As to the point: unless you deny the existence of propaganda films, then you have to accept atht some films are. This one seems to fit the criteria well: totally one-sided, no hint of balance, using faked data, interested only in persuading the audience William M. Connolley 15:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The 800-year lag data wasn't faked. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This is pretty feeble: that there was at least one piece of data in the film that wasn't faked. But in a sense that was, too: they gave you the impression that its exactly 800y, whereas its 800+/-600 (or 200, depending on source). Or indeed 0, with another source. But the main problem with the 800y stuff is its irrelevance, as explained before [21] William M. Connolley 16:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Saying that it was faked because they left the error bars off it shows how far William is from being objective. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

There are four reasons why you should not question Dr. Connolley's objectivity here:

1. He is a scientist, unlike just about everyone else in this discussion. Finding the objective truth is, quite literally, his business.
2. It borders on a personal attack, which would of course violate Wikipedia policy.
3. He's actually a rather decent chap, and I think we should be nice to him. :-)
4. And, oh yes, the purpose of this page is discuss how to improve the article. When next you consider impugning another contributor's integrity, please take a glance at Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks, thank you! --Uncle Ed 01:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

1. He's a modeler; I don't see what that has to do with this article. The fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam, nonetheless.
2. It's not an attack to point out who's deliberately pushing their POV.
3. I beg to differ.
4. Granted, but we're here to discuss the specific view point pushed by a particular administrator so that we may correct the article accordingly. For all intents and purposes, I suggest you take a glance at WP:AWW. ~ UBeR 01:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not an odd comment in the slightest to want the page of a current topic for debate to remain NPOV. Please don't accuse me of being a sock just because I disagree with you. Seeing as you went so far as to check my membership time and edits, you must have noticed I haven't exactly been controversial or wide reaching. If I was a puppet I would have edited the article myself.

I am well aware that some films are propaganda, I'm just of the opinion that if you insist on calling this film propaganda, then any film with an opinionated slant has to also be called so. I don't see 'An inconvenient truth' being called propaganda, and that's as blatantly as one sided as this film is. Spugmeister 15:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree that editing the type of the film away from "documentary" is unnecessarily controversial. It is a documentary; it is also a polemic; you could also argue that it is a propaganda film, but I'm not sure how much it adds to the debate. Given that the second paragraph of the article mentions the fact that even Channel 4 consider it a polemic, I would have thought this was sufficient to keep balance in the article. Edit warring on this point seems to have stopped (for the time being) anyway. --Merlinme 15:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

"Documentary" implies a sense of objectivity, to which the film makes no pretense. "Propaganda", while formally correct, risks alienating the reader. Why not use the term that Channel 4 uses -- "polemic"? Raymond Arritt 16:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I had actually considered changing the description to "polemic". However I suspect that those who believe in the programme would also find this objectionable, and I didn't feel strongly enough about it to get into an edit war. I think people who read on can make their own minds up fairly quickly. But I certainly wouldn't disagree with anyone who wants to describe it as polemic, when that's the word Channel 4 themselves use. Perhaps the first two paragraphs could be rearranged so that the Channel 4 quote is given as a source for describing it as a polemic. --Merlinme 16:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'd go with polemic William M. Connolley 16:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No way. Whatever else it might or might not be, the film is a documentary. TharkunColl 16:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. There is to much invention in the document (misrepresenting Wunsch, faking diagrams...). It is a polemic pretending to be a documentary. --Stephan Schulz 16:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

We only have Wunsch's word that he was deceived. Perhaps he feared for his funds when he realised how much publicity the film stirred up. But whatever the case, we only have his word against Durkin's. As for the other stuff, for every expert there is an equal and opposite expert. That Durkin didn't represent the views of his opponents is irrelevant - his opponents behave in exactly the same way. TharkunColl 16:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I tried polemic. On reflection I'd decided to go back and describe it as a documentary and a polemic, which is accurate, but it had already been reverted. In any case, I doubt that supporters of the programme would like that either. Like I said, I'm not sure I care strongly enough about it to get into an edit war. People can read the article and make up their own minds. --Merlinme 16:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

How about 'is a polemic documentary'? I can't see the objection to 'polemic' myself considering the entire point of the prog was to be controversial. Spugmeister 16:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Only if you put the same on all the garbage churned out by the pro-global warming industry. TharkunColl 16:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Polemic text on a topic is often written specifically to dispute or refute a topic that is widely viewed to be a "sacred cow" or beyond reproach, in an effort to promote factual awareness. (From the Polemic page here on Wiki.)If Man made global warming is the 'sacred cow' then this documentary is the polemic. Being a polemic isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially considering that is what the makers say it is. Spugmeister 16:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Do supporters of the programme agree with "polemical documentary"? polemic isn't derogatory as such, it just means it's one-sided. 'a polemic text on a topic is often written specifically to dispute or refute a topic that is widely viewed to be a "sacred cow" or beyond reproach, in an effort to promote factual awareness'. That pretty much sums up the programme to a T. Doesn't it? I'd be happy to add something along the lines of "the programme disputes the received wisdom of global warming" or something like that in the opening, to make it clear what is meant. (note: edit conflict, most of this has already been mentioned by Spugmeister.) --Merlinme 16:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the issue I was attempting to raise above. Clearly I was being too delicate. Wikipedia has a policy of a neutral point of view. Quote: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." It is not consistent with this policy to describe it as propaganda or polemic. Both terms have negative spin. It is a television programme, or a documentary. Paul Matthews 17:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Then by that logic no films can be described as P or P. Yes? NPOV demands that things be described *fairly*: not non-negatively. Since C4 calls it a polemic, that seems a fair compromise, though I'd prefer propaganda William M. Connolley 17:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Using a broadcaster's term for their own release is hardly POV. The fact that Channel 4 describes it as "a polemic" is good enough for me ("polemical documentary" would make more sense grammatically but it isn't the term Channel 4 used, so I wasn't sure about using it). On wikipedia, using someone's own term for their work is not an attack. Describing something as a "documentary" if the makers don't could be construed as a POV description. Perhaps a summary drawing attention to Channel 4's use of the term would be clearer. I hasten to add that "propaganda" would be unacceptable Lurker ^oi! 17:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Paul Matthews points, but the thing is "The GGWS" fits the definition of a polemic very closely. It's a one issue programme which barely makes any attempt to present the opposing side of the argument. That doesn't make it wrong- it's perfectly possible for a polemic to be correct- but it does make it a polemic. If there is a word which very accurately describes something, then I would have thought that an encylopedia should use that word. --Merlinme 17:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

How about "widely criticised documentary"? That should meet the requirements of all sides. Man with two legs 17:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, that won't do - "widely criticised" is inherently opinion - how wide is widely? Polemic documentary is the most appropriate so far - propaganda has far too many negative connotations and is again opinion presented as fact. QmunkE 17:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

646 hits for polemic [22] vs 123,000 for documentary [23]. An Inconvenient Truth is also described as a documentary. Iceage77 17:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Channel 4 calls it a polemic. Are you arguing that they incorrectly describe their own show? Raymond Arritt 17:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying polemic is incorrect. But the majority of sources, including the one referenced for polemic, describe it as a documentary first and foremost. Iceage77 17:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that "polemic" is correct, meaning a one-sided argument where there was no opportunity to hear an opposing viewpoint. But "propaganda" is clearly wrong, implying to my mind that it was all just shooting from the hip with little or no reasoned argument to speak of. There was in fact plenty of reasoned argument, with which you may either have agreed with, or not. Laurence Boyce 17:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Would there be an objection to writing the opening sentence something like this: "...is a 2007 polemical documentary, directed by British television producer Martin Durkin, which attacks what it sees as the received wisdom of global warming." Or, "the sacred cow of global warming". Or some other form of words which makes it clear what is meant. --Merlinme 17:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the "sacred cow", but the first sentence sounds good. Laurence Boyce 17:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

How about including a quote from the filmmakers (or Channel 4) about the intent of the film? A quick glance at the C4 website suggests ...is a 2007 polemical documentary, directed by British television producer Martin Durkin, which attempts to "slay the whole premise of global warming".Raymond arritt 17:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Good find! Assuming it's sourced, surely no-one can object to quoting Channel 4's description? --Merlinme 17:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The reference in the intro includes that quote. Quoting it in full would make the article intro too long, so it should be quoted elsewhere in the article. Lurker ^oi! 17:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No - some editors need to calm down a little and still do not seem to understand NPOV. Lurker and Raymond and now Merlinme: yes, using a broadcaster's term for their own release IS POV - their POV! Another Wikipedia guideline needs to be borne in mind - dont feed the trolls, ie dont let the upwinders wind you up. It's a TV programme. The irony is that many of you are falling into the trap, and making one of their points for them (that anyone who dares question MMGW generates a hysterical response). The lead of the Wikipedia article should not use the inflammatory language of the film's critics or its promoters. Paul Matthews 17:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, Paul, but I return to my earlier point- the programme is a polemic. Ignoring this is like writing an article about A Modest Proposal and not acknowledging the fact that it's satire. --Merlinme 17:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Paul Matthews- The term is not inflammatory. It is an accurate description. Why is "documentary" a POV term and "polemic" not? Polemical books, pamphlets, plays, films and TV programmes are part of our culture- in fact there have been more of them than the neutral documentary (which is a fairly modern invention). Oh, and the tone of your comment could be seen as a personal attack- insinuating that those who agree with you are doing so out of anger or hysteria is a way of attempting to invalidate their views. Assume good faith and realise that we hold the view that this is a polemic on logical grounds, not because we "need to calm down" (how patronising!) or have let ourselves be wound up (I won't go into the "hysterical response) If you are unable to refute our comments without allegations such as those above, please excuse yourself from this discussion. Lurker ^oi! 17:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't actually find the exact quote which Raymond was using, I suspect it may be a combinaton of two different quotes. The Channel4 listings guide describes it as a "polemical documentary", and then the Channel4 subsite on TGGWS includes the quote "slay the whole premise of global warming". With that in mind I'm not sure I particularly prefer Raymond's version over my original version of the opening sentence, although it does provide added backing to using the description "polemical documentary". Are people happy with me changing the opening sentence to my original suggestion? i.e. "...is a 2007 polemical documentary, directed by British television producer Martin Durkin, which attacks what it sees as the received wisdom of global warming." Merlinme 18:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's good. Laurence Boyce 18:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Clearly some compromise is necessary. Yes, I would be happy with "polemical documentary". That seems to be the acceptable concensus, go for it. Paul Matthews 18:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, done. Hopefully that keeps most people happy. --Merlinme 18:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's worth pointing out, though it has so far been overlooked, that Channel 4 are not the makers of this documentary, they simply bought it. What does Durkin call it? In any case, whatever "polemic" might officially mean, it has definite negative connotations. Just like the term "claims", which the article is littered with. TharkunColl 18:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The idea that "claims" is a negative term is, frankly, ridiculous Lurker ^oi! 18:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel compelled to question whether you are a native speaker of English. TharkunColl 18:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

And I feel compelled to add:

As well as to remind you about WP:CIVIL Lurker ^oi! 18:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I assume you mean "The programme claims x" as opposed to, say, "The programme states x". I'm not sure I'd say claims is negative, as such, but I'd agree it is weaker. Anyway, you asked what Durkin calls it: the answer is "provocative" and "seriously controversial" (i.e. controversy about a serious topic). See: [24] Merlinme 18:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

"Propaganda" was inappropriate and WMC, you should really know better. "Polemic" is wildly POV and carries significant connotative weight. Why not just call it a "controversial documentary" and be done with it? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Because certain users, even tenured administrators, like to push their POVs. UBeR 22:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe because the channel that aired the film called it a "polemic". One might think they'd know the nature of the shows that they choose to broadcast. Raymond Arritt 22:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Which means that we can be NPOV and say "The Great Global Warming Swindle" is a controversial documentary aired in 2007. Described by its broadcaster as a "polemic," etc etc etc..." Putting it as-is in the lead is designed especially to promote a certain point of view, and we should try very hard not to do that here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely calling it controversial in the lead promotes a certain POV as well? Why not put, '...is a documentary aired in 2007 described as a polemic by its broadcaster. It promoted the controversial point of view that....It has been accused of being propaganda by...' Spugmeister 22:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Not really, because that's at least an honest statement regardless of your feelings about the content. Controversial doesn't carry the same connotative weight. But, regardless, propaganda has no place here at all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you on the matter and would prefer 'controversial documentary' to other suggestions. I definately agree that 'propaganda' is POV. I'd rather just see 'documentary' with the controversy explained in the body but I can see that's not going to happen. Spugmeister 22:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Why must we contributors make a judgment call on what sort of film it is? Just call it a film in the lead sentence. At some point, rather directly labelling it "controversial" (if readers might confuse that word with "bad"), say specifically that the film has sparked a discussion in the media (or in science journals? ;-) or that it has attracted a lot of criticism and lesser (or equal?) amount of praise. --Uncle Ed 01:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

As usual uncle Ed is spot-on. Paul Matthews 09:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a polemic, on any standard definition. I don't understand what the problem is with accurately describing it as a 'polemical documentary', which are exactly the words C4 used. --Merlinme 10:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, as long as there's a proper citation or 'ref' for that remark. All I've found so far are blogs, but if we contributors agree I think we can still use it. I propose this:

According to various blogs, Channel 4 itself called the film a "polemic". <ref>Blogger 'Mr. Brightside' wrote, "A source at Channel 4 said: "It is essentially a polemic and we are expecting it to cause trouble, but this is the controversial programming that Channel 4 is renowned for." [http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1795082/posts] </ref>

If we can find a better source than a blog, we can use it. Anyone want to email Durkin to verify the quote? --Uncle Ed 13:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Couple of sources for "polemical documentary", e.g. "On Thursday, Channel 4 will screen what it calls a "polemical and thought-provoking documentary" - The Great Global Warming Swindle - by one of the environmentalists' favourite hate figures, film-maker Martin Durkin". [25] "A source at Channel 4 said: "It is essentially a polemic and we are expecting it to cause trouble, but this is the controversial programming that Channel 4 is renowned for."" [26] Unfortunately the Channel 4 listing for 8th March has now dropped off, but I can assure that yesterday it described the programme as a "polemical documentary". Which quote would we be asking Durkin to verify? He's never called it polemical himself, that I'm aware of. --Merlinme 13:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Just because something meets the dictionary definition of a term does not mean that the term is appropriately used. "Polemical" includes strong negative connotations. Unless the creator himself describes the film in that manner, we can't state this as fact. If somebody at Channel 4 wants to call it that, then say so, but attribute that opinion explicitly (and in fact this is already mentioned down further in the intro, so nothing more need be done). - Merzbow 23:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've said this several times before, but I'll repeat- I can't see what the problem is with an encylopedia using words to correctly describe something. For example, should we stop using the word "liberal" to describe certain types of left wingers, because "liberal" has negative connotations in some parts of the United States? --Merlinme 08:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Liberal does not carry an inherently negative connotation, as polemical does. Anyways, the mere fact that significant numbers of editors are disputing the usage of this word is enough to disallow it from being stated as fact instead of as opinion. This is Wikipedia editing 101 - do not state controversial opinions as facts, unless there is a consensus of independent, reliable sources that agree on it and can be cited. - Merzbow 22:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

