Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:34, 14 December 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scientific consensus on climate change article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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, 25Auto-archiving period: 2 days

Article milestones Date Process Result September 26, 2007 Articles for deletion Kept May 29, 2008 Articles for deletion Kept May 2, 2009 Articles for deletion Kept October 22, 2009 Articles for deletion Kept

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Environment 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Scientific consensus on climate change. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Scientific consensus on climate change at the Reference desk.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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)

This discussion seems like a fabulous waste of time by people who should have spent more time trying to find a dissenting opinion by a scientific body rather than arguing about the validity of the reference supporting the statement in the article. My non-scientific opinion? There's a reference listed. The burden of proof is on you now. Prove it wrong.Airborne84 (talk) 05:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Well said, Airborne84. We get that a lot here. I've actually found at least one other org. that holds a non-commital position, but I haven't added them in. I figured I'd just save that for the critics to do on a put-up-or-shut-up basis.--CurtisSwain (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't blame you. It finally occurred to me that the reason people are attacking references instead of trying to find a dissenting opinion is because they can't find one. In that sense, I understand the attacks on the article now.Airborne84 (talk) 03:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The hatnote / disambiguation

I posted a query over at Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote#Appropriate_Hat_Note.3F that lead to the hatnote's removal, my semi-reinstitution, and WMC's subsequent edits. What I'm learning is that hatnotes are supposed to be excludable (eg: on mobile devices) without removing meaning from the article, but are supposed to disambiguate, and assist 'disambiguating' navigation.

So, I propose that we divide the current hatnote into two parts, one of which belongs in the article lead. The hatnote should refer on to the various articles as-far-as-possible that cover the stuff that many seem to think/expect should be here. The "This article is about..." line should be shorter, but still contain the essence of what we are saying (ie: only the serious stuff, not the chaff). And then the first para of the article lead should give the more fulsome and precise criteria for what the article does (ie: restating the "about ..." bit 'properly')

Proposal for the "For X see Y bits" template bits

• (added) (edit) - recent climate change generally - Global_warming
• the debate on whether there is a scientific consensus - Climate change consensus (likewise, I know this is resolved as far as many of us are concerned, but it is true that there is not general consensus on whether there is a scientific consensus, outside the scientific community) ((meta-meta-))
• opinions of individual climate scientists - List_of_climate_scientists (I know the page doesn't directly give opinions, the point is to send people looking for those in the right direction)
• individual scientists disagreeing with the mainstream assessment - List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

What are your thoughts on "about ___", a non-hatnote 'companion' paragraph, or the approach. --Jaymax (talk) 05:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Good work, better than I would have done. Breaking out is fine with me. Thanks for finding the guidance. Is it appropriate to reference a category above or a template to help with navigation? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen any comment or examples of that, however Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation do's and dont's states: Link to a primary topic, if there is one, at the top - which should fill the same objective(?) --Jaymax (talk) 09:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, elsewhere on the Talk page...

"This page is about significant published scientific opinion on recent climate change. For X see Y. (x4 as above)"

Scientific opinion on climate change is a collection of published scientific opinions. This article includes opinions which are

• contained within a synthesis report (needs tightening), or
• formally issued by a scientific academy or scientific society of national or international standing, or
• supported by a significant majority in a statistical survey of climate scientists.
• placeholder for 'consensus' list criteria if the section is retained

To ensure this article is representative, the innumerable opinions of individual scientists, individual universities, or individual laboratories are not included. Self-selected statements of opinion, such as petitions and letters, are also excluded.

Plenty more tweaking required ‒ Jaymax✍ 01:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

New section for NPOV issues with this article.

Background:

The primary discussions that lead us to this WP:NPOV dispute can be found here:

• This article needs a controversies section.
• Offensive to NPOV vs on topic
• Proposing solution to concerns
• Cease-fire on POV template
• NPOV issues with the hat notes

In addition, related discussions (but not directly included in the NPOV threads) which are nibbling around the edges of the core problem:

• Content fork
• Suggest removing the word "opinion" from the title, since the scientific process is about removing subjectivity and aiming for fact.
• Rename to "Scientific opinion on global warming"?
• Change title to "Official positions of scientific societies on climate change"
• Why the Consensus article is not this article.

--GoRight (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Key aspects that need to be addressed

I believe that the key aspects of the dispute from "our side" can be summarized as follows:

1. Readers are being directed to this page when they are seeking information on the "scientific consensus on climate change" or the "scientific consensus on global warming" but as we see the purported scope of this article is merely a list of the scientific positions on climate change / global warming. This is being accomplished through the use of redirects and wikilinks all over the global warming pages.
2. Readers seeking information on the "scientific consensus on climate change" or the "scientific consensus on global warming" should, per WP:NPOV be presented with information that covers all significant aspects and points of view associated with those topics.
3. This article is being systematically scrubbed of any information other than the scientific positions, which means that it is excluding legitimate points of view that readers should be made aware of such as, but not necessarily limited to, public opinions about the "scientific consensus", public and scientific controversies about the "scientific consensus", and any number of other legitimate perspectives or concerns about the "scientific consensus".

It would seem that the minimum changes required to address this dispute are focused on address the problems inherent in the points listed above. There are many ways in which these concerns could be addressed. And as has been stated previously, I am (and I assume others are) open to any and all possible options which could lead to the following:

1. When readers search for (or follow a wikilink for) finding information on the "scientific consensus on climate change" or the "scientific consensus on global warming" that they are directed to the primary source of information on those topics.
2. That source of information must be WP:NPOV in that it provides a discussion of all the significant points of view related to those topics (public and/or scientific) as defined in WP:RS and WP:V.

It should be obvious to all that the current state of affairs does NOT meet these two criteria and THAT is the source of the dispute. --GoRight (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Redirects to here:

• Scientific opinion of global warming (noredirect) links (one link zero links)
• Scientific opinion on global warming (noredirect) links (one link - actually 2 zero links)

  These I have not modified. I think the first should be deleted. --GoRight (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Global warming survey (noredirect) links (one link zero links)
• Global Warming Survey (noredirect) links (zero links)

  These I have not modified. I don't know why these exist so I would recommend fixing any links to them and deleting them ... unless there is some good reason to keep them, of course. --GoRight (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Scientific consensus on climate change (noredirect) links (one link zero links one link due to WMC's revert)
• Scientific consensus on global warming (noredirect) links (seven links zero links)
• Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (noredirect) links (zero links)
• Global warming consensus (redirect page) (noredirect) links (one link zero links)

  These I have updated to point to Climate change consensus since KDP argues that these are not really part of this dispute anyway. In addition I changed the link for Global warming consensus to point directly to Climate change consensus instead. I believe that the last two in this list should be deleted as being superfluous and any links to them changed to one of the remaining two, as appropriate based on context. --GoRight (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

(link counts) above exclude User, Talk, and Project pages. Jaymax (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for organizing this, Jaymax. --GoRight (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Wrong fix. I've reverted a few of these - since they are directly impacting other pages. You should take it up on the talk page of the articles that use these, and figure out which article they want to link to. Then make them use the non-redirected link instead - so we can possibly remove some of these redirects. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Unsurprising and predictable response. So much for your claim that these links are not related to this dispute. --GoRight (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Try reading again why i was reverting. You are impacting other articles - take it up where the links are used. - unilaterally changing them without notifying those that get impacted, is not very polite - they used that wl for a reason. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of trying to move things along, I have stricken part of my prior comment.

I have been so WP:BOLD as to make a pass through the links on the other articles and to update them to instead point to one page or the other. Not to worry for those following along, both KDP and WMC were following along to make sure I wasn't stacking the results. After a few minor changes I believe that we have ironed them out. There is one last remaining issue where WMC reverted to one of the redirects but WP:3RR prevents me for correcting it. I have placed a request on the talk page to try an resolve the issue. If someone else wants to go change it, be my guest.

Once all of the originating pages have been suitably updated to remove links to redirected pages, I believe that this would address KDP's concern as stated above for my changes to the redirects. My question is now what is the consensus on what to do with the redirects in general? With nothing pointing to them should they simply be deleted? If not all, which ones? Which ones should stay?

To avoid confusion for the reader I would like to see that any redirects that actually use the term "consensus" be directed to Climate change consensus, and any redirects that actually use the term "opinion" or "positions" be directed to Scientific opinion on climate change. I would also like to see the ones for the survey's deleted unless there is some good reason to keep them. Thoughts? --GoRight (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible solutions

There has been much clamoring about that we must provide some specific actionable steps that need to be addressed to resolve the dispute. While I have, in fact, already done so in the interests of collaboration and cooperation I am not demanding that it be my way or the high way. We all know that's not how it works. I am sure that we are all open to alternatives for how to address the concerns.

Attempts to simply brush this issue aside or to disrupt the process are only going to result in more drama and more delays, IMHO. This issue needs to be addressed in some fashion. We need to agree on what that will be.

We had begun to go down the path of selecting which form of WP:DR to use when that process was disrupted. Unsurprisingly, the recommendation at ANI was that we engage in some form of dispute resolution. This requires a consensus on how best to proceed. Please make your position clear in the section for that purpose below.

I invite others to add subsections for proposals of their own within this subsection so that the alternatives can be clearly articulated and assessed in an orderly fashion. --GoRight (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

GoRight's Proposal

(Reproduced here from above for convenience.)

WP:NPOV indicates that IF the topic of the "climate change consensus" is to be covered in this article then it must be covered in a WP:NPOV way which mean criticisms and controversies must be addressed. Let me make the following proposal and see how others feel about it as a resolution to the current disagreement:

1. Move all of the "consensus" related content out of this article and merge it (there is a lot of overlap already) into the Climate change consensus article and I will then take my issue to that page. We can leave a small one or two sentence statement here and a pointer to that page for people looking for a discussion of "consensus" related material.
2. The Climate change consensus page seems to significantly overlap in content with this page as it tries to also describe the "scientific opinion" there as well. So I would similarly suggest that the "scientific opinion" related content from that page be likewise merged into this page with a small 1 or 2 sentence statement left there and a pointer to this article as the main article on what the "scientific opinion" actually is.
3. The Global warming consensus redirect which currently points to this page would then be changed to point to the other page that actually discusses the "consensus" which in turn then has a pointer to this article for the details on the "scientific opinion" associated with that "consensus".
4. I am also aware of numerous places where there are likely wikilinks of the form ] which should then be modified to instead use ] when they are encountered.

This seems to me to be a reasonable way to address the current dispute on this page and it has the extra benefit of reducing duplicated content between the two articles. Would other editors find this approach acceptable? --GoRight (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Which WP:DR to use?

