Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:18, 17 April 2010

	The Real Global Warming Disaster was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 7, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed

Template:Community article probation

Books Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Environment: Climate change Start‑class

This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Climate change.

This source was discussed at the Reliable Source Noticeboard.

tags

Within two minutes of my creating this page a "notable" banner appeared at the top. This seems a little excessive. Jprw (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to be able to include graphs in the article but don't have the technical know how to do this -- hence the banner at the top and a request for help in this connection from other editors. Cheers,Jprw (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

wikilinking

{{orphan|date=February 2010}} has been removed for noe..will give editor a few days to fix this!! Hello we need to wiki link this article to other articles ..by aading this tile to see also sections in related articles..I will start!!Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Update ok i have wikilinked a bit see here...will will have to do some more..PS nice article!!..Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Needs work

This article needs to carefully seperate out Bookers very "skeptical" views of climate change from the scientific view thereof, which are very different. I have no objection to the article saying "Booker says <odd thing X>" but simply "<odd thing X>" isn't acceptable. I've fixed up some of those.

As to Moscow July 2004: this isn't a garbled ref to World Climate Change Conference, Moscow, is it?

William M. Connolley (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It would appear not -- this is how Booker describes it:

"The Russians decided to stage a high-level international seminar in Moscow on 7 and 8 July 2004, chaired by Putin's chief economic adviser Alexander Illarionov." (Booker, page 114). King apparently appealed to the then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw (who was also in Moscow at the time on different business) about the make up of the scientists who had been invited (among them Nils-Axel Morber and Reiter). Best, Jprw (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hold on, we have chronology problems. Chapter 6 "culminates" in Dimmock et al ("The controversy included in a court action in the UK.") but chapter 7 includes TGGWS. Dimmock et al was *about* TGGWS William M. Connolley (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure? Dimmock et al seems specifically to be connected with the showing of An Inconvenient Truth in English state schools Jprw (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It should be less "skeptical' however...is a book with a very specific views..we cant loss that fact when neutralizing the article..but what your doing is just perfect i think..Buzzzsherman (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

POV tag removed ..this is the 5th different tag this article has seen in 5 days.There is going to be a big problem with POV dew to the fact its a POV book ..so we need to balance it all out ..wont be easy...Buzzzsherman (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a real problem with the use of primary sources - about 80% of the "readable text" is cited to the book itself. The second problem is formatting - is there any reason why the chapter titles are bolded, or why the paragraphs start with "Chapter x: Name of chapter"? Guettarda (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair point, but I would hope that eventually other sections would be added and expanded to balance out the synopsis. As for formatting, I'm sure that there may be better alternatives available. Best, Jprw (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You are right on that point (other sections needed) however if your hoping not to see those tags again ..you need to even out the bias tone !! now i see that is hard to do seeing the fact its a book dealing with basically one side of a subject...but even the author must "cite" other sources maybe we can incorporate those other views a bit!...PS i have no clue about the subject in question i am just here because you asked for help (editors help desk) with all those tags.. We have taken care of most ...we need to link this up more and try to neutralizes it a bit more..or people will places those tags back!! And if your done using {citing} all those quotes We should remove them...... Buzzzsherman (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"The author must "cite" other sources maybe we can incorporate those other views a bit"

I agree -- that will almost certainly be one of the ways forward. Also, I'm waiting for more critical reviews to appear in the press -- none at all have appeared stateside. I'd prefer to get back to this at the weekend when I have more time. Thanks for the suggestions. Jprw (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Whitewashing starting?

I just reverted some edits that replace "asserts" with "describes" . I don't think these are acceptable - Bookers version of reality isn't the real one, and this page should not say it is William M. Connolley (talk) 09:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

But can we on occasion compromise, e.g.,

"In this chapter the author asserts the increasing involvement in the global warming debate of the politician Al Gore"

just sounds like bad English. Surely "outlines" could be used here instead of "asserts"? I agree that a "according to Booker" type tone needs to be struck. Also, isn't language like "Bookers version of reality isn't the real one" inappropriate for Misplaced Pages? It makes him sound like a lunatic.Jprw (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Err, well you said it, not me :-). This shouldn't be a place to re-fight the old wars. Essentially the tone of wiki's coverage of the *science* of GW is set by global warming. This article shouldn't say anything that contradicts what is there. But it can say that Booker contradicts what is there; or rather, it can report Booker saying things that contradicts what is there William M. Connolley (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Reads like a promotion/index rather than an article

Unfortunately that is the case. Most of the article is dedicated to uncritical description of each section and chapter. Why dedicate this much space for it? Where is the critical review of the claims? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Article too incomplete to be encyclopedic

I have just added the {one source} template to the article. It is an encyclopedia article about a book, but at the moment is little more than a synopsis of the book. It does not even aspire to being a book review, far less an encyclopedia article about the book. Of the 34 references cited, all but 7 reference the text of the book itself. To become encyclopedic, this article needs to explain the historical context of the book's publication and writing, it needs to give evidence of how the book was received and reviewed on publication, and it needs to give some indication of the effects the book has had on the world following its publication. If these matters are so trivial that they cannot be adequately sourced, then I would propose that the book itself is of such marginal importance in the wider world that it does not deserve its own article, when set alongside all the other political and opinionated pulp that is published monthly in the world. That would lead us to AfD, rather than trying to expand and balance the coverage of this product. --Nigelj (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of synopsis

I've removed the synopsis, which was extensive and seemed to rely almost completely if not exclusively on somebody's personal reading of the book or promotional material for it, a primary source. Please rewrite from reliable secondary (ie: third party) sources, so as to highlight the major points of the synopsis as determined by those sources. --TS 16:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I've acknowledged above that the synopsis is out of balance with the rest of the article -- but that shouldn't be a reason to remove it entirely. Rather, the synopsis should be edited and a criticism/origins section should be added later (the article is after all very young). Why should one editor have the authority to remove so much material without discussion? I am going to reinistate the synopsis based on this. Jprw (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Put it back if you can justify doing so. Personally I'd say that such a substantial synopsis, dwarfing as it does whatever we do know about the book from reliable third-party sources, is to be deferred until firstly, the other sections of the article have been filled out, and secondly, we can do the synopsis properly from such secondary sources as are available. --TS 16:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I based the layout of the synopsis on this. I would more than welcome other editors reworking the synopsis though I believe my rendering of it is fair. And in time any contentious point mentioned in the synopsis can be addressed in a criticism section. William Connelley has already gone through it three times -- I think -- which is a start. Jprw (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yikes, your chosen model is absolutely horrid, especially in view of the extensive study and critique of Marx's prominent and influential work in the past century or so. But at least I can see why the synopsis of this article is such a mess. --TS 16:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Surely it should be possible to compile a synopsis from the reviews? -- ChrisO (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. To produce an exhaustive item-by-item account is not sensible. We should follow what the reviewers found worthy of comment. --TS 17:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

But I should mention that this is how I envisaged the synopsis looking eventually, with the help, of course, of other editors. At some point I intend to reinstate a synopsis that is more along these lines. I also think that, rather than other editors summarily hacking out without discussion what synopsis there was, it might have been better to mould it gradually into something more appropriate for a Misplaced Pages entry.Jprw (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Synposis should be between 400 and 700 words (about 600 words), but should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason such as being complicated." following the guide here Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Books/Non-fiction_article would be on target. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the guide , the synopsis is separate from reviews and criticism. The two sections should complement each other, however I believe the synopsis can be restored with faith that multiple editors will make it appropriate and relevant to the sources. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't seem the article on The God Delusion before and was surprised to see that, despite my dread and foreboding, it wasn't the sprawling mess I expected. I think you could do worse than to aim for a summary like that, though I think any reasonably intelligent person could summarize Dawkins' work in 250 words or so. To show you that it can be done (and obviously this would need more work):

Dawkins examines several definitions of the term "God" and concludes that only the weakest, vaguest definitions are plausible within the context of what is now known about the universe. The fundamental argument for a creator--the argument from design--is dismissed by appeal to evolution. Dawkins contrasts the elegance of Darwin's solution with the existential problems of an intelligent creator: if intelligence demands a creator, where did the creator's intelligence come from? Dawkins also examines the argument that God is needed in order to impose morality on humans, and he mounts a humanist argument for morality. Finally, Dawkins argues for a positive conception of atheism, conceived as the freeing of humanity from unnecessary and destructive modes of thought.

I make that about 120 words. It's a start. We could easily do something similar with Booker. The advantage of a brief synopsis (and I hate having to point this out) is that it will be read and understood by many more people than a long one. --TS 04:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Putting Dawkins genius aside (smile) ... I suspect we could take the existing synopsis, remove the chapter references and bring out the essence of Booker's genius. Seems the "five" error he investigated are most significant toward "freeing of humanity from unnecessary and destructive modes of thought." (chuckle) Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I have only just seen the above conversation -- I was busy on the IPCC talk page. Very glad to see that things are more genteel over here)) Zula Papa 5 well done on finding this I was actually going to try and get help on writing a synopsis (before posting the "slab of words" referred to by TS above) the link is excellent and gives us a clear guideline for what it acceptable from a WP point of view for a non-fiction book article. My original synopsis was about 1400 words -- how about I try to cut it in half, post it again, and we take it from there? TGD could still serve as a rough comparison – e.g., perhaps a summary of the three parts. Jprw (talk) 06:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Synopsis restored with faith

Restored it with good faith in source and editors. Included a tag so editors may contribute and collaborate with the existing sourced text by adding new sources. Any specific verification issues can be removed. Perhaps even condense as suggested above. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Do we have consensus for this? It's my impression that this massive and disproportionate synopsis has not been missed. --TS 01:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I assumed consent that editors were here to work on content with sources. Go ahead an work on it with sufficient sources. Removing was too much. I agree, it can be improved with faith. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It's too big to be manageable. Really we'd be better off starting from scratch and writing something brief from the commentaries available. --TS 01:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced that huge slab of words with a very brief summary sourced from the review in The Observer by expert science writer and former Nature editor, Philip Ball. --TS 01:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's another start. Does't seem to help the reader see into the book. Kinda of lowers the article quality IMO. Thanks for contributing, wish I could believe it was in Misplaced Pages's best interests, but that's my issue. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Delingpole

I've removed an external link to a piece by James Delingpole in The Spectator. I think we may want to use that article to flesh out the book's very positive reception in what remains of the British traditional intellectual conservative tradition. I don't think we need worry that it's the second piece hosted by The Spectator--the mag has a proud history of intellectual contrarianism that few other publications anywhere can rival. This is Booker's intellectual background and the voice of his primary audience. --Tasty monster 20:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I should make it plain that I, Tasty monster, am Tony Sidaway down the pub with a cellphone. --Tasty monster 20:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/all/5482258/you-know-it-makes-sense.thtml

Finally added a bit of it to the end of the intro. Jprw (talk) 11:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletions

I have restored a perfectly fair summary of the book which was deleted. Peterlewis (talk) 12:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Synopsis restoration

The synopsis, which now may well have gone through as many rewrites as the script to The Godfather Part III, has been restored. It's almost half the size of what it was, which brings it into line with this. Thanks to Zulu Papa 5 for retrieving the original one from the system.

Hopefully this time other editors will focus on tweaking/moulding it and not just removing it completely. Jprw (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Good article reviewers

I have personally asked Dave souza, Cla68, Mark Nutley, Peterlewis, Viriditas, and KimDabelsteinPetersen to look at the article to see if in their opinion it should qualify as a good article, just to get the ball rolling on this process. Of course, other editors can and would indeed be very welcome to make their views known as well (please follow the link at the top of this page). Jprw (talk) 08:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Good job, everything looks ok to me, but i am curios as to why in see also the hockey stick illusion is in italics but not the other links? It looks a bit out of place the way it currently is. But other than that one small gripe, top job mate mark nutley (talk) 10:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You should really have a look at some of the existing GAs in this category. If I were to review it (which I shouldn't), it would be an obvious quick-fail. If you look at the Good Article criteria (see WP:WIAGA):

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): The writing needs improvement, especially in the synopsis. The sentences are overly long, they're hard to follow. In addition, the synopsis is not a synopsis, more a blow-by-blow. It should cover what the article is about, not x happened, then y happened, then z happened. The body of the article is also just not there. There's a synopsis, there's a reception, but there's no real discussion of the book.

   b (MoS): The bolded section titles - are questionably MOS-compliant. The use of American English spelling in a book by a British author published in the UK is also a problem. Actually, I think the article included both AE ("skepticism") and BE ("criticised"), so that's a real problem.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   b (citations to reliable sources): much of the article (695/1584 words "readable prose") is sourced to the book itself, which seems like excessive use of primary sources.

   c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Not even kinda. While major reviews are mentioned, they are simply mentioned. They are not used to construct the article. There's also an inherent problem with trying to write an article about a book that's only been out a few months.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: This links back to 3a. The book isn't discussed, its case is simply presented (via the primary source, the book itself) and the reception is provided. Its content is highly contentious, but that's not at all obvious to the reader.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

In addition to that, the nom lacks a subtopic. That needs fixing (see the error message in the banner at the top of the page). Guettarda (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion you are mistaken: language is fine and your critical comments mistaken. I have peer-reviewed many books and articles in learned journals and elsewhere and find the current article very fair in presenting both Booker's strongt arguments and the criticism. Peterlewis (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Rodney Leach review

I think WP:UNDUE might come into play here. The text of Leach's review includes some... novel... views, like "But in the Seventies environmentalism joined forces with the continuing backroom campaign of international bureaucrats for world government." and "The collapse of Soviet Communism brought a fresh ally. The Left found in global warming an appealing new anti-capitalist cause, and when EU governments and US Democrats adopted ‘fighting climate change’ as their badge of environmentalist solidarity, an unstoppable coalition of forces had assembled, able to silence dissent and seduce or cow the media on a scale hitherto seen only in ideological or religious regimes." I respectfully suggest that this is off the chart when it comes to a reality check, and should not be treated as a source in the reasonable range. It is being given undue weight just by being included. I would also suggest that this article cannot reach GA when the book is so new, as peer-reviewed reviews are not yet out. This is creating a problem with the "reception" section, which appears unduly weighted to critics with like-minded views - who by Booker's own argument do not represent the majority of critical views on this subject. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Seitz

I took out:

The SAR was criticised by Frederick Seitz, who alleged that "more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report – the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate – were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question has accepted the supposedly final text".

This isn't even close to balanced. The overall scientific reaction to the SAR was positive acceptance. The above must as a bare minimum be prefaced by something along the lines of "Despite the overwhelming positive acceptance of the SAR, the book chooses to highlight the one negative report by..." or somesuch William M. Connolley (talk) 09:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I've restored it -- it's a crucial piece of criticism. And is commentary along the lines of "Despite the fact that..." appropriate in a synopsis? Jprw (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, and I think this pushes an already badly biased article ove the edge, so I've added the POV template. What does "it's a crucial piece of criticism" mean? That you consider it so? that Booker considers it so? Do you feel any need at all for this article to reflect rality? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a crucial part of the synopsis, or the gist of what the book is about (IPCC reports this, subsequently criticised by x person, etc.) As it currently stands, the synopsis is merely outlining what Booker says in the book. It's for other people to make up their minds about what he says, and for other sections to deal with commentary, criticism, etc. That would appear to be within the guidelines set out here Jprw (talk) 10:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No, that won't do at all. The section says (and this is typical of other problems with the article), very baldly The SAR was criticised by Frederick Seitz, who alleged that.... Either that statement (and quite a few others) needs to be very clearly prefixed with "Booker says this, altough it is quite misleading) or there should be some general statement ni the intro making clear that this is a deeply partisan view William M. Connolley (talk) 10:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there any doubt that Frederick Seitz criticised SAR? If there is, then I agree that "According to Booker, Seitz criticised, etc." may be better. I also see no problem in using Booker alleges/claims/asserts hedgers. It may well be the case that the article needs more of them. Jprw (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

But is that good enough? We're not quoting every word of the book here. Who is asserting that *this* is a critical part of the synopsis? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Adressed the POV issue in the Seitz statement by attribution to Booker's writing. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No, that doesn't address the problem. If you read what I've written above, you'll see "and this is typical of other problems with the article". There are others. Please restore the POV tag that you've incorrectly removed. In the book, Booker chronologically charts the history of how scientists came to believe that global warming – as a result of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions – had brought the Earth to what he calls the brink of catastrophe is another example. This sentence is somewhat incoherent, but the most obvious interpretation - that Booker chronologically charts the history - in unacceptable William M. Connolley (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have detagged-n-run, so I've done what you should have and re-inserted the tag William M. Connolley (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

that Booker chronologically charts the history Would you actually explain why you think this is unacceptable? mark nutley (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Certainly: because this is a bald statement that he actually does so. Do you have reason to believe that he has indeed done so, accurately? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, i read the book, have you? cos if you have not then how can you comment on it? mark nutley (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That's kinda beside the point, isn't it? The statement assumes that he does chart it accurately. Something like that needs to be supported by secondary sources. Guettarda (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, i read the book - that wasn't the question. The question was, Do you have reason to believe that he has indeed done so, accurately? and you've evaded that William M. Connolley (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

have put "attempts to" in front of it as a compromise. Jprw (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. We're not there yet. (1) to show that, as governments become poised to make radical changes in energy policies,; (2) Booker also describes how The Real Global Warming Disaster became a necessary continuation; (3) Booker presents a graph depicting average global temperatures over the past 11,000 years showing how temperatures over the last 1,000 years have consistently fluctuated and how when they again began to rise in the 1970s, scientists such as Paul Ehrlich began - actually that last is more incoherent than POV - how can a graph show what PE began? But attributing the scientific response to PE is wrong/POV William M. Connolley (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(I've numbered the points, since it wasn't clear that they were separate) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

And I was too swift with my thanks. Whilst "attempts" was no doubt well-intended, it doesn't really help: all you've done is replace one problem with another: what evidence is there that Booker is trying to tell the truth? I very much doubt that he is. An alternative, quite plausible, hypothesis, is that this is propaganda William M. Connolley (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review process

Well, the review process was instructive, as were the comments regarding how to improve the article. I had no idea that it was wrong to approach individual editors to comment (as I explained above it was to "get the ball rolling" – naivety on my part, I'm afraid). I also think that Pyrotec's choice of language here ("This review looks very much like a "favour" being granted to the article's nominator by a co-conspirator") is very regrettable – perhaps he would like to retract it, look again at the six editors I asked to review the article (I chose a cross-section of editors experienced in CC pages but who had not made a contribution here – also explained above), and admit that he jumped to conclusions. Another example of why good faith is so important. Anyway in future, I'll just make a general post on the talk page about GA nominations. From the comments re: the article itself it's clear that the article needs work in certain areas. Specifically:

• MOS issues, esp. with regard to the synopsis
• Restructuring of criticism section and dealing with "stubby paragraphs"
• Consistency in spelling
• Overlong sentences in synopsis (although Guetterda's criticism "the synopsis is written in a narrative form - x happened, then the author introduced y, then z happened - which is inappropriate for the synopsis of a book of this form" may be misplaced as the book is a chronological account of this subject)
• Delingpole's review quoted in the lead but not the main body
• Further critical review needed/possible problems with tone
• Needs more images
• More than one editor pointed out that it may be too early to submit the book for review -- a very good point. Perhaps we should give it another six months.

That should be enough to be getting along with)) I don't regard the rejection as a setback, but merely a blip on the road to getting The Real Global Warming Disaster to GA status one day, in strict compliance with WP guidelines, though I still have reservations about how wise it was to choose a book from this subject area. Anyway it is a terrific learning experience. Thanks to all who shared their opinions. Jprw (talk) 10:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'm more than happy to accept your explanation that it was naivety on your part and not anything else. Please note that, in a GAN review the Reviewer (there is only one and that is the editor who opens/creates the GA1 page) gets the final say, but anyone can contribute; and since that is not me I should not have failed it (well I broke the rules). Good faith applies on both side, I'm happy to acknowledge that it would have been better to leave a note on your talkpage before taking it to Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations, but as you are not prepared to accept good faith on my part I'm not withdrawing any comments. But I do wish you well with the article. I've been reading Christopher Booker for years in the Telegraph and I consider that he makes some very valid points. Pyrotec (talk) 10:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for your explanation, accepted in good faith. As I said, it's been quite a learning experience. Actually, I now understand that it is probably just too premature for the article to be considered. Jprw (talk) 11:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Socks

I take it that Kenoshay and Fleurdalis are socks -- does anyone know how to protect the page? Jprw (talk) 06:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

As long as the level of activity is this low, the cost of semi-protecting the article (in terms of lost improvements) probably outweighs the damage. Guettarda (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

POV Dispute

I am having diffculting comprehending where the POV dispute is in this article. Best I can tell, any real issues can be quickly mopped up with active and appropriate edits. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Mop Number 1 - Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you considered reading the sections above? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

A quick look at the first paragraph of the lead shows some of the problems:

The Real Global Warming Disaster (subtitle Is The Obsession With 'Climate Change' Turning Out To Be the Most Costly Scientific Blunder In History?) is a 2009 book by English journalist and author Christopher Booker that examines,

from the point of view of climate change scepticism,

the subject of man-made global warming.

