Talk:World Climate Report

WCR accepting consensus?

VN reverted [1] with what I regard as a rather odd comment: #1 DOES show acceptance of GW and CO2 as human generated GHG. How can you say it doesn't?; #2 relevant as Michaels is chief editor.

In reverse order: this is not the PM article, its the WCR article. What PM says elsewhere is not usable to prove things about WCR (unless we're adopting the probably reasonable position that WCR is a one-man-band featuring only PM, but thats probably OR).

1 is “There is no doubt that fossil fuel burning around the world is causing an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration, and CO2 remains the number one anthropo-generated greenhouse gas.” - indeed, you have to be a nutter not to believe this. But it says nothing about *warming* which is the point at issue; clearly it does not support clearly evinces an acceptance of anthropogenic global warming

William M. Connolley 20:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that in no where in their blog do they deny the basic premises of global warming: humans emit greenhouses grasses + current arming is the result of this. Now, if you read their blog you will find that they largely imply these simple premises. I don't think they state it directly anywhere, but that would just be redundant and superfluous of them, now wouldn't it? ~ UBeR 21:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with UBeR and add: I think #1 at least suggests that they probably accept it. And I think #2 is relevant because not only is Michaels 1/3 of the editorship of WCR but he is the Chief Editor. In any event, I note that you (Mr. Connolley) have provided no evidence that they do not accept anthropogenic global warming. In light of the (at least suggestive) evidence that I have provided that WCR does so accept it, I think the burden of proof is on you so provide clear and incontrovertible evidence that they do not. Geoffrey Allan Plauche 22:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I added another quote from the source in reference #1 ("[M]ethane is far more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2 – the same mass of methane would warm the earth 23 times more than the same mass of CO2.") to buttress my claim that WCR accepts AGW. Geoffrey Allan Plauche 22:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Uber is likely correct: no where in their blog do they deny the basic premises of global warming but this isn't the point. The point is that VN wants to add in the opposite: that they 8accept* GW. And not-denying is not the same as accepting. If you want to add a statement saying accept, you need evidence - I don't need evidence to the contrary. You cannot add Michaels-at-Cato as evidence of WCRs position (Uber is usually very hard on things like this at the GW article, I'm rather surprised - or I'd like to be - that he makes no comment here). You could add "the chief editor has written X elsewhere" I suppose. #1 is not evidence of accepting GW at all: try reading the GW article for what GW is: its... oh yes, its *warming*. #1 says nothing about warming.

Now if you want to add something along the lines of Ubers text: "nowhere in the blog do they explicitly accept GW but they do indeed sort of imply it" then I would have no problem William M. Connolley 09:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Very well, I will take the suggestion. I prefer UBeRs phrasing to yours though. Given the often pejorative meaning of global warming skeptic - i.e., rejects global warming period or anthropogenic global warming - I am adamant about not leaving the impression that WCR does this in the absence of clear and incontrovertible proof. However, I must ask: did you read the WCR article that is the source in reference #1? Or at least the second quote from the article that I added? It clearly says something about warming. Geoffrey Allan Plauche 15:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and while I am by no means obliged to prove the contrary, I think that Are Humans Involved in Global Warming? does, to paraphrase your words, at least suggests that they probably doubt it William M. Connolley 10:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Doubting is not the same thing as rejecting. It also doesn't imply that they don't think AGW has more evidence on its side than not. Doubt is a healthy part of science, as I assume you would know. It seems to me, from reading WCR, that they have a healthy scientific attitude, following the evidence where it leads. Incidentally, did you read the article or just seize upon the headline? In the article they give commentary on a scientific journal article (published in Environmental Geology) and they note that the article doesn't rule out anthropogenic global warming. Rather, it questions how much of the warming is anthropogenic and it does so in a scientific manner. To my knowledge, that particular issue is not yet settled. Geoffrey Allan Plauche 15:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh I read it, its quite funny, note how long they spend establishing their argument-from-authority. Because, of course, the article itself is trash. But WCR are careful to avoid explicitly endorsing any of the conclusions of the paper. But that is all somewhat besides the point. Now that you've switched to a negative your cite is not really applicable - how could you possibbly provide a cite to demonstrate that they don't deny GW - but nevermind, I'm sure Uber will pick you up on that! William M. Connolley 17:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

