Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:03, 30 November 2009

Environment B‑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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Under construction! "‡" indicates answer not yet prepared. See Talk page for current discussions. To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question. Q1: Is there really a scientific consensus on global warming? Yes. The IPCC findings of recent warming as a result of human influence are explicitly recognized as the "consensus" scientific view by the science academies of all the major industrialized countries. No scientific body of national or international standing presently rejects the basic findings of human influence on recent climate. (Discussion) (From GW/FAQ:A1) Q2: Is the section on "dissenting organizations" adequately supported? The current consensus is that it is. There have been numerous lengthy discussions regarding the AMQUA and AAPG sources. Some have criticized the AMQUA letter as an unreliable reference. Others have stated that the combination of the AMQUA letter and the AAPG statement is against WP:SYN. The most recent consensus on this topic can be found at Talk:Scientific consensus on climate change#straw poll. Q3: How can you say there's a consensus when someone has compiled a long list of skeptical scientists? Over the years, a number of lists of so-called "skeptical scientists" have been produced. Notable among these are the Oregon Petition (circa 1999-2001, and re-circulated in 2007) and James Inhofe's list (originally released in 2007, re-released in 2008 with additional names added). These petitions have proven to be riddled with flaws To wit: Many of the people listed aren't really scientists. For example, the definition of a "scientist" used in the Oregon Petition includes anyone who has a bachelor's degree – or anyone who claims to have a bachelor's degree, since there's no independent verification. Using this definition, approximately 25% of the US population is qualified to sign. Some of the people listed aren't even people. Included on these lists are fictitious characters ("Dr. Perry Mason"), hoaxes ("Dr. Geri Halliwell"), and companies. Of those who have a scientific background most work in fields unrelated to climate, such as the chemistry of coal ashes or the interactions between quarks and gluons. Those who are scientists are listed arbitrarily, and many aren't skeptical of global warming. The Inhofe list was compiled by Inhofe staffer Marc Morano with no effort to contact the people listed. One climatologist, George Waldenberger, even informed Inhofe's staff that he is not skeptical of the consensus on global warming. His request to have his name removed from the list was ignored. Similarly, Steve Rainer of Oxford University has asked for his name to be removed and calls his inclusion "quite outrageous". The Heartland Institute has stated that scientists who have told the Institute that it misrepresented their views on global warming "have no right – legally or ethically – to demand that their names be removed" from the Institute's list. (From GW/FAQ:A2) Q4: Why should scientific opinion count for more than public opinion? Because "science" – either as the time-tested methodologies for learning about the world, or as the immense body of knowledge that has been garnered by those methodologies, or even as the international "scientific community" of tens of thousands of highly trained professionals that use these methodologies – has the better track record. Because the science of climate is based on fundamental laws of physics and chemistry, with the conclusions based on factual data, and the consensus "opinion" has been vetted by hundreds of experts. Whereas the contrarian portion of public opinion has a poor track record, being shaped by politically motivated rhetoric (financed by the "interested" industries) that pushes certain points of view in disregard of objective, factual reality. (For an example, see the previous question.) Q5: Weren't scientists telling us in the 1970s that we were cooling instead of warming? No, they were not – see the article on global cooling. A 2008 paper in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society reviewed "what the scientists were telling us" in the 1960s and 1970s, and found the following. One of the earliest papers in climate science, published in 1963, reported that a global cooling trend had begun in 1940s, which seemed to be underscored by unusually severe winters in 1972 and 1973 in parts of North America. (It was later shown that this supposed global trend was limited to the Northern Hemisphere, and offset by a warming trend in the Southern Hemisphere.) Other papers, looking at natural causes of climate variability, such as the Milankovitch cycles, "predicted" another Ice Age in 20,000 years (but only if human activity did not interfere). A survey of the peer-reviewed literature for this period showed a total of seven papers that predicted, implied, or indicated global cooling. On the other hand, 44 papers were found that predicted global warming. That there was some diversity of outlook is not surprising, as scientists often have extremely narrow, "knot-hole" views of a subject, and their conclusions are usually limited to whether the particular phenomena they have studied makes a positive or negative contribution to a general trend. The net result of many such contributions, and the overall effect or trend, is assessed by the occasional review paper, or expert panels at scientific conferences. By 1979 the scientific consensus was clear that the eminent threat was not global cooling, but global warming. The common misperception that "Back in the 1970s, all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming" – in less than 20,000 years – is fictional, based on a few studies that were sensationalized in the popular press, and subsequent misrepresentation by political writers. (See also GW/FAQ:A13) Q6: Why should we trust scientists that work for the government? ‡ (Discussion) Q7: Why does this article rely primarily on the conclusions of the IPCC? Because the conclusions of the IPCC, produced through the collaborative efforts of thousands of experts, are the result of the most thorough survey of the state of climate science (or of any science) ever done. There is simply no other organization or effort that is comparable. Q9: Isn't the IPCC a biased source? ‡ (Discussion) Q10: Why should we trust reports prepared by biased UN scientists? The IPCC reports are not produced by "UN scientists". The IPCC does not employ the scientists who generate the reports, and has no control over them. The scientists are internationally recognized experts, most with a long history of successful research in the field. They are employed by a number of different organizations, including scientific research institutes, agencies like NASA and NOAA, and universities. They receive no extra pay for their participation in the IPCC process, which is considered a normal part of their academic duties. (Discussion) (From GW/FAQ:A11) Q11: Why doesn't the article include dissent from the consensus by noted scientists and IPCC contributors? The IPCC consensus regarding climate change was formally developed by thousands of experts, based on the entirety of climate science research and interpretation. The "several prominent contributors" said to be "critical" of the consensus do not constitute a sufficiently significant minority view to warrant inclusion (per the policy of WP:WEIGHT). Nor has any scientific authority been cited that suggests these criticisms in any way challenge the science of the consensus. See also the next two questions. (Discussion) Q12:There are plenty of scientists who dispute human-caused global warming. Why aren't their opinions included? Numerous individual scientists have made a variety of public statements on this topic, both dissenting and concurring, and everything in between. Including those statements here would make the article overwhelming long and cumbersome, and would be granting them far too much undue weight. Public statements made by individual scientists only reflect the opinions of those individuals and not of the scientific community as a whole. (Discussion) Q13: Why doesn't this article include any dissenting views? Non-scientific views (whether dissenting or assenting) are not included because this article is about scientific opinion. There are no "statements by dissenting organizations" because (as noted in the article) "no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change". Views of individual dissenting scientists are not significant enough to be included in the consensus (a 2010 report estimated the dissenters to be less than 3% of active climate researchers, and their expertise and scientific prominence "substantially below" that of their peers); to include them here would violate the policy of undue weight. (Discussion, discussion, discussion) Q14: Why doesn't this article mention the Oregon Petition or other lists of dissenting scientists? See Question #2. (Discussion) Q15: Where is the Scientific Opinion against Anthropogenic (human caused) Global Warming? What "Scientific Opinion against AGW"? The synthesis of scientific opinion — that is, the view that best represents all climate science research and interpretation, and particularly whether there is, or is not, AGW — is that most of the observed increase in global average temperature is very likely (probability greater than 90%) anthropogenic. It would be more sensible to ask, "what is the scientific case that global warming is not anthropogenic?" But this case is so overwhelmed by the evidence, and held by so few scientists (if any!), that it simply lacks sufficient weight for consideration. (The argument that there is no global warming, that it is not human caused, and that the expected effects are only "alarism", is prominent only in non-scientific venues, and this article is about scientific opinion.) (Discussion, discussion) Q16: Is this article slanted or biased because it presents only one side of the debate? ‡ (Discussion) Q17: Is this article a prohibited synthesis of the opinions of the listed scientific bodies? No. The synthesis of scientific opinion on climate change (based on the primary sources) was done by the IPCC (a reliable secondary source). The statements of the various scientific organizations are affirmations of the IPCC's conclusion; their inclusion in the article establishes the IPCC as a reliable source, and affirms the synthesis it reached as a consensus view. (Discussion) Q20: What exactly is a "scientific body of national or international standing"? An Academy of Sciences or a scientific society that maintains a national or international membership, and that is well-regarded within the scientific community could be said to be of "national or international standing." Discerning how well-regarded a particular scientific body is requires some familiarity with the scientific community. However, for academies or societies that produce scientific journals, some assessment of their standing can be derived from their journal's impact factor ratings as provided by Journal Citation Reports. The journals Science, from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and PNAS, from the US National Academy of Sciences, are considered to be among the world's most influential and prestigious. (Discussion) Q21: What are the criteria for including organizations? ‡ (Discussion) Q22: Is it fair to assume that organizations not listed as supporting are undecided? No. It is fairer to ask, what organizations? It is more likely that any "organizations not listed" simply do not exist, as a reasonable search has not found any. Even easing the definition of a scientific organization to a point that became questionable did not find any undecided organizations (aside from the AAPG). An earlier form of the question noted that the listed organizations are predominately American or British Commonwealth (which is what might be expected for the English-language Misplaced Pages), and questioned whether there might be smaller, non-English speaking nations with scientific societies that are undecided on the issue. This is a possibility, but unlikely; the InterAcademy Council that represents the world's scientific and engineering academies affirms global warming and its dangers. (Discussion) Q25: Given the obvious NPOV violation why shouldn't I tag this article as NPOV? Because the purpose of a tag is to alert other editors to a possible problem, but in this case the other editors are already aware of the alleged problem. Because per WP:General sanctions/Climate change probation you could be sanctioned for just adding a tag. Because the general consensus is that the article is NOT an WP:NPOV violation (see next question). Q26: Does this article violate the Misplaced Pages Neutral Point of View policy? ‡ (discussion, discussion, discussion) References Dissenter on Warming Expands His Campaign. New York Times, April 9, 2009. Retention of sulphur by laboratory-prepared ash from low-rank coal Today: George Waldenberger. Grist.org. December 3, 2007. Kaufman, Leslie (April 9, 2009). "Dissenter on Warming Expands His Campaign". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-07-09. Peterson, T. C.; Connolley, W. M.; Fleck, J. (2008). "The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 89 (9): 1325. Bibcode:2008BAMS...89.1325P. doi:10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1. Crichton, M. (2004), State of Fear, Avon Books. Anderegg, William R. L.; Prall, James W.; Harold, Jacob; Schneider, Stephen H. (April 9, 2010). "Expert credibility in climate change". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Retrieved June 23, 2010. AAAS - AAAS News Release AAAS Annual Report-Science The most influential journals: Impact Factor and Eigenfactor PNAS Retrieved on 2009-11-16