For everyone's reference the initial discussions on this point can be found here as well as immediately before that section. Since we have moved the discussion here, let me invite everyone to express their opinions here so that they can be assessed in an orderly fashion:

• (Reproducing my previous comment here along with KDP's comment.) In the interests of time I lean towards binding mediation myself as some of the people involved have traditionally complained about things that look like a !Vote, and it is unclear what we would do if it fails to demonstrate a consensus either way. Then it would either go to mediation or Arbcom which only drags the whole thing out further, which I want to avoid. If the majority of people here prefer to start with an RfC I am fine with that but I reserve the right to appeal the result. --GoRight (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

  If we do an RfC it is not clear to me how this would be structured. We have multiple related but independent issues that need to be resolved:

  1. Where should the primary discussion of the "scientific consensus on climate change/global warming" be documented? In this article or the overlapping Climate change consensus?
  2. Should the primary discussion of the "scientific consensus on climate change/global warming" include a discussion of the controversies (whether public or scientific) with that consensus?
  3. Where should the "scientific consensus" redirects point the reader to? They currently point to this page but if the discussion of the consensus is moved elsewhere and this page remains should the redirects be redirected?
  4. Where should wikilinks for the "scientific consensus" be directed? There are many that point to this page but if the discussion of the consensus is moved elsewhere and this page remains should those wikilinks be updated?

  I am not sure how we would try to put all of that into one RfC and be able to discern any reasonable interpretation of the results. So do we run independent RfCs for each, or what? I lean towards independent RfCs to keep the results clean but I can understand if others disagree. Do we use the standard BOT implemented 30 days for the RfC or something else? I see no reason to use anything other than the standard period but I expect others will have differing opinions. Which RfC categories do we put these in? I lean towards both science and politics. --GoRight (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

  Can I safely assume that the lack of response here, especially from the GW regulars and everyone knows who you are, is an indication that some editors intend to simply edit war over the template rather than to engage in WP:DR as we are supposed to? Seems like we have a serious problem with this article if we cannot even discuss which form of WP:DR to pursue. --GoRight (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

  People have responded in the section "discussion" below, wasn't that the reason you created it?. So - No, you can't. (and there are plenty of responses) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

  "wasn't that the reason you created it?" - No, actually, that would have been Jaymax who created it. And none of the discussion there addresses the issue of which form of WP:DR we should use, so your point is erroneous. In fact, both of WMC's proposal's below are designed to enable exactly that, edit warring on the tag. We all know what's planned for when the protection is lifted. I see a whole lot of focus on removing the tag and not so much on trying to actually resolve the dispute. This is only creating disruption and delays. --GoRight (talk) 05:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Just for clarity - I inserted the header above others comments when I added my own. ‒ Jaymax✍ 05:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm objecting. You are not singling out the problematic issue - but instead seem to be expanding it with what you think it should be. Focus please on This article. The issue as i've seen it is that you and ZP5 want to include a discussion on public views about the scientific opinion, and thus also a change of the hat-note. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I am not altering my view at all. I have never been focused on the hat-note, that was ZP5, and when he was doing so he was attempting to describe a potential solution to the problem not to article the core issue. At least that was my interpretation. Either way, it is not like ZP5 and I are the same person with exactly the same views. Our views in the case are synergistic in the sense that they deal with the same structural problems that lead us to this page. Hopefully the discussion above clarifies things a bit, but the short answer is that if the page is merely a list of the scientific position statements as Jaymax argues then the discussion on this page related to the consensus is out of scope for this page as well and needs to be removed, and the global redirects related to the consensus and any wikilinks that say consensus but point here are inappropriate as well. The only reason I am raising the issue on this page is because this is where those redirects and wikilinks take me. Move the links somewhere else and my concerns go with them leaving this page to remain as a simple list of the scientific positions. --GoRight (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I still object: All of these points are things that this article doesn't address, and has never been intended to. The whole issue on what external articles should link to, has absolutely nothing to do with a discussion here - that is a concern on those articles. These are not POV problems with this article. And thus this discussion is not about the POV tag. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Kim, while I agree with your key points, have you ever seen an active discussion on the TALK page of a REDIRECT article? - it's not unreasonable to have the discussion here, providing we know that that is what we are discussing. Jaymax (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, i have. But the issue at hand is that GoRight says that this article is POV - and that is what the POV tag means and is used for. Redirects and what other articles link to are not POV problems on this article. One issue at a time - and the current one is the POV tag. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This article IS POV because of the reasons I have cited, and this is true even if you DO NOT take the redirects into consideration. However the redirects do AMPLIFY the issue by, in effect, making this article the "main" article for discussing "the consensus". In the interests of time, what is your position on the redirects? Are you opposed to changing them to point to Climate change consensus? --GoRight (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

GoRight, I am concerned an enlightened by your points 1-3 in #Key aspects that need to be addressed relate not to this article per se, but to other article topics (alternate names if you like) that re-direct here. WP:NPOV deals with article content, including the title in some circumstances, but I'm not sure that an article can be NPOV because of a redirect. How do we get a list of all the topics that redirect to here? Would you be ameniable to alllowing the POV tag to be removed (while the article remains locked) if we start a good-faith effort to identify which redirects should be re-redirected? Jaymax (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You can check "what links here". But it really is an issue that should be taken up on other articles. As i said before: Focus on this article. This is where the POV tag is, and if GoRight's problem is with other articles - then he should take his business there, instead of circumventing consensus at those articles. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

See reply above. Also, added list of REDIRECT backlinks above Jaymax (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To the extent that this article already discusses "the consensus" it must be presented in a WP:NPOV manner which means that discussions of the points of view that I describe regarding "the consensus" must be allowed on this page if that material remains. I see no way around this. But of course the argument will then remain that those points of view are not scientific points of view and must therefore be removed. The fundamental objection underlying this dispute and many of the conversations I point to above is that this article is, in effect even if not by intent, a sort of "safe haven" where controversial aspects of "the consensus" can be systematically scrubbed away. This is fundamentally against the spirit and intent of WP:NPOV.

I am amenable to removing the POV tag as soon as we have worked out a way to address the concerns I articulate above which must include how to resolve the sections on this page related to "the consensus". You yourself have argued that this page is NOT "the consensus" page. This is why I have recommended an approach that will move the main discussion of "the consensus" to some other page leaving a brief overview here with a note pointing to that main discussion. It is also why I support your position that "the consensus" is a separable concept from "the list of scientific positions". --GoRight (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, by sections on this page you mean section 5 only? (I'm not having a go, just wanting exactness). That section is already duplicated at Climate_change_consensus#List_of_position_statements (hopefully still identically). If section 5 was removed from here, for now, and the REDIRECTS that mention consensus repointed, that would allow removal of the POV tag, for now? (I am aware that some would like to recombine the two articles, and that might yet be the consensus, hence the 'for now'Jaymax (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the (current) section 5 titled "Scientific consensus" is the current focus of this dispute as it pertains specifically to this page. I had high hopes for this proposal. I was merely waiting for confirmation from ZP5 that his issues had been addressed before I responded. Alas, it appears that other notable editors seem to have rejected (or ignored) this proposal below so a response seems moot at this point. --GoRight (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this whole revelation proves that there is not a POV problem with this specific article, but that some editors in the last few days have come to these pages because they are frustrated with the whole WP:RS policy and that we have not and will not give any realistic weight to blogs, rumours and fringe views. In the light of the CRU e-mail hack, there has been an outburst of these views recently. This led some people to think it would be easy enough to get some of this anti-scientific stuff into Misplaced Pages, alongside the science. We can't change the policies and the whole slant of several articles in the light of such a request. We don't discuss anti-scientific fringe views alongside settled science anywhere in WP. --Nigelj (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to make it clear that I am not just being self-opinionated here by referring to 'settled science' vs 'fringe views'. We are currently half way through the COP15 conference. This is not an international conference of world leaders trying to work out if there is such a thing as man-made global warming - they are solely there to work out what to do about it, and very urgently too. They can't all have been hoodwinked by 3 - 4 rogue scientists in East Anglia surely? Even the Kyoto conference in 1997 was held over the same settled science - only the US at the time (under Bush) maintained the non-scientific view that there was any fundamental doubt about the whole scientific business. It's not just me and a few friends who hold with scientific reality. --Nigelj (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't find these types of comments to be particularly "helpful" in trying to find a consensus on how to resolve the current dispute. --GoRight (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Nigelj, I suggest looking above the scientists, to the IPPC mission statement, does it really set them on a fair course for a NPOV? The NPOV pendulum is swinging back to balance the overaggressive mission the IPCC undertook, in my opinion. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, there you go. Proof that I'm right. When a single notable authority, scientific or governmental, starts to swing with your personal pendulum, we'll have a discussion. --Nigelj (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The proof is you ignored the mission statement comment and focused on me.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way Nigelj, Bill Clinton was President in 1997, not Bush. --Tjsynkral (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to Kyoto Protocol#United States if you're not sure how that panned out, or Bush's role in withholding the US's ratification. It's not what we're discussing here so I didn't elaborate, assuming those who cared would already know. --Nigelj (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Remove tag

{{editprotected}} Please remove the POV tag. It has failed to be justified with specific issues that haven't already been discussed, and was editwarred on and then imposed by protection by an admin who flagrantly and with prior warning broke the 3RR and WP:PROTECT, without at any point entering into discussion. In addition, the majority of editors are against the tag (only two support it, both have failed to justify it). Please remove the tag. Verbal chat 10:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: the admin that reviews this request should probably wade through the discussion Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Scientific opinion on climate change - review of Tedder's actions. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Further comment: Verbal rather disingenuously neglects to point out that this matter has already been reviewed by an independent administrator who has agreed that the protection level as well as the tag should not be altered without a consensus. See . Please consult Beeblebrox (talk) before taking action to preserve continuity of oversight in this matter. --GoRight (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

That is untrue, Beeblebrox limited himself (by admission and request) to the protection only - which is not under dispute here. Verbal chat 23:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It is regrettable that GR has reduced to direct obvious lying on this issue. GR: please correct your statement above William M. Connolley (talk) 23:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Who's lying? Not me. I give you:

"If there is a consensus established here to remove the tag, you can request it with {{editprotected}}. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)"

I don't know what that means to you, but to me it means he heard your request for a review of the tag and decided not to remove it without consensus having been established here first. Please strike your PA or may the evil eye be upon you. --GoRight (talk) 03:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC) (Disclaimer for the levity impaired: the evil eye part was a joke.)