In the book, Booker attempts to chronologically chart the history of how scientists came to believe that global warming – as a result of carbon dioxide (CO
₂) emissions – had brought the Earth to what he calls the brink of catastrophe.

He interweaves the science of the subject with that of its political consequences to show that, as governments become poised to make radical changes in energy policies, the scientific evidence for global warming is also, in his opinion, becoming increasingly challenged.

Booker questions whether global warming is supported by the world's climate scientists,

and consistently criticises how the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) presents evidence and data, citing in particular its reliance on potentially inaccurate global climate models to make future temperature projections.

Booker surmises at the end of the book that "it begins to look very possible that the nightmare vision of our planet being doomed" may be imaginary, and that, if so, "it will turn out to be one of the most expensive, destructive, and foolish mistakes the human race has ever made".

Guettarda (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've made an initial attempt to rewrite the introduction which I hope will deal with the majority of the issues raised by WMC and Guettarda above. Jprw (talk) 05:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

1000 / 11,000

Booker presents a graph depicting average global temperatures over the past 11,000 years showing how temperatures over the last 1,000 years have... is odd. If all Booker is doing is talking about the last 1kyr, why doesn't he just show the last 1kyr? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've adjusted it accordingly. Jprw (talk) 08:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Err yes you have but I'm not sure it is satisfactory. Now the graph shows 1000 years. Is it the same graph? If so, either the current text or the previous text is wrong. Which? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you were right to pick up on this -- it is indeed 11,000 years, not sure how the 1,000 crept in. A mistake of almost IPCC-like proportions)) The graph is based on proxy studies from G. Bond, et al, and CO2 levels based on Parrenin et al. If it exists in Wikicommons I would like to include it as one of the criticisms that came out during the GA nomination process was that the article needs more diagrams and pictures. Jprw (talk) 05:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Solar

Sooo... evidence emerging to the contrary: that the earth had in fact begun to cool, and how this may have been as a result of solar variation. But then there is a picture of Svensmark, and the assertion of a connection between solar and warming. So what exactly does Booker claim? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the book with me at the moment but will double check later to make sure there is no contradiction here. Jprw (talk) 08:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised you could work that much out. That is a five-line sentence with at least seven bodies and people mentioned as potential subjects and objects. It has so many clauses and sub-clauses that when the next sentence begins, "The theory was...", I imagine most readers would have no idea which theory we might be talking about. --Nigelj (talk) 21:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

What other theory could it possibly be? And re: "That is a five-line sentence with at least seven bodies and people mentioned as potential subjects and objects". Yes, but all working together quite harmoniously -- where is there confusion? (I have however tweaked it a little by adding "perhaps"). But these are copy editing issues -- why not make these changes yourself, or at least suggest constructive alternatives on this page? Jprw (talk) 07:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

What other theory could it possibly be? - this worries me, because it suggests we're getting your paraphrase of something you may not fully understand William M. Connolley (talk) 08:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"the earth had in fact begun to cool, perhaps as a result of solar variation" this is the "theory" in question. If it is wrong, can you suggest an alternative wording? Jprw (talk) 11:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

My personal view is that the "solar variation" theory of climate isn't really coherent; whilst I'd be happy for the article to say that I'm not really going to try and push it :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Svensmark wording

I've changed it to "Henrik Svensmark, who carried out controversial research into a link between solar and temperature trends". Hopefully this will deal with any consistency/accuracy issues. Jprw (talk) 05:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

1. Booker 2009, p. 65 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBooker2009 (help)
2. Booker in particular refers to the cost of implementing the UK's Climate Change Act of 2008
3. Booker 2009, p. 342 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBooker2009 (help)

• Former good article nominees
• Start-Class Book articles
• WikiProject Books articles
• Start-Class Environment articles
• Unknown-importance Environment articles
• WikiProject Climate change articles