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Dissent from consensus by noted scientists and IPCC contributors

To highlight dissent from the consensus by noted scientists and IPCC contributors, I thought we should add the following:

"Several prominent contributors to IPCC reports are critical of the claims of consensus on global warming. One contributor, Dr. Paul Reiter, professor of medical entomology at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, France stated in testimony to the United States Senate "…such consensus is the stuff of politics, not of science. Science proceeds by observation, hypothesis and experiment. The complexity of this process, and the uncertainties involved, are a major obstacle to a meaningful understanding of scientific issues by non-scientists. In reality, a genuine concern for mankind and the environment demands the inquiry, accuracy and skepticism that are intrinsic to authentic science. A public that is unaware of this is vulnerable to abuse.". Similarly, Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, indicated “Claims of consensus…serve to intimidate the public and even scientists” and are “a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition.”"

1. http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/reiter-042606.pdf
2. http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

Thanks. Istranix (talk) 05:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No. See the lead section " does not document the views of individual scientists" - and in particularly not any issued in political statements and blogs, and not in a proper scientific venue. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes...this should include those challenging the "consensus." Not sure how this crept in there (BOLD EDIT). Thanks.Istranix (talk) 06:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Boldly reverted. Maybe you should consider why we do not include individual scientists. And you should certainly understand that Inhofe's joke blog is not a WP:RS for anything, much less for scientific opinion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Istranix- Quoting individual scientists is no way to asses the scientific opinion on anything. There are millions of scientists in the world, and anyone can easily find "scientists" who support such concepts as intelligent design or even the existence of Bigfoot. However, you are correct in that there is a small minority of scientists who do not endorse AGW. Their views are documented in the article List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, which this article links to.--CurtisSwain (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Another reason to off-load the 'consensus' section from this article. The only consensi appropriately covered here are formal consensus statements of scientific organisations (incl, of course, the consensus position of the IPCC) - but NOT whether there is an INFORMAL overall 'scientific consensus' - let the body of significant scientific opinion (as reflected through the FORMAL, published, consensus opinions of organisations of national standing, surveys, etc...) speak for itself. --Jaymax (talk) 09:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about Scientific opinion on climate change#Scientific_consensus or some other section? Because that one contains only formal statements referring to the consensus... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That is the section I mean - I've long felt uncomfortable with it here - as, while they are formal statements (or small parts thereof) - it's a bit of a mishmash of stuff that includes the word 'consensus'. And as yet, I havn't seen any 'scientific test' to establish whether there is overall 'scientific consensus'. I think this article stands stronger doing what it says it does in the title and intro. If this article seeks to address the much more fickle (and much less scientific) question of whether there is a universal scientific 'consensus', then it can do so only by acknowledging and report the notable (however unscientific, or incorrect) sources which say there is not. But to do so here would dilute horribly the quite precise collection of formal 'scientific opinion' we have gathered.

To put it another way - if Scientific Entity X states their opinion is Y, well, that IS their position. - If Scientific Entity W states that there is consensus between them and everyone else that Y is what everyone agress, well, they're still only speaking for organisation W - it's qualitatively different, and qualitatively less authoritative.--Jaymax (talk) 10:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing the “Consensus” section from the article is something we discussed about a year ago (see archives 6, section 20), and we decided to keep it. I actually proposed removing it myself, because, like you, I thought it was redundant. However, I have come to appreciate it, and I believe it does have value. It gives readers a quick and easy summary of what scientific bodies say about the level of acceptance AGW has within the larger scientific community. I believe that’s what many readers are looking for when the come to this article.--CurtisSwain (talk) 09:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm the 'you' above - I don't think it's so much redundant, as misplaced in THIS article. I haven't engaged on this before, because I wasn't aware of the existence of a separate 'consensus' article. Anyway, I'm still arguing with myself on this one as well.