Cherry picking and misrepresentation of sources seems to be a habit. What you have said is clearly untrue, as Beeblebrox himself refused to look at the NPOV tag. Verbal chat 12:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is the diff where Beeblebrox clearly states he was only looking at the protection, which was justified by Tedder and GoRight's actions. Verbal chat 13:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Without having checked his user page before now, my take was much inline with GoRight's - I can see why he (and I) assumed BB had some administrative interest in the POV tagging. Verbal, please at least make a token effort towards WP:AGF, being abusive will just help ensure both the tag and the protection remain. ‒ Jaymax✍ 14:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ha. Verabl's diff is comical. Like Jaymax I had not even visited BB's page until now. Even so, given BB's blunt response I still stand by my original assertion, BB has indicated through his words and actions that the TAG should stay until there is a consensus here to edit through protection. I repeat, there is no such consensus.

Hopefully people can appreciate the irony in WMC and Verbal disingenuously and self-servingly accusing one admin of being involved for deciding the tag should be changed while at the same time browbeating another to do exactly the same thing (only in their favor, of course). --GoRight (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus to edit through protection to remove this tag. I object to it's removal until the current NPOV dispute has been resolved. --GoRight (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

There is clear consensus below (and above), and you have not provided the justifications required for the tag. There is no dispute. Verbal chat 19:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Please be serious. That proposal is less than 1 hour old. People must be given reasonable time to respond. I believe that 24 hours is the norm for such things. --GoRight (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Object - Why does it feel like the tag removers want to force an edit fight. This kind of unreasonable escalation is why the tag is on in the first place. I dispute removing the tag while edits and sources are being prepared. Please follow Misplaced Pages:NPOV_dispute in good faith. These unsettled tag tag disputes are disrupting progress in this article. Peace out eds so we may proceed. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• No justification has been presented, the tag was added in contravention of clear policy, and the consensus of editors is against inclusion. Unless you bring a topic to discuss, there is nothing to discuss. Verbal chat 23:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Remove tag (or, at the very least, find some admin with at least the guts to review the tag). Better yet, support proposal 3 below William M. Connolley (talk) 23:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep tag. The tag simply informs readers that a dispute exists as to POV. Removal would imply that no such dispute exists. Reading this page implies to me that, indeed, a dispute exists involving a significant number of editors. That reason alone is sufficient to keep the tag. Collect (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

A dispute will always exist on this article. Are you proposing that we keep it tagged forever? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Answered elsewhere. Tags are intended to inform readers, and are not damaging to an article. Is there a current dispute as to POV here? If not, then no tag would be warranted. "Forever" is, however, a loaded question as I pont out. Collect (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

No content dispute, then no tag. No content has been disputed since the protection has been enforced. The only dispute is over the tag and level of protection. That doesn't warrant a tag. Verbal chat 17:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Request change (editprotected after 24h)

Over at Global warming controversy this same text appeared (seemingly WP:OR with no cites or explanation anywhere in the article):

Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A small minority of organisations hold non-committal positions.

Consensus there was to improve it by deleting the above two sentences and inserting what you see in the current version:

With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific society is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.

I propose making similar changes here.

First, I propose deleting the above two sentences from the lead and replacing with this brief summary:

No scientific society is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.

Also, I propose deleting this text under the "Statements by dissenting organizations" section (which includes a reference improperly hotlinked instead of a footnote):

With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.

...and replacing with the same text used on GWC:

With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific society is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.

Since the people who WP:OWN the GW articles are capable of reverting changes they disapprove of within 5 minutes, 24 hours of discussion should be ample before I put up editprotected. Of course if there's support from both "sides" for this change already, someone could put it up sooner. --Tjsynkral (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really in disagreement with the above, i just think that the non-committal part of the lede should stay (with a rewrite to "a few" possibly?). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"Some" is acceptable, "few" is not. And for God's sake make the spelling of "organizations" consistent through the article. --Tjsynkral (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Basic principal sounds good, however I worry about "no remaining scientific society is known to" on two relatively minor and one major point. (1) Grammer wise, 'no remaining' makes it sound like the societies are dissapearing. (2) There are (I'm sure) scientific societes who do hold such opinions - I don't think we can leave out the words about their standing. (3) known implies someone is doing the knowing, but the source doesn't support this approach. The source states there is one, one-minus-one=zero=no, not no known. WP:OR specifically permits this kind of math, but does not support the use of "no known" - the word should simply be removed.

"With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no scientific society of standing rejects the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change."Jaymax (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No. GWC is a bit of a dodgy article; you can't import stuff from there to here William M. Connolley (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with WMC. I think you guys have done a great job sourcing and tidying that tiny bit of the other article, but this is the article where that sentence in the lede perfectly summarises the essence of the whole article that follows. And the sourcing here is fine, as you found when you used it to help you with the other one. --Nigelj (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point about the "hotlink". Yes, that should be replaced with a footnote or ref if for nothing more than aesthetic reasons. But, the other suggested changes aren't so good. What we have here is more precise, and, as Kim said, we need to be up front and keep the "non-commital" bit in the lede.

Re: Jaymax. (1) "no remaining" refers to the disappearance of dissent which has occurred over time. (2) Agree. There might be some little, insignificant organization somewhere that disagrees. Additionally, there's Dissenting opinion above with the whole discussion about sub-groups within scientific bodies. (3) "no known" is important, because it recognises that some notable scientific organization somewhere might hold a dissenting opinion but just hasn't issues a position statement, or no wiki-editor has found it yet. It's kind of a can't-prove-a-negative sort of thing. --CurtisSwain (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

How about "No listed ..."? - accurate summation, listing criteria already stated, and doesn't imply some sort of WP:OR based 'knowing'. Also, to get really pedantic, an editor might know of one, and choose not to contribute it for POV. Also, perhaps suitable for Tjsynkral's point below. Is there any problem saying eg "seven listed" rather than subjective "small minority"? Jaymax (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"Known" is fine, as in known to the rest of the world. We, the royal "we", don't know of any. For the non-coms, I don't think we should use a specific number, because there may be more out there that haven't been added in. In fact, I know there is:)--CurtisSwain (talk) 09:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Except that the language doesn't match the source. That is utterly unacceptable. Where does "small minority" come from? I hope you aren't going to try to justify this language by synthesis?? --Tjsynkral (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree that "small minority" is inappropriate. That sentence has been changed numerous times throughout the history of this article: "a minority," "some," "a few," "five," etc. Although WP:OR does allow for Routine calculations, and when comparing 5 non-commital orgs. to over 70 concurring orgs., saying "a minority" or "a few" would be accurate and allowable. However, this is such a hotly contested topic, I think it's best to use completely neutral language. Just say "some" and let the readers do the math. And...if any editor changes it, we can whack 'em with a Wet Trout.--CurtisSwain (talk) 09:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I think we should do. All community members should improve the below text however they would if it was on the main article and unprotected. However, do not violate WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:AWW, or WP:A on your edits! Any edit that adds claims such as "small minority" must be sourced to be included, and I should not have to explain why. However I would accept full deletion of the section/sentences in question as an edit (but I can think of a few WP:OWN who won't). --Tjsynkral (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed revised text #1 (Lead)

No scientific society is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.

Proposed revised text #2 (Dissenting Organizations)

With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific society is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.

Editprotected request

It appears we've reached consensus on the above edit, admin please make the above change. {{editprotected}} --Tjsynkral (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This does not seem to have made it through the recent window of unprotection. If there is still consensus for the above edits, please reactivate the editprotected template. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

That discussion above does not look like a consensus to me. I was not persuaded to change the lede: who was? --Nigelj (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

protection

Tedder asked me to review his protection of this article. As there was edit warring going on and the issues that led to it do not appear to have been resolved yet, I have elected to uphold the protection. Tedder has expressed that he does not plan to take further admin actions here, so you can consider me the "protecting admin" for the duration of this protection period. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Tedder has evaded the main issue, which is the POV tag. Please review that William M. Connolley (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

So the POV tag remains throughout most of the COP15 conference? Neat. --Nigelj (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Why does that matter? ATren (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the new section demanding an explanation has only been up a few hours. I don't think the protection level of this article is going to influence the outcome in Copenhagen. If there is a consensus esablished here to remove the tag, you can request it with {{editprotected}}. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Because I share the urgency felt by some to get the POV tag removed, and in the interests of finding some middle road, I suggest we try proposing solutions with quick straw polls one-by-one until some set of actions seems like it might be generally acceptable. Please add significant related discussion to the relevant place(s) in the copious sections above rather than here. Jaymax (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe your urgency should be to have the article unprotected as soon as possible. It's unacceptable to have an article in full-protect this much on Misplaced Pages. --Tjsynkral (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

A request for a pointer to the best guideline to read up on criteria for article protection and/or durations. Ta.-Jaymax✍ 10:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:PROTECT is the protection policy. Basically it says to lock an article iff it is likely to be disrupted without it, and for only as long as necessary. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

If that's what it says, then I believe keeping the article fully protected until the 19th is well inline with policy! However, I accept the futlity of this achieving consensus after reviewing the outcomes below. ‒ Jaymax✍ 04:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal #1 straw poll

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No chance of consensus, superceeded by Proposal #6

• Repoint the REDIRECT articles Scientific consensus on climate change, Global warming consensus, Scientific consensus on global warming and Scientific Consensus on Climate Change to Climate change consensus
• Admin to remove Section 5 after checking that Climate_change_consensus#List_of_position_statements, fully reflects its content.
• Admin to remove the POV tag from this article
• Admin to leave this article protected until 19th December.