What...so was your suggestion a trick to invalidate my citation? I do not think I am obligated to provide a cite demonstrating that they do not deny GW or AGW. How could you or I possibly do so though? Well, if they deny it in print, then it should be possible. If they have not or you cannot find any evidence that they have, then the sentence stands as accurate. In any event, I do not see your point that switching the sentence to negative makes the cite not really applicable. The cite shows that they accept AGW. That, ipso facto, implies they do not deny it. The burden of proof to demonstrate otherwise is on you. I only switched the sentence to the negative in order to appease you and avoid an editing war, not because I do not think my cite supports the stronger positive claim. It clearly does, your apparent blindness to the phrase "warm the earth" in the second quote notwithstanding. Geoffrey Allan Plauche 19:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviuosly, I believe your latest edition is quite a stretch. Well, what you wrote isn't--that part is correct. The implication is a bit of a stretch though. I don't think him acknowledging what the IPCC writes is necessarily him agreeing with it. That's not to say he hasn't more robustly endorsed the idea elsewhere, of course. ~ UBeR 20:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Good lord children children children, what hack wrote this article? That is to say, at least pretend like you're not completely biased, lack any scientific background what-so-ever and are just scared that there are other views out there that don't match your own rather un-scientifically formed one (apparently), stuff like this just undermines the argument that those who believe in anthropogenic driven global warming aren't in fact a bunch of rather rabid and scary extremist nut-jobs.

Firstly, adding quotation marks around "words" "doesn't" "stop" "them" "from" "having" "meaning" "or" "validity", whomever added that, too transparent, too transparent, though not bad for a first attempt at trolling, however a report is a report whether you agree with it's findings or content, mores the pity that indeed even editorial and columnism these days counts as reporting. Likewise blog is a word that doesn't require quotations around it.

Second please work towards a Wikipedia that has some degree of accuracy and clarity. Read the linked article and no it doesn't evince (it is not proving the point), it concurs, and what it concurs with is the view that of the greenhouse gasses that man produces in various quantities we produce more CO2 than many others, unlike this wiki article however it does not go on to infer through lack of clarity that either a) It is the major greenhouse gas, b) Man produces the majority of CO2, or that c) This man made component produces is directly responsible for any discernible change in the worlds temperature. Correcting this for accuracy would basically mean removing the whole line for being trite and blindingly obvious to the point of tautology, that is to say "World Climate Report presents a skeptical view of anthropogenic global warming, but agrees that man produces CO2 in greater quantity than he does many other greenhouse gasses and that CO2 as a greenhouse gas can affect and potentially increases global temperature." Well duh! Greenhouse gasses affect global temperature, who'da thunk it? Unless you want to throw out the whole greenhouse model. WCR doesn't state or infer that man is the major generator of CO2 (he's not), nor that CO2 is anywhere near the primary greenhouse gas out there (it's not), nor that atmospheric CO2 concentration as affected by man is sufficient to cause the changes in climate that we have seen in recent history (what's (strangely not given the emperical evidence) being debated).

Thirdly, enough ad-hominem. If you have scientific counterarguments use them, don't use weasel phrases like "of what it's staff calls" and so on, nor weasel out of context half quoting. this section - "Patrick Michaels, the Chief Editor of World Climate Report, has explicitly written elsewhere that "what's not new in today's IPCC report [Feb. 2, 2007]" is "that humans are warming the planet."[3]". As if that's to back up that they are being forced to agree with your views, this is quite ridiculously poor. His stating that a report is presenting an idea as news does not make a prerequisite of him stating the same. Read the full quote and context and in fact the blog and it becomes clear that no such view is ever espoused, it could be argued that he's in fact mocking the view right there in ironic terms, in truth it's clear he's making nothing of it what-so-ever apart form the fact that they cynically expect (a do the IPCC, which makes it all the more delightful) alarmism to sell more. Good grief, is this article written by 13 year olds?

I'll edit it down to just the facts that allow others to come to their own conclusions, rather than be assaulted by a half baked attempt at trolling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.51.248 (talk) 07:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

"Mainstream skeptic"?