In that vein, and closely related - it occurred to me that surveys of climate/earth scientists goes to Scientific Opinion (covering off the net-individual-scientists aspect), whereas surveys of the published literature goes to support Scientific Consensus - perhaps - just thinking atap here.--Jaymax (talk) 04:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

medical associations

I just read through this article, and I'd just like to mention that I struggled rather to understand the inclusion of both the American and Australian Medical Associations as important organisations supporting the consensus of scientific opinion on climate change. Should the relevance of the particular scientific opinion come into play a little? I had to stop and wonder to myself, what about the Australian Writer's Guild. Don't they also believe in the consensus on global warming? These days ExxonMobil's policy is to support the consensus. So why not add them too? Normal people would see this as a transparent attempt at inflating the number of scientific organisations that can be said to support the consensus. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

ExxonMobil is an energy company and the Australian Writers' Guild is a professional society of, well, writers. Neither one is a "scientific body of national or international standing", whereas the AMA and all the other medical groups listed certainly are. Are the medical groups qualified to speak about climate change per se ? No, but they certainly are qualified to speak about the impact of climate change on human health, and that is exactly what their position statements focus on and why they are included in the article.--CurtisSwain (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I would think a writer's guild as a unique body of experts on social media is qualified to comment on social impact as well, by the logic you apply to the physicians. I find the reference to physicians unconvincing for the reason it is cited -- namely, as one of the forty-odd "scientific bodies of national or international standing," whatever that means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.186.202 (talk) 04:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well either the meaning of the word "scientific" is evident to you, or it is not. --TS 05:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, medicine is a science, but whether or not it's relevant to the whole climate change issue is a legitimate question. The answer is "yes", given that one of the major concerns about AGW is that our changing climate is having, or will have, an increasingly negative impact on humanity, including human health. After all, if climate change didn't negatively impact humanity, there'd be little cause for concern.--CurtisSwain (talk) 09:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

As for the meaning of "scientific bodies of national or international standing", that's also a legitimate question. To find the answer, you have to click on the internal links to science academies and scientific societies, and do a little reading. Whether a particular scientific body has "national or international standing" is a little harder to discern, and requires some familiarity with the scientific community. But, in general, I think it's safe to say an organization's standing has to do with how well regarded they are by other scientists, how broad their membership is, and how far afield their research goes.--CurtisSwain (talk) 09:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, if you click on Australian Writers' Guild , you'll find that they're "writers for film, television, radio," etc., What they have to say on the issue, if anything, may be pertinent to Climate change in popular culture, but certainly not to an article cataloging scientific assessment.--CurtisSwain (talk) 11:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

'Scientific opinion' is an oxymoron

"A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses"*. opinion is not science and this article should be deleted.

(*http://en.wikipedia.org/Scientific_method) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.7.180 (talk) 01:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks or your opinion. Misplaced Pages documents verifiable statements, not the WP:TRUTH. There are at least 168000 people out on Google who use the term. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Google hits do not measure anything. There's a WP: page that details that IIRC, but I can't remember where it is. Probably the Notability criteria, but still. PT (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You may be looking for WP:GOOGLE. Of course Google hits measure something - the question is whether they measure what we are interested in. In this case, they provide ample evidence that "scientific opinion" is indeed a widely used and notable term. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Width of use does not, however, cover whether a term is oxymoronic, or whether such a topic is encyclopaedic. I would suggest this article be merged/redirected into Global Warming Controversy PT (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to suggest that, an AfD with suggestion "merge" would be the proper venue. You might look at the last attempt, though. I suspect a new attempt will be WP:SNOWballed again. This is a very useful, quite comprehensive, and extremely well-sourced article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree 100% with Stephan. --Skyemoor (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

By "scientific opinion", I'm sure it is talking about "the opinion of scientists", which really "people that use scientific method to find out facts' ideas on what those facts mean". A mouthful and a little confusing, which is why the term "scientific opinion" is much better for use here. Aeonoris (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, last attempt for AfD was by someone who gave no rationale and was probably by someone who disagrees with the whole concept of climage change, hence the "Speedy Keep". An AfD based on WP policies regarding NPOV and the oxymoronic properties of the title would likely have a result of "keep" or "merge", and I think that it is an option that should be left on the table:)Mrathel (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed; maybe Stephan needs to read WP:SNOW again himself before citing it; just because there is a bad argument for something does not prevent the existence of good arguments for it. Anyway, I have linked the list of dissenting scientists and the Controversy article from the introduction, as the article states that it specifically deals with institutions and not individuals, so 'individual scientists' may as well be a link; and because 'scientific opinion' may be ambiguated with 'scientific opinions' or 'scientific arguments' about the existence or causes of CC/AGW. PT (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You can't link the list of septics to "individual scientists", unless you're under the impression that all individuals dissent from reality William M. Connolley (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, the way you say "reality" there presumes the conclusion you want - let's have none of that. More importantly though, the article as it stands gives the impression that no-one dissents from the AGW 'orthodoxy'. There needs to be a link to some kind of list; and there isn't a list for those scientists who accept AGW as well because it would be considerably longer (as I freely admit). So how about if it goes "individual scientists (but see the ]), individual yadda yadda...", would that do? Also, why did the other bit, the link to the Controversy article, get cut too? PT (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This article does contain a link to the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming under the "Statements by dissenting organizations" section. It's also in the "See Also" section, where the link to Global warming controversy is as well.--CurtisSwain (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "climate change" assumes that climate is static, which it's not. Also, there is no information in this piece about the switch in 2008 from "global warming" to "climate change." That switch is important because it highlights an attempt to refocus what had been a debate with actual parameters ---- it's either getting warmer or it's not ---- into a debate with no parameters: the climate is changing, which it always has.

This whole article is ridiculous. It is a pretentious POV piece by those staking a claim to victory in a public debate. It has no other purpose. This is not encyclopedic knowledge. It should be deleted.--SandyFace (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Somehow a comment posted on the Misplaced Pages of a parallel universe ended up here. Count Iblis (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that I must be some kind of crazy Republican to think this is a POV article? --SandyFace (talk) 18:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The title may not be oxymoronic per se, whilst it can be easily understood that it is corrupt and misleading for this article where "scientific opinion" is used as a general colloquialism to blur the line between the political statements of scientific bodies and the scientific opinions of individual scientists, and to create the illusion that they are one and the same. This article is a "List of scientific statements issued by scientific bodies", no more no less. There is no way to assess how this encompasses the opinions of the many thousands of individual scientists in the world, members or not of these bodies, nor is there a way to assess who between the bodies or individual scientists taken as a whole should carry more weight in assessing "scientific opinion" about something.

Besides, it is assumed that my local politician is my representative. I can although tell you that I do not share a large part of his opinions. --Childhood's End (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you read the whole article, you'll see that it contains a variety of surveys of individual scientists involved in climate related research, a survey of the scientific literature on climate change, and the most recent synthesis reports on the matter as well. If you know of a more comprehensive way to document the scientific community's opinion on climate change, please let us know. We're always looking for ways to improve the article.--CurtisSwain (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that you have hit bullseye with your last comment. The problem is exactly this; there is no way to comprehensively document the scientific community's opinion on climate change. Oreskes' methodology, for instance, was sent into the memory hole right after the newspaper headlines were printed. And the surveys in this article have been cherry-picked, as you probably know, just like it's been decided to not include open letters by scientists... --Childhood's End (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do you falsely claim that another person "probably knows" something that is nothing more than your own unsupported opinion? Please avoid dishonest debating tactics. --TS 00:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It's also false - the surveys have not been cherry picked. If there is a survey of earth scientists on climate change you are aware of that is not included, please add it.--Jaymax (talk) 03:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Or, if you mean the editors of this article have cherry-picked data from the surveys in order to push a particular POV, then you are free to edit those entries so they more accurately reflect the results of those surveys. As for Oreskes's survey of the scientific literature, are you asserting that the Bush Administration euphemistically relegated it to the place where "government officials deposit politically inconvenient documents and records to be destroyed"? I wasn't aware of that. But, I am aware that some people, like social anthropologist Benny Peiser, have asserted that Oreskes' methodology was flawed. However, others have found flaws in Peiser's critique. And, her piece was not only published in Science, it's been cited in more than a few other peer-reviewed journals as well. So, it can't be simply dismissed. As for not including "open letters by scientists"...public statements made by individual scientists only reflect the opinions of those individuals and not of the scientific community as a whole. Whereas, surveys and position statements made by reputable bodies encompass the opinions of much larger groups of scientists.--CurtisSwain (talk) 08:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Science as a an apparatus for neutral objective truth is kind of an obsolete engineers view (IMHO), see the pretty obsolete logical positivism versus critical realism, Karl Popper, and Imre Lakatos. Science, according to my gut feelings, uses mass evaluations and an intensive and systematic opinionating and criticism in order to get a verifiable mean opinion of all observing/measuring guys called "scientists". There is no democracy in science, so there are no votes, instead there is a "ballot by evolution" where opinions are put under an intense evolutionary pressure. If the system is somehow cut off from observation and measurements, it stops being science. ... said: Rursus (bork³) 09:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control

I've removed the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, as it is neither a science academy nor a professional society, but an agency of the European Union, and at this point in time, we are not including government agencies. Whoever added them to the article should have been more careful. Oh wait, that was me. My bad.--CurtisSwain (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

GSA heads up

The Geological Society of America is proposing a new climate change statement. They are not changing their position, but some updating will be needed, likely right after the GSA annual meeting in October. Awickert (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Dissenting opinion

Who claims that since 2007 there has not been a dissenting opinion amongst scientists? Any reference available? This seems to be a rather bold statement and rather questionable without reference. —Precedingunsigned comment added by Dapa22 (talk •contribs) 16:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The statement is clearly about "scientific bodies of national or international standing". This statement in the lead is merely condensing the fact that no such statements appear in the body of the article, because (since 2007) there are none to include.--Jaymax (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

...and that is supported by the reference in Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_dissenting_organizations.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This ] reference was used in the lead as a citation for the line in question, "Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion". The reference is editorial in nature and not scientific and does not make the claim that there are no dissenting opinions. I have removed the reference. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 01:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. The article says "AAPG aligns itself with Crichton’s views, and stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming" (emphasis added). After this was published AAPG -- the "lone" scientific society -- revised its statement from opposing the consensus to noncommittal. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the whole article? That comment is clearly not meant literally. The article is not a scientific article, it's an editorial article complaining that Michael Crichton got the award. They didn't do a poll or study on all the different scientific bodies in the world to see where they stand, that comment, stands alone among scientific societies is hyperbole. You cannot just hunt through articles looking for quotes that support your opinions, you must take into account the context (and tone) in which the article is written. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 02:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

How do you know it's "hyperbole"? What is your evidence for that assertion? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

First, as I keep explaining but you don't seem to understand, this is an editorial article. Please notice that the author spends the whole time editorializing and there are no citations. The general tone of the article is outrage and it is far from unbiased. I will not be making further comments or edits tonight; so, before you make further arguments based on the content of the article please take this opportunity to reread the article, perhaps reviewing the content of this article will help you to understand my point of view. Much more important, , their opinion on climate change here, http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/ conflicts with the human caused version of things. So that is at least 2 "scientific societies" that deny the "human-induced effects on global warming." Ergo AAPG does not "stand alone". Voiceofreason01 (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that the Heartland Institute is a scientific society? Even they don't say that they're a scientific society. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"Even they don't say that they're a scientific society." Where is your evidence for that? Their members conduct research and they publish a respected peer reviewed journal, what more do you want? Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You mean in social or political "science" journals? Count Iblis (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Heartland explains what they are on their About page: "a nonprofit research and education organization"...who's "mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems". Nowhere do they claim to be a scientific body. The fact that they conduct research doesn't make them a scientific body either. Anybody can conduct research. Research, as defined by Websters, is simply the gathering of information. And what "respected peer reviewed journal" does Heartland publish? Is it in the Science Citation Index or MEDLINE/PubMed? I think not. No, the Heartland Institute may incorporate a little science into their advocations for certain policies, but they are a think tank.--CurtisSwain (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious about this journal too; though of course the HI isn't a sci soc William M. Connolley (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

We've wondered off-topic. Is or isn't the source actually saying that "no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion." or is the author merely taking editorial liberties to prove a point. I would like to hear from some of the other editors. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the AMQUA reviewed article quite clearly states that the AAPG (at the time) stood alone in disputing AGW - since the AAPG doesn't do so anymore, the equation is obvious (1-1 = 0). Furthermore there are no documented instances of a scientific body that disputes AGW, so it gets even more obvious. If you want to dispute this - then please find any scientific body that does so, and it obviously would change the intro. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, reference is valid. The statement, by a significant number of earth scientists, and 'presented by' AMQUA, is well positioned to be authoritative regarding the positions of scientific bodies. Being a 'scientific article' is not required to meet WP:RS. And calculating 1-1=0 does not constitute WP:OR.--Jaymax (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want to try to find a scientific society that's issued a dissenting opinion, I recommend the Scholarly Societies Project. They have links to literally thousands of scientific and professional societies, unions, federations, associations, etc. You can search by subject, scope, country, or language. It’s very well organized, and easy to use. Good luck.--CurtisSwain (talk) 10:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

My point is not and never was that the AMQUA article is not wp:rs. Rather the article is not authoritative in saying that AAPG is the only dissenting scientific society and that claim is being misrepresented and used out of context in the wikipedia article. Show me where AMQUA did a survey or study of scientific societies about their views of global warming and this comment can be viewed in a different light; Otherwise these statements need to be represented only as the editorial opinion of AMQUA, to do otherwise violates wp:undue. Further, 1-1=0 is not wp:or but taking content from two different sources, and putting them together is wp:syn, and that ignores the point that, as I keep pointing out, the quote from the AMQUA article is taken out of context. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 12:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You might have a point there about wp:syn. However, I don't see the AMQUA quote as being taken out of context. The whole point of their piece is not so much that Crichton's "distorted view of global warming" is wrong, but that the AAPG is wrong for "lending its stamp of approval" to his views. The bulk of AMQUA's piece points out flaws in Crichton's work in order to support the conclusion that AAPG "crossed the line" in honoring him. The "stands alone" line is in reference to the AAPG's own 1999 policy statement which refuted AGW. No, there's no indication that AMQUA did any kind of formal survey or study of scientific societies. There doesn't have to be. As Kim has pointed out, AMQUA is authoritative and knowledgeable enough to make that assessment.