--Jaymax (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutrals and undecided's (or whatever) from others (with a concise reason) would help here to determine if this is even approximates consensus. -Jaymax✍ 10:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support--CurtisSwain (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose any proposal that leaves this article stuck in full protect --Tjsynkral (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support: not 100% sure on the section 5 thing, but this proposal seems certainly to be progress. Awickert (talk) 08:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

There can still be a one sentence mention and wikilink to the consensus section as it is pertinent. --CurtisSwain (talk) 10:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per Tjs. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose protection is not a good thing - note also (in case this goes through) that changing the redirects should have an accompanied notice to articles where these are used, so that they can take a stand as to whether to change wikilinks or not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as I support proposal 2 below. Verbal chat
• Support seems reasonable, although I think the article should include a link to consensus article and the title should reflect that it is an article about Scientific Organizations's opinions. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support, having thought about it, agree this would be a definite step in the right direction. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal #2

Counter proposal:

• Article down to semi
• 1RR limit for all
• Removal of NPOV tag

William M. Connolley (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. William M. Connolley (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
3. CurtisSwain (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Verbal chat 19:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Guettarda (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
7. Count Iblis (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
8. Ratel ► RATEL ◄ 05:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
9. Nigelj (talk) 12:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
10. Why are we voting on this? We don't vote. Just do it. --TS 21:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
11. Tjsynkral with the caveat that 1RR shall not apply to obvious WP:OR --Tjsynkral (talk) 03:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --GoRight (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

   Brittainia (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC) This editor has been blocked for sockpuppetry, advocacy and edit warring. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

2. NPOV tag should remain until dispute is settled ATren (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Silly proposal, last I saw these eds where ignoring a NPOV dispute. Are they now agreeing to a dispute? If so, then under wiki rules not there own. That's another issue with WP:OWN, like they can set the rules for a page. I yield no consent to rules from heavily interested parties. Mediators may help set rules. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Agree with semi, but do not agree with the other standards. Although I am not aware of what the NPOV issues are, I suspect that if the article were renamed to describe "Scientific Organizations stated opinions" or something like that, it would be less subject to NPOV disputes. It would be kind of a sister article to the individual scientists opposing list.--Blue Tie (talk) 03:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
5. We still have an absurdly pointless set of tags on the Anthony Watts (blogger) page, which I'm told need to stay there in perpetuo, because a AfD resulted in stalemate. The same editors arguing that the NPOV tag on this article is pointless edit-war to keep the Watts tag in place. Let it not be thought that a small group of Wikipedians are disingenuous & hypocritical; the tag needs to remain in place until the discussion resolves. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

   Agree - Yes ... right on ... renaming (without a single "Opinion" category) and following the structure set out in Misplaced Pages:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balance would be simple help here for me and to balance better with the other articles. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

6. Removal of the tag has nought to do with imposing a 1RR restriction. As long as there is a dispute about POV, the NPOV tag is not a stigma on the article, it is only a notice that some people disagree. Which appears to be a fact of life. Collect (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

   Do you think that every controversial article should be tagged indefinitely? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

   You appear to misread my comment -- which is that where there is apparently substantial active disagreement, that a POV tag is not onerous to an article. It is intended to inform readers, and not be a stigma for the article. In the case at hand, there appears to be substantial and continuing disagreement, which has nought to do with "indefinitely" at all. Is there, in fact, current substantial disagreement as to POV for this article at all? Do you believe that the POV tag damages the article at this point? Collect (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

   The NPOV comment requires a reason. You cannot assert that the dispute over the tag is a valid reason for the tag, we need some actual dispute about the content of the page. Pages cannot be tagged indefinitely for no reason. Verbal chat 17:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not I that needs to point out that there have been a number of discussions on these topics regarding POV. I only point out that where such discussions exist, that the POV tag is proper. Indeed, this section on "proposal 2" is not the one in which to discuss whether POV exists, or what the POV might be. Collect (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

abstain

1. While I would be okay with this, I am cognizant of it failing to address the concerns of others that led us here (concerns which, to me, seem at least partly valid, but which do not constitute POV, especially not on this page.); and I see no reason why we can't resolve those issues, while also simultaneously achieving the outcomes in proposal #2. ‒ Jaymax✍ 14:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal #3

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

no chance of consensus, less support than similar Proposal #2

OK, this was my original idea but it got hijacked.

• Prot down to semi.
• 1RR for all.

William M. Connolley (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Support:

1. William M. Connolley (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Prefer proposal 2, but result would be the same due to clear consensus. Verbal chat 23:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Slightly lower pref than #2. Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Second choice, after #2. Guettarda (talk) 02:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Second choice, after #2. Ratel ► RATEL ◄ 05:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Move:

1. Suggest moving this to Proposal 7. Two in row demonstrates no calm to a reasonable resolve. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Only because this is obviously only going to lead to edit waring the tag again which is what got us here in the first place. --GoRight (talk) 01:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Note - WMC has indicated he (actually, "they") will remove the NPOV tag as soon as prot is removed . So this may look different than proposal #2, it is actually the same proposal couched in "wacko"-friendly terms. ATren (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
3. see Proposal 2. I agree with Semi, I disagree with 1RR. --Blue Tie (talk) 08:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Per Atren - proposal appears disingenuous ‒ Jaymax✍ 04:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

(post-boxing addition) For clarity, by "appears" I meant "To seem or look to be". I do not know whether the intent was disingenuous, but given ATrens vote comment, it appeared as such. I apologise to WMC accordingly for any inference or implication made as to his intent, by using 'appears' I thought I was being clear I did not know, but apparently I was not clear enough. ‒ Jaymax✍ 21:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Per ATren. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 5

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No chance of consensus

Yes, I meant 5 ... by ZP5 with regards to WP:5. (Some else can be 4 ahead of me.)

• Mediation

a) non-binding

b) WMC abstains per ArbCom elect. declaration (prevents escalation)

c) WP:BLP applies to this article. Because of subjective title with single category of "opinion" (Post Note: Meaning we agree to apply BLP as if the article itself were a BLP subject.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC))

Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Support either binding or non-binding mediation:

• --GoRight (talk) 02:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

• Until there is something presented to discuss, I fail to see the point of mediation - especially when banning an active editor. BLP applies here already, when pertaining to information about a living person. I suggest you read it. Verbal chat 00:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• as above. Whatever does (b) have to do with anything, and the article is not about living persons, so (c) is simply nonsense. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with what Verbal and Kim said.--CurtisSwain (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose; mediation would merely add another nonproductive step to the WP:DR process, so that the badge-of-shame NPOV tag would stay up longer. I realize that some people may not consider that a bad thing. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. would support if I ever saw mediation do anything of value here and if the issues were first clearly stated.--Blue Tie (talk) 03:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as non-binding, and as unnecessarily time consuming. With a bit of consideration, I believe we will soon have a proposal that can be immediatly implemented with near-total consensus. ‒ Jaymax✍ 05:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, sorry ZP5; BLP does not apply to this article. That's not helpful. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 5 questions

Is taking down the tag really the number one issue for folks, seems to be persistent in the talk and prior proposals? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably. From what I can tell, you want some other links in the article to make your concerns go away. But I find your issues to be a bit unclear. --Blue Tie (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal #6

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No chance of consensus

• Repoint the 'consensus' REDIRECT articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 to Climate change consensus
• Admin to remove Section 5 after checking that copy at consensus article, fully reflects its content.
• Admin to remove the POV tag from this article.
• Admin to place this article into semi-protected, at least until 19th December
• All editors to adhere to 1RR
• Re-adding POV tag for issues already covered to be regarded as vandalism. ‒ Jaymax✍ 04:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. as proposer - compromise, because acceptable compromise will be needed to move on ‒ Jaymax✍ 08:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
2. This is the best propsoal of them all, but it would be a good idea to restate which POV issues have already been covered. There's been a lot of rapid-fire discussion around here recently.--CurtisSwain (talk) 08:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. first 4 points seem ok. Last two points seem totalitarian. --Blue Tie (talk) 08:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

   Can other's give examples of other artcles where 1RR is inforce by consensus? I also encourage reading WP:1RR and WP:3RR. I can't see how the last point is totalitarian, to me I'm stating for clarity what is common sense. If we can get broad consensus that a set of measures has met the NPOV concerns, then retagging again for those same concerns without new arguments is not good faith, but just disruptive. ‒ Jaymax✍ 08:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

2. Point 1 too far-reaching and disruptive, based, as this whole thing is, on POV complaints by just one to two editors, supported at the last second by one admin. --Nigelj (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
3. POV tags are for the benefit of readers, and should be retained if there is current discussion about any POV issues. They do not harm an article, hence when in any doubt, retain. Collect (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Object to Point 1; the article isn't just about "consensus." Point #2, "consensus" is so closely linked to (and indeed fundamentally depends upon) the academy and society statements that there are strong arguments for not splitting. Point 3; mais oui, there are lots and lots of controversial articles and we don't tag them in perpetuity -- why this one? Point 4; semiprotect should be indefinite (Scibaby, etc). Point 5, OK. Point 6, "vandalism" is going too far; see WP:VAND. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
5. No William M. Connolley (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstain

1. I agree in principle that it is rather ridiculous for all these different articles to exist. I would favour AfD for all of them as a the better solution. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal #7

• Continue with Bold, Revert, Discuss
• Take the sources to the Reliable Source notice board for inclusion. Misplaced Pages:RSN

Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Q: are you calling for a removal of the page protection? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is what I called for: Requesting peer review on Climate Change Opinions as a Social Science topic:

1. WP:STRUCTURE and Misplaced Pages:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balance as necessary to balance the article with other sources and sections.
2. Misplaced Pages:OC#OPINION and WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE as applies to changing article title because its a single category of "opinion" and doesn't include other reliability sourced categories, from newspapers, religions or organizational members.
3. WP:HATNOTES as being used to WP:OWN and enforce the single category of opinion.

Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Incoherent, as usual. I'm not asking for a review of your endless discussion, I'm asking you what your proposal, above, actually *means*. BRD is obviously incompatible with page protection, which is why I asked you, explicitly, are you calling for the removal of the protect. Please answer William M. Connolley (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes ... incoherent with your declared COI, you may wish to abstain so we may proceed peacefully without personal attacks or waring rules. The proposal means the content will address the guideline issues I've stated to make a NPOV article. The NPOV tag is non-negotiable now, just like NPOV is non-negotiable. (See WP:NPOV) Why do you wish to negotiate these items? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• oppose - incoherent William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: This ed neglects to address NPOV and extends waring to changing this section title , , The protect is on because of his behavior, yet he want us to agree to removing it? This is irresponsible. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

A note about polling

• Some of these proposals contain a provision to reduce the protection prematurely. Polling on the protection issue misses the point. The purpose of debating here is to resolve the underlying issues that led to the article being protected. It's plain silly to poll on what the protection level should be, that's not really how it works. The protection expires tomorrow, discussion here should be focused on finding consensus on the NPOV tag and the issues that led to the edit war over it, that is the path to the article remaining unprotected in the future, not a majority vote, which is clearly not working out anyway.If edit warring recurs once the protection has expired, that will increase the chances of further protection periods and/or user blocks, which is not the outcome any of us want. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• I would add that calls to reduce the protection to semi seem misguided as well. The edit war was between well-established users, and there is very little vandalism in the page history, so what semi-protection would accomplish is not at all clear. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

  I have been pursuing things in good faith. I have asked people to come to a consensus on which WP:DR we should pursue to resolve the underlying issue. Notable editors refuse to even discuss it and some have even apparently threatened to edit war the template as soon as the protection is lifted. I have also pursued some structural changes targetted at addressing the underlying dispute. Certain notable editors saw fit to try and thwart that progress by reverting my changes back to a state which hinders rather than enhances progress. In some cases these are the same editors who apparently intend to continue the edit war over the template.