An Inconvenient Truth

It is inconvenient, but true, that the article on that particular piece of propaganda simply describes it as a documentary film. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and add "polemical" to that as well? TharkunColl 18:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have a problem with a page on wikipedia, please comment on the relevant talk page. don't comment about an article on another article's talk page, as those who contributed to the article in question may not see your comment Lurker ^oi! 18:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree the two films should be treated equally. Iceage77 18:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed. The point I'm making is that An Inconvenient Truth is written in the sort of style we should adopt for this article. And since its (pathetically small) criticism section leads back here, we need to make this one neutral as well. TharkunColl 18:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about this, but I'm not sure polemical describes it so well. It apparently includes "personal events from the life of Al Gore". Which presumably means it's not quite so single minded in its focus. But I haven't seen it, so I can't really comment on whether it's one sided and focused enough to qualify as "polemical". I have seen "The Great Global Warming Swindle", on the other hand, and I do think it fits the standard definition of a polemic. --Merlinme 18:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Tharkuncoll- The word "polemic" is not a judgement of accuracy, but a term used to describe tone. This programme has a polemical tone. If you have seen An Inconvenient Truth and believe it to be polemical in tone, please add that to the article (preferably after discussing it on the talk page). Saying AIT should be described as polemical becasue this programme is described so is nonsensical. It is like saying The Godfather should be described as a comedy because The Producers is Lurker ^oi! 18:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No - what I'm saying is that this article should be written in the same style as the article on An Inconvenient Truth - not the other way round. TharkunColl 19:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Aside--I find it funny how its emphasized that TGGWS did not present the opposite view (i.e. anthropogenic GW) except to make counter-claims--the exact same thing Al Gore did with his film. ~ UBeR 19:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This propaganda didn't present the mainstream view at all. They presented only a faked version of the mainstream view. Gore didn't fake any graphs nor misrepresent the other side William M. Connolley 11:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

William, Considering your edits of the article itself were to put the word "propaganda" in the article, and since you are not pushing a POV, could you please provide the source referenced which actually justified the adjective of this film as propaganda? -- Tony of Race to the Right 21:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

If you don't like what somebody is saying, gag them

Lurker has just reported me for breaking 3RR, which is completely untrue. TharkunColl 19:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess this is why the page got protected. I personally think both the reporting and the protection were unnecessary. --Merlinme 10:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Due to a large amount of edit warring, this page has been protected from editing. I encourage those involved in the debate to come to a resolution, so that editing can be resumed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but it seems you haven't a clue of the current situation. No one has even breached the 3RR, and you've admitted that. One person reverting a word or two doesn't quite constitute an edit war. Further, a full protection is unwarranted, especially considering there are more suitable ways for going about trying to solve a dispute. Next, if you'd take some time to notice, there is in fact discussion on the current problem, and a consensus is being developed. ~ UBeR 21:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I see a good few reverts over the past several days, having looked through the history, quite aside from this situation. It doesn't take a 3RR breach to make an edit war. But if you're almost to an agreement, that's wonderful, it won't need to stay protected long at all! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we make a subpage to work on the intro? I'll put something up at /intro, and those who feel the need to fill in the blank of "... is a (blank) film" can hammer out a for a compromise version there? That's what I used to do when I was active in Mediation. --Uncle Ed 01:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What you have there has all the pieces of a worthwhile lead. It mentions the controversy and polemic line in the third paragraph, so just call it a documentary in the first sentence and be done with it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Because we're doing just fine here on the talk page, Ed. ~ UBeR 01:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I must admit I'm slightly mystified as to why the page was protected. Following extensive discussion on the talk page, we appeared to have achieved something near consensus on 'polemical documentary', accompanied by a change which explained exactly what the programme attacked. The word 'polemical' was reverted once, and then reverted back. There was further discussion, without anyone making any particularly controversial edits, i.e. it looked like 'polemical documentary' was going to stand. Then 90 minutes later the page was protected. --Merlinme 10:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we try to agree on what we do/don't agree on? The main things that we've been edit warring over are: is it a polemic/docu/propaganda; and (less) does Wunsch get a mention in the intro. Can we compromise on "polemic"? In which case, I'd suggest unprotection William M. Connolley 10:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Polemical documentary is appropriate - just "polemic" doesn't work (the noun refers either to an argument or a person, the adjective is used to describe something as controversial or containing a polemic argument - dictionary.com definitions QmunkE 10:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

OK William M. Connolley 11:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the request to unprotect, provided we all agree with using Merlinme's sources for the "polemic" citation (see above Propaganda or polemic?). Should we put it into our /intro subpage first, and vote on it, or do we have a consensus already? --Uncle Ed 13:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should use the same structure and language as used in An Inconvenient Truth. Isn't that fair? --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope. The two are different. Start a comparison of AIT and TGGWS if you really must William M. Connolley 14:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No. of course not. Look at the critical reaction. An Inconvenient Truth has been out for some time, has received mostly rave reviews in reliable sources, and many competent scientists have come out and lauded it. It has received a number of notable prices. It is a fair, if dramatic, representation of the current state of knowledge. Factual criticism by most reliable reviewers has been restricted to minor points. TGGWS has been broadcast on TV only 2 days ago, has already been ravaged by the press and at least one of the particpants, and has been shown to use fake and out-of-date data to try to make its point. Treating the two movies as somehow equal would be grossly misleading.--Stephan Schulz 14:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point: AIT has reception / reviews and criticism sections. Mention the feedback there. Why the double standards? --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, we had agreed "polemical documentary". Ed has undone that; I've restored it. I also don't like "critique" which implies reasoned analysis; attacks seems much fairer. And I've restored CW as one of the interviewees William M. Connolley 14:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Monbiot article

Has anyone seen the article about this by George Monbiot in the Guardian? [27]

I'm surprised no-ones picked up on this. there should probably be a mention of this in the criticism section. G-Man * 21:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that Martin Durkin is wikified in this article - now protected. Also found a few good starting points to understand Durkin´s past, also and mainly from Monbiot:

• The Revolution Has Been Televised or
• Invasion of the entryists or
• Modified Truth or
• Life after Living Marxism: Fighting for freedom - to offend, outrage and question everything

Mario J Alves 21:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I have seen it, but I don't personally consider Monbiot to be particularly impartial, which is why I haven't already quoted it. He tends to be nearly as biased pro-global warming as Durkin is against. I don't have the time to go through the various claims and counterclaims and work out which are correct. He's more of a journalist and campaigner than a scientist (although he does have academic credentials in philosophy/politics), and he tends to use words like 'debunked' which I don't think are particularly helpful when discussing scientific papers. I'm also fairly sure that he's been shown to be wrong on a couple of things in the past. If someone else does have time to go through what he says in his article and work out if it's true, then perhaps we should have it in. --Merlinme 10:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can comment on my area (solar physics). Monbiot is completely wrong in his attack on Friis-Christensen. Friis-Christensen's original 1991 article says that there is an inverse correlation between solar cycle length and temperature, and his more recent work presents the same view - he has not changed his tune as Monbiot suggests. So it should not be referenced. Paul Matthews 11:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Paul's post kind of proves my point... I think there are better sources than Monbiot. --Merlinme 11:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Paul is wrong. Monbiot is substantially correct (and cannot possibly be described as completely wrong). The original FC+L paper contained errors; when these are corrected the wonderful correlation goes away (see fig 1 of [28]). The cloud-cover/cosmic rays stuff has also shofted over time, as Monbiot says: it has changed from all cloud to low cloud [29]. If this is inded Pauls area, Im surprised that he is unaware of this William M. Connolley 11:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

To be sure, the claimed correlation apparently remains the same, but the proposed mechanisms (cloud cover, high cloud cover, low cloud cover...) change. But Schneider seems to demolish all the claimed correlations. And of course, solar physics may help Paul with understanding the solar cycle, but not with the climate reactions to it. --Stephan Schulz 12:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

There are two issues here which should be dealt with separately. a) Solar Cycle Length (see section below), ie. [30] "arithmetic errors". b) Cosmic Rays, see '‘Cosmoclimatology’ - tired old arguments in new clothes' (9 Mar 2007) on [RealClimate.org] which seems to suggest a lack of response to peer-review. [31]. OldDigger 21:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Having now had a chance to follow those links about Martin Durkin (and his wikipedia article), it is quite interesting and is probably substantially true. I can see the point of having his name Wikified. However, I would like the article about TGGWS to concentrate on the programme rather than the programme maker. Regardless of his background, the claims in the programme should stand or fall on their own merits. I guess you could say "directed by controversial television producer Martin Durkin" if you wanted. I wouldn't want any more about him in this article than that. --Merlinme 13:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone said I have seen it, but I don't personally consider Monbiot to be particularly impartial, which is why I haven't already quoted it.. whether he is impartial or not is irrelevant. The fact is it is a reaction to the documentary published in a national newspaper. As such it should be quoted in the 'Other reaction' section. G-Man * 20:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

"Someone" would be me, then. I'm not going to stop someone else quoting Monbiot, I'm just registering my viewpoint that he's not a particularly reliable source. I also don't think his arguments particularly help in showing whether the programme is correct or not. I would prefer to stick to sources which are more reliable. --Merlinme 22:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for unprotection

I've put in a request for the page to be unprotected, as I don't think it was necessary. --Merlinme 13:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Rebuttals

If we're lising the films claims one-by-one, then we need to list rebuttals one-by-one, where they exist William M. Connolley 14:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer this not to become a POV-fest like Global warming is, though. If you're going to work with this article, work with this article. I'm not sure your reversion was helpful, and your edit yesterday regarding propaganda is giving me a lot of pause. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I was going to delete this, having thought better of it, but I can't now you've commented :-) William M. Connolley 14:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, shucks. If it's any consolation, I was planning on leaving a similar comment anyway. I'm extremely concerned. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have thought of an alternative, which is to leave the text unchanged but link to the appropriate wiki pages. We already link to sat t rec, which if you read it demolishes the claims; ditto global cooling. The rest can be done similarly William M. Connolley 14:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Polemical documentary

We went through dozens of lines about this above and I thought we'd reached consensus. Why is it being removed again?

--Merlinme 15:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting really silly now. What is the problem with people sticking to the agreed description of polemical documentary? Did all the discussion mean nothing? Did the protection of the article to prevent edit warring not tell anyone anything? I'm putting it back - can people stop acting outside process - WP:BOLD does not mean "ignore discussion and consensus". QmunkE 09:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

OK by me William M. Connolley 09:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

As you may know, sometimes opinions, as well as consensuses change. No article is ever set in stone, lest it be forgotten Wikipedia is an ongoing project. ~ UBeR 18:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Character Assassination

Should this (or any other Wiki article) be indulging in character assassination? Is character assassination in line with NPOV? I am referring of course to various disparaging comments about Durkin and other contributors to the C4 programme. It does not seem to me to be advancing the Wiki project. Fair comment is one thing, but the extent of vilification detracts from a reasonable and neutral discussion of the points raised by the programme.

Peterlewis 14:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

What character assassination are you talking about in particular? I've actually gone to some lengths to try and keep it out of the article. To be honest, Durkin doesn't help himself sometimes, and I can see how direct quotes could be seen as attacks. However as long as they're sourced (and we don't ignore any positive comments), I don't see why reporting negative comments is not NPOV. Could you give an example of what you mean by character assassination? --Merlinme 14:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh, if you want to talk about not ignoring positive comments, I refer you to this edit made by a particular administrator. ~ UBeR 16:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Peterlewis. The latest edits now have direct quotes from Durkin with all his strong language which surely has no place here. This may be a controversial program but WK must stick with just reporting the facts and not into lengthy discussion of criticism. Dsergeant 16:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Durkin's quotes are matters of record, they are part of the facts. I fail to see why quoting someone's own words qualifies as 'character assassination'. We could change it to say, for example, "Dr Leroi said that he was amazed at the rudeness of Mr Durkin’s reply", but that scarcely does Durkin's response justice. It's much easier for a reader to understand what the fuss was about (and why Leroi will no longer be working with Durkin) if we use quotes from Durkin. --Merlinme 16:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Re the edit UBer found, I personally wouldn't have a problem having it back in if a) it's relevant and b) it's sourced. I can't actually tell at the moment which channel is being referred to, I assume it's Channel 4. It looks like the quote is in the wrong place as well (why is it after the paragraph on America)? If it were put after the rest of the Geoffrey Lean 4 March Independent section, I wouldn't personally have a problem with it, although I think it should be kept reasonably short (or you could argue we are giving undue weight to one part of one article). --Merlinme 16:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with User:Merlinme. Channel 4's response to criticism is relevant, but the material in question was hanging on its own with no context -- what, specifically, were they responding to? A brief version, located in the proper context, would be appropriate. Raymond Arritt 17:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've now added in a section on the March 11 Independent article, which is where the quote is from. --Merlinme 17:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You are in danger of bringing Wiki into disrepute by continuing to repeat hearsay and gossip. None of the alleged comments by Durkin and others would stand up in a court of law and so are not evidence at all. They are not facts but assertions. They are also totally irrelevant to the dispute at issue. You should not be wasting time and effort on character assassination, but rather stick to the disputed areas.

Peterlewis 19:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Emails would definitely stand up in a court of law, in the same way that a letter would. If Durkin thought it was libellous, he could sue. In contrast, he has excused his comments and apologised; if that isn't an admission that he made those comments, I don't know what is. --Merlinme 19:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have the actual emails or copies? For such alleged emails to stand as evidence, they must be corroborated (just like any other document produced as evidence). What has Durkin admitted? That he used the actual words quoted or what? We simply do not know from a newspaper article the details to be able to accept the version printed there as "factual". It is, anyway, totally irrelevant to the issues raised by the programme, and seems to be yet another attempt at character assassination by biased individuals. If you don't like Durkin's programme then question the arguments made in the programme, and not individuals. This s what a civilized debate is all about! Peterlewis 22:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

We do not need to use the primary sources, because we report what The Times wrote. For that, an article in the Times is certainly sufficient evidence. Anyways, the Times is a very respected newspaper, and certainly a WP:RS on factual issues. It also is one of the most conservative of the respected European newspapers, in case you consider that relevant. --Stephan Schulz 23:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

With respect, have you read the Times article in full? The strong implication is that Dr Leroi forwarded the emails ("leaked", if you will) to the Times journalist. In Durkin's response, he apologises for the use of 'intemperate language'. The opening line of the Times article is: "Two eminent British scientists who questioned the accuracy of a Channel 4 programme that claimed global warming was an unfounded conspiracy theory have received an expletive-filled tirade from the programme maker." No editor in the world would let that stand if they thought the paper would be sued. It then goes on to quote from the emails, including the two offending expletives, and including one expletive which we have not quoted. Compared to how the story was originally quoted in Wikipedia, I have removed it from its own separate section (undue weight), added in the only quote from Durkin which was not expletive ridden or abusive, and given his apology in some detail. I think that the current summary of this episode in TGGWS article is both fair and reasonable. --Merlinme 23:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of graphic

Re this edit [32]: I would note that all the data is fully sourced, and plotting it is a simple application of the data. The graphic appears in relation to fully referenced discussion of the correctness of graphics shown on TGGWS. Further the graphic itself does not forward any particular interpretation (that is left the reader). I would suggest that, in this case, the graphic does not fall into the category of OR. Discussion is welcome. -- Leland McInnes 18:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the "Translated TGGWS Temperature" line is Original Research. The reason I say this is that it is an arbitrary decision exactly where you place this line. For example I can see that placing this line 0.1 degrees higher would more closely match the NASA data, which is the rationale you give for placing it where you do. ~ Rameses 04:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The the graphic would be fine pending removal of the extra line? -- Leland McInnes 20:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, certainly as far as I am concerned. I would also like to thank you for going to the effort of creating such good and valuable graphics. This level of contribution is what makes Wikipedia a valuable resource for so many. ~ Rameses 14:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Solar activity / Solar Cycle Length

Snip (moved within page)

Nonsensical Statement

I have reverted the current edit because the statement made no sense in the context of the article. Peterlewis 15:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I have also deleted expletives since they have nothing to do with a debate about the facts at issue. It is essential, I think, to keep Wikipedia neutral. Adding swear words does nothing but raise the temperature of debate.

Peterlewis 08:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You have completely missed the point here. Durkin's intemperate reaction was the reason Leroi withdrew co-operation with him. Deleting relevant information is not a good way to lower the temperature of debate.JQ 11:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with removing expletives simply because they are expletives. It is impossible to understand what the fusss was about unless you hear Durkin's reply in full. And while I do not think the article should dwell too much on his character, it is surely relevant what his reaction was when asked to engage in serious debate by two respected scientists. --Merlinme 13:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Relevant policy is "when quoting relevant material from external sources, rendering a quote as it was originally spoken/written trumps our style guidelines". Raymond Arritt 14:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep no problem with that. --Merlinme 15:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind Wikipedia is not censored. ~ UBeR 18:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

See also

I've added a "See also" section on the film's scientific claims. While some of these are covered in wikilinks in the text, some of these links go to general articles (for example, clouds) and it's not immediately clear which are relevant. With a list it should be possible to check the programme's claims against existing Wikipedia content more easily. JQ 22:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Two things: We already have a see also section (they go at the bottom of articles). Second, Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to be used sources/references. ~ UBeR 23:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No. But Wikipedia articles shouldn't contradict each other either. If two statements in different articles contradict each other, something should be changed - probably getting sources from reliable sources to support each statement. Carcharoth 23:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not contradictory to say "This film claims the Earth is flat," despite the Earth article saying otherwise. ~ UBeR 00:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We are probably misunderstanding each other. Carcharoth 01:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems a bit problematic. If an article states "Film X claims the Earth is flat,", presumably readers should be informed explicitly that this claim is false, even if no one has criticised Film X on this point. How should this be done?JQ 01:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This smacks of WP:OR. If the film claims the Earth is flat, there will likely be a published review that points out how ridiculous that is. It's appropriate to include the counterclaim as part of criticism and reaction to the film. It's also appropriate to include links to relevant Wikipedia articles such as geodesy. But we can't argue the point ourselves. Raymond Arritt 02:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This problem comes up a lot, and I don't think waiting for a published rebuttal is adequate. Take a look at Edward R. Dewey for example. Dewey was a fringe economist who pushed a bunch of cycle theories that have no credence in mainstream economics. He's notable enough to deserve an article, but obscure and old enough that specific rebuttals to his ideas are hard to find. His fans can therefore delete criticism of those ideas on the grounds that they don't refer specifically to Dewey.JQ 04:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

We should probably focus on specific claims made in this article, rather than the general case. I watched this documentary (The Great Global Warming Swindle) when it was repeated tonight on More 4, and it was interesting reading the Wikipedia article during an ad break in the documentary. My personal view is that no-one really has "the truth of it" yet. The media (newspapers, TV documentaries like this, the Al Gore film, and popular books) all tend to present a viewpoint that is biased to a greater or lesser extent, and some are very, very persuasive in presenting their view. The key thing, if you want to become informed on a topic like this, is to read extremely widely and with a hefty dose of scepticism. Learn to be able to judge whether someone knows what they are talking about, and compare with what you have heard elsewhere. Also, it is important to distinguish between "talking heads" rhetoric and data. Both have advantages and disadvantages. Data can be presented wrongly and misinterpreted, and rhetoric can miss the point. Data, when presented correctly (ie. not in the pretty graphics form in the program), can make very powerful points and help with powerful predictions. Rhetoric can help people understand what the science is about, but can also be misleading. For what it is worth, I found the points about solar activity and clouds and cosmic rays to be very convincing. I also liked the points that Nigel Calder made, and it was great to see Nigel Lawson talking about Maggie Thatcher! The bit about socialist peaceniks turning into "environmental lobbyists" made me laugh - that really is true in some cases. Best of all though was seeing the quiet authority exuded by some of the experts, particularly Wensch (though I see that he was quoted out of context for some of his stuff), and that head of the Arctic research centre who bemoaned the media trumpeting every ice shelf breakup merely because we now have satellites that can spot this sort of thing. Overall, some stuff I hadn't been aware of before, but nothing to really change my view that we know a fair bit about this sort of thing, but not really enough to say that we really know what is going on. More investigation needed, but we might as well tidy up our act while we do so, and don't spend too much money investigating, and don't hinder the development of the developing world. Oops. That turned into a mini-review. Sorry about that! :-) Carcharoth 02:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Durkin article in Telegraph

There's a Durkin article in the Telegraph today. [33]However it's essentially just a restatement of his position, i.e. I don't think it qualifies as criticism or reaction to the programme, so I'm not adding it to the article.

--Merlinme 15:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I changed my mind. Durkin's reaction to his critics should go somewhere. I don't think it should go in the section on scientists' reactions (or you could reasonably ask, why aren't we doing line by line rebuttals by scientists of Durkin's claims? Some of which are deeply controversial.) I propose therefore that we create a short new section on "Durkin's response to his critics", in the "Criticism and reaction" section, which would basically be about the Telegraph article. I'll do it myself when I get half an hour, unless someone else wants to jump in first. --Merlinme 15:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. He never truly responds to the scientific objections (his responses are mostly "proof by repeated assertion") so it shouldn't go in that section. Raymond Arritt 15:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say I don't like the new section. Its simply Durkin propaganda all over again. What is the point of it? It could simply be replaced by "Durkin rejected all criticism of the film" William M. Connolley 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed -- Durkin says nothing new. Maybe something slightly more than "Durkin rejected all criticism of the film" is appropriate; perhaps "In response, Durkin has admitted that one of the graphs was incorrectly drafted but stands by the rest of the film's arguments." Hard to see how that merits a whole section, though. Raymond Arritt 18:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't originally want it in at all, because it is largely just a restatement of his position. I'll see if I can cut it down. --Merlinme 18:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's a bit better. I think it does deserve a section of its own, because at the end of the day we're talking about Durkin's programme; his reaction is significant. I've tried to keep it to the stuff which isn't just a restatement of what he's said before. I've added in links to the standard positions on the ice cores and sulphate cooling. It's now approximately the same length as the "go fuck yourself" fiasco, which seems reasonable to me. Unbiased improvements obviously welcomed. --Merlinme 18:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree your original version was a bit long. Current version is good. Paul Matthews 18:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, Connolley, should we state every journalist of The Independent disagrees with Durkin's film, and leave it at that? Just as accurate, no? ~ UBeR 19:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

We should not include repetitious crit, no. Is there any such? William M. Connolley 19:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

New Scientist article

There's an article about this in the latest addition of New Scientist. Unfortunately you need to be a subscriber to see the full article on the web [34]. G-Man * 21:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If you can summarise it sensibly, it should go in the "Reaction" section (or, possibly, the "Reaction from scientists" section). I don't have a subscription myself, but that doesn't stop it being what I assume is an interesting piece of reaction. As far as I am aware there is no issue with linking to material that you need to be a subscribed to be see in full, any more than there would be using a book as a reference which you would have to buy and go to the correct page to see in full. --Merlinme 08:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't say much that's new. The fact that it's written by Alan Thorpe, head of the UK NERC, may be noteworthy (hello William). The factual core of his response is "First, let's deal with the main thesis: that the presence or absence of cosmic rays in Earth's atmosphere is a better explanation for temperature variation than the concentration of CO2 and other gases. This is not a new assertion and it is patently wrong: there is no credible evidence that cosmic rays play a significant role." But we know that already. Raymond Arritt 03:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

We know it already, but apparently we're not allowed to say so unless someone else makes the point in the specific context of Durkin's film. Since that's now happened, let's put it in.JQ 07:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Don't give it undue weight, but it should go in. --Merlinme 08:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Volcanic CO2 emissions

This claim is either true or its not: "Volcanos produce more [CO2] than all the cars and factories in the world". Houghton seems to say that it's not. Can anybody find a link or source which could clarify this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Merlinme (talk • contribs) 08:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

It's false. Currently volcano output is negligible compare to fossil fuel output (i.e. around 1%, with somewhat largish variations).[35]. Just see the Keeling curve and the non-existing volcanic spikes.--Stephan Schulz 08:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly the idea, put across badly in the documentary, was that volcanoes can produce large amounts of CO2, though from memory don't volcanic eruptions produce large amounts of sulphur dioxide and cool the climate? Anyway, the documentary at times put up strawmen like "carbon dioxide is a very small part of the atmosphere" (yes, we know that) and "manmade carbon dioxide is a very small part of natural emissions of carbon dioxide" (yes, we know that as well), and tried to make something out of these things - namely that Joe Public was being misled or misunderstanding the issues. That may be true, but overall this documentary probably didn't help in educating the public. The main lesson is to not believe everything the media tells you, and to keep reading and asking questions. Carcharoth 10:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the Keeling curve. Even a rudimentary analysis of that shows where the idea comes from. The natural cycle oscillates annually up and down by 5 parts per million, while the background increase is occuring at a rate of about 1.2ppm a year. So you can say that the 5ppm output per year is more than the manmade output (though you have to make several very simplistic assumptions to do this), but this ignores the crucial fact that the natural output from autumn decay is balanced by the summer decrease from new plant growth. And of course, that has nothing to do with volcanos, or the point that natural reservoirs of CO2 are immense (and may be released in the future). Carcharoth 10:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

PS. The important point about volcanoes is that they can influence the climate in an unpredictable way. Which is why I think the schemes to cool the climate by sulphur additions are a bit crazy. It only takes one large volcanic eruption and the extra sulphur on top of the clumsy manmade attempts to cool the climate could cause really drastic (and catastrophic) cooling. Carcharoth 10:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Has the CO2 due to volcanoes reached an equilibruim with the CO2 absorbed by life? Looking back over millions of years the CO2 has reduced and so has the temperature. Hence, the current average level of CO2 from volcanoes does not matter, except locally, except for very large erruptions. What matters is the abnormal CO2 released by relatively rapid consumption of fossil-fuel reserves laid down over millions of years. That and the other GHG produced by a large population and their associated activities.

Graphs

It's not clear to me at the moment whether we are looking at the original version of the graph used on TGGWS, i.e. the one which was mislabelled to 2000 when it only went to about 1980, or the later version of the graph (which would imply that the time axis is correct but they added twenty years of data in between broadcasts). When the screen capture says "World temperature 120 years", is that correct, or is it 100 years?

If we're looking at the first version of the Durkin graph, I don't actually understand why it matches up at all with the NASA data for 120 years (the time axis would be out by 20 years by the time we get to 2000 vs. 1980). If it's the second version, then does that mean that they used a completely different graph in the rerun? --Merlinme 20:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You're not reading your stoat, or you'd know this... the blue line on the graph is the original fake, the one they labelled "120 years". The blue, indeed, doesn't match up: the local max at 1940 is more like 45; the min that should be around 1970 is more like 1980 in their weird counter-factual history. All that saves it is the warming at the end, since its then not obvious that 15 years data has been chopped off the blue curve William M. Connolley 21:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. Well, given that the modified graph is also in the public domain, could we have both lines on the graph: GGWS version 1 (stretched to 2000) and GGWS version 2 (stopping in 1990). That would enable a reader to a) see how significant the original error was and b) what the "corrected" graph looks like. Even the corrected graph looks a bit strange, and given that they've removed the attribution to NASA, perhaps that isn't so surprising. I think it would be helpful to be able to see this. Perhaps Leland could do the honours? --Merlinme 21:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestions. Done. -- Leland McInnes 21:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thanks. --Merlinme 21:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm. So did they simply omit all data after ca. 1988 in the "corrected" version? Raymond Arritt 21:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe so, yes. Incidentally, I may be being thick here, but why doesn't the NASA graph start at 0.0? --Merlinme 22:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they simply relabelled the x-axis scale in the corrected version. In this case I simply put them on the same scale and rescaled the plot accordingly. As to why the NASA data doesn't start at 0: it is a measure of "temperature anomaly" which, in this case means deviation from the mean temperature between 1951 and 1980, which was (apparently) 14 C. What the baseline for the TGGWS data is is uncertain. -- Leland McInnes 22:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Depends where you look. Land or land-ocean? ~ UBeR 22:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You are comparing NASA GISS data (degree difference from 1951-1980 mean) with CRUTEM3 data (degree difference from 1961-1990 mean) there, although even then I have to query the exact details of that plot since there seems to be an adjustment since the raw CRUTEM3v data [36] has values of around -0.4 C for 1885-1895. Furthermore you might note that the included graph does, in fact, include both land data from met stations and Land-Ocean data - though here both are from the same source and the data was simply directly plotted from the available data file. -- Leland McInnes 23:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I can understand why you originally decided to move the NASA graph up 0.2 degrees, but let's not got into the argument about Original Research again. Even without starting them from the same point, it's pretty obvious that the "corrected" GGWS graph is a bit weird. The two graphs don't even agree on whether the temperature was getting hotter or colder in the 1880s and 1890s. By about 1940, the GGWS graph says the temperature has increased by 0.5 degrees from 1880; NASA says the temperature only increased by about 0.2 degrees. That's a pretty massive difference when considering Durkin's claim that most 20th century warming happened in the first 50 years. --Merlinme 22:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting find, UBeR. Is the implication that TGGWS used the land data? Is there any particular reason why land or land-ocean would be considered more accurate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Merlinme (talk • contribs) 22:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Sigh. You can point people to the truth but its hard to get them to read it. See stoat. The original TTGWS fake is from the OISM petition: see here for the two overlaid. As explained, the OISM data is fig 12 of http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm and why they chose that bizarre mixture, and how exactly they have mixed it, is anyones guess. Its claimed to be deviations from 1890, hence the offset. If you believe OISM, which may well be unwise, their data is global William M. Connolley 23:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Really amusing