WCR bills itself as "the definitive and unimpeachable source for what Nature now calls the “mainstream skeptic” point of view." But a search of the Nature archives shows that the phrase "mainstream skeptic" has never appeared in Nature; the words "mainstream" and "skeptic" have appeared in the same article only once, and that article touched only tangentially on global warming. A broader web search shows most of the hits for the term "mainstream skeptic" are from the quotes of this WCR description of itself. Making up something out of thin air and attributing it to such a widely-known source as Nature can too easily be proven wrong, so I have to assume they didn't do that. What's the story here? Where did this description come from? Raymond Arritt 13:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I really don't care, as it isn't really relevant to the dispute going on above. Perhaps Nature didn't use those exact words, but some other combination of words that conveys the same meaning. "Mainstream skeptic" is certainly pithy. I think the term is accurate though, regardless of who coined it. Geoffrey Allan Plauche 15:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

By any conventional standard of English grammar, putting the term in quotes indicates that Nature used those exact words and not something similar. A cite for this term would benefit the article, so the reader could understand just what "mainstream skeptic" means (given that in a literal sense the term "mainstream skeptic" is an oxymoron, like "loyal opposition"). At first I thought it meant that their views are typical of skeptics; but upon reflection it could mean that they are skeptical, yet to some extent within the scientific mainstream. The term is confusing and needs a reference. Raymond Arritt 16:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, so given all these problems, why did you add it in, and why don't you take it out? William M. Connolley 20:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah. But that's how they describe themselves so I thought it should be in there. Raymond Arritt 20:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability?

BozMo has challenged the notability of WCR. I find this curious. On UBeR's talk page, he says that he has "never heard of these people and there is nothing in the article to suggest they are more notable than a parish gazette." First, that he has never heard of WCR establishes nothing in itself, as Wikipedia:Notability points out. Second, that there is nothing in the article to suggest fame or importance or popularity is not decisive, as Wikipedia:Notability points out. I should think that WCR's stance on global warming is notable enough ("worthy of being noticed") in this current climate of so-called consensus. Aside from that, I must ask: exactly what kind of evidence would it take to satisfy you, BozMo? Geoffrey Allan Plauche 16:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I have heard of them, but that doesn't prove notability. My instinctive reaction was that of course they are notable - but maybe I'm wrong (I used to get the paper copies in the old days, eh, that were before the web, in the stone age). Evidence of notability would be... blog ranking, perhaps, or people linking to them, or appearance in mainstream media. A google search finds 87k hits *but* some at least are using the words to mean IPCC, eg [2].

Whilst poking around looking for notability, I came across http://www.nhes.com/ which appears to assert that it owns WCR. If that claim is correct, it should be in the article William M. Connolley 16:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw that, but I was wondering how old that is. ~ UBeR 20:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Michaels is to NHES as Singer is to SEPP. Raymond Arritt 20:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I found another one and added it to the references. I'm new to this so if the way I added the reference isn't preferred, please correct it. Geoffrey Allan Plauche 16:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The authors are pretty notable. I'm not sure about the blog itself. (The parts are similar to the whole fallacy ;-)) At any rate, to refute notability issues, one just needs to find some references that establish its notability. We'll see. ~ UBeR 18:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Connolley, since you've heard of WCR, I'm curious why it isn't listed in the Other Opinions category on the sidebar of the RealClimate website. Surely it qualifies as an "other opinion" and in the interests of scientific objectivity ought to be listed? Geoffrey Allan Plauche 19:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Geoffrey, please don't use "Mr"... where I come from its pejorative. Similar question to notability, but with a tougher test versus competition to include in the article. We don't include "a guy works down the chipshop swears he's Elvis". Ref the notability test: has this website generated significant third party reactions? If so mention them, that would satisfy me. --BozMo talk 19:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

OK mister uptight. :-) ~ UBeR 19:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

And besides, what on earth does VN/GAP's gibe have to do with the present article? Raymond Arritt 19:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, BozMo. I did not and could not have known that. It is polite where I am from...as opposed to simply calling him Connolley or presuming familiarity by using his first name. No insult intended. Geoffrey Allan Plauche 19:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Raymond Arritt, forgive me for getting the impression that there is just a little bit of bias involved in this dispute. Geoffrey Allan Plauche 19:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Since I'm a Dr, Mr is definitely pejorative. Use WMC for short. Feel free to belive in bias but please don't waste page space mentioning it: it will do no good. Why would RC link to WCR? Because I've heard of it? Thats a bizarre reason! Posts like the one I refd above are the reason no-one who cares about the truth would ref it (no, of course I don't expect you to agree). Notability: you will have to do more than just add in refs: the article text itself needs to say something about why its notable. But I doubt anyone is going to AFD it for the moment William M. Connolley 20:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Does footnote (3) say what the article says? Without the context of the entire article it could be the opposite. IE Is the speaker admitting defeat or is he saying the report is more of the same garbage?159.105.80.141 19:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, we do provide the link for our readers to check. I think the statement, "For example, it will report with increasing certitude that humans are responsible for most of the surface warming that began in the mid-1970s. That's been pretty obvious for years," is a bit more clear of his acceptance of the scientific consensus. ~ UBeR 19:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

notability? or credibility?

Some 'global warming skeptic think tanks' are simply window dressing for the tobacco lobby, and others, funded by petrodollars and utility dollars, ride the wave for free. None that I have investigated pass the smell test.

The debate on this talk page i.e. "WCR accepting consensus?" and "Mainstream skeptic?" demonstrate that the tactic of confusion works. Who funds WCR? Where does it stand? Who works for it? Is it even scientific, or just a front?

The title of PM's Ph.D. thesis as referenced on Sourcewatch.org seems to have been a position statement against any dangers related to anthropogenic global warming. PM allegedly accepted hundreds of thousands for his post-doctoral research in which he allegedly did things like confusing radians with degrees to disprove global warming. In direct quotes on Sourcewatch, PM seems to imply that humanity could exhaust all available resources including nuclear as well as petroleum and not change the climate appreciably.

It took billions of years for plant life to originate from the primordial soup and sequester all that carbon and sulfur into the ground, producing our oxygen-rich PH neutral cool atmosphere/ocean/soil from a primordial climate that must have been somewhat like Venus in character. We have already burned half the petroleum (oil and methane gas) in the past century, while simultaneously producing millions of methane-excreting intestinal tracts wandering around the feedlots leaving methane-producing dung heaps everywhere.

Current trends lead to the inescapable conclusion that we will exhaust all accessible petroleum and coal within 4 generations. Most of the carbon and sulfur and methane that produced that original hot acidic 'primordial soup' will have been returned to the atmosphere. Skeptics would have us believe that the net result will be benign. A view of humanity from outer space could very well look like a serious or even terminal planetary infection 100 years from now, all potentially depending on what we do about it now.

Climate driven environmental migrations and melting ice caps are already happening. What happens to global temperatures if the algae and plankton dies due to carbonate-driven and sulfate-driven and nitrate-driven acidification, mutation, or some other unforeseen change? One genetically engineered strain of ethanol-producing bacteria that was supposed to solve the energy crisis escaped into a nearby crop and killed it by poisoning the roots with ethanol. If it had made its way into the general climate it could have ended agriculture as we know it.

PM and WCR as far as I can tell ignore the question of fossil fuel use reverting us toward the chemistry of the original primordial soup within the next 4 generations and never bring up the question of what widespread acidification might do to natural climate feedback mechanisms, let alone genetically engineered organisms that could radically alter the climate. Perhaps they just assume that nuclear war will solve the problem by eradicating most of the population and blocking out the sun?

I know that corporate apologists desperately want to prove that there is a credible opposing viewpoint. PM and WCR are about the best they will ever dig up.

The typical skeptic's sole claim to fame is retiring with a Ph.D. and taking money in exchange for hanging obsolete credentials on a corporate hat rack. That makes their contributions to the debate unworthy of note. Period. And your little think tank too.

As the Cybermen say, "Delete! Delete! Delete!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.26.55 (talk) 09:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

As a dodo?

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/ currently gives me "Affordable, Reliable Web Hosting Solutions" [3] - someone has forgotten to renew. It seems to have been differently dead all the way back in 2019 [4] William M. Connolley (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)