  While I do not have any particular desire to see this article protected, indeed I would prefer that it NOT be protected, I do have an interest in seeing that the POV tag is not edit warred off the page. Since edit warring is disruptive and the intent of some is plainly clear, I would ask that you consider extending the protection until we have some good faith discussion here by those who wish to continue the edit war rather than acknowledge and address the core issues, or there is at a minimum an agreement that the POV tag should remain until the underlying dispute is resolved. --GoRight (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

  I'm still waiting to find out what these "underlying issues" are. It is clear from the polls above that the tag isn't supported by a consensus of editors, and as it hasn't been justified it should be removed. Verbal chat 19:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

  I suggest that you go back an review the prior discussion on this point. You have obviously not understood the points being made and perhaps some repetition would clear things up for you. Repetition appears to be a core component of your mental processes. --GoRight (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

  "It is clear from the polls above that the tag isn't supported by a consensus of editors, and as it hasn't been justified it should be removed." - No, the polls above demonstrate exactly the opposite. --GoRight (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

  It is clear, all the supports and opposes for the various polls that included removing the tag show that there is no consensus for the tag, and still the content under dispute hasn't been disclosed. I'll stop repeating the question when it is answered rather than avoided, and the same goes for the clear admin abuse encouraged by you. Verbal chat 20:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

  "I'll stop repeating the question when it is answered than avoided" - I've answered it multiple times now. What is it you think is missing?

  "the same goes for the clear admin abuse encouraged by you" - What is that supposed to mean? What the heck is admin abuse and how have I encouraged it? I'm just a lowly editor for heaven's sake. --GoRight (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

  Tedder abused his admin tools breaking both 3RR and PROTECT, which you repeatedly encouraged him to do on his talk page, coming close to meatpuppetry. You haven't answered the questions, you keep deflecting. Feel free to answer them. Verbal chat 07:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

  I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about requiring consensus FOR having a POV tag. Consensus should be required in order to remove a POV tag, I think. ‒ Jaymax✍ 22:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

  You are correct. --GoRight (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

  No, the consensus is against, clearly, and the tag has still yet to be justified. Verbal chat 07:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You got very shouty on your talk page and said quite explicitly: 'I'm not going to get involved in this dispute other than reviewing the protection and watching for further edit warring or disruption after protection expires. Please stop pestering me about this. Have you now changed your mind? Based on your getting very shouty on the your talk page, I'm doubtful you are a calm and neutral party in all this William M. Connolley (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you see me getting involved in the actual content dispute? No, you do not. I got "shouty" because you would not let up in insisting that I get involved in it, despite my repeated "non-shouty" indications to the contrary. My concern here is that these "polls" are not going to alleviate the problem, and that edit warring will resume when the protection expires tomorrow. I honestly do not care at all about the outcome, as long as it is supported by consensus here and edit warring does not continue. Let's keep this debate focused on the issues not the editors. And I'm not just talking to William either, there are some rather uncivil, ad hominem arguments being posted here. Personal insults are the last refuge of those who have run out relevant, logical arguments. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

(misc disagreemtns glided over; continuing: ) My concern here is that these "polls" are not going to alleviate the problem, and that edit warring will resume when the protection expires tomorrow - in this you are certainly correct. This was why I proposed a 1RR limit - it won't make the problems go away, but it will make the edit wars more manageable William M. Connolley (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Please put down the stick ... --GoRight (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this helpful? Verbal chat 07:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, the polls failed to draw out any consensus solution - I thought we could find something that at least everyone could live with. I event thought (and still do) 1RR was a good idea, despite it being raised in a "counter proposal". Incidently, writing this, I acknowlege that's perhaps what your Proposal #3 was about, but given that #2 was introduced as a counter proposal to #1, and #3 echoed #2, I (and perhaps others) took it to be in the context of the broader issues raised there. I would support 1RR as a stand-alone issue ‒ Jaymax✍ 23:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The substance of the dispute here

I, for one, cannot see what the basis of the alleged POV dispute is as of today. I see that some editors now think that the POV dispute is now simply about whether the article should have a POV banner on it, or not. I think this is true.

User GoRight is the acknowledged owner of the reason for the dispute, making comments like, "I am amenable to removing the POV tag as soon as we have worked out a way to address the concerns I articulate". The other day we waited some hours for him to articulate them, which he eventually did at huge length, but to my reading, very little substance related to the actual wording of this article. His points centred on his speculations as to what a reader coming to this article may be "seeking information on", that we don't discuss unscientific views with equal weight to scientific ones, and that indeed, we remove unscientific speculation and fringe theories from this page if people add them. The rest of his proposals were about other articles, redirects, the visible wording over wikilinks in other articles and which dispute resolution mechanisms he would prefer to apply here. --Nigelj (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that my summary of the issues was clear, but let me summarize them again: as long as this article is being utilized as the "main article" for a discussion of "the consensus", as evidenced by the fact that redirects and wikilinks referring to "the consensus" are bringing users to THIS article, then the discussion of "the consensus" on THIS article must include discussion of viewpoints other than purely peer-reviewed ones. The fact that the peer-reviewed argument is being used to prevent those other points of view from being included is the source of the NPOV dispute on THIS article. So, one of two possible options for resolving the dispute are possible, IMHO, namely:

1. Move the discussion of "the consensus" to a page where the peer-reviewed argument won't be used to eliminate discussion of otherwise valid points of view, or
2. Allow those points of view to be expressed on this page as WP:NPOV demands.

I have been pursuing the first approach as this will enable those who prefer to have a place that describes only the peer-reviewed opinions, although the term positions would be more appropriate, to continue to do so. The dispute is not over the listing of the scientific positions of the various organizations represented here. The dispute is not over attempts to undermine the scientific credibility of the positions articulated on this page. The dispute is over the exclusion of the legitimate points of view concerning "the consensus" which currently occurs on THIS article.

If those who are obviously more concerned over the POV template than they are about acknowledging and addressing the underlying dispute would simply have worked here in a constructive manner as Jaymax has been trying to do the matter would have been resolved long ago. --GoRight (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

A point of clarification in case there is any confusion on this point, I have no objection to there being a small section in this article that provides a brief overview of "the consensus" but I would want to see that section indicate that the "main article" for a discussion of "the consensus" is located elsewhere and that the reader be directed there for the details which, obviously, would be where those other points of view would be appropriately included. --GoRight (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

But whether or not greenhouse gasses are causing dangerous, man-made global warming is not a matter of opinion. Matters of opinion include issues like whether to drive on the right or the left, whether we raise money by taxing the rich or the poor, whether we go to war to protect freedom or not etc. This is not something we can decide by a public vote. Peer-reviewed science is all we have on a complex scientific issue like this. You might discuss what proportion of the population misunderstands the issue, and what they are confused about, but not whether they might be right. If there was any doubt about this science, world leaders would not, at this very moment, be gathered in Copenhagen to discuss what to do about it. They are not there discussing whether it is true or not. It is settled science, and world leaders are acting on that basis, and have been since at least the Kyoto agreement in 1997 (admittedly all except for the US, which went though an anti-science phase and backed out of that). You cannot seriously maintain that the POV dispute is over the fact that we discuss peer-reviewed science here without balancing it with a discussion of hocus-pocus and wishful thinking? --Nigelj (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course, your preconceived and some might say narrow-minded notions of what the specific points of view I am discussing might be are quite evident by this comment. Although, even your comment provides one such example for us:

"You might discuss what proportion of the population misunderstands the issue, and what they are confused about, but not whether they might be right."

The last bit is debatable, actually, since the entire concept of there being "a scientific consensus" is inherently tied to it being nothing more than "a public vote" only amongst scientists. Being a scientist doesn't make you right. Scientists do make mistakes ... even in large groups.

But even if we set that point aside and only focus on the first two parts of your statement you are actually proving my point. Those are legitimate topics of discussion related to "the consensus" which would be excluded from this page. For example, , , , might all be suitable sources for just such a discussion ... only NOT on this page based on the peer-reviewed argument.

Another such discussion might include sources such as and which articulate the public views of the topic as expressed by editorials from major news media (note that these are the editorial views of the newspapers, not simply one author). In any event, this should establish that there ARE legitimate points of view concerning "the consensus" which are currently being excluded because of the structural issues within the articles and the peer-reviewed constraints being imposed here. This is why there is a NPOV dispute on THIS page. --GoRight (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Nigelj, Please look WP:BRD in page history ] to see substance. As you have pointed out to me, this talk page is not a forum. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

So, the essence of your dispute is that, "Being a scientist doesn't make you right. Scientists do make mistakes ... even in large groups" and so you want to include the unscientific hunches of joe-public, politicians and journalists (mostly from the US, I see, nothing there from Europe) into the mix of Misplaced Pages sources to provide a more balanced view? --Nigelj (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

As my response above more than adequately demonstrated, not at all.

However I do note that your response focused NOT on the parts where I said the dispute lies, but precisely where I said they do NOT: "The dispute is not over attempts to undermine the scientific credibility of the positions articulated on this page." Your response focused not on the parts of my statement that clearly addressed the points pertinent to this discussion, but precisely on the part I said we should avoid: "But even if we set that point aside and only focus on the first two parts of your statement ...".

So, to be honest, I find your response to be rather disingenuous and a stark reflection of the problem that exists on this article. Care to try again and address the actual points I raised rather than the ones I discounted? --GoRight (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to include other categories of opinion for a NPOV. The "scientific opinion" is the result of consent to a narrow POV mission of the IPCC.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Having read the objections and the problem with the POV, I find that I agree with GoRight, the scrubbing of scientific opinions that disagree with the main thrust of the article is contrary to WP:NPOV.--Blue Tie (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

So what is going on in Copenhagen? Did you guys think they were there to help decide if the IPCC science is right or not? --Nigelj (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

What scrubbing of Scientific Opinions? What is scrubbed have been non-scientific opinions about consensus, non-scientific opinions about GW, and scientific opinions from ANY angle that do not come from a body with standing, however, on reading through a ton of stuff again, I am almost coming around to seeing a prima facie case for POV re the consensus section only. This is a change of stance for me, and I'm not sure if I'm quite there yet. This issue may be exaggerated and exacerbated by the referral pages, but I feel those pages should not affect a determination of POV here. ‒ Jaymax✍ 21:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

GoRight: "The dispute is over the exclusion of the legitimate points of view concerning "the consensus" which currently occurs on THIS article"

I urge GoRight to drop this point. Because if this article is going to say anything about claims that a consensus does not exist, it can only do that by debunking such claims, as that is the prevailing POV in the literature. There are no two equal sides on this issue. A NPOV wiki article will have to say that the sceptics are wrong when they say that there is no consensus. I'm sure that this is not what GoRight wants to see.