It's really amusing (and tragic) how the pro-global warming lobby have attempted every possible tactic to discredit those who don't share their view of the world. As any historian will tell you, this is the prelude to authoritarianism. TharkunColl 00:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That's one perspective. Another would point to the organizations that have ideological and funding ties to corporations with deeply vested interests and even deeper pockets with which to buy propaganda. The flat earth theory has been discredited and I don't feel one smidgen of my rights lost. Skyemoor 00:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The deep pockets are those provided by governments, the UN, etc. who support human global warming. And the flat earthers are those who stick to that theory like a religion, which for some it has evidently become. TharkunColl 08:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Every tactic... down to pointing out that Durkin faked his graphs, a subject of surprisingly little interest to you. Gosh how underhand of us William M. Connolley 09:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

And yet the fabrications from Al Gore's flick are conveniently narrowed to down very narrow criticims and no mention of the factual exaggerations. So, 'faking graphs' is obviously a 'subject of surprisingly little interest' to both sides--it only matters if it is an admin's ox is being gored on the article as to what information will survive. The double standard for how the two films are treated is glaring and disheartening; worse is how blind some are to it (and how vehemently some fight to maintain it). -- Tony of Race to the Right 21:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK no one has even accused Gore of faking graphs, much less produced any evidence. Which ones did he fake? William M. Connolley 21:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Barring a sophomoric game of semantics I would say a photoshopped picture of polar bears, the NYC graphic showing a 20' water level rise are just the tip. There are certainly people out there who have parsed the movie more than I since I do not care to waste more time on the film. The point remains, the films should be treated equally (at least somewhat equally) and they are not. Speaks volumes about the "NPOV" of Wikipedia on controversial topics...and also speaks about the dual standards in place. -- Tony of Race to the Right 18:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Guys, guys, this is the wrong place for such talk. Try to stick to our mutual aim: to write a factually correct article about this film. If there is disagreement as to what the "facts about this film" are, we need to abide be Wikipedia:NPOV. --Uncle Ed 21:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Paid scientists

Durkin makes the point in his programme that tens of thousands of scientists are employed by organisations (governments, the UN, etc.) that support human global warming. This is why I added "paid scientists" to the article, but it appears that somebody has not realised this and removed it. Also, how come Durkin "claims" everything, but Wunsch merely "says" things? How do we know that it isn't Wunsch who is being disingenuous, fearing for his funds? Basically, we just don't know. TharkunColl 08:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't take this seriously. The implication is that we should be listening to the scientists who aren't paid? And while I'm prepared to look at use of "claimed" vs. "said", TharkunColl, you replaced "said" with "stigmatised". If that isn't loaded I don't know what is. --Merlinme 08:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is that tens of thousands of scientists are employed in the global warming industry. They are bound to have louder voices simply through numbers. TharkunColl 08:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually thought the "vested interests" part of the programme was one of the more persuasive bits. However this was weakened for me when I realised quite how few climate scientists actually disagree that human beings are warming the planet. I mean, they're surely not all lefty liberals in the pay of the green lobby. And even non climate scientists who you would not expect to toe the party line, like Leroi, who I think it is fair to describe as a maverick for his views on race, found flaws in the programme's arguments after about an hour's research. Even the scientists (e.g. Christy) who disagree with the consensus tend to focus on very specific areas. It seems to be quite hard to deny the basic science of global warming. --Merlinme 12:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The vested interests story really falls down with the non-climate scientists. Since research funds are scarce, they can only lose if climate science gets more. So, if it were bogus you'd expect them to say so as they did, loudly wrt cold fusion.JQ 12:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

There's very little difference between "claims" and "says." Typically one does not "claim" their opinion; they state (or say) it. ~ UBeR 18:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, of course, very many of the most respected scientists are tenured professors, i.e. they have a lifetime position and simply cannot loose their jobs due to lack of funding (or even be fired). Of course one can construct weaker motives (it's certainly nice to have grants), but it is very hard to believe that that would compromise the academic integrity of so many different researchers in so many different countries.--Stephan Schulz 10:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Guys, guys, this is the wrong place for such talk. Try to stick to our mutual aim: to write a factually correct article about this film. --Uncle Ed 21:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The "paid scientists" claim violates WP:NOR.

However, a consistent verb should be used for Wunsch vis-a-vis Durkin per WP:NPOV. - TedFrank 01:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, wrong, wrong

The article currently says something to the effect that Durkin said that he thinks global warming is "wrong, wrong, wrong". This in incorrect. Durkin merely said that global warming is "wrong, wrong, wrong" - he did not say that he "thinks" it is. TharkunColl 08:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would have thought that's implied- it's obviously his opinion- but ok, I'll change it. --Merlinme 08:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Percentage of scientists

Disputed passage in intro:

One of the film's primary targets is the scientific opinion on climate change held by the majority of climate scientists. Except when making a counter-argument, the film does not attempt to explain why these scientists think that modern global warming is caused mostly by human activity.

The first sentence asserts that the majority of climate scientists accept the UN's assessement. However, the only surveys conducted are inconclusive. And the word "majority" should be clarified. Does it mean 51% or what?

Also there is no source for the assertion that even 51% of scientist "think that modern global warming is caused mostly by human activity." That view is obviously what the United Nations IPCC says, but it's not clear how many climatologists accept this.

Recent discussions of the new Wikipedia:Attribution policy indicate that we contributors should back off from asserting percentages when we do not know them. --Uncle Ed 12:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with this, Ed, if I could think of a better way to phrase it. In the absence of any significant number of climate scientists disagreeing with it (Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming), I don't think we really need to know whether it's 90% or 99% of climate scientists who agree with this opinion. There's not very many scientists on the "opposing" list, there's even fewer climate scientists on the list, and the ones who are on that list tend to dispute very specfic points. Yes I know we're not supposed to use Wikipedia as a source, but surely this is just a matter of fact? Are you saying there are lots of climate scientists not on that list who should be? If so, why haven't they been added to the Wikipedia article? --Merlinme 13:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be using Wikipedia as a source here. Do you have a source which says identifies any particular assessment of global warming as "mainstream" or which asserts that "no significant number" of climate scientists disagree with that assessment? --Uncle Ed 18:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I would be happier with "large majority" of climate scientists, rather than "majority". I originally phrased it as "nearly universally". --Merlinme 13:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree this needs to be properly sourced. 2,500 scientists signed the IPCC report vs 20,000 who signed the Oregon petition. Iceage77 14:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the same old argument we've had on sci op and GW. Having it again is pointless; this is nothing but trolling by Ed who should know better William M. Connolley 14:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: the Oregon petition: "In 2005, Scientific American reported: “ Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400* signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. 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." If Scientific American calls it "rather a small fraction", I would say that is a Reliable Source for saying that a "rather large fraction" agrees that human caused global warming is happening. And even then, the petition is phrased in a very particular way, emphasising the "catastrophic" parts of global warming, the ones which Wunsch, for example, might disagree with. It does not dispute the existence of global warming. --Merlinme 14:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) This looks good. Let's use Scientific American as the source for the assertion that "a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community" disgree with the mainstream. --Uncle Ed 18:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Connolley, stop trolling here. You nuisance is perhaps needed elsewhere, but not here. Ed Poor is correct in the sense that if we say "a majority" of so and so believe so and so, it NEEDS TO BE SOURCED. Look at WP:A if you don't believe me. (And no, Wikipedia is not a valid source; linking to to scientific opinion on climate change does not constitute referencing.) Additionally, what's being said has to reflect precisely what the source is saying. Academia is stringent on this--Wikipedia should and does follow the same pattern. It just needs comparable enforcement. ~ UBeR 17:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Is everybody happy with the current version, which seems a bit clumsy to me, but does stick to a statement of fact? --Merlinme 18:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Uber, stop being tediously unpleasant. Merlinme, since predominant scientific opinion on climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature is stronger and more accurate, I'm quite happy with it William M. Connolley 18:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Guys, guys, can you stop squabbling long enough to talk about the article? I'd like to ask some questions and make some suggestions. --Uncle Ed 18:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The irony of User:Ed Poor asking others to "stop squabbling" is duly noted. Raymond Arritt 18:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, touché, but I'd really like to see less name-calling, you smelly toad! ;-) --Uncle Ed 18:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately, we have a good source on what scientific papers say, as opposed to what scientists believe. I've added it.JQ 20:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I see Uncle Ed who routinely demands attribution, promptly deleted the link to material from an authorative source. Note that the source gives a link to letters, including those of Peiser which all support the statement regarded the overwhelming majority. Peiser scores it 900-30, compared to Oreskes 900-0. I've reincluded this point JQ 21:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I removed a good link. Please post a diff, so if I made a mistake I can learn from it. --Uncle Ed 21:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Poor Grammar

I reverted Connolley's latest mod because "polemic" is repeated twice in the same sentence. Articles should attempt to use the English language correctly. Peterlewis 20:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted even further, against my own preferences, as an expression of good faith. I still think "polemic" should be a quote from Channel 4 - not an assessment by a bunch of amateur encyclopedia writers. Undo my self-revert if you think I went too far. --Uncle Ed 20:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I can live without "polemic" in the first sentence; the lead is a little cleaner that way. Use of the word "polemic" was not an assessment of Wikipedia writers but in fact followed a direct quote from Channel 4 (as you would have seen had you read the entire article). Raymond Arritt 21:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

We are not in the habit of stating the opinions of anonymous people at TV broadcasters as fact. - Merzbow 21:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, editors who have an opinion on the use of the word "polemical" stated as fact in reference to this documentary should also keep an eye on another article, where the same thing is being attempted: An_Inconvenient_Truth#The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle. - Merzbow 23:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I can also live with the way polemic is currently used. We are not stating the opinions of anonymous people at TV broadcasters as fact; we're quoting newspaper articles, there is a difference (reliable journalists are expected to have reliable sources). Two different journalists (working for different news organisations) quote Channel 4 describing the programme as a polemic. On a separate issue, please keep arguments about An Inconvenient Truth on the talk page of An Inconvenient Truth. Thanks. --Merlinme 07:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

And if they described the film as the greatest documentary ever produced, would we be justified in stating so as fact? And anyways, if somebody is editing a section about the subject of this article in another article, and justifying their edits by saying "it's done that way in this article", I have every right to point people here to it. - Merzbow 22:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Using the word "documentary" gives more weight to it than justified. And "polemical documentary" is an oxymoron. It is either a polemic portrayed as a documentary, or we could just call it a "film", which is what Michael Moore's works are called on his page. Skyemoor 12:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is it an oxymoron? Nothing in the definition of "polemic" (used as an adjective this means containing a controversial argument) or "documentary" implies mutual exclusivity, unless you take a documentary to mean something which tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth (which can almost certainly never be said about any "documentary" I've ever seen). QmunkE 14:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I went back to calling it a documentary film (because it is) and leaving polemic in the following sentence attributed to Channel 4 (because it's true), and got reverted because, apparently, placing the unverified POV that it actually is a polemic documentary (when only one group considers it as such) is a "compromise." I'm not sure how that can be. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Much as I agree with you that this is a documentary (and if there was a definitive source on this I would be pushing for use of "documentary" alone) there are sources which describe this programme as polemic or polemical. So, if you can find sources which dispute this claim then I would say that yes, it should be described as a "documentary" and then in the controversy section (or perhaps a new section on classification of the programme) then please do. However, until that happens the sources favour the description as "polemical documentary". Please let's not edit-war over this, that's exactly what the protection on this article was designed to pre-emt. Discuss changes on the talk page first. QmunkE 14:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A source, as far as I can see, claims it's "essentially a polemic." That's far from establishing as such in the first sentence, which is what we're doing here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. We simply will not have terms with a heavy negative connotation stated as fact, when such words has been used once by a single source to describe the film. If anything this illustrates the heavy POV bias on the side of those who repeatedly try to put this in. Why is it so hard to understand that controversial opinions CANNOT be stated as fact? It is more than enough to have the sentence later on in the lead which attributes the opinion to Channel 4. - Merzbow 16:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversial opinions stated as facts? The producer has admitted that at least some of the information presented was falsified. There is so much bias and omission of research findings on the majority side that this is simply an argument against current scientific findings. Skyemoor 17:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Random House Unabridged 2006:

po·lem·ic /pəˈlɛmɪk, poʊ-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[puh-lem-ik, poh-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. a controversial argument, as one against some opinion, doctrine, etc. 2. a person who argues in opposition to another; controversialist. –adjective 3. Also, po·lem·i·cal. of or pertaining to a polemic; controversial.

doc·u·men·ta·ry /ˌdɒkyəˈmɛntəri, -tri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dok-yuh-men-tuh-ree, -tree] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, noun, plural -ries. –adjective 2. Movies, Television. based on or re-creating an actual event, era, life story, etc., that purports to be factually accurate and contains no fictional elements: a documentary life of Gandhi. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/documentary

Hence, this is not a documentary. Skyemoor 16:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this is a documentary to me from that definition. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

So, the film does not argue against some opinion or doctrine? That's an interesting perspective on a film that claims to "challenge the commonly-held view." Raymond Arritt 17:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter hugely to me if it's called a documentary or film, as long as polemic is not stated as fact. Quoting directly from a dictionary is a poor way to argue this point, since it completely ignores the connotations implied by the term in daily usage. The fact that editors removed "polemic" from the lead of An Inconvenient Truth when, in fairness, I tried to use it to describe Al Gore's film also, proves to me that everyone here is perfectly aware of these negative connotations, since that film also meets the bare technical definition of the term above. - Merzbow 17:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The bigger problem is the weight of the word more than the accuracy. Technically, everything and everyone with an opinion is a polemic - you don't start calling them that without firmer evidence, though, especially here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

In the present version the lead simply calls it a "controversial film". Channel 4's description of their program as a "polemic" is given later in a direct quote. Overall I think this is a good compromise. Raymond Arritt 17:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The edit in particular was POV - it's a documentary film, that's what it is. To simply call it a film is taking the position that it's less than what it is, and the edits on the talk page here prove that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

First, the movie Inconvenient Truth isn't arguing against the accepted scientific stance, it's only presenting it. Second, what a person wants or perceives the definiton of documentary doesn't simply make it so. This is certainly a controversial argument against scientific opinion, which are the discriminating attributes that make this a polemic instead of a documentary. The edits on the talk page in favor of your opinion indeed do not prove it is a documentary by any stretch of the imagination. Skyemoor 17:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