However, I want to thank you for pointing out that there may be a Synthesis problem here. The article does kind of do that by taking A: "AAPG stands alone", adding B: AAPG revises their policy statement, and concluding C: "Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion." But, I'll leave it to more experienced editors then I make that determination.--CurtisSwain (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Further down WP:SYN "This policy does not forbid routine calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which it is derived." The reference is perfectly suitable IMHO. Incidentally, WP:SYN is just a sub-type of WP:OR --Jaymax (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Thanks for clearing that up. I think we can consider this discussion settled.--CurtisSwain (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to reignite that disscusion as you can see in this edit there are dissenting opinions from national stance scientific bodies. Please let me know why this edit was reverted, and if it shouldn't consider changing contents of 'Statements by dissenting organizations' so it does reflect reality. Forest001 (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything new compared to Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change/Archive_7#Polish_geologists? The committee is not only illiterate in climate science, it also is not a "scientific body of national or international standing" - the respective body is the PAS, which has issued a statement in support of the IPCC. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well again as you can read here they are scientific body of national standing (i may translate it for you if you want) and there is no reason to not include theirs opinion or at least acknowledge it. And tell me please how is it more illiterate than European Geosciences Union for example? Is it because it has different stance?Forest001 (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The page is about PAN, not about its Committee of Geological sciences. If you read the discussion I linked to, you will find plenty of evidence for their illiteracy of climate science. EGU has not given us a comparable sample of stupidity - and even if they had, they would still be a scientific body of international standing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but what is your expertize to judge Committee of Geological Sciences of the Polish Academy of Sciences stance? And PAN is polish for PAS and site from my link explains that all Committees are national bodied. So why is Geological Society of Australia national body and ommittee of Geological Sciences of the Polish Academy of Sciences is not again? Because you think that they are stupid?Forest001 (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is an interesting discussion. Certainly, the question of weight comes into play, as well as the tricky problem of discerning what exactly is a scientific body of national or international standing. PAN definitely qualifies, and that's why their statement is included in this article. However, PAN's Committee on Geological Sciences is just one of 70 hard science committees within the larger body, and surely the statement from the larger General Assembly of PAN supersedes that of the smaller internal committee. Their dissenting statement appears to be theirs alone, and not even representative of PAN's Earth Sciences Division (of which the Geo. Sci. committee is just 1 of 10, others being Quaternary, Geophysics, etc). Now, I certainly don't consider myself to be an expert on the scientific community, but it seems to me that the Geo. Sci. committee can't be considered a scientific body of national or international standing, even though they may be comprised of "researchers from the whole country.". As far as I can tell, they are not an entity unto themselves, but simply a sub group of a larger body. They're not at all on par with stand-alone organizations like the Geological Society of Australia or the EGU which maintain their own membership and publish their own peer-reviewed journals. So, giving them space here would most likely be a violation of WP:UNDUE. But wait...we do include a statement from the Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London, which is basically the same thing isn't it?...a sub of a larger body? Given that, I think we have only one of two choices: (A) If we keep the Stratigraphy Commission, we have to include PAN's Geo. Sci. committee...or...(B) don't include either of them. I believe (B) is best, that way we avoid giving undue space to little internal sub groups. Fair enough?--CurtisSwain (talk) 08:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

fair enough. this is reasoning that does make sense and i'm greatfull for that. will wait then for some other institusions to break 'consensus'. Cheers and have good day! Forest001 (talk) 09:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, good luck with that. And, we'll just wait a few days to see if anyone else has a good reason for taking a different course of action.--CurtisSwain (talk) 09:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Done.--CurtisSwain (talk) 22:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I was coming to the Talk page to say exactly what the first comment said. I've now read all of the above, and understand the logic behind the first statement, but am still concerned that to the average reader it sounds very much like an unreferenced fact. This concerns me because not only is that statement copied onto numerous other websites which pull content from Misplaced Pages but also because I use it in various conversations that I have and yet feel uneasy about having no source for it. I think if the statement is meant to be a summing up sentence of the below, then it should be clear that this is the case, either by at the minimum, appending an extra bit to the sentence which says something like "As evident in the list below, ..." or even better, actually including what you have written above that says that the AAPG used to be the only dissenting organisation but in 2007 changed their statement, and therefore there are no longer any dissenting orgs. To do that would make it much clearer to readers of the article that the statement is valid and can be trusted. Without some sort of reference/clarification it is too easy to engender distrust. Normally, I would just go in and make such a clarifying change, but given that I have not been involved in this article so far I hope that someone will take this suggestion on board. Cheers, JenLouise (talk) 10:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point. The reference for that is actually in the Statements by dissenting organizations section. So, I just inserted an internal link so readers can jump right to it. Thanks for the suggestion.--CurtisSwain (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Introduction to introduction

Please provide sources that establisht the need for the extraordinary parameters explicated at the opening of the aricle. This seems to be a very unusual (unique?) format and it's not clear why it's need or helpful. It seems to distract from encyclopedic coverage of the subject and may violate NPOV. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm at a loss to understand this tagging . There can be no doubt that the article does indeed do exactly what that says. In what sense can it be considered dubious? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I was reading this article, I am not sure why these parameters are there. Perhaps someone should make a bold move and delete it. Yearston (talk) 02:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The parameters are there to clearly mark and describe what the article is about, nothing extraordinary about it - if you want it deleted then the correct way is to do so via WP:AfD. (this seems to be the strangest argument i've yet to hear). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

There is considerable relevant discussion in the archives over time showing the evolution of these parameters. They have been reached through consensus, and largely define what this article is about.

It makes no sense to ask for 'sources' that establish a need to properly describe the article. That an article defining the boundaries of it's subject at the start seems unusual to you is, well, unusual. No valid basis has been made for their modification, let alone removal. Hollow (as in, unreasoned) statements that they might be NPOV are unconvincing (to put it politely)--Jaymax (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER)

I've removed . We've been through this before, though I forget where William M. Connolley (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Not in the page or talk history since Jan 2009, when the report was initially released. Are you disputing the existance of JSER, or the translation I referenced? Treedel (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

For prior discussion, see archive 6 section 33 from back in March. Additionally, although JSER states they are "an academic society", they are not listed in the Scholarly Societies Project, or even in a list of Japanese Academic Societies. Nor can I find their journal Energy and Resources in Science Citation Index (but maybe I just don't know how to look). Even if JSER turns out to be a legitimate learned society, the document you referenced appears to simply be a report they published, and not a position statement issued to express the views of the organization as a whole. Also, a discussion about the reliability of The Register can be found here (it's not).--CurtisSwain (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The archived talk isn't exactly meaningfull discussion...

It's hard to find out anything substantial about the organization, which makes it doubtful as a "scientific body of national or international standing". And the Register's reporting is so horrible that I cannot even make out what has happened - it seems as they issued a 5 author report, and 3 of these authors doubt the IPCC. The Register has published selected parts of a horrible translation - apparently only parts from the sceptics. I would suggest to simply ignore this until substantial evidence arrives. There are some suitable documents linked from http://www.jser.gr.jp/index.html, but my Japanese is a bit rusty. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:29, 4 March

The other discussion you referenced concludes that The Register is of debated value. Nobody there claims that they have a pattern of factual inaccuracies. However, the reliability of The Register isn't the key point here. Treedel (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

refers William M. Connolley (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Also see User_talk:Stephan_Schulz#Japan_Society_of_Energy_and_Resources_and_Global_Warming. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I realize, based on an independent source that clarifies that that report was published by the JSER, not written by it. The question I now have is: can that site be considered reliable? If so, we only have some scientists, one of whom did some contribution to the IPCC AR4 as an expert reviewerwho have published a dissenting opinion. Those are a dime a dozen nowadays. Treedel (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Still overpriced - scientists with consenting opinions go for around two-dozen a penny.--Jaymax (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware that the price differential was so great. I suppose that's why the pro-warming faction is able to afford more scientists. Treedel (talk) 00:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

did some contribution to the IPCC AR4 as an expert reviewer as puffery is generally a sign of the septic. It is amusing how, despite their dislike of IPCC, they still recognise it as the gold standard to be associated with William M. Connolley (talk) 08:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

To answer Treedel's question, I'd say this bit here from Watts Up With That (WUWT) that Stephan Schulz alluded to is reliable since it contains a clarifying letter from one of the participants in the discussion JSER published. However, I think The Australian with this article would probably be a better choice. And, I wouldn't consider WUWT reliable for much of anything else, certainly nothing for this article. But, some of the names from the JSER piece could probably be added to the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.--CurtisSwain (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Why would WUWT be reliable for this information, and not in general? If they regularly publish inaccurate information, they are unreliable in general, right? Not just 'unreliable when they disagree with me." Treedel (talk) 00:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

WUWT is just news and commentary, mostly from a former television meteorologist. It's not a Scientific journal. But, if you want to explore the reliability of WUWT more, I suggest using the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.--CurtisSwain (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

So, when they publish something along the lines of "X journal published theory Y", they would be accurate, but when they said "Theory Y is true", it's commentary... Just like any other news source?Treedel (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

More or less, yes.--CurtisSwain (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Article has been moved?