Another issue is that the sceptic POV should be mentioned here on Misplaced Pages. But because this is a such a minority opinion, you could hardly mention that the Global Warming article without violating WP:Weight. That's why we have the Global Warming Controversy article. There is plenty of room to write about claims and counter claims on the scientific consensus there. Count Iblis (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Alas, you still don't understand the thrust of the problem. There is an entire body of topics, debates, and controversies surrounding "the consensus" that exist entirely within the public (as opposed to the scientific) domain and they have absolutely nothing to do with "debunking such claims". In fact, my core argument here specifically relies upon the fundamental assumption that such a "scientific consensus" does in fact exist. To provide but one such example, a discussion of the public opinion trends associated with "the consensus" is a perfectly valid topic of discussion that is wholly unrelated to "debunking anything" and doesn't rely upon peer-reviewed anything. My NPOV issue is that this article, which given the current configuration of the redirects and wikilinks is the de facto "main article" on any discussion of the consensus, is systematically blocking any discussion of those public domain points of view. So either allow them to be expressed here, or move the "main article" for the discussion of the consensus elsewhere. Climate change consensus would appear to be a natural choice for such an alternate location. --GoRight (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I do understand you, but if you include public opinions on the consensus, then everything that is written about the public opinion, including criticisms of some sceptical opinions is fair game. That will then likely open the door to far more editing disputes which will be fought with wiki policies like WP:Weight, WP:Undue, WP:RS. That's why content forking to move sceptical opinions to separate articles were they can be discussed in greater detail is better. Count Iblis (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It's well enough covered in the denialism article, to my mind. We don't need to go into it specifically at all, really. --Nigelj (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Nigel, up a bit you say: "But whether or not greenhouse gasses are causing dangerous, man-made global warming is not a matter of opinion. Matters of opinion include issues like (list)" - I would add to your list: "whether or not there is scientific consensus that greenhouse gasses are causing dangerous, man-made global warming" as a matter of opinion. As evidence I would offer your local talkback radio station. This is the nub, I think, of GR's concern, and touches on ZP5's key concern I think. Proper coverage, not of AGW science (nominally factual) per se, but of the debate around consensus, is stifled - only one side of the debate around consensus is permitted on this page, despite the debate around consensus being a hot topic with strongly held and strongly disagreeing opinions held my many. Why can we not cover the consensus issue (both sides) over at Climate Change Consensus which appropriatly kicks off strongly with the (overwhelming) majority scientific view - the contested section here is ALREADY duplicated there. ‒ Jaymax✍ 22:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, per Scientific Consensus "Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method." - so is it appropriate to cover it in any depth on a page where inclusion criteria is largely driven by the sceintific method? ‒ Jaymax✍ 22:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, per NPOV#Neutrality_disputes_and_handling, "there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page, if an assumption is best discussed in depth on some other page. Some brief, unobtrusive pointer might be appropriate, however." ‒ Jaymax✍ 22:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Would GoRight be happy with a link back to the Global Warming Controversy article? Alex Harvey (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No, because there is already a spinoff from that article specifically dedicated to this topic, it is Climate change consensus. The solution I would prefer is that this article simply include a brief statement and a pointer to that article as the "main source" for this topic, at which point it only makes sense to update the consensus related redirects to point there as well. --GoRight (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Rm joke Peer review banner: why

ZP5 nominated this article for peer review. As the Misplaced Pages:Peer_review page sez Articles must be free of major cleanup banners and since ZP5 is currently insisting on the POV banner, the article is disqualified. So I've removed the banner from this page. I think that ZP5 may have wanted a content RFC William M. Connolley (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Good call, a peer review obviously would not be appropriate at this time. I think an RFC is a good idea as well, more eyes on these problems might help resolve this matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, it was no joke, just a misguided dispute resolution attempt. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your good faith input, though. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Another Idea

(Moved from the RfC section by request of Jaymax)

• Another Idea. Suppose this article were renamed "Scientific Organization's Statements on Global Warming". It would be a kind of enlarged list. Then the only things that would be allowed would be statements by Scientific Organizations and there would not have to be any argument about whether the statements were "pro" or "con" but only if the reference was valid and correctly quoted. Statements by individual Scientists would not be included (but would of course, be in included in the page on "Scientists who disagree" or whatever that page is called. As a list of scientific organization's statements it could be referenced in the main article as part of the idea of consensus as long as the list of individual scientists was also referenced nearby. That would be NPOV. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Not seeing how this allows balance and space for the sources that represent other opinions. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

By renaming the article it makes its purpose clear -- it is not by implication ALL Scientific opinion of "Climate Change" but is, instead, very specifically the statements made ONLY by Scientific Organizations (those would have to be defined and I would be willing to define it as "Formal Organizations with legal standing composed chiefly of scientists or with a focus on scientific research"). This allows balance and space for all organizations that that represent what ever opinions that they have. If there are absolutely no organizations that hold opinions against global warming, then so be it. That is the way it is. The article is STILL NPOV even if that is true, because it is always open to including statements by organizations that disagree. At the same time, the article can have, as a link perhaps in the hatnote, to the "Individual Scientists who disagree" or whatever that article is called. This would allow readers to go to both sides without wading through too long an article that reads like a war. --Blue Tie (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Finally I would add that by calling it "Scientific Opinion of Climate Change", it is has the appearance of being the final word on all scientific opinion -- even if it later says "well, we mean only organizations". Avoid the word "opinion" -- which is softer and squishier and say "statements". Make it "Organizations" and then it can be balanced by the Individuals who disagree article. To me, I fail to see how this is not the best solution for the readers. --Blue Tie (talk) 04:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me help you pass this ... how about excluding any reference to a subjective "organization" or "individual" POV in the title. Leave that out and then there shall be space and balance for an objective NPOV. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Blue Tie, thanks for splitting this off. There are actually two questions here: (1) The title, (2) the criteria for the organisations

On (2), I am curious about the possibility of broadening the criteria, although I'm far from convinced it would reduce the number of complaints about having any criteria and excluding individuals, but I think the matter deserves some attention, and may have merit even if it would not reduce some of the more misplaced criticism. I would like to throw into the pot notability - Perhaps, rather than being of national-or-international-standing, a scientific society which is notable per WP:N meets the threshold. I am averse to the term 'organisation', prefer societies, (fellowships, academies, etc) where the membership primarily comprises individuals involved in scientific research, and connected by discipline, or be an all-encompassing society (such as the Royal Society) and set up in the pursuit of knowledge, rather than an agenda. Which sounds (and probably is) quite complicated, and might amount to the same set of organisations, but is more wiki-friendly, and does allow for the opinions of smaller societies to also be included. There should be some demonstrable, even if weak, connection between a specialist discipline and GW (like atmospheric chemistry, or health effect mitigation).

On the title - I don't like moving away from Scientific Opinion because to do so is 'dumbing down' - the term seems to me to be universally used within the relevant community to mean what it means for this article. More particularly, the article also includes surveys of individual scientists, the survey being an alternate to the internal processes of a society to reach a conclusion. It is not the time to be looking to hive off the surveys (he says, wearily, slightly begging). So the title cannot be specific to organisations - that is more for the section heading.

But finally, one comment of yours has me wondering if there might be some misapprehension: There hasn't actually been debate (while I've been here) about whether organisations are 'pro' or 'con' - I've actually gone out looking for 'con' statements to include, because having one would deflect some of the accusations of bias - but rather they have been about whether the organisation and the source meet the relevant criteria. There don't seem to be any dissenters, and that might not change even with broadening of the organisational criteria. Thus the summarising statement that there arn't any in the list (however it is worded) may remain, and would continue to generate reaction.

‒ Jaymax✍ 05:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sidenote on the title - try googling "scientific opinion -climate" and alternatives. It might be appropriate to pluralise to opinions, but that feels as wrong as, say, public opinions would when giving a list of public opinion survey results on a topic... ‒ Jaymax✍ 05:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Background to RfC

• Yes it is balanced. Given that, no it doesn't need an NPOV tag. Yes, 1RR limit would help avoid disruption William M. Connolley (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• No, the Consensus section only is unbalanced. The POV tag should stay while the article includes a section on the debate around whether there is consensus, but restricts that to only contributions to the "popular discussion" from scientific societies. The section is already duplicated at Climate change consensus, and striking the section here and adding a brief pointer, per NPOV#Making_necessary_assumptions, would resolve the POV issue. ‒ Jaymax✍ 23:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• The article topic is too poorly defined to enable any consensus to emerge. The reason is that it is a content fork from the article Climate change. identifying the article as a fork is not hard to do because the form of the title runs contrary to Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions, as it uses the convention "Scientific opinion on...." in its title which seperates in from Climate change in name only. I have not seen this done for any other article topic, i.e the "opinions" (aka the sources) are never seperated from the overarching article topic (climate change). --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 00:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• This hatnote, "This article does not include the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor lists of individuals such aspetitions" demonstrates a POV issue with the article for excluding views and many sources in the article history. The IPCC mission should be included for context. In addition, other opinion categorizes must be briefly included (following Misplaced Pages:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balance) to balance the article view. The title should be explicitly objective following category guidance. As is now, the article is a Coatrack for "documenting" .... "scientific opinion" as singly manifested by the IPCC mission. No org mission should be held above Wiki NPOV, non-negotiable. There are sources to reasonably summarize and include other opinions here. Edit wars can be avoided when warriors abstain. No need for 1RR if the warrior(s) acknowledge their waring and abstain. (Thanks for the RFC. Let me know if anyone has questions.) Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• (Mostly duplicated from above) As long as this article is being utilized as the "main article" for a discussion of "the consensus", as evidenced by the fact that redirects and wikilinks referring to "the consensus" are bringing users to THIS article, then the discussion of "the consensus" on THIS article must include a discussion of viewpoints (i.e. from the public domain) other than purely peer-reviewed ones. The fact that the peer-reviewed argument is being used to prevent those other points of view from being included is the source of the NPOV dispute on THIS article. So, there are two possible options for resolving the dispute:
  1. Move the discussion of "the consensus" to a page where the peer-reviewed argument won't be used to eliminate discussion of otherwise valid points of view, or
  2. Allow those points of view to be expressed on this page as WP:NPOV demands.