To use An Inconvenient Truth as an example, it takes a position on global warming, a position that's against an opposing position. It's arguing against, say, the stance that The Great Global Warming Swindle argues for. So, technically, it's a polemic. We don't call it a polemic because we don't have the reliable sources to call it such and we recognize that the word carries a POV. Second, I agree - so why did you change it? My pointing out that your removal of documentary film was POV is based on your interpretation of a dictionary definition - meanwhile, the amount of sources calling it a documentary are staggering, so I'll be reincluding it now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:45, 22 March 2007 (

UTC)

You still aren't using the term polemic in its correct sense; just taking a position isn't intrinsically polemic, it is one that is controversial and against an established opinion, doctrine, etc. Just because you don't like the fact that anthropogenic GW is an established scientific position has no bearing on how we define that position here. Skyemoor 18:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have a look at the Wikipedia link for documentary film, TGGWS doesn't actually fit the definition particularly well. I'm not sure how it attempts to 'document reality'. Further down the page there is an argument about whether such things should be called "docu-ganda", although I can't see TGGWS supporters liking that description. Channel 4 described it in its listings as a "polemical documentary", so it seems to me we have about as much justification for calling it "polemical" as we do for calling it "documentary". I really don't care what we call it, to be honest, as long as we recognise that it's controversial and one sided (which is the classic definition of a polemic, but whatever). I just wish the edit-warring would stop. --Merlinme 17:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

badlydrawnjeff, you just linked to an article where Channel 4 calls TGGWS a: "polemical and thought-provoking documentary". Could we have the quote in full, please? --Merlinme 17:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It's apparent nearly every source labels it as a documentary. The definitions fits the film. Second, one quote by an anonymous channel 4 staff doesn't necessarily warrant it's inclusion in the opening statement, especially considering the quote is written just a few sentences later. ~ UBeR 18:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"Controversial film documentary" is fine, as long as a "polemic" quote is in the lead somewhere. I'm assuming no-one would deny it's controversial? --Merlinme 18:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Having Ann Coulter, Fred Singer, and other rightwing extremists calling this film a documentary does not by any means lend credence to us calling it so here, unless we balance that with the word 'polemical', as it clearly fits the definition above. The falsification of data and omission of key scientific findings obviate a match with "factually accurate and contains no fictional elements". Skyemoor 18:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think "polemical documentary film" is NPOV? Your tossing of Coulter and Singer and "rightwing extremists" is further proof of my position that your edits are not reflecting a NPOV treatment of this subject, and are rather designed to shift the perception of the subkect. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Skyemoor, if you're going to use a definition to make a point, at least use the whole thing, otherwise you're doing exactly what you claim this programme does. The word "purports" in the dictionary.com definition implies that the programme in question presents its contents as fact. Do you disagree that this is what the programme is doing? QmunkE 20:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) - If we can agree to just call it a "film" in the first sentence, then we can short-circuit all attempts at POV-pushing by the presentation of controversial descriptors as facts. Everyone should then feel free to say elsewhere in the lead that this or that source(s) call it a polemic, a documentary, or whatever. - Merzbow 20:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Lets stop trying to play the game of hearsay. It is Wikipedia's duty not present the ideas of its editors, but rather those of verifiable and reliable sources in such a way that it keeps a neutral point of view. These are three most fundamental rules of Wikipedia and are necessary to ensure its respectability and fidelity. If one pundit published some statement regarding this film as the "best film ever made," we cannot go on write that without attributing that idea to the specific author. To say otherwise would fly in the face of the very fundamental idea of attribution. As we see, have already clearly laid out the idea of an anonymous Channel 4 staff member by having written, "Cannel 4 said, 'It is essentially a polemic . . .'" This satisfies the criteria listed above. ~ UBeR 22:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC

The articles for Fahrenheit 9/11, Outfoxed and An Inconvenient Truth all call those films "documentaries." Any other label for this documentary is a plain violation of NPOV. It's not the case in Wikipedia that left-wing propaganda gets a neutral description and right-wing films get a pejorative one. -- TedFrank 21:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No one has addressed this point, yet an editor unilaterally decided to change the introduction. Why have an RFC if one is going to ignore the comments produced by the RFC? -- TedFrank 12:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This page may as well be written by the IPCC

This article is most definitely in the crosshairs of a disinformation campaign. The emphasis on "who is right, and who is wrong about graphs" is all well and true to be a central issue of the article, however I feel it needs to be condensed to allow other areas that the documentary draws on to be included, i.e; how development in Africa is stymied by enviromentalists through the UN under the guise of saving the planet. And possibly the origins of the green movement.

Also, Mr Durkin is having his character polluted in ways that go beyond the pale. Go to the article covering An Inconvenient Truth to see the inconsistencies, one of their producers who believes (unlike Mr Durkin) that man made CO2 is most responsible for global warming zips around the country in a private lear jet, well, three 10-hour flights (roundtrip) in a private jet for holiday/business represents 180,000 pounds of CO2, or the equivalent to the CO2 output on average of 9 people in the US for an entire year. If such a profound discrepancy were to be made in relation to what Mr Durkin preached and then practised it would be jumped all over like white on rice by the myth advocates and placed prominently on the article that covers a documentary he made, and not simply palmed off on the page that covers him personally. (personal ad hominem innuendo against producers of An Inconvenient Truth are downplayed versus those of the The Great Global Warming Swindle) --Dean1970 20:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Describe the sentences in the article that you contend are unencyclopedic, then we can discuss their merits. Skyemoor 12:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Words, words, words

I'm tired of the whole thing, so I'll just sum up before the matter drives me crazy.

One. Is it a polemic / is it polemical?

• polemical = disputatious
• polemic =
  1. an aggressive attack on or refutation of the opinions or principles of another [37]
  2. a controversial argument, as one against some opinion, doctrine, etc. (Random House, quoted above)

Attitude: Is the film disputatious or aggressive? And who cares? Is the argument controversial?

Jolly good. Its both 1 and 2. Is the film disputatious or aggressive - yes. Who cares - the people editing this page. Controversial - obviously William M. Connolley 21:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Content: Does the film attack or refute anything? Is it "against" anything?

The opinions or principles being refuted in GGWS would be those of the pro-AGW side of the global warming controversy. I haven't seen the film myself, but I've read their web site twice. I see a lot of disagreement with mainstream thought there.

In case we contributing editors cannot decide whether any of these definitions describes the film, I suggest we quote a verifiable source. We have a newspaper which (in turn) cites a source at Channel 4. No one here doubts that the newspaper's anonymous source is real, do they?

Two. Is it a documentary?

• purports to be factually accurate and contains no fictional elements

Well, they say its factually accurate (as opposed to being a historical drama (Gone With The Wind) or complete fiction (Harry Potter).

But Merriam-Webster implies that documentary as an adjective means objective and factual, so there's the rub. --Uncle Ed 21:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Its hopelessly inaccurate. It deliberately faked graphs and used misleading info William M. Connolley 21:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ed, not to be condescending, but we already have a section in this talk page discussing this. ~ UBeR 22:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR and WP:NPOV violation

For some reason, the entire global warming debate is rehashed in this article. This is a violation of WP:OR except to the extent there are reliable sources explicitly discussing that debate in relation to this documentary. The entire article needs rewriting: there is no way that scientific papers predating the documentary are appropriate sources for contentions made in the article. -- TedFrank 22:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't a clue of what you're talking about. The claims section is verifiable via the documentary. The criticisms and reactions published in various newspapers on Web sites are all linked to. (In the criticism section we have the journalist saying "the film is wrong in so and so because of so and so." The person who said that is cited. In that, we're not disputing the science ourselves, but rather pulling quotes from the journalists and attributing it to them.) Can you perhaps give some specific occurrence in which you believe there might be an infringement on the WP:OR policy? ~ UBeR 23:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This is my proposed edit removing original research (and some redundant and extraneous material), which was reverted with the false claim that I did not explain the deletions in the edit summary. The introduction inappropriately editorializes about global warming, and critics get lots of WP:OR citations supporting their claims, while there is no such use of footnoting for supporters or the film's claims--a violation of both WP:OR and WP:NPOV. My edit was appropriate. -- TedFrank 23:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added tags rather than get into an edit war. -- TedFrank 23:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that the deletions included a cited link to a summary of the peer-reviewed literature, published in a leading journal.JQ 23:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. This summary violates WP:OR and WP:NPOV, in particular WP:SYN. Please read those policies and guidelines. -- TedFrank 23:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

TedFrank, some of your recent edits have been detrimental. You're adding {{or}} tags to sentences that are clearly referenced. That is not the purpose of those tags. Again, I ask that you present specific parts or sentences you disagree with or you think constitute original research or violate NPOV. ~ UBeR 00:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I presented specific parts and sentences I disagreed with by tagging the article. Again, see WP:SYN: Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. One doesn't get to combine two sources, no matter how well referenced, to make an unsourced argument. Even if there wasn't a synthesis violation, there's an NPOV violation when the article marshals many scientific sources to make points that the documentary disagrees with, and ignores the scientific sources that support the arguments of the documentary. -- TedFrank 00:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

_{(Edit conflict)}I don't know how I can make this much more clearer to you, but can please copy and paste your disputed sentences here on the talk page. I cannot help you unless you do this. You say that there is a violation of the synthesis policy, but you have failed to present any specifics. How are we supposed to debate this if you cannot present your argument without example? I have, in fact, gone through some of the tags you have listed as OR and I wonder if you have actually read them. Clearly, the Royal Society's reference mimics precisely what is being said about the national academies of science. What thing you listed as OR could be verified via the documentary. If need be, I can make an inline reference for the film. Moreover, your last reversion of my edit actually erased what could have possibly been weasel words in the section you listed as NPOV do to weasel words, despite the fact you have not given me any specific information on what you think is weaselly. I do not think this is the right approach Ted... ~ UBeR 00:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

convenience break 1

There is a tag next to every single sentence I found to violate the synthesis guideline. The claim that the Royal Academy of Science disagrees with the film is original research: the cite does not mention the film at all. Yes, it's reliably sourced that the film disagrees with the consensus; yes, it's reliably sourced that the Royal Academy supports the consensus; but one cannot synthesize those points to write in the article "The film disagrees with the Royal Academy of Science" without a specific source for that last claim. Again, Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. Doing so violates WP:OR. -TedFrank 00:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that much. But let me try to explain to you this: You agree the film disagrees with the consensus? And you agree the G8 nations endorse the the consensus (as provided by the Royal society reference)? Then consequently you must logically agree the film disagrees with the G8 nations' opinion on the consensus? This is what is precisely what is written and does not constitute as a violation of the synthesis policy. If you wish to think of it logically, synthesis as explained by the policy can be as explained as: If A then B. If C then D. Therefore, if A and C then E. Obviously this is a fallacy and is not allowed per WP:SYN. But what is explained in the article can be demonstrated as followed (called hypothetical syllogism in philosophy): If Q then R. If P then Q. Therefore, if P then R. This is valid and this is what is presented in the article. ~ UBeR 00:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's not logically valid. I'm not even saying it's false. I'm saying that it is forbidden by Wikipedia's WP:OR policies and doesn't belong in the article. You'll note that the example in WP:SYN is both logically valid and true, yet is explicitly forbidden. -- TedFrank 00:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the example in WP:SYN is not even well-formed, as there is that little rider "to advance position C". --Stephan Schulz 00:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Attribution#No_original_research, material is original research if introduces an analysis, synthesis, explanation or interpretation of published facts, opinions, or arguments that advances a point that cannot be attributed to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article. -- TedFrank 01:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the Science Academies support the scientific opinion on climate change is not a synthesis; they state this plainly. Skyemoor 10:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

So what? In the WP:SYN example, the quote from the Chicago Manual of Style is stated plainly. It's still a violation of WP:NOR. -- TedFrank 12:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"The claim that the Royal Academy of Science disagrees with the film is original research: " You have misquoted the article, so this complaint is invalid. You haven't stated specifically what you think is the actual synthesis violation, you've only referred to the SYN example. Skyemoor 12:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Criminy, it was a freaking paraphrase of "The film's main target is the predominant scientific opinion on climate change as given in the peer-reviewed scientific literature[3][β] and recognised by the scientific academies of the major industrialized nations [1] and other professional scientific bodies," and wasn't an inaccurate paraphrase at that. Either way, it is still a violation of WP:SYN. -- TedFrank 15:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

convenience break 2

• Except when making a counter-argument the film does not attempt to explain the scientific reasons that these scientists say that modern global warming is caused mostly by human activity.

This is probably true, but needs a cite. -- TedFrank 01:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• The film's main target is the predominant scientific opinion on climate change as given in the peer-reviewed scientific literature[3][β][improper synthesis?] and recognised by the scientific academies of the major industrialized nations [1][improper synthesis?] and other professional scientific bodies.

This strikes me as improper synthesis to push a point of view; not a single cited source mentions the film. "The film's main target is the predominant scientific opinion on climate change" (with any appropriate wikilinks) is sufficient. -- TedFrank 01:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with provided a minor amount of context to go along with the wikilink; this is a standard WP practice. Skyemoor 11:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:SYN says otherwise, this is more than a "minor amount of context" and it's a violation of NPOV to provide supporting context for only one side in a debate. -- TedFrank 12:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's your POV that this is more than a minor amount of context. This film is an argument against the established scientific consensus, so context for the consensus is appropriate, as the rest of the article is about the film's side. Skyemoor 12:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Changes in solar activity match changes in global temperatures much more accurately than do changes in CO2 levels (Eigil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen, 1991).

Does the film cite Friis-Christensen and Lassen? The sentence needs to be rewritten to clarify whether the reference to the two scientists comes from the film or is improper synthesis to push the POV of the film -- TedFrank 01:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ted, Eigil Friis-Christensen appeared in the film and said this. Paul Matthews 17:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

alpha footnote

• He contradicted two of the programme's statements that "the troposphere is warming less than the surface" and that "volcanic eruptions emit more carbon dioxide than fossil fuel burning".[α]

The alpha footnote is entirely inappropriate original research/synthesis. Let the Houghton article speak for itself. There's also an NPOV problem: no claims from the other side have footnotes on the scientific support for their claims. -- TedFrank 01:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no POV problem because there isn't any scientific support for these claims. For example, to my knowledge there aren't any published journal articles at all that state "volcanic eruptions emit more carbon dioxide than fossil fuel burning"; such a claim is patently absurd to anyone with minimal knowledge of the relevant science. It's the scientific version of an urban legend, if you will. There aren't always two sides -- as difficult as it may be to believe, some things simply are facts. Raymond Arritt 02:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty appalling behavior by the documentary filmmakers. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia standard is verifiability, rather than truth, so articles have to tolerate a lot of nonsense to comply with NPOV. (See, e.g., homeopathy or orthomolecular medicine.) A better option to get the same option out there is a wikilink to a Wikipedia article (or, more likely, section of Wikipedia article) that debunks the nonsense. Perhaps a volcanos and global warming article is called for; the material in the alpha footnote would be appropriate for that article, and one gets around the SYN problem. The genesis of the volcano claim is interesting, too. -- TedFrank 03:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Rush Limbaugh, Lyndon LaRouche -- it doesn't get much better than that! Raymond Arritt 03:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Wikipedia articles do not constitute as source to cite. ~ UBeR 04:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying cite the Wikipedia article as a source. I'm saying create a Wikipedia article (or section of the global warming controversy article) to wikilink to so that useful information that doesn't belong in this article doesn't get lost when it gets removed from this article. The volcanos legend is notable, but this article isn't the place for it. -- TedFrank 10:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I've been trying to argue my idea I posted previously about synthesis and logical deduction the policy talk page. Enchanter makes it pretty clear. ~ UBeR 02:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally find it absurd that an encyclopedia cannot direct its readers on matters of fact. Houghton does not make his sources clear for his two statements (well, to be precise, I think his sources are the entirety of the IPCC report, which is not very helpful to us). We're not allowed to give Wikipedia links as sources; articles may not necessarily exist on the topics being discussed; so are we seriously saying that we're not allowed to give notes to reputable third party sources which confirm whether a statement is factually accurate or not? What is this, an encyclopedia or a newspaper clippings amalgamation device? Some of the statements about synthesis I agree with, and I agree the British media section needs to be trimmed. The statement on scientific consensus is probably too long as well. We remove the notes on matters of fact over my dead body, though. --Merlinme 10:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

See my 10:22 note above for one solution. There are, for better or worse, lots of Wikipedia articles where matters of fact are treated as matters of debate. I find many of the Cuba articles appalling because NPOV requires communist propaganda on human rights questions to be treated with equal value. -- TedFrank 10:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Just because there are no scientific findings that support the volcano > human emissions doesn't make the scientific findings we have now NPOV, nor does citing them make the article NPOV. One can't give equal weight to Flat Earther's, for example, just because they have no scientific basis and we therefore would have to eliminate cites that report findings on the shape of the Earth as an approximate sphere. Skyemoor 11:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The WP:SYN issue remains. -- TedFrank 12:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You have not supplied a description of the actual synthesis you believe to be in violation of SYN, hence such a claim is void. Skyemoor 12:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote. -- TedFrank 14:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that Houghton misquoted the film - it didnt make this claim about volcanoes. It talked about volcanoes plus other natural sources, see channel 4 site. So I suggest we omit this. Paul Matthews 17:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Paul - unfortunatly wrong.... (00:24:48-00:25:00) "Volcanoes produce more CO2 each year - than all the factories and cars and planes and other man-made sources of carbondioxide put together" - it then continues with "more still comes from.....". It is not the site that is the source here - its the actual "documentary". --Kim D. Petersen 22:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

realclimate cite

• realclimate blog

I see now that RealClimate has a Wikipedia entry that identifies it as notable, so I withdraw my question whether this is a reliable source. -- TedFrank 01:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize that a Wikipedia link was a precondition to being notable. Where is this rule stated? Skyemoor 11:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere. It's sufficient, not necessary, and the information in the Wikipedia entry is persuasive (to me at least) on the question of whether it is a reliable source. I just hadn't previously heard of the blog; global warming science isn't my forte'. -- TedFrank 12:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

After having read the synthesis policy as a part of the WP:OR policy, and discussing it with a few administrators, I agree with the above statements. As for the RealClimate, well that was inserted by the administrator who wrote the blog, so be wary of the obvious bias and POV pushing from self published sources, especially those of blogs. ~ UBeR 01:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Cognizant of the WP:COI issue of the editor who originally inserted it, I'll vouch for its inclusion as a notable point of view; it meets RS, and readers can decide for themselves whether the fact that it was published on a blog makes it less reliable. The reality is that a lot of important work is being published on blogs these days, especially for a current-event issue like this. -- TedFrank 02:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

weasel language

"Doubts have similarly been raised" is weasel language (as well as poor English use of the passive voice). The source is a self-published blog. Identify the people who raised the doubts. -- TedFrank 00:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is exhibited now: The "doubts" are raised not by a scientist, but by Steve Connor, a journalist, yet was placed in the "reactions from scientists" section, when the Connor critique of the documentary was already in the "reactions from British media section". Hence the problem with the weasel words and use of the passive voice. -- TedFrank 00:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Valid enough. While the argument is perhaps about the science (really, the data presented, which doesn't constitute more more than a few graphs), it's done by a journalist. It doesn't belong in reaction from scientists. ~ UBeR 01:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Reactions from British media

Many of the cited press stories don't say anything notable, and many are redundant. Can we trim this? -- TedFrank 00:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's becoming more and more redundant, that section. ("My dear, some bloke in the newspaper said he disagreed with the film... again.") ~ UBeR 01:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahhrg! It's a CONSPIRACY to CENSOR the TRUTH! And I don't KNOW how TO select CAPITALIZED words FOR maximum COMIC effect! Ermm.... Sorry, went into "skeptic" mode for a second. If, as Ted will probably insist, we cannot synthesize "reception in the press was overwhelmingly negative and pointed out the many inaccuracies and the misleading presentation", the next best thing is to quote a fair cross-selection of the press. --Stephan Schulz 12:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for a fair cross-selection of the press. Organizationally, we can consolidate all the Monbiot columns into a single paragraph, the March 5 Daily Mail cite is utterly non-notable, and distinguish between the columns that perform detailed rebuttals and consolidate the ones that are just political thrashing into a single paragraph. -- TedFrank 14:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The way forward

convenience break: "controversial documentary film"

I've spent a lot of time on this article and I was kind of hoping it would have settled down a little more than it has, given that I do have a day job. But there we are, Wikipedia is an ongoing project.

TedFrank, you do make valid points, but the problem is that a lot of what you raise we had problems with before, i.e. it's very difficult to find a solution which pleases all sides. Controversial areas:

1) What to call the programme: "controversial documentary film" seems to be an acceptable compromise, especially with the Channel 4 "polemic" quote in the lead. --Merlinme 12:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"Controversial film" would be fine, but adding "documentary" gives undue weight per the definition provided above (the producer has already admitted to falsification of data). "Polemic" is appropriate, due to the definition above, as previously and thoroughly stated. Skyemoor 13:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"Constroversial documentary film" is accurate, verifiable, and NPOV. We simply can't accept anything less, and the polemic sentence attributed to the Channel Four quote is more than adequate to deal with that issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael Moore falsified data, too, and unlike Durkin, hasn't made any corrections. His movie gets called a documentary. NPOV requires the encyclopedia to withhold editorial judgment. It's not a question of "pleasing all the sides": it's not a diplomatic letter. It's a question of satisfying Wikipedia editorial policies. -- TedFrank 14:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Go to the article on Michael Moore and you'll see his features are listed as 'films', not documentaries. And how one interprets policies and attempts to bluff their way through are two different things altogether. Skyemoor 17:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

People keep claiming the creator admitted to falsifying data. Either step up to the plate and support these accusations, or don't mention them again. And on point, "controversial documentary film" is fine, and so is "controversial film", and so is just "film". - Merzbow 17:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I can agree to the latter two. Skyemoor 17:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

So will you be wandering over to An Inconvenient Truth, Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael and Me, and Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price and making the same changes? My hope is that you wouldn't be. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

convenience break: description of scientific consensus

2) How to describe the scientific consensus: I originally tried something like "the programme disagrees with the opinion on global warming supported by the large majority of climate scientists". This is simple, and acknowledges the contrary view without giving it undue weight. This was criticised however for not being specific about the percentage of climate scientists who agree with this opinion (which is essentially unknowable, but there we are). So I then changed it to something like: "the opinion on climate change supported by the scientific academies of the G8 countries", which is true and more precise, although clumsier. People then wanted to be more specific about exactly what that opinion meant, which is how we ended up with what we have now, which probably gives too much space to outlining the counterargument. I propose we go back to a simpler statement of the consensus using the G8 academies as evidence of this consensus.--Merlinme 12:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also suggest keeping the wikilink to the scientific opinion on climate change, so that we don't focus on just the G8 subset. Skyemoor 13:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with Skyemoor on this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

We don't need "evidence of the consensus." Just wikilink to the article discussing the consensus; if there's a RS that says "the movie contradicts the consensus" (and there has to be), cite to that, also. -- TedFrank 14:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

convenience break: scientific notes

3) The scientific notes: I originally added the notes in the text to give people some way of referring to reliable 3rd party sources on whether these statements were true or not. These were then moved to the a separate notes section, which is fair enough. If it would help placate people, I'll remove the quote from the Climate Change Science Report, which is arguably leading the reader too much.--Merlinme 12:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how, it is simply a government publication, not one from an advocacy group. It is no different than the USGS. Skyemoor 13:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No real opinion on this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the quote from the USGS should stay though, because a) I can't imagine anyone describes them as biased and b) the page linked to actually has the information more than halfway down in a slightly unobvious paragraph. I do strongly believe we should be able to direct people to reliable sources for what are essentially matters of scientific fact. I don't view this as synthesis.--Merlinme 12:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Government publications aren't ever advocacy? In any event, the issue is one of WP:SYN. The place to debate the science is the global warming controversy article or other such articles. If we debate the science here, we just turn this article into a mirror of that one. Wikilink to the appropriate article. Keep this article focused on the film. -- TedFrank 14:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a Bush Administration publication, so take full advantage of it. The place to debate AGW is indeed other places, but this film deals with the subject and contrasts itself with established scientific opinion, so the article would be remiss not to explain this. Plus, any notable criticisms of the film are also part of the article. Skyemoor 17:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

convenience break: British media section

4) The British media section: I propose we cut it down, giving each paper a paragraph, and summarising the most significant points from each.--Merlinme 12:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok by me. Skyemoor 13:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Same. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. We can keep the multiple cites, I just don't think each piddling op-ed gets a full paragraph unless, like the Connor, it says something notable. -- TedFrank 14:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

convenience break: summary

What does everyone think of that? --Merlinme 12:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the major problems exist in the lead - if we set the piece up with POV statements, it puts the rest of the article in bad shape. The lead must be NPOV and accurate, and I think the rest will fall in line. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Merlinme's suggestions (taken as a whole) are the best I've seen so far. --Uncle Ed 14:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• But I went ahead and got frisky with the intro, anyway. I hope we can discuss my version, instead of reverting peremptorily. Reverts tend to close discussion before it even starts. --Uncle Ed 14:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

One inaccuracy is that you used "prominent" instead of "prevailing." Doubtless a mere oversight. Raymond Arritt 14:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No, that was a deliberate dodge. I didn't want the article to evaluate the weightiness of the views critiqued by the film. At least not in the introduction.

But that gives me an idea: is the chief problem here that some of us want the article to remind readers that AGW theory is a "prevailing" view? Do some of us feel that it is beyond debate that "more than half" of climate scientists agree with AGW?

• And will this article be severely flawed if it fails to include such a reminder? --Uncle Ed 15:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The article will be severely flawed if it is worded so as to mislead the reader. If you want to use an adjective, "prominent" is the wrong one. Raymond Arritt 15:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"Prevailing", meaning "most frequent or common", is the appropriate adjective. -- TedFrank 16:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It may well be true that more than half of all climate scientists support the theory of human global warming. But as the film itself pointed out, that's because the vast majority of climate scientists are employed by bodies that support the theory of human global warming. This whole thing is far more of a sociological question than a scientific one. TharkunColl 15:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a point the film is making. Is that idea mentioned in the article? --Uncle Ed 15:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Odd that the 'skeptic' scientists are supported by industries that would lose market share with carbon caps. Skyemoor 17:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Should we mention this in a Wikipedia article? How about global warming controversy, which ought to have a section on (imputed) motivations of scientists who take sides on the AGW question. --Uncle Ed 18:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

convenience break: introduction

The Ed Poor version of the introduction also violates NPOV; WP:Lead section requires the introduction to identify notable controversies, and the current version does not do that. Can someone restore the tagged 1400 March 23 version, preferably through self-reversion? Let's hammer out a consensus here; if everyone adheres to Wikipedia policies and guidelines on NPOV and NOR, this shouldn't be especially controversial. -- TedFrank 16:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize I had failed to identify the controversy. I thought of calling it a "controversial film" in the first sentence, but left out the word controversial. (Flogs self with wet noodle.) Okay, I have paid penance! --Uncle Ed 18:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit-warring needs to stop

I'm really appalled at the edit-warring going on here. It is utterly inappropriate to simply delete tags because one or two editors think they don't belong--two editors and an administrator have stated that the syn tags are appropriate, and until a consensus is reached on resolving the problem, the tags are supposed to stay. Tags identify a lack of consensus. It is utterly inappropriate to both delete an NPOV tag and distort the neutrality of the lead paragraph even more at the same time. There is a real problem with WP:OWN here, and if editors can't edit collaboratively, I don't care how qualified they are, they're going to get blocked, no matter how valid they think their personal point of view is. Connolley, please self-revert your inappropriate removal of tags and improper violations of WP:NPOV. The breakdown of consensus is a reason to stop editing the article rather than to engage in edit-warring. -- TedFrank 16:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If you don't like edit warring, then stop doing it yourself & cease this holier-than-thou nonsense. Please don't pretend you have a consensus on the syn tags - more editors have removed them William M. Connolley 16:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

William, you greatly misunderstand how tags work in Wikipedia. Tags get removed when there is a consensus. Tags stay when there is not a consensus and identify the lack of consensus. Three editors have placed them there, and others have explicitly stated that they belong when someone raised the question on administrative talk pages. Do you really want to defend this edit if someone wants to complain about WP:NPOV and WP:DE violations? -- TedFrank 16:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There will never be a consensus of the type you describe on any global warming-related article, as there is a steady stream of people who attempt to push a POV that has no factual basis. Raymond Arritt 16:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

POV-pushing is a reason for a block, regardless of whether it's POV pushing "the truth" or one without factual basis. The standard for Wikipedia, for better or worse, is verifiability, not truth. -- TedFrank 16:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe co-opting another editor to game 3RR also is reason for a block (hint, hint). Raymond Arritt 16:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, please take it to arbitration. I've reverted precisely twice in the last 24 hours, stopped making edits, and requested a neutral user who at first disagreed with me and then was persuaded by my evidence with reference to Wikipedia policies to intervene. Removing tags and adding spiteful POV language to provoke an edit war is WP:DE, and I'm appalled to learn that Connolley is an administrator. If he doesn't self-revert, I'm complaining to AN/I. -- TedFrank 19:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with that edit, thanks. And no: you can't just make up a tag and then insist it must stay William M. Connolley 16:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Then let's take this to arbitration, and we'll see who's abiding by Wikipedia rules, since you're stating that it's appropriate to waylay discussion of OR problems, remove an NPOV tag and identify a film as "propaganda" in the first sentence. -- TedFrank 16:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Been there, done that.--Stephan Schulz 16:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's absolutely stunning to me that an administrator can be happy with such a blatantly POV edit. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you read the definition of propaganda, it's right on the mark. Skyemoor 18:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

prop·a·gan·da /ˌprɒpəˈgændə/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[prop-uh-gan-duh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc. 2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc. 3. the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement.

convenience break 3

I'm sorry, Mr. Connolley, but you simply cannot remove valid tags because "you don't like them." This is blatant disregard of Wikipedia policy. Ed Poor has advised you of this on your talk page not too long ago (which of course was conveniently deleted soon after). ~ UBeR 17:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

And I'm disappointed that an admin of the caliber of WMC is attempting to put in nonsense like "propaganda" seemingly out of spite here (see this edit). I notice that he was sanctioned by ArbCom in 2005, having been put on revert-parole for 6 months for edit-warring on climate-related articles. - Merzbow 17:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

And I am glad that WP has someone to fight off those who are intent on supporting propaganda. Keeping these articles accurate is an important job, and WMC has shown himself to be a champion for accuracy. When members of the American Enterprise Institute push to limit such accuracy, I too will ensure that POVs will be corrected. Skyemoor 18:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I would be very happy indeed if the edit warring would stop. Re: the lead: what on earth is wrong with "controversial documentary film", with the linked "polemic" quote from Channel 4? I think there has to be some compromise, and "polemical documentary" (or straight "documentary") is always going to be reverted. WMC, I understood your point of view, but calling it "propaganda film" seems pointless to me, it's just adding petrol to the flames. TedFrank, while I think you have some valid points, I do find your view of what Wikipedia can say extremely narrow, and I don't think you actually speak for the consensus on this article. The article had existed without tagging for a week or more, and I think it was more in need of cleanup than declaring the whole article broken. Ed Poor, while I think you have made some constructive edits, I really don't think it was very helpful to remove any reference at all to the standard view of global warming, especially when you replace it with references to "prominent scientific views" and "various scientific pronouncements". What scientific views? What pronouncements? It gives the strong impression that they're just some stuff some scientist other said some time, rather than something signed up to by what is essentially every significant scientific body who has ever looked at it. And (I don't think this is Ed Poor's edit, but all the same), why on earth do we now have the fact that it's a 75 minute film in the (currently very short) lead? Is this really one of the most significant things about the film?