Wasn't this article previously called Scientific consensus on climate change? Why was it moved? -- ChrisO (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't find a good way to search the move log to see when it was last moved back here, but it was renamed Scientific Consensus on Climate Change for a few hours in 2007. I can't find any evidence it was actually named properly Scientific consensus on climate change. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There's also Climate change consensus which was created in March 2009.--CurtisSwain (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thank you - that is what I was thinking of. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it fair to assume

that organizations not listed in support are undecided?

for example, Polish Academy of Sciences is listed. well, there are almost 200 countries in the world. where are almost 200 of other academy of sciences? i think that this list may be perceived as a cherry picking, if no note about the whole set of institutions from which those are chosen are at least mentioned. so my proposal is to place somewhere before the list something like:

of so and so scientific institutions having more than so and so scientist, following ones support/oppose ...

212.200.205.163 (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, we've listed all significant credible organistaions that have made a statement. If the Poles don't care to say anything, we could more plausibly assume that they agree with the ones that have spoken out. What makes you think they are undecided? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a note: assuming such a thing would be WP:OR. On the other hand: assuming anything at all about their stance would be WP:OR ... of course unless reliable sources can be found. ... said: Rursus (bork³) 09:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

i disagree. here is an example from my country stating global warming effect has been even underestimated. so similarly, there are probably dozens of other academies that made statements, either supporting or opposing the IPCC statement. anyhow, this list seems to be arbitrary, and may in fact in part be WP:OR/WP:SYNTHESIS (no reliable sources presenting such a list). or there may be such sources. in any case, making this list more comprehensive would be a good thing. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

That PDf is just a conference flyer William M. Connolley (talk) 11:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

As with EVERY OTHER article, this one is only as complete as the user base has made it. There is a bias here, as with most other articles in the English wikipedia, towards sources that are readily available to the larger english-speaking populations. Both of these are, perhaps unfortunate, but totally unavoidable. The backstory to the Polish society is an intresting one, uncoverable in the archives - basically a small sub-committee released an ambiguous statement, which was briefly included as being the societies statement - that was later clarified, and a passing Pole, as a result of our erroneous statement that the society had not made a statement, translated the key passages from the polish societies statement for us (there did not seem to be a readily available translation)

It is not WP:SYN because there is no intent here to do anything OTHER than document, per the lead paragraphs, as far as possible. Lists are explicitly allowable on WP.

The PDF from Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts doesn't seem to quite contain a statement of opinion - but if we can obtain one from Serbia OR ANYWHERE that passes WP:RS and the article scope, it will be included, regardless of what the opinion actually is. --Jaymax (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well said, Jaymax. And, I have to agree with WMC as well, we can't assume anything. Personally, I've searched the web sites of literally hundreds of scientific societies through the Scholarly Societies Project, and from what I've seen, most societies don't issue position statements about anything. Having some sort of "note about the whole set of institutions" would be meaningless, because a lot of scientific societies have nothing to do with AGW or its effects. The fact that the All India Ophthalmological Society or the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence have yet to issue a statement about AGW is irrelevant. As for the Academies of Sciences, yes, there are nearly 200 countries in the world, but not all of them have a National Academy per se. Some of the smaller countries are represented by organizations like the Network of African Science Academies and the Caribbean Academy of Sciences both of which have issued concurring statements. More importantly, the InterAcademy Council pretty much represents all of the world's science academies. So, I think we got that pretty well covered here.--CurtisSwain (talk) 08:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on! Obviously every American who is not on the record of publicly condemning the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse is tacitly approving what happened there. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I assume you're being facetious, and I assume you're agreeing we shouldn't assume.--CurtisSwain (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

introductory sentence

i strongly object to the very first italicized sentence. never before in over 6 years that i use wikipedia did i see such a DISCLAIMER at the beginning of the article. in only confirms the cherry picking impression that i described above. i think this totally arbitrary statement should be removed, as it meets no wikipedia policy. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 02:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not a disclaimer - it defines the content and subject matter of this article, which is hardly uncommon. Furthermore you will often see italiciced text at the top of Wiki articles stating what the article is not. It has been discussed many times, and evolved through a consensus process. You can find the rationalle for the specific, evolved content by looking through the archives - in short, to be meaningful, there needs to be some criteria for inclusion, otherwise we end up with a gigantic, useless and meaningless article which value my neighbour Fred's opinion to be as scientific as the formalised, published consensus opinion of the World Meterological Organisation. If you have an argument for modifying, extending or further restricting the criteria, please offer it here for debate.--Jaymax (talk) 02:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

what does it mean self-selected? categories seem to be invented so that certain groups of opinions could be excluded from the article. Reminds me of WP:CFORK 212.200.205.163 (talk) 02:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

See Self-selection. If by categories you mean the headings, these result form the organisations which have been added, not the other way around. If you come up with a scientific organisation of national or international standing that has released an optinion/position and that organisation doesn't fit one of the other headings, then a new heading would be created for it. --Jaymax (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why American Chemical Society statement is relevant for the climate change issue? Also, i saw on their website that it has 160,000 members. I am curious to know what role all of them had in writing the society's statement? So why is the statement of this society more relevant than the statement of 60 scientists whose training seems to be more relevant to this issue? 212.200.205.163 (talk) 03:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Because that list of 60 scientist is self-selected, and therefore not scientifically significant. As before, please view the archives for previous consensus debates around whether non-earth-science societies should be included or not.

what about ACS? 212.200.205.163 (talk) 03:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

is it not scientifically significant if dozens of nobel prize winners write a statement? 212.200.205.163 (talk) 03:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

No - it is only scientifically significant if you poll living nobel prize winners and report the results. Which is why when 20 Nobel laureates said "We must recognise the fierce urgency of now. The evidence is compelling for the range and scale of climate impacts that must be avoided, such as droughts, sea level rise and flooding leading to mass migration and conflict. The scientific process, by which this evidence has been gathered, should be used as a clear mandate to accelerate the actions that need to be taken. Political leaders cannot possibly ask for a more robust, evidence-based call for action." it had no place in this article. --Jaymax (talk) 03:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

even if they are chemists and not climate researchers? 212.200.205.163 (talk) 03:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

To repeat please view the archives for previous consensus debates around whether non-earth-science societies should be included or not. I didn't partake in the last round of those debates, so I don't know how it was argued - but I know it was, and I know that ACS is still in there, and so the consensus was apparently to keep the criteria unchanged and not excluded scientfic organsations of national standing such as the chemists. I would point out that atmospheric chemistry and ocean chemistry are hugely significant earth sciences, critical to climate change research. But really, we've been through this before - your shifting argument strongly suggests you have an agenda - please review the archives, formalise precicely what you propose should be changed and why, so there is something to debate. --Jaymax (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

i didn't find relevant discussion in archives, but anyhow, since you pointed out to these branches of chemistry, i see now why ACS is relevant for the topic. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 10:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I have proposed a FAQ below to make it easier to find answers to such questions. Another article contributor 216.169.82.243 commented on letters in the ACS publication - and I confess to assuming that was you and being frustrated. For the sake of that editor - the reponses that editor linked to were reponses to an editorial in the "Chemical and Engineering News" journal - NOT! reponses to the publication of the official public policy position of the ACS of their website - which was (I assume with confidence) a democratic process. This pertains to your (212.200.205.163) question above re how the ACS membership were or were not involved - see below for further. --Jaymax (talk) 10:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

N.B. my IP is serbia, 216 is USA. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 10:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I know - I realised about a couple of hours ago when I did the traceroutes - I apologise. I just assumed because that IP was continuing the ACS stuff - my bad. --Jaymax (talk) 11:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Not that it's relevant, but here is where you need to go to research how ACS develops policy http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_SUPERARTICLE&node_id=259&use_sec=false&sec_url_var=region1&__uuid=df4f9c38-5951-4192-a54f-8d42ed625dc1 --Jaymax (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

We need a FAQ

/discuss --Jaymax (talk) 09:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

i agree. there should definitely be an explanation of the rationale behind the very fist sentence. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 10:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea!

Here are some suggestions for the FAQ, in no particular order of frequency or importance:

• Why are no dissenting organizations included?
• What exactly is a "scientific body of national or international standing"?
• Why are there statements by organizations like the American Statistical Association or the Australian Coral Reef Society and others that don't have anything to do with climate science?
• Why doesn't this article include the views of individual scientists, universities, or laboratories, or any petitions or open letters from scientists? The criteria for inclusion seems arbitrary (or purposely designed to exclude descenting opinions)?

There's probably a few more, but that's all I can come up with right now. I look forward to reading how other editors think these questions should be answered, and I'll start drafting some responses myself.--CurtisSwain (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

In response to the second question, some time ago I wrote:

"...click on the internal links to science academies and scientific societies, and do a little reading. Whether a particular scientific body has "national or international standing" is a little harder to discern, and requires some familiarity with the scientific community. But, in general, I think it's safe to say an organization's standing has to do with how well regarded they are by other scientists, how broad their membership is, and how far afield their research goes."

That might be a good start, but I don't think that's going to be sufficient for the FAQ.--CurtisSwain (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Per discussion above:

• Why isn't such-and-such 'national-subcomittee's' opinion included. --Jaymax (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

FAQ 2

This is the best I could come up with for What exactly is a "scientific body of national or international standing"?''. I welcome any comments, edits, or alternatives.

An Academy of Sciences or a scientific society that maintains a national or international membership, and that is well-regarded within the scientific community could be said to be of "national or international standing." Discerning how well-regarded a particular scientific body is requires some familiarity with the scientific community. However, in general, this can be determined by the impact factor ratings of the body's journal as provided by Journal Citation Reports. The journals Science, from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and PNAS, from the US National Academy of Sciences, are considered amoung the world's most influential and prestigious.

That's better, and it also answers the question about subcommittees with the phrase about maintaining a membership. I think that question has only come up once so, that should do. Anybody got anything better?--CurtisSwain (talk) 08:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I've also asked for feedback on Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Science.--CurtisSwain (talk) 10:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Taking into consideration some feedback I got here on the ref desk, I think the 3rd sentence should read:

However, for academies or societies that produce Scientific journals, some assessment of their standing can be derived from their journal's impact factor ratings as provided by Journal Citation Reports.

That's a little better. Not all reputable sci. orgs. produce journals.--CurtisSwain (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the FAQ box is up and running. I had to use the "quick edit" set up, because that's the only way I could get the ref box to show up on this page. Maybe after we get it fleshed out we can go to the "no quick edit" set up like the one on Talk:Global warming.--CurtisSwain (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Location of non-committal organisations

CurtisSwain has reverted my change to the lede in the area where it summarises the 'Noncommittal statements' section. If I were to summarise that section, one of the first things I'd note, other than that there are 'few' such statements, is that they all originate from North America. We have two American Associations, two American Institutes and one Canadian Federation. Listing them in that way is too much detail, but simply noting that they are all from the same continent is surely relevant - no Asian, European, African or South American organisations maintain such a stance, that we know of.

I could understand being reverted for adding too much detail to the lede, but it is not over long and CurtisSwain's reason for the revert was 'Most are international', which I think is just patently wrong, given the cited references in the main body of the article as above.

What do other editors think? --Nigelj (talk) 13:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

What I find more telling is that one is an organization of political appointees (and really out of date) and the other four are all geologist organizations. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I said most are international because as far as I can tell, the State Climatologists and the Canadian Federation are the only two who's membership is strictly limited to their home countries. While the other three may be based in North America, the AAPG is actually an international geological organization with members in over 116 countries around the world , the AGI is a federation of 46 geoscience societies including the Geological Society of London and the International Basement Tectonics Association , and the AIPG is an "international organization" with "more than 5,500 members in the U.S. and abroad" . So, calling them "North American organisations" is a bit inaccurate, although, admittedly, not terribly egregious. --CurtisSwain (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Re-removed 'North American' as per membership info above. --Jaymax (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

So an American organisation, if some of its members work and live overseas, becomes an international organisation? I'm not going to argue with you guys about that. --Nigelj (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd spin it this way - an organisation that started in the US, and so has 'American' in it's name, but due to realgeopolitik and cultural dominance became the pre-eminent 'western' professional body in it's specific discipline is not fairly described as 'North American', even if the bulk of it's members are indeed, still American. --Jaymax (talk) 12:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Two questions

It seems the article doesn't distinguish clearly about what is the question:

Q1: is there a global warming? - the article statistics implies that the sources say: yes,

Q2: is the global warming anthropogenic? - the article isn't as clear on this as on Q1, but I think I can read that the citations used in the article implies this in about 50-70% of the cases.

Q3: is IPCC an evil cult ... no forget it, just kidding!!

... said: Rursus (bork³) 11:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

A real third question: sources in "Biology and life sciences" doesn't add own arguments to Q1/Q2, instead they warn:

global warming seems to occur, but then this evil will happen!

so they don't present causes or arguments, they warn for consequences. ... said: Rursus (bork³) 11:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Your Q2 is unclear. There is near unanimous agreement that humans cause most of global warming. There is no organisation denying that. Does your 50-70% refer to the amount of warming (50-70% of the warming is anthropogenic) or to the support (50-70% of organizations support AGW). The first depends very much on the time frame. The second would be simply wrong. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

1. my question Q2 is quite clear if we reformulate it "do the humankind cause the global warming?",

2. the question regarded what the article explains, not whether I believe the global warming is anthropogenic (which I happenstance do, but now I'm a Misplaced Pages editor acting Mr Neutral). The article should clearly state the questions, especially Q2, and illuminate by citations. About 70% of the citations happenstance tells us very clearly that humans cause the global warming, but the rest mumbles, so that it is not unambiguously clear that they state whether anthropogenic or not. F.ex., the Geological Society of Australia:

Of particular concern are the well-documented loading of carbon dioxide (CO₂) to the atmosphere, which has been linked unequivocally to burning of fossil fuels, and the corresponding increase in average global temperature

Yes, "concern" yes! But is the human burning of fossil fuels the major contributor to global warming? Some of the citations must be reviewed as regards to sources. ... said: Rursus (bork³) 14:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This article documents the opinions of qualified scientific bodies in regards to the subject matter. Readers are free to interpret those expressed opinions any way they choose, pedantically or otherwise. However, it stands to reason that the GSA would not bother to issue a position statement, nor recommend "strong action be taken...to substantially reduce the current levels of greenhouse gas emissions" if they didn't view humanity's impact as significant. As for the Bio and life sciences orgs., you're right, they don't add their own arguments as to the causes of recent climate change. Although they are respected scientific bodies that can be expected to be informed about recent developments in science, their main contribution is in confirming the observed and predicted effects of global warming. And, yes, the IPCC is an evil cult.--CurtisSwain (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Would this count?