I have been pursuing the first approach as this will enable those who prefer to have a place that describes only the peer-reviewed opinions to continue to do so, although the termpositions would be more appropriate. The dispute is not over the listing of the scientific positions of the various organizations represented here. The dispute is not over attempts to undermine the scientific credibility of the positions articulated on this page. The dispute is over the exclusion from THIS article legitimate points of view from the public domain which focus on "the consensus". --GoRight (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Here's a thought: The primary purpose of an RfC is requesting outside input. And as usual, the outside input is being drowned out by the same old folks restating their same old positions. Let's reboot the process and those of us who've already stated our positions ad nauseam agree to back off and let others get a word in. What say? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• This article is about the scientific opinion on climate change, which is distinct from, and not impacted by (but has impact on) the political or public opinion on climate change. The article does this by describing the views from major scientific bodies, and surveys that try to determine scientists opinion - as such it has included all viewpoints from these aspects. What this means and what, if any, impacts this view may have on political or public opinion and the debates about it etc. lies outside of the articles purpose, and is discussed at Climate change consensus, Global warming controversy and to some extent at Politics of global warming. Perhaps we should have another article as well called Public opinion on climate change (seems there is a lot of material), but it certainly doesn't belong here.--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Maths, science, and technology When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

• The crux of this debate seems to hinge on two issues:

• Is the article balanced with regards to point of view and which sources are accepted as reliable enough to merit inclusion here?
• Is the above problem bad enough to merit keeping a {{pov}} tag on the article?

• Since there is already a lot of debate from the currently involved parties, it would be best if each made a brief statement here summarizing their position, and then let previously uninvolved editors comment for a bit. If you do not feel this summary adequately represents the key points, please note that in your statement. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Addendum: Maybe we can kill two birds with one stone here by addressing this as well: Should the article be placed on a editing restriction limiting editors to one revert per day in order to encourage discussion rather than revert warring? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: in the interests of encouraging outside participation, I have copied the opening statements to #Background to RfC, above; this method has worked before, but if it is undesirable here please simply undo it and remove this statement. Valued outside commenters, Beeblebrox's opening statement looks like a fair summary of the remaining points of contention, but please review the material in the above section for more detail to this dispute. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Consensus section

Who's going to yell at (slash revert) me if I replace Section 5 with a lead note pointing again to Climate change consensus? ‒ Jaymax✍ 09:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't do it yet. CCC hasn't received much scrutiny - only fairly recently the lede was quite weird . One immeadiate impression is that there is material *there* which clearly dups stuff *here* that should be removed from there William M. Connolley (talk) 09:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I had a look earlier, and didn't see anything I would bring here. As for article quality - I don't really understand the relevance. The material being removed is essentially identical in both places, as is better context over ther. However, i'm in no mood to stir things up again anytime this week at the least, so 'yet' is the effective word for now.

I'd appreciate more opinions from the regular editors here about this. I may have sounded like a broken record, but the actual proposal has not had much debate, outside of POV concerns. ‒ Jaymax✍ 10:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not implacably opposed. I'm saying the article quality there is questionable - or unverified, perhaps. I wouldn't want to cut a section here, and replace it with a see-main to there, without doing the due diligence William M. Connolley (talk) 10:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems odd to me that you would want to link section 5 to Climate change consensus, when the lead of this article mentions but does not link to Climate change. It seems to me that this proposal is missing a more important point:

1. I think it is clear from the title of this article is a content fork from the article Climate change. The only instances in which the term "Scientific opinion" is used in this article are in the general sense of the term: there is no secondary source which suggest that "Scientific opinion on climate change" is a seperate, well-defined standalone topic.
2. Whilst the term "consensus" is a used more frequently in this article, I am not convinced it is the right merge target for this article, because significant coverage cited in this article address the subject of climate change directly and in detail.
3. I know that many editors here don't accept this, but it seems to me to be that the only thing seperating the article Climate change from the others are variations in the title. All the coverage in both Scientific opinion on climate change and Climate change consensus address the subject of climate change in substantial detail, and this evidence suggests that merging these articles is the only way to avoid conflict with Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Re #1, not talking about Scientific Opinion so much wrt this change. Re #2 I'm confused by talking of a merge target - currently proposing to just delete a smallish section from this article. Re #3, can you reference the specific bit in the naming conventions pls? Ta. ‒ Jaymax✍ 10:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think if this article is not so much direct towards the topic of Scientific Opinion on climate change per se, but towards climate change. Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions says that the choice of article names should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists. If the subject matter which this article addresses directly and in detail is climate change (as indicated by its content), then it should be merged with the article Climate change. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, the 'main article' such as there is one, would be Global Warming, not Climate Change. There's stuff in the archives, not sure if you saw all replies to your prior discussion on this? ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If it is, would you not expect it to say so, either in the title or in the lead section? it seems to me that the lead section makes in very clear that it is about climate change. You say that it is about Global warming, but the lack of any statement to this effect would suggest this appears not to be the case. However, if you are correct, which of the sources in this article supports your view? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hatnote: "For recent climate change generally, see Global warming." - But the issue is not the refs in this article, the issue is the CONTENT difference between the Climate Change and Global Warming articles. Global Warming states it is about recent climate change. These opinions are all on the subject of recent climate change. Conversely, Climate Change makes it fairly clear it is about climatlogy, not about recent climate change slash global warming. The direct and honest answer to your question is "all of them". (not trying to sound dismissive there) ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Separating out GC's bit

Perhaps I had not made it clear why it was a related discussion. Now I have done so. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

TBH I still don't quite see it - or at least no strong connection. FWIW I added a secondary source referencing the topic to the lead. The term Scientific Opinion or a similar equivalent would be found in many of the referenced articles - I don't see the bearing of the absense of the phrase in the body, that would be true for a great many lists - I do see that we could do some tightening around WP:N issues, but that shouldn't be difficult, and consequently I don't see that this subtopic doesn't deserve it's own article. ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the term Scientific Opinion is used in many articles, but only this one has it in the title. Take it way, and it will become obvious to you that the Emperor has no clothes, that is to say, without Scientific Opinion in the title, this article should be called Climate change. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Analagous to saying that 9/11 opinion polls should be merged with September 11 attacks. ‒ Jaymax✍ 12:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think a correct analogy is to saying that Climate change should have a seperate article on Reliable secondary sources on climate change. The title of this article is just not recognising that article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers worldwide would most easily recognize as being the article's subject matter, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
If, as your reference to the article 9/11 opinion polls suggests, this article is about surveys on scientific opinion, then why is the article title not Surveys of scientists and scientific literature on climate change? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Repointing the 'consensus' redirect articles

I have added a note in the discussion pages at the 'consensus' REDIRECT articles:

• Scientific consensus on climate change (noredirect) links (one link zero links one link due to WMC's revert zero so long as it sticks)
• Scientific consensus on global warming (noredirect) links (seven links zero links)
• Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (noredirect) links (zero links)
• Global warming consensus (noredirect) links (one link zero links)

advising that it is proposed to shortly redirect them to Climate change consensus. Anyone who deliberatly elected to use a redirect page, or an 'alternative title' does (or should do) so in the knowledge that the target can change. Those who did so accidentlly will learn from their error if it matters. I should point out that when I canvassed repointing Scientfic opinion from Scientific consensus to Opinion, in multiple places, no-one peeped about the pages that might already link to the Scientific Opinion redirect. I just checked and there's a few. No-one said anything before or after the fact. I suggest leaving the Talk note for a week, and then executing the redirect if no one has reasonably objected here or there by then. ‒ Jaymax✍ 10:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with Climate change consensus is that the article's title is not neutral. There are some sources that disupute the existence of any consensus (the contarian view), but there is also no evidence to support that one particular view and a related course of action has universal endorsement. It is probably more correct to say that consensus on this issue is emerging.
Since all of these articles seem to address the subject of climate change directectly, it seems to me to be the obvious merger target. I don't think we can just use the subjective arguments to choose a merger target. I think we have to look at the sources cited in the article, and accept that they address the subject of climate charge direct and in detail, not any other topic. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of that article is to cover all views with regards to consensus, not to assert that one exists (although proper balance will leave a critical reader with little doubt). I agree the title could perhaps be better, but this is not the place for that discussion. The title alone doesn't assert the objective existence of it's topic, any more than Fairy does. ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Why? What inclusion rationale says that there should be a stand alone article that includes every single source about a particular topic? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Gah? I'm confused, I was responding to what I thought was you saying the article pre-supposed a particular viewpoint (that there is a consensus). By 'all', I meant per usual article standards, not 'all' in an absolute sense. ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, the purpose of the article Climate change is to cover all views with regards to climate change as well. I am not sure what the real difference between the two is. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

And the purpose of CCC is to cover all views regarding whether or not there is a consensus wrt global warming (slash recent climate change), which is a related, but distinct subtopic, that gets plenty of it's own attention. ‒ Jaymax✍ 12:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the lead at Climate Change pretty much starts out sending users elsewhere. I guess you could argue Global Warming (recent climate change) is a sub-topic of Climate Change, Climate Change Consensus is a sub-topic of Global Warming - but chimpanzee is a subtopic of ape, perhaps we should merge those as well? ‒ Jaymax✍ 12:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

We both know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST, but we can only deal with this article on this talk page, so I won't comment about those other articles for the time being.
All of the editing problems on this article originate from it being a content fork: the lack of definition, the use of an artifical title, the lead statement being original research, and the lack of focus on a particular topic in the article' content. This article is to PR pieces on climate change as The Musical of Musicals (The Musical!) is to musicals. Sooner or later you are going to have to acknoweledge that the title of this article (and a lot of its content) is about Climate change, not Scientific opinion on.., What scientists are saying about... or Who thinks what about...climate change. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point but you must be aware that the amount of material in wikipedia on climate change is far too great to fit in one article. It is common wiki practice when a given sub-topic becomes too large to fit within the main article that it is split out into its own article with a small stub or summary left behind and a pointer to the "main article" for that sub-topic. For example, see the this section . The main article for Solar output has been factored out of the Climate change page into a sub-page because of the amount of information contained there. I don't see the Climate change consensus as being any different than the Solar variation page in that regards. If this article should be merged with anything it should be the Climate change consensus article but that would preclude hat tip restrictions that seek to exclude public domain points of view. --GoRight (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

That is fine, as long as a clear definition of this article's content can be found that makes it clear that it is a sub-topic, and that as a sub-topic, it is notable in its own right. At the momenent, it seems to me that no one has a convincing evidence, based on third party sources, that this is a distinct sub-topic in its own right. Unless one can be found which identifies it as being a distinct sub-topic, then it is probably a content fork, rather than a bona fide article topic suitable for its own standalone article. What is needed is a clear definition from a third party view that can be brought into the lead to define what this article is about. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring in the lede again

It would be good if people could avoid making controversial changes to the lede at this time. Please discuss such changes *first*.