Aarrrgh. Anyway, now that I have hopefully offended all sides equally :-), could everybody please calm down. It's only a programme, for crying out loud. If or when the page is unprotected, I would be very happy to do some work on it, notably in condensing the "British media" section. But it's the lead which causes the edit warring; could we try to achieve some consensus on a) what to call the film b) how to refer to what it's attacking (i.e. the standard scientific view of global warming). --Merlinme 17:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I hear a voice of reason in all that Merlinme says here. I can take criticism. (Ouch! Darn!) This doesn't mean I have to like it. (Rats! Phooey!) --Uncle Ed 18:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Merlinme, I agree with everything you say, except for one thing: it is absolutely incorrect that a tag can only be applied with consensus. All it takes to add a tag is an editor making a good-faith edit and backing up the addition of the tag on the talk page. It takes consensus to remove a tag, and that's simply not present here. -- TedFrank 19:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

convenience break 4

Skyemoor's personal attack has persuaded me that editing this page is a no-win proposition for me, as I risk attack no matter how good faith my edits are, and I get absolutely no benefit in trying to improve Wikipedia other than that I find it an interesting and addictive hobby. I'll take my leave and let others hash out this page's compliance with Wikipedia policies.

I've raised the conduct of an administrator on WP:AN/I, simply because if I were to engage in conduct half that blatant as an editor of a page on legal topics, I would face severe sanctions, and it dumbfounds me that an administrator can so easily disregard Wikipedia policies without fear of consequence. I've fought hard for WP:COI not to be applied in too overbroad a fashion because of the importance of editors like Connolly being able to share their knowledge in their areas of specialty, but his personal attacks, edit-warring, and misunderstanding of WP:NPOV really undermine that position. -- TedFrank 20:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What did I say that was a personal attack? Skyemoor 21:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views", though I didn't mention you in relation to the AEI. I retract my statement and offer my apology. Skyemoor 21:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

All those in favour of "controversial documentary film", with the "polemic" quote somewhere in the lead, say Aye. Those opposed say Nay

• Aye. --Merlinme 18:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Aye - P.S. Wikipedia is not a democracy. But consensus is important. ~ UBeR 18:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Nay, it's not a documentary, it's a one-sided polemic that the producer has agreed had a falsified chart. I'd go along with "controversial film". Skyemoor 18:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • First, every source states it's a documentary (including the detractors). Original research is not welcomed at Wikipedia. Second, an anonymous Channel 4 staffer called it "polemic"; using it unquoted stated-as-fact is undue weight in the first sentence. Having it quoted two sentences later is not. Third, the producer did not admit to falsifying a chart. He admitted the X axis was incorrect. There's a difference. Recognize it. ~ UBeR 18:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • First, you would need to show that "every source states it's a documentary (including the detractors)" because clearly that's not true (Houghton and RC do not call it a 'documentary'). Second, I have not problem with what you say, though I have a problem with the fact that you want to censor simple and appropriate use of some terms. Third, the information was falsified when a) an out of date chart was used, and b) it was altered to give the false appearance of a finding that then was used repeatedly throughout the film. This kind of propaganda is easy to recognize, thank you. Skyemoor 18:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Fine, a consensus of the published material shows they agree the film is a documentary. Surely that's something you can relate to. ~ UBeR 18:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
        • What, Ann Coulter and a gaggle of biased right wing outlets want it to spin it as a documentary, and that's 'consensus'? Sorry, you'd have to get the same story from both sides of the fence, and that hasn't happened. Skyemoor 18:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
          • You're going to have to take it up against the British media, even those who agree the film was a flop. ~ UBeR 19:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Aye. It's a "documentary" (rather than a drama). It is controversial. It fits the definition of polemic in my opinion, plus that of a (nameless) source at Channel 4. But I have no objection to Skyemoor's formulation. (Hi, Sky!) --Uncle Ed 18:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• This is the most reasonable way to word it - it accurately states what it is (a documentary film), recognizes the controversy (with the "controversial adjective"), and placates the opposition side by noting the "polemic" quote. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Aye with some pain. I would prefer "controversial film", as at best the form is that of a documentary, but the contents is not.--Stephan Schulz 18:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Being controversial and one-sided doesn't make a documentary less of one. As I noted above, no one would realistically request the same wording for Fahrenheit 9/11 even though it has similar issues. A documentary is a documentary, to state any less is an attempt to minimize it and causes a POV issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It won an award under the category "Documentary", though it is referred to shortly thereafter as a satirical documentary and a political documentary. If you look at Moore's site, the films are not referred to as documentaries, but just 'films'. Can one call any propaganda film a 'documentary'? Again, note that it does not fit the definition of a documentary (see above), as errors and falsifications were made (i.e. graph and 'volcanoes'). Skyemoor 18:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Every documentary is without error? Interesting. ~ UBeR 18:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
        • What do you call a film that has multiple falshoods (i.e., the graph and 'volcanoes emit more CO2'), one of which it uses as a repeating theme? A documentary? Surely you can reflect and reconsider. Skyemoor 18:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You've just described Fahrenheit 9/11. Which is called a documentary. -- TedFrank 19:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Skyemoore, the word "documentary" is used several times in the Wikipedia articles about Michael Moore. You could argue it's misused, but I think it's fair to say "documentary" has entered popular usage as a word to describe films about real things, as opposed to dramas. I think the main reason that Moore's works are also described as "films" is that they have cinema theatre releases, rather than being made for TV. You could reasonably use the word "programme" about TGGWS (and it quite often is), but plenty of people also use the word "documentary" as well. To be honest, I don't think there's an awful lot of difference between the words "programme", "film" and "documentary" in this context- especially if the controversy is acknowledged, with a quote comparing it to a polemic by the people who commissioned it. Are you really not willing to accept any compromise on this? --Merlinme 19:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Your tireless zeal to move us forward hath convinced me, and I repenteth my obdurant positure, so "Aye" it be. Skyemoor 20:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Aye. -- TedFrank 19:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Aye - but see m:Polls are evil before using this as a base for the lead. It seems that the main issue here is that some people disagree with the definition of "documentary" - I think you'll find it hard to come up with any documentaries if you take the stance Skyemoor seems to be advocating, i.e. a documentary must be a balanced, entirely factual programme with no opinion (wait, that's what Wikipedia is meant to be...) QmunkE 20:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Nay The Great Global Warming Swindle is a far reaching documentary that explores the controversial methods employed by the IPCC to create a biased published report into the effects of man made global warming, and how the mainstream media in general (including Mudochs' presses) take these reports as gospel with scant investigative journalism involved to create a culture of impending doom unless drastic, far reaching and controversial measures are taken. The Great Global Warming Swindle dares to suggest that an untarnished, noble and honest world body such as the UN would nefariously enhance their reports to further a long term political agenda. --Dean1970 20:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• nay its clearly propaganda William M. Connolley 20:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Aye --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Aye - Merzbow 22:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• In trying to figure out my opinion on this issue, I took a stroll over to propaganda and read its definition as supplied there: "Propaganda is a type of message aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people." () "Often, instead of impartially providing information, propaganda can be deliberately misleading, using logical fallacies, which, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid." () However, the connotation of propaganda is far different from its actual definition, and applying that to this film would not reflect a neutral point of view. I would prefer the usage of "controversial film", though, and I think it's a reasonable compromise. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • There's also a reason Wikipedia does not allow for its own articles to be used for sources. Note, however, it says, "Often uses impartially and fallacies." That does not mean "always." Thus, the straightforward definition that can apply to all propaganda, by this article's definition, is anything that is "aimed at influencing opinions and behavior of people." By this vary nature, An Inconvenient Truth could be labeled propaganda, as this is the very purpose of that film. A more accurate definition from the Random House Unabridged Dictionary is as follows:
    1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
    2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.
    3. the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement.
  • As you can see, propaganda has a far-reaching definition. ~ UBeR 21:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • This is the same definition I provided above, and contend that the film meets all three criteria. But I see wisdom in Bbatsell's explanation. Skyemoor 21:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
      • It may very well fit this description. But then again so does nearly everything relating politics! An Inconvenient Truth, The President's State of the Union Address, The Grapes of Wrath, and even Jurassic Park (film) could be labeled propaganda. Our duties as Wikipedia editors is not make this up for ourselves, however. Wikipedia makes this clear in their WP:OR policy. ~ UBeR 22:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, whether it's in the denotation or in the connotation of "propaganda" dependent upon what source you look at, it doesn't reflect a neutral point of view. It should be a case of show, don't tell in this instance — give all the facts and let the reader determine for himself what the hell it is. "Controversial film" is acceptable, neutral language in my view. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
          • I concur. Our duty is to present the message of verifiable and reliable sources in such a manner that is neutral in point of view and contains notability. That is the ultimate goal of this encyclopedia. This is not the place for original thought. ~ UBeR 22:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Aye, reluctantly. Clearly it is propaganda, but we shouldn't call it propaganda because that's the sort of word that alienates the reader. Encourage the reader to go deeper, where the shoddiness of the film becomes apparent. Raymond Arritt 22:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Nay, i agree with Connolley here - its clearly propaganda - the "Volcanoes produce more CO2" is so blatantly wrong that documentary fails the mark - sorry. If the movie had just stated the issue as seen from a particular side (ie. cherry-picking but not falsification) - then i'd agree that it could be labelled a documentary - but it doesn't so: "controversial film", "polemic film", "propaganda" fits the mark - "documentary" doesn't. --Kim D. Petersen 22:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - and the volcanoes issue is not just a simple "error" - they produced a cartoon specifically to show this. --Kim D. Petersen 22:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Aye per Raymond Arritt. I think we should show, not tellJQ 22:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well while accepting the point that Wikipedia is not a democracy, is everyone agreed that we seem to have a reasonable show of consensus here? I recognise that there are quite a few reluctant Ayes there, but that's the nature of a compromise. Skyemoor has been persuaded to vote Aye, and while I know WMC has strong views on these things, I think in practice he'll respect the consensus if we can find a compromise which sticks. That leaves Dean1970 (who's holding out for documentary) and Kim Petersen (who's holding out for propaganda or polemic). I think in practice we're never going to achieve 100% agreement on such a controversial topic (although Kim/ Dean, please tell us if there's anything that would help change your mind). So, if/when the page is unprotected, is it fair to say that we have consensus to stick to the formula in the heading of this section? The problem we had last time was that when someone came along and changed the description, it became open season again, with everybody edit warring for their version. I'd like to believe that the Aye voters will stick up for the form of words we just voted on, as and when someone new comes along and changes it (as I'm sure they will). --Merlinme 23:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Merlinme, i'll accept a decision. --Kim D. Petersen 23:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! Glad to hear it. --Merlinme 23:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Nay, I seem to be a day late :-(. Channel 4 defended themselves by calling it a polemic, and that should be made clear. It may be a 'controversial film', but it's not what most people would think of as a 'documentary' (that suggests it might be believable, not known mis-leading falsified propaganda). I'll not be making any edit, but I trust the group decision will stand. OldDigger 20:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess the IPCC don't too take kindly to having their propaganda exposed in public. The media really should be censored in future. --Dean1970 05:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll accept the consensus, of course, whilst disagreeing with it. I think Dean makes clear in the comment above that he is non-serious and so can be ignored William M. Connolley 11:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

How to describe what TGGWS attacks

Ok, well now we've got "what to call the programme" out of the way, I would hope everything would be easy in comparison. Another somewhat controversial part of the lead is "what to decribe what the programme attacks". I would suggest we have the following objectives here:

• Explain to a reader what the programme is attacking (i.e. the dominant scientific opinion on global warming)
• Explain to a reader why this is an unusual scientific opinion (i.e. while it cannot be considered fact, it is held with an unusually high degree of certainty by an unusally broad spectrum of scientists)
  • I assume here that the unusual scientific opinion is the concensus, which I think you mean is an unusually high level of agreement about a scientific opinion. Skyemoor 11:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Explain this in a way which is clear, true, and verifiable
• Don't spend too long on the counter opinion though
  • And here it seems you really mean the concensus opinion. Skyemoor 11:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• because at the end of the day the article is about TGGWS, not the dominant scientific opinion on global warming. If a reader is curious they can follow the link; we're just looking for the shortest possible accurate summary (and for shortest possible, I personally think half a sentence would be fine).
• Explain the TGGWS alternative explanation for the consensus (i.e. funding)

So I was thinking something like this: [TGGWS] "...argues against the scientific opinion on climate change that is held by the scientific academies of the major industrialized nations." [and give source] "The apparent scientific consensus is explained as the product of a "global warming industry" driven by a desire for research funding."

• • That's close, though it's much more than just the academies of the major industrialized nations, and 'apparent' is an adjective that can be viewed as undermining the strength of the consensus. I propose -

    "[TGGWS] "...dissents with the prevailing scientific opinion on climate change held by scientists on the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as well as the scientific academies and societies of the industrialized nations, China, India, Brasil, and others."

• • Since Houghton published the following, there is no issue with WP:SYN by using "dissents with", as it satifies precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic;

"The material presented was a mixture of truth, half truth and falsehood put together

with the sole purpose of discrediting the science of global warming as presented by

the main world community of climate scientists and by the IPCC."

• • (The next part should really be in the Claims section). "The scientific consensus is explained as the product of a "global warming industry" driven by a desire for research funding" is simply one of the many claims. Conversely, we can show how many of the claims are in line with claims of other Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming Skyemoor 11:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• That's not perfect, but I think it meets most of the objectives I outlined above. I'm not sure it's necessary to go into the parts about the peer reviewed literature or give the note to the letters in Science, because at the end of the day people can follow the link if they want to. We should be providing the reader with the minimum amount of information necessary to understand the argument, without leading them too much. Perhaps we should also have something about "no attempt to discuss the other side except when presenting counterarguments", but you could argue that's implied by the various quotes about polemic and one-sidedness anyway.

What does everybody think of that suggestion? Improvements welcomed.

If we can achieve consensus on this, then I would have thought we could ask for the page to be unprotected. --Merlinme 08:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not just [TGGWS] "...argues against the scientific opinion on climate change" and leave it at that? William M. Connolley 14:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Because that implies that what is presented is not scientific opinion - something which may or may not be true, but is not verifiable at this time. Another reason not to state it in this way is that most of the contributors are scientists, and so their opinions are also scientific opinion on climate change. To be honest I think the title of the other article is slightly misleading. QmunkE 14:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Then toss in 'prevailing' in the sentence in this article. Your other point would be best discussed on that article's talk page. Skyemoor 16:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:SYN issue

Copying from another talk page:

Tags are text; they come or go on the whim of editors. The assertion that the SYN tags are valid is only one sides POV; others including me disagree with that. Playing lawyerly games over whether the default is to keep or remove disputed tags is merely an attempt to move the dispute onto your territory. William M. Connolley 22:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether text violates WP:SYN is not a matter of POV, it's an objective inquiry: does the source support the position taken in relation to the subject of the article? A complaint of improper synthesis is either correct or incorrect, no POV about it. It's math, not "lawyering." Why won't anyone defend the text on the merits, rather than with ipse dixit statements that the tag is inappropriate? I'll leave to others to discuss, as I really do have better things to do. -- TedFrank 12:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll just observe that what is prohibited here is a synthesis undertaken by a Wikipedia editor, not a reference to a synthesis published in a verifiable source. I don't see any examples of the former.JQ 12:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've not seen the former either. If someone could be explicit about the details of the complaint, then we can examine its merits. Skyemoor 12:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

(Material from above that addresses this issue); Since Houghton published the following, there is no issue with WP:SYN by using "dissents with", as it satifies precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic;

"The material presented was a mixture of truth, half truth and falsehood put together with the sole purpose of discrediting the science of global warming as presented by the main world community of climate scientists and by the IPCC."

Skyemoor 13:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

New text suggestion?

"The material included controversial graphs that have been disputed in many scientific circles as misleading, however, the documentary included scientists [including IPCC lead author Professor Paul Reiter] who disputed the methods the IPCC used to publish their final reports." --Dean1970 17:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Reiter's involvement and dissention was based around the modeling of mosquito-borne disease vectors with respect to temperature (which is his specialty). He had no argument about GHG and AGW. Skyemoor 18:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

And he isn't an IPCC lead author William M. Connolley 18:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"The graphs and data used in the documentary have been disputed in many areas of the scientific community as seriously stretching the truth to favour their opinion, equally, the documentary includes [IPCC] scientists and professors who express their disdain at similar methods employed by the IPCC to conclude their final published reports."

• or words to that affect, added "many" and "serioulsy" for added emphasis for wikipedians who totally found the documentary lopsided or disturbing, added the fact that the scientists et al in the documentary equally express their disdain for the methods used by the IPCC - and was actually the genesis for the documentary in many regards.

So, wikipedians depending on how seriously they take the 'subject of the article' will research the subject further without having everything decided for them in a non-neutral manner.

It could be cleaned up (on going process,) but I agree with the administrators that a balance needs to be struck, don't know if this helps or resolves anything with a couple of the wikipedians here intent on marshalling everything, but I guess its not just them who need to look in the mirror now and then. --Dean1970 18:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize that this was intended to be new material, but I've added a new heading/section for this. This material already is covered in the current text; which sentences would you remove to avoid redundancy? And how many IPCC authors are there? Skyemoor 19:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

John Christy was a lead author for the IPCC, not Paul Reiter, my mistake.

The text has been unstable since its inception (hence it has been locked,) I was simply suggesting the general tone should account for both sides of the argument.

I wouldn't state for a fact the documentary is propaganda because you and your mate Conolley decide it is. Hmmm, those would be the type of statements I'd find worrying on Wikipedia. Its not as if this documentary is being shown in schools from Scotland to Spain as nothing but the truth.

As for new material, feel free.

The documentary also shows how the media hypes up manmade global warming. I have seen the propaganda used in the media, so I personally and honestly relate to the points made by the documentary makers and contributors. Perhaps I can go ahead and cite a few prime examples in a new heading dealing with the claims the documentary raises with regards to media hype, (Propaganda.)

Also, the politics of this subject is understated, the IPCC is very political, that claim is made very strongly in the actual documentary, so lets see what they mean by that, are they claiming the IPCC has an agenda to push? Maybe global carbon trading? For some reason its the latest trend, its like its just sneaked right in there as the answer for everything. Could Patrick Moore (co-founder of GreenPeace) be implying that these initiatives are secretly veiled attempts to discourage developing countries from exploiting their natural resources under the guise of saving a few hippos? Africa would develop a lot faster with an infrastructure using fossil fuel burning energy than even a small number of their corrupt officials pocketing their carbon cash from the west in their swiss accounts. It can all get very political. --Dean1970 20:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• burning energy than 'it would if' even a small number of - correction near the bottom - --Dean1970 20:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't find your suggestion for the "seriously stretching the truth" sentence to be very helpful at all. Use of emotive language (such as "disdain" in the next sentence) is always going to cause problems, especially when it appears to be your opinion- I really don't think John Christy would classify his opinion of the IPCC as "disdain". If you look at John Christy's most recent statements, there's not actually very much at all which separates him from the IPCC. He is critical of overblown disaster scenarios, but he helped draft and signed the American Geophysical Union statement, which said: "Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed in the second half of the 20th century...The unprecedented increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, together with other human influences on climate over the past century and those anticipated for the future, constitute a real basis for concern." [38] --Merlinme 11:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Surely a reason why the atmosphere cooled since 1940 despite CO2 rises is that WWII and the boom in industrial activity of countries worldwide during that era added huge amounts of heavy particle pollution to the atmosphere which is known to give a cooling effect (Global cooling)? Forbear 22:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see Durkin was little concerned with the truth and was merely concerned with reinforcing his own conspiratorial beliefs that any groups that campaign for the environment are out to destroy capitalism or the modern way of life. It is really sad that Channel 4 chose to air this programme- I doubt they would commission a programme advocating genocide or mass murder but this is exactly the real possible consequences of people believing his arguments. I wonder if C4 will allow a televised debate about global warming or perhaps a documentary refuting Durkin's work point by point. But perhaps that would be not be outrageous enough for them. Forbear 22:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This is what I've called the "sulphate cooling argument" in the Times review at the bottom of the British media reaction section. If or when I get a chance to edit this section, the main arguments used against Durkin should become more obvious. --Merlinme 11:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for unprotection

I've put in a request for Unprotection, as follows: "We've reached consensus on the talk page on the most contentious issue (what to call the programme), and I believe things have now cooled sufficiently for edit warring to stop." --Merlinme 11:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

censorship is an ideological preference, and necessary tool amongst green activism?

Dean added:

Claims that censorship is an ideological preference, and necessary tool amongst green activism even in democratic societies can be highlighted by the opinions of Guardian columinist, and director of Friends of the Earth, Tony Juniper, who is a fierce critic of many of the contributing scientists, professors and politicians in The Great Global Warming Swindle including Richard Lindzen and Lord Lawson. Mr Juniper stated that UK news programmes (aired on the BBC, C4 or ITV) that debate such issues as global warming should ban or drastically limit the time allowed for anyone whose opinions on global warming don't agree with the consensus. (The consensus being that that is agreed upon by the IPCC.) [39]

And sources this in an edit comment to YouTube. I don't find this claim in my transcript: nor is it really clear eactly what is being sourced to the film: this looks like a very convoluted peg to hang Juniper on. Is it asserted that the film says censorship is an ideological preference, and necessary tool amongst green activism? If so, at what point does it occur? William M. Connolley 21:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've removed this again as no-one will say when it was supposed to have occurred. This brings up a more general point: there are *many* claims in this article for which the source is the film - there is no transcript and the accompanying blurb misses most of it out. How is anyone supposed to evaluate any of these claims and check they are present in the film itself? Its no good saying "I saw it an remember it" - memory is fallible. I think that anything doubted has to be provided with a time in the film when its actually saud or claimed William M. Connolley 08:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the movie is a primary source (about itself). Aren't we supposed to concentrate on secondary sources? In that case, we could only include things that other reliable sources have reported about the movie... --Stephan Schulz 08:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Um no. You can surely use primary sources, as long as it's easily verifiable by other people. If someone can go back and check the correct part of the film and find it, I don't see any problem at all. At the end of the day, we're writing an article about the film, not secondary sources. We should avoid our own statements of opinion about what the film says, but I don't see any problem with "The film said x", as long as the film actually did say x. However regarding the Juniper quote, it seems to have far more to do with the Guardian than the film. --Merlinme 09:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Reliable sources:

Self-published sources used as primary sources about themselves

Self-published material, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as a primary source of information about the author or the material itself, so long as there is no reasonable doubt who wrote the material, and so long as it is:

• relevant to the self-publisher's notability;
• not contentious;
• not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing;
• about the subject only and not about third parties or events not directly related to the subject;

The reputation of the self-publisher is a guide to whether the material rises to the level of notability at all.

QmunkE 09:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to accept the film as a source for "the film says...". The problem is verifying any of the claims. If I doubt the film says "X", is it an acceptable answer to say: "its on youtube: just watch it" or is the verifyer obliged to say: "its a minute Y"? Analogy: if I say Z is in a book, and someone doubts it, I think I'm obliged to say "its on page W" - not just say "read the book" William M. Connolley 09:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

William - I added the piece about Tony Juniper for a number of reasons. He is an outspoken critic of the contributors of the film. He is a prominent public figure, he helped draft the United Kingdom Climate Change Bill through parliament, this legislation is originally based on (or engineered around) the 1995 IPCC Second Assessment Report (The methods used by the IPCC happen to be an issue in the film.....you should be able to find that in your transcripts!) While you're at, you should be able to find the part where Durkin claims that "This is a story about censorship,"

I used the FACT that an outspoken journalist/Green Activist/Political Lobbyist, used a mainstream newspaper and popular online platform The Guardian to call for censorship of scientists (including by name, several who appeared in the film) whose views don't match his own from appearing on televised global warming debates, a public figure who cannibalized IPCC reports (a UN body whose methods are a theme of the film) to draft a bill that passes legislation through parliament.

Its pretty sad how this article is turning into a food fight, I see that the alarmists who like to liken a 'skeptic' to genocidal mass murderers are coming out of the woodwork, but that is to be expected I guess.

p.s, I'm not going to re-add the piece I placed in the article, I will add a revised section involving Mr Juniper if he happens to quote or critique the film in the future. --Dean1970 20:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Was Mr. Juniper actually in the film? If not, I don't see the point with respect to the present article. Raymond Arritt 20:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think dean has stretched things too far - TJ wasn't in the film and hasn't (perhaps oddly) so far commented on it. I think he should stay out until he does William M. Connolley 20:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, that is a fair point. I'll include any future reference to Mr Juniper who didn't appear in the film in the same section that Mr Monbiots' inflated opinions appear. --Dean1970 20:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification. If he comments on the film, his view of the film should be summarized in the "reactions and criticisms" part. Raymond Arritt 20:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"The Great Global Warming Swindle" transcript

There's a sort of transcript here: [40]. It's been created by someone while watching the programme, and created specifically for the purposes of building a rebuttal, so I wouldn't trust its reliability 100%. However it's the best I can find (please let me know if you can find a better one). It's not a Reliable Source for linking against, however if you remember something from the programme and want to find out exactly who said what and when, I would have thought it would be reasonable to have a look at the transcript. Someone can always correct you if you it turns out to be inaccurate. Personally I used it to look up exactly who made the "death threats" quote. --Merlinme 17:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Thats very helpful William M. Connolley 20:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Wondered about that -- so it was Tim Ball. Gosh, what a surprise (eyeroll). Raymond Arritt 20:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Children killed by cooking fires claim

On the whole I don't think citations are necessary in the Claims section, we're reporting what TGGWS said, so it's accurate if it reflects what was said in the programme, regardless of whether it's true or not (and we know there are several claims which independent sources say are definitely untrue, e.g. about volcanic emissions).

For those who are curious, [41] says: "Many studies have documented the acute and chronic respiratory infections resulting from open fires in developing countries. Acute lower respiratory infections, which commonly lead to pneumonia, are the leading cause of mortality from infectious diseases, with an estimated 3.5-4 million deaths worldwide each year, according to the World Health Organization in 2000." So it looks suspiciously like Durkin took the high figure and then claimed they were all children, but I've checked the transcript and it is an accurate reflection of what was claimed in the programme. I'm removing the tag, therefore. Conceivably we could add a note, although to be honest even if it's 'only' 3.5 million people, rather than 4 million children, the point that cooking fires are bad for health remains valid. --Merlinme 17:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I merely wanted to separate what the WHO said from what the film said. The WHO made no mention of exclusive or predominant use of electricity, and indeed mentions several other cooking approaches (i.e., gas, oil, solar, wood stove with chimney, etc) equally. So the TGGWS claim being made is about electricity for cooking. --Skyemoor 18:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright status of web versions

Does anybody know the copyright status of TGGWS as it appears on the Internet Archive?[42] It would be very helpful to have the show available, but we also have to be mindful of WP:EL and WP:C as they apply to linking to material posted in violation of copyright. There's no statement on their site regarding release of copyright. The bad edits at the breaks don't give much confidence that the Internet Archive version was supplied from a professional source (Channel 4 or the producers). Raymond Arritt 20:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The $19.99 Wagtv wants to cash for the upcoming dvd release says enough I think. --Van helsing 21:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Will continue deleting copyvio versions. Raymond Arritt 21:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the editor who placed the external web link to enable page viewers to watch TGGWS via the web was being environmentaly friendly. There'll be no need for them to drive their petrol thirsty SUV, car or truck to an out-of-town superstore to buy a copy! --Dean1970 20:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)