A statement released by the heads of these organization released a letter last month on the consensus scientific view: American Association for the Advancement of Science American Chemical Society American Geophysical Union American Institute of Biological Sciences American Meteorological Society American Society of Agronomy American Society of Plant Biologists American Statistical Association Association of Ecosystem Research Centers Botanical Society of America Crop Science Society of America Ecological Society of America Natural Science Collections Alliance Organization of Biological Field Stations Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics Society of Systematic Biologists Soil Science Society of America University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

http://www.agu.org/outreach/science_policy/pdf/Climate_Letter.pdf

Should this be worked into the article?

MutantChair (talk) 06:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. Some of the orgs. are already in the article. For the others, you'd need to check to see if the org. has some sort of formal position statement, or if the statement is only the opinion of the President/CEO. I believe American Institute of Biological Sciences concurs as a body. So, you can slap them in. Good find, MC.--CurtisSwain (talk) 09:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It belongs here Climate_change_consensus --Jaymax (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Survey of American Meteorologists

I guess this cant go in the article because it was not peer-reviewed by the CRU or some other reason, but in any event : . --Childhood's End (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. It would indeed be worth reporting on how TV weathercasters are so poorly informed about the state of the science (which was the whole point of the AMS article, in case you missed it). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I so much agree with every word you said. They are simply not in line with climate science. --Childhood's End (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting study. And, yes, it actually was peer-reviewed, having been published in BAMS. But, no, it's not relevant to this article which deals with scientific opinion. People who give weather reports on TV can hardly be considered scientists. Half of the survey respondents don't even have CBM Certification.--CurtisSwain (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Censorship

I have inserted reference to the recent controversy on temperature data, since this concerns the integrity of the scientific issues involved. Deletion is surely censorship of a very live problem. Peterlewis (talk) 11:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't belong on this article. There is a nice description on top of it saying:

This article documents current scientific opinion on climate change as given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. It does not document the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions.

Perhaps you should have read the edit-comments for the removals? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent addition by SanAntonioPete

Several editors have already reverted this addition, which reads as follows:

In November of 2009, the integrity of the IPCC (as well as its definitive and seminal research on global warming) came into question after hundreds of private e-mail messages, illegally hacked from computers at Britain's University of East Anglia, were posted on the internet. Even staunch supporters of the global warming community were dismayed at what appeared to be the IPCC's efforts to prevent publication of work by global-warming skeptics. George Monbiot, one of the most astute ecological cartographers of his time and a strong advocate for global warming theory, commented on the hacked emails in the Guardian.co.uk: {{quote|It's no use pretending this isn't a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them. Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request. Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate skeptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.<ref> Monbiot, George for The Guardian.co.uk, November 23, 2009</ref>}}

Professor Mike Hulme of the University of East Anglia, named by ScienceWatch as “the 10th most cited author in the world in the field of climate change between 1999 and 2009” was particularly distressed by the involvement of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He was quoted in the New York Times as saying:{{quote|It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the I.P.C.C. has run its course. Yes, there will be an AR5 but for what purpose? The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production - just at a time when a globalizing and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive.<ref> Revkin, Andrew C. for The New York Times, November 27, 2009</ref>}}

This seems to place an extraordinary degree of weight on statements made by a single scientist and a single environmental campaigner. --TS 23:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur with TS's assessment of the reverted paragraphs. Additionally, it's not a synthesis report, position statement of a scientific body, nor a survey of climate scientists. Therefore, it doesn't belong in this article, which clearly does not document the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories. --CurtisSwain (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The incident seems relevant and notable to me. Seems like the passages should be paired down to a NPOV and included here. Unless someone has a recommendation or a better place to include. Where do individual scientist views get mention in this issue? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Where are individual scientists mentioned? Where their particular opinion is relevant to the article. An article on Mike Hulme, for instance, might carry information about his opinion of the affair. My concern here was mainly that just one scientist's opinion was being used to support the notion that the IPCC reports have been called into question. --TS 03:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hear you ... reviewed the talk, the Article Title mislead me. This article has a POV issue, becasue it doesn't adequately represent individual scientists views or where to go to read them. This article, by design, gives undue weight to organizational views. The title is misleading, becasue it doesn't help the reader see that the "Scientific opinion" comes from the organization not an individual. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Science is inherently collaborative. Scientists share data, review methodology and conclusions, and a consensus view emerges. In such a scenario, the opinion of any one scientists is worth little. The important question is what conclusions qualified experts have reached on reviewing the available published data. --TS 04:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point ... so is wiki, which has qualification standards too. It's a false premise to assume any one scientist has an dissenting opinion. My experiences are that learning occurs where there is dissension and organizations have the Principal-agent problem. American democracy and jurist prudence values the dissenting opinion, with appeal, greater than you do. Dictators and tyrants are most commonly accused of suppressing the reasonable individual. This article has an organizational bias. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This article needs a controversies section.

As a starting point, I offer up the following: . While it is in the opinion section of the WSJ, it is NOT the opinion of an individual writer but rather appears to be the opinion of the paper itself since no author is listed.

I invite others to find related material to be included as well. I see that there is some additional material listed above as well. --GoRight (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It's the opinion of an as-yet anonymous opinion writer in a newspaper. What do you expect us to do with it that bears relation to this article, which is not about the opinion of anonymous journalists and editorial writers but of scientists? --TS 04:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's a better link: .

"It's the opinion of an as-yet anonymous opinion writer in a newspaper." - Since the piece is not attributed to a specific author that means that it is a piece written by the editorial staff of the paper and represents the official opinion of the paper in question, namely the Wall Street Journal ... a publication of some note.

"What do you expect us to do with it that bears relation to this article ..." - Well for starters, I expect us to include a controversies section which is intended to document controversies related to the subject of this article, i.e. the scientific consensus on global warming. This is a notable piece directed at those ends. The fact that this is the opinion of the journal, not some individual, is significant and makes it noteworthy here. In general, the whole ClimateGate incident points directly to the fact that the purported scientific consensus may be contrived ... or at a minimum was artificially influenced by key individuals such as Jones and Mann. --GoRight (talk) 04:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As GR notes (and as I saw in my paper copy), this was the lead editorial in that day's paper. These are customarily unsigned in all (English language) newspapers (ime), and are meant to express the editorial opinion of the paper. As the WSJ is one of the two major national newspapers in the USA, a WSJ editorial carries considerable WP:weight.

I support the idea of a "Controversies" section. WP:Be bold! Pete Tillman (talk) 05:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Intro guidance to List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

I added this to help prevent folks from posting individual scientist opinions here, so this article can focus on the organizational views. I appreciate that folks must have qualifications along side their opinions. As well, it takes more that one to obtain opinion objectivity. Removal seems like editors are suppressing established, notable, reliability sourced dissension, (for their own qualification standards), as well as disrupting a direction to a wiki article to focus on individual opinions. This instruction aims to maintain civility. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Peiser, Benny (October 12, 2006). "RE: Media Watch enquiry" (PDF). Media Watch. Retrieved 2007-04-12.
2. [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686}

• B-Class Environment articles
• Unknown-importance Environment articles