In this case, the change looks like bad faith. GC appears to believe that this article is a content fork of climate change. There is even a failed merge proposal which he started . Many people have laready told GC that this relates to GW; the addition of a misleading link to CC appears to be little other than POINTy disruption William M. Connolley (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I would love to know what is "controversial" about linking the term "climate change" to the article about that term? Why don't we get a third opinion on this matter if you don't accept that the edit is entirely sensible, regardless of what ever you think about me. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the MOS says not to do so, for starters. Guettarda (talk) 12:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutral opinions are always good. What troubles me is you are not referring to the content (ie, the topic, which is defined broader than the title) of the target article you are wanting to prominently link to - that makes no sense, linking should take users to relevant content. There's no problem linking to Climate Change from here in a context that is about the topic and content of that article. I'm getting frustrated, so taking a break. ‒ Jaymax✍ 12:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Which manual of style says that you can't link a term to its topic? And in what sense is the term "climate change" not related to the article Climate change? It seems to me that you have to change the lead to say what it means or make it mean what it says, but if we get a third opinion or go to mediation on the issue, I think you will find that most editors would support this edit without hestitation - I think this is what Americans refer to as a "No Brainer". --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sections 6, 7, and 9 of Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change/Archive 9 indicate that this has been discussed. Please be aware that, while I cannot speak for anyone else, I am fairly unlikely to re-lock the article in the near future if other measures will serve. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It not that you can't link a term in the topic, but you shouldn't link terms in the title of the page, the part that's bolded. Guettarda (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I would normally agree with you, it is a valid point you make, if where not for the fact that the so called "lead" of in this article is more an opinion piece than a statement of fact or a summary of the article content. It does not summarise a partiuclar source nor any definitions cited in the rest of the article. In fact the whole article lacks a definition from a reliable third party source.
The closest a source comes to matching the title of this article relates to this source.
However, the lead of this article, for some reason not disclosed, says the sources which it cites do "not include the views of individual scientists". I have never read such intellectual nonsense in any publication about climate change and I don't think that is a sustainable prohibition for any article to declare in its lead.
This brings me back to my original position: as a topic, I don't think there is any evidence to support the fact that this is a viable standalone topic unless a few sources can be found which define (even in a broad sense) what is meant by "Scientific opinion on climate change". The source that I have cited does not provide a definition either; rather, it discusses what scientific opinion there is about Climate change, and I quote to illustrate this:

Mainstream scientific opinion, as expressed by the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has repeatedly stressed that global warming is a serious problem and that governments need to respond to this challenge promptly.

Expert consensus is not unanimity, however. While the scientific agreement that global warming is taking place and that its consequences will be severe has been growing, it is not a universally held position among experts. Expert disagreement and uncertainty over global warming is particularly likely when scientists are asked to offer broad conclusions, such as the rate of global warming, potential effects, and policy suggestions, which involves value-laden and often contentious discussions of what should be.

Stephen J. Farnsworth & Samuel Robert Lichter: The Structure of Evolving US Scientific Opinion on Climate Change and its Potential Consequences.

The point here is that even in articles which focus on scientific opinion, the subject matter that is discussed directly and in detail is Climate change. In the context of this source, the term "scientific opinion" is simply a hook or editorial device on which a review of the climate change itself. However, employing such editorial device in article to justify the creation of a content fork runs contrary to the letter and the spirit of Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Then wouldn't it be better to work to fix the lead, rather than fighting over whether we should or shouldn't link a word that the MOS suggests we shouldn't? Guettarda (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

How about basing it on the above source? Here is more or less the wording I wish to propose to identify this article as being a seperate subjectArchive 36:

Scientific opinion on climate change, as expressed by the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has repeatedly stressed that global warming is a serious problem and that governments need to respond to this challenge promptly. While the scientific agreement that global warming is taking place and that its consequences will be severe has been growing, it is not a universally held position among experts. Expert disagreement and uncertainty over global warming is particularly likely when scientists are asked to offer broad conclusions, such as the rate of global warming, potential effects, and policy suggestions, which involves value-laden and often contentious discussions of what should be.

Lets take from here, but lets agree really need to get rid of the opinion piece that currently exists. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The text above is factually incorrect. AGW is a fact that is universally held by the actual 'experts'. See Denialism. If it were not, the meeting at COP15 would not be to decide what to do about it, but whether it is true or not. --Nigelj (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that this wording is a summary from a reliable secondary source, but your personal views about it being factually incorrect don't hold any weight on their own. If you can come up with better wording from a reliable secondary source, lets have it. But if you can't back up your views with sources, then we need to proceed with this proposal if nothing better can be found. Better to have a sourced lead that an unsourced lead, I think we can agree on that. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The existing lede is sourced, to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "tasked with evaluating the risk of climate change caused by human activity". (Read their article to see that there is no higher authority on the matter worldwide). The lede also summarises the article and the whole article is impeccably sourced. The error you want to introduce into the lede is in contradiction to the body of the article and represents a non-notable, fringe view. --Nigelj (talk) 16:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC) --Nigelj (talk) 16:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You are the one in denial, my friend. There are actual 'experts' who disagree so your use of the word 'universally' is clearly flawed. As is your use of the word 'fact'. The best that you might ever hope to claim in this context is 'scientific fact' which as we all are aware is not the same thing at all as 'fact'. Scientific fact is akin, in actuality, to being our best guess based on what we think we know today. And surprisingly it never gets better than that. The last I heard AGW is at best referred to as a theory, and certainly not a law. Some only consider it an hypothesis at this point. --GoRight (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

So, the whole Copenhagen conference is based on a guess??! And only you know the truth! You'd better tell them straight away - before Obama gets there and signs anything! Oh, I see, you're trying to, here? Right, I see. --Nigelj (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"So, the whole Copenhagen conference is based on a guess??!" - Well technically, yes. You do understand how the scientific method works, right? Hypothesis ... Theory ... Law ... Discover something new that breaks the current view of the universe ... Repeat. Remember, Newton was right only until he wasn't. I think you get the point.

"And only you know the truth!" - I never said that, please work on your reading comprehension skills. What I said was, you claim to know the truth but you are wrong. Those aren't the same things. --GoRight (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm GR, you are aware that your: Hypothesis -> theory -> law, thing is wrong - right? (law doesn't belong there, its separate from hypothesis and theory, since it doesn't explain anything) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"..." != "->" --GoRight (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I propose eliminating the opening paragraph to this article. If it is sourced, then the source needs to be cited.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, here's the opening para: "National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that states:" (followed by the quote). Which bit are you disputing, that these academies and societies have assessed the science re global warming? Or that these assessments largely follow or endorse the IPCC? --Nigelj (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the source of the opening paragraph, but also the longer section above it in italics:

This article is about scientific opinion on climate change as given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. This article does not include the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions, Global warming, Climate change consensus, and List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.

In both cases, these paragraphs are unsourced, yet both are key to understanding what this article is about. If this article is a viable standalone article, they need to be replaced by a definition, even if it is only a broadly based definition, from a reliable third-party source. Withoug such a source, there will never be any agreement on what this article is about or what it should contain. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the bit in italics at the very beginning is called a hat-note. It doesn't need a source, it just says what this article is (and is not) about. It is necessary to place restrictions like that to stop some articles becoming unmanageably long. This article is already 88 kilobytes long, and comes with the warning, "It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Misplaced Pages:Article size". It often happens in WP that we need to move specific, related information out of long articles into sub-articles, with links, like in the rest of the hat-note to the other related articles. --Nigelj (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I have never seen a hat note like it. It is a basically a statement of opinion which is not supported by any source, and is in no way a suitable substitute for a proper lead based on seconary sources that defines the article's subject matter. I have never seen an article lead with a hat note that comprised of original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You must be mis-reading it, it doesn't contain any opinions or research. It says, "This article is about as given by . This article does not include the views of . For , see . For debate on , see . For opinions of individual climate scientists, see ." There is nothing there apart from a very helpful set of lists saying what this article is about, what it's not about, and where you might find some of the things not covered here. We can't fit everything into one article, and this is as helpful as we can be if the info has to be distributed into various pages. There's a 'See also' at the end too with further suggestions, and a huge collapsed template at the very bottom with loads of pages linked as well. --Nigelj (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

UCS backgrounder

This edit added a sentence on the Union of Concerned Scientists report "Who Are They and Why Do Their Climate Reports Matter". I do not see where this edit has been discussed recently here, nor does spot-checking indicate that it was in the article before. If either of these observations is in error, please forgive me. Elsewise, please remember to discuss potentially controversial edits and avoid edit warring. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I just took out that strange sentence. If the statement made in that sentence is to be included, it should be put in the appropriate place in the article. Count Iblis (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The irony of "RV STOP EDIT WARRING!!!"

I suggest that people who insist that others stop edit warring while they revert to their preferred version have gone past the point of irony and to self-parody. As such, I suggest that users who are obviously over-attached to this article stop editing it, and it's talk page, and allow other, uninvolved editors to make a decision on the tag. I have requested review at the content noticeboard, and would ask that the usual suspects attempt to disengage - from the talk page, from the article, from everything. That means stop editing, stop commenting, and certainly, don't harass whoever comes into check the pov of the article. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Since edit-warring flared up within a few hours after the previous protection expired, I've re-protected the article for 3 more days. Hopefully that will provide a bit of breathing room. Outside commentary on the content dispute is certainly welcome; hopefully the article will be a bit less off-putting for uninvolved editors with a 3-day enforced vacation from edit-warring. MastCell  19:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the review please. My BRD cycles are here Thanks. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk)

I don't see any sign of sanity returning. I have a couple of suggestions:

1. Declare ZP5 a waste of time and ban him from this article
2. Declare proposal 2 above the closest thing we'll get to consensus and implement it

William M. Connolley (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

1. ^ "American Association of Petroleum Geologists Statements, Climate Change" (PDF). June 2007. Retrieved 2009-12-11.
2. Brigham-Grette, Julie. "Petroleum Geologist' Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate" (PDF). EOS. 87 (36): 364. Retrieved 2009-12-10. AAPG...stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
3. Cite error: The named reference AQAonAAPG was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. Brigham-Grette, Julie. "Petroleum Geologist' Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate" (PDF). EOS. 87 (36): 364. Retrieved 2009-12-10. AAPG...stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
5. Brigham-Grette, Julie. "Petroleum Geologist' Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate" (PDF). EOS. 87 (36): 364. Retrieved 2009-12-10. AAPG...stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
6. Stephen J. Farnsworth & Samuel Robert Lichter: The Structure of Evolving US Scientific Opinion on Climate Change and its Potential Consequences, American Political Science Association, Toronto. September 2009, p.3-4

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Environment articles
• Unknown-importance Environment articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment