As well as more recent temperature trends - Middle Ages, 'mini ice age' and 20th Century warming. This would include geological temperatures (including methodology of calculation, confidence, etc). The 'Global Warming' page should consist of the observed facts regarding the Earth's temperatures. The articles should be split into at least 2 separate pages: I think that this whole section needs to be rewritten. Leland McInnes 23:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC) So, in summary, where actual alternative theories exist they are presented, and the remaining criticism is simply to scattered and mutually inconsistent to be presented in any reasonable way in an article such as this. The rest of the criticism is mostly picking at particular points, studies, or issues, and all the various nitpicking cannot actually be collected into a coherent theory, indeed much of it is mutually contradictory. What there are in the way of complete theories are presented in the "Alternative Theories" section. The above links may help, although further research into the 'against' arguments is recommended.īen.yrps The issue, to my understanding, is that there really aren't that many coherent alternative explanations for collected observations.
Alternate theories that identify different, supporting causes of the same issue, do not replicate outright dispute of the entire issue as a whole.īelow is an interesting article to assist with the creation of a criticism section: The salient point is that one side - who cares enough to be making the point - thinks that the article says something that other people would want to disagree with."Īlthough the arguments against global warming have been previously presented I believe that there are grounds for a more substantial presentation of the case. Note, however, that there is a strong inductive argument that, if a page is in an NPOV dispute, it very probably is not neutral - or, at least, that the topic is a controversial one, and one should be wary of a possible slant or bias. That an article is in an NPOV dispute does not necessarily mean it is biased, only that someone feels that it is. "Often, authors can view "their" articles as being NPOV, while others disagree. Therefore due acknowledgment of the arguments against Global Warming could be included with either a criticism section or perhaps an NPOV label. The neutrality of this article is disputable.Īllow me to put away any preconceived ideas I hold in regards to Global Warming.įrom reading the article, and having explored various points of view in regards to global warming (specifically, the two sides of the debate) I think that there is substance to both points of view. It would be same as saying if a US President opposed radical action on Global Warming saying "300,000,000 American opposed to action on Global Warming" because the leader says so. Hardern 17:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC) The headlines for Global Warming hysteria articles are often like that. Hardern 17:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC) What about the headline? Narssarssuaq 17:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Yeah, you're right about that. I can't find a misleading statement in there which would differ from your explanation. The is letter (sic!) signed by presidents of 22 locals of five unions". Environmental Protection Agency scientists are calling on Congress to take immediate action against global warming. Entry 306(b)(i) in my Guidebook to the Real World is "Never trust a press release." Raymond Arritt 04:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC) The press release reads as follows : "In an unprecedented action, representatives for more than 10,000 U.S. The so-called "petition" makes no actual mention of a petition anywhere. The actual document is a letter from 22 union bosses representing a union with over 10,000 scientists and support staff. More Than 10,000 EPA Scientists File Mass Petition for Action on Global Warming, NovemSimesa 01:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC) And a pretty inaccurate one. It's a press release, but a pretty shocking one: