Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:51, 18 December 2009

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

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)
12. Apis (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
13. Airborne84 (talk) 00:13, 16 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)

   And the reason(s) have been stated multiple times. --GoRight (talk) 22:18, 15 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)

Motion to close

Yes, there is irony with time invested in Proposal #2 and "Procedural disputes block climate accord" let the horse go in peace. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:38, 17 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)

In fact, my core argument here specifically relies upon the fundamental assumption that such a "scientific consensus" does in fact exist. - Since the current article makes no POV claim based on this phrase (it only mentions that it is of interest and that several scientific organizations use it themselves), and since this article is about scientific not public opinion, it seems this argument is redundant. DHooke1973 (talk) 05:47, 18 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)

I have temporarily turned off automatic archiving so that this thread will remain active. Please manually move stale or inactive threads to the archive, and reactivate the bot after the RfC closes on 2009-01-12. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:40, 16 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.

I'm still pretty new to this page. I can't fully address the editing restriction proposition since I don't know all the details about how that works. However, anything that promotes discussion instead of unilateral editing that is likely to be immediately controversial is a good thing.

After some thought, I support the removal of the tag. The proposal to add a discussion regarding the debate on the consensus is an interesting one. I agree with GoRight that that discussion must be included in Misplaced Pages in the interest of completeness. I don't think this article is the right place, and the argument that omitting it from this article violates NPOV is not compelling. I would support it here except that I think it would lead to a slippery slope that would quickly grow and overshadow the specific dynamics this article describes.Airborne84 (talk) 12:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

I think entries in the organisations list should be notable Learned societies with some demonstrable interest in, or contribution to, global warming science, arising from the scientific disciplines they incorporate. Note that this might align to national or international standing, but more likely will broaden the field. ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...seems like what you just said (notable Learned societies with some demonstrable interest in, or contribution to, global warming science, arising from the scientific disciplines they incorporate) is a long-winded version of scientific bodies of natonal or international standing. Unless you're advocating for including the Social sciences! But that would be heresy!--CurtisSwain (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If this is a shift from the above discussion. Hasn't this been discussed at length already in the archives? is the intent to rehash it every time someone new comes in and asks the same question?Airborne84 (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Who's new? Anyway, Curtis is half right - but notability is wiki-friendly, and the "demonstrable interest in, or contribution to, global warming science" is something that has come up here in talk several times, I think with the consnsus that it is a requirement, but isn't included in "scientific bodies of national or international standing" and isn't formalised anywhere else AFACIT (Curtis, you're prob best to advise if anyhave been left out on that basis?) ‒ Jaymax✍ 12:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm new, so I shouldn't be talking about new people... I just read through the archives of these articles (skimmed) a couple of days ago and it seems like we're discussing topics that have already been hashed through. Anyway Jaymax, I'm glad you're here (and many of the others) defending the accuracy of, and working hard to improve, these articles. I don't have the time to stay engaged for long, so I'll have to leave the task to better people than I!Airborne84 (talk) 12:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh, stick around - surely you must realise by now how much fun we have! ‒ Jaymax✍ 12:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the issue keeps coming up shows that it has yet to be adequately resolved. The FAQ is for dealing with repeated questions, but nobody's written anything explaining or justifying the restrictions. I know (or believe), and many veteran editors of this article know (or believe) that looking at position statements, synth reports and surveys is the best way to assess the scientific community's thinking on any given issue. The problem is the average reader doesn't understand this and we don't have an RS that confirms it. Frankly, I think the problem and the continuing perception of POV and bias issues can be solved by loosening the criteria and including petitions and open letters, which are about the only thing the dissenters have on their side. Doing that would more adequately acknowledge the existence of the handful of scientists who disagree with the majority opinion. It would also clearly show that the dissenters are the minority. If the views expressed in this article are that of the vast majority (consensus), then we need to demonstrate that by placing the dissenting views along side and letting the reader compare the two.

Jaymax: well stated. Let's go with notable or demonstrable interest in....--CurtisSwain (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"notable and demonstrable interest in..." ? ie: exclude, for example, the Mars Society (or are we at cross-puropses?) (edit) actually, they're not a scientific society anyhow, but you get my point... ‒ Jaymax✍ 12:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"notable Learned societies with some demonstrable interest in, or contribution to, global warming science, arising from the scientific disciplines they incorporate" that's pretty wordy. How about just notable scientific societies? Obviously, if a sci. soc, issues a position statement they've demonstrated an interest. notable scientific societies redirects to Learned society, excludes those flaky social scientists:) and is wiki-friendly as you say.--CurtisSwain (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is as I see it that the rationale for including this article in Misplaced Pages (looking at position statements, synth reports and surveys) could apply to many other related topics. The key to establishing the legitimacy of this article is finding a source which actually examines the development of Scientific opinion on climate change rather than what those opinions are at any one point in time as demonstrated by some of the statements made by various organisations. If there are not any, then I would say a merge is on the cards, and if that can't be achieved then its back to edit waring, POV pushing and all the other symptoms of there being no general agreement as to what this article is about. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

CurtisSwain, I agree with you in principle that the discussion regarding scientific disagreement with the majority must be covered. However, I can relate to you that I quickly found the link to that article when I visited this article about a month ago. I went to it and read through it thorougly. If you add it here in condensed form, that article would arguably need to be deleted. It seems that this overall topic needs to be sectioned appropriately due to its size and controversy, not combined (although that is just my opinion). Also, I found it useful reading through the article on scientists who disagreed. If it was condensed into this article - it would not have been nearly as useful. Again, any reader who comes here to be informed will do what I did - click the link to the "scientists who disagree" article and read it.

GC, I simply don't understand your rationale that this type of article doesn't belong in an Encyclopedia in any form. I believe your opinion on this to be idiosyncratic. You can see my comments in a thread a few above on that. The setup for the "List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" is very similar. It simply represents the dynamics of that topic. Further, I read that entire article and I found it very useful as well. Are you on that talk page arguing for its dismemberment or deletion? Logically, you should be doing so since your argument is against the inclusion of this format in an encyclopedia at this point. However, deleting these articles will not contribute to the knowledge of the reader that comes here to become informed. It will simply destroy their ability to gain knowledge. How can you support that concept on a website like Misplaced Pages?Airborne84 (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

With regards to wordiness, we could have a summarised criterion in the lead, the concice but full criterion below the section head, and a more 'helpful for editors' descriptive criterion in the FAQ. eg: (not suggesting these words especially)

• Lead: Notable scientific societies
• Section head: This list of notable learned societies which promote a scientific discipline which is related to global warming ...
• FAQ: explain directly connected as being impacted upon by, or research into, perhaps with examples, etc

Perhaps the article list of scientists opposed ... should become list of notable scientists ... and have dissenting and supporting sections? For the lead here we need a source (and it should be out there) that explains why the opinions of societies and surveys of scientists are more notable than those of individuals and of self-selected groups.

‒ Jaymax✍ 00:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It's probably better that I don't get involved in the discussion as to the semantics of the title and lead. I agree with the way it is based on the other threads, but that's not say a change couldn't be an improvement. I will just say that it will be important to balance conciseness with accuracy. There's a reason why scholarly works tend to have three-sentence descriptive titles and "Newsweek" article titles are concise. The audience must be kept in mind. In regard to your latter point, it would seem that a source for the lead is the best way to go. Personally, I find it incredible that it needs to be explained why a scientist's opinion is more relevant than an average individual, but given the content of some of these threads it's probably better just to acquiesce in that area and source it. I'd like to help more, but I have a deadline on an article. I can only pop in to help guard the basement for a while.Airborne84 (talk) 08:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are more than just scientists have things to say about climate change or global warming - I believe there is a large body of work on this subject coming from economists and politicans as well. It is not acceptable to have a lead based on original research stating that the content of this article is limited to one group or excludes another, as is the case now:

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

Such an approach is probibited by WP:NPOV which says "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents".
In order to demonstrate that this article is capable of meeting the requirements of WP:NPOV, the current hat note and lead must be replaced by a reliable third-party source that defines, even if only in the broadest terms, what this article is about. We can't leave the defintion of this article to personal opinions about what it is about, or not about. Just because an article is "useful" in the mind of one or more editors is not sufficient rationale for article inclusion, and won't resolve disagreements over personal opinions about the article's subject matter. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Be careful not to conflate NPOV with topic beyond what the rules state. This article is about Scientific Opinion, it must be NPOV within the topic. For example, the artcle on Christianity doesn't discuss aetheistic views on christianity. The bit you quote I read to be about segregating text within a topic. However I agree that the topic itself, and it's notability, needs better sourcing. FWIW: The article seems to be 'useful' on many thousands of external websites as well - that doesn't entitle it to exist, but does provide strong motivation to improve it. ‒ Jaymax✍ 09:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

GC, would you like to answer the question of why you aren't raising this issue in regard to the hat-note for the "List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" article? Regardless, you continue to violate WP:SOAP which applies to "articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages."

I believe there is a large body of work on this subject coming from economists and politicans as well. Politicians are not scientists.

Your specific assertions about a more general (and acceptable) topic of discussion have no basis or support. This has been pointed out to you. Jaymax and CurtisSwain are engaged in productive debate about how to improve the article. You continue to revert to unproductive idiosyncratic arguments, most notably about "opinion" and "original research" in the current hat-note. If you toned down your rhetoric, you might get more support. Jaymax argues a stronger, more general version of your diatribes - but in my opinion entertains far more of your rhetoric than is merited. I, for one, will stop responding to your posts until they don't violate WP:SOAP and they represent a productive, logical argument.Airborne84 (talk) 10:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The point I was making is that this article's subject matter is more or less defined by a hat note which is unsourced. This is a fact, not rhetoric. My proposal is to replace the hat note and the lead with sourced coverage which addresses directly the title of this article. If you have a more productive suggestion that is better than replacing the current hat note with sourced content let us know, but as it stands, the unsourced hat note can be removed in accordance with WP:BURDEN. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

UCS backgrounder / Topic notability

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)

I put it in after a comment that we didn't have much in terms of secondary sources for the notability of the topic as a whole. TBH i didn't spend much time contextualising it, thought that would happen with time. And finger-slip resulted in no edit comment. ‒ Jaymax✍ 00:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

For info, below is the content

• According to the Union of Concerned Scientists backgrounder on the IPCC "Who Are They and Why Do Their Climate Reports Matter", representing the range of scientific opinion on climate change fairly is critical to scientific credibility and political legitimacy.

‒ Jaymax✍ —Preceding undated comment added 11:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC).

Note - if anyone wants to help, I'm looking for good WP:RS, including mainstream media, that uses the term "scientific opinion" or "scientific opinions" WITHOUT a prefix of 'majority', 'consensus', 'accepted', 'general', 'predominant', or 'prevailaing' etc - ie. using the term to refer to the range of opinion, or the set of opinions, rather than a singular opinion. (obviously needs to be in the context of AGW). The issue I'm having is too many search results accepting the singular, consensus opinion - thus clearly demonstrating the notability of the article topic here, but only statistically (ie: via WP:OR). ‒ Jaymax✍ 02:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Surprised at POV tag

I apologise if I am failing to follow procedure in my comment (I'm a newbie). I found this article when searching for information regarding the standpoint of scientific bodies in regard to mankinds contribution to climate change.

I found the article to be useful and informative. I did not observe any undue bias, with a great number of references and quotes. I was surprised to find it being challenged as having a non-neutral point of view.

Even after reading all the discussion, I just could not find one valid challenge from those who are complaining. There was no mention of scientific bodies whose positions are not covered. The one from Poland was dealt with appropriately as being just a subcommittee. Even then I didn't feel that the statement quoted showed a dissenting point of view, just the need for further study. In any science there is always the need for further study.

I don't think this article is intended as scientific fact, merely as a summation of the position taken by scientific bodies on man's role in climate change. It does that well.

I do not think that all the consensus should be condensed into a single statement, as it is useful to see each body listed and a statement from them.

Again I apologise if I am out of line here, but to be quite blunt, the only complaint I see against this article is how abundantly clear it is that scientific opinion, as represented by internationally recognised scientific bodies, is largely supportive of the notion that climate change is happening and is very likely greatly influenced by human activity.

If I am wrong, then please, all you have to do is find an international scientific body that presents a different opinion, or to show that these quotes are out of context. And if you can do that then I'm sure your information will be duely included.

Xtempore (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Xtempore, I understand your comments. I only started researching these topics a couple of months ago and started looking at these talk pages about a week ago. I finally realized that the reason so many skeptics with agendas are making strange and incomprehensible (to me) attacks on this article (among others) is because they can't find a dissenting opinion. For skeptics with strong feelings, the fall-back plan seems to be to attack this well-resourced article with whatever tactics they can drum up. I've seen some reasonable recommendations to make the articles better by considering all sides though, so I'm also glad these aren't primarily opinion pieces - it would make Misplaced Pages irrelevant. Stay tuned to the talk pages and weigh in with your opinion for consensus on disputes such as those you've seen. Be objective and you'll be an asset as an editor.Airborne84 (talk) 07:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, from the mouths of babes...Can we have these last two comments bronzed and placed at the top of the talk page?--CurtisSwain (talk) 12:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I have also checked the page and don't see any NPOV issues. I think we can consider the page thoroughly checked. Verbal chat 13:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Meta-discussion

It must be obvious by now that we're not going to get full buy-in to anything from everyone. The closest we have to consensus is "option 2" well above, now at 12 13-6 in favour. Nor are we going to have a focussed discussion on the talk page, without admin intervention - people are too ill-disciplined. There is an RFC still pending above - some of the "regulars" here haven't even bothered to respond William M. Connolley (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I would note again (without prejudice to the rest of the proposal) that page protection levels are not determined by polling, and there has not been a serious problem with ip or non-autoconfirmed users, so the semi-protection provision is kind of toothless/pointless. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

@WMC - That proposal is stale. It is discussing a NPOV template that is no longer on the page, and the protection in question has already expired. --GoRight (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Equivalent template is in place, equivalent protection too. The proposal is current. Naturally, if you wish to treat your vote as expired I'll be happy to consider it 12-5 instead William M. Connolley (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait. What? William, do you mean Proposal #2 under the section protection as in:

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

If so, then yes, that's what most editors agree on. So, we should do that.--CurtisSwain (talk) 01:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This site is not governed by majority rule. There is no consensus. --GoRight (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

While that is true, it is also true that ‘’Consensus is not the same as unanimity’’:

…"after people have had a chance to state their viewpoint, it may become necessary to ignore someone or afford them less weight in order to move forward with what the group feels is best….Insisting on unanimity can allow a minority opinion to filibuster the process."

--CurtisSwain (talk) 05:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is the one. We've tried everything else, time for that I think William M. Connolley (talk) 08:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The filibuster is occurring over silly (waring) rules put forth by folks (possibly) acting on the sole behalf of the IPCC mission, as if they own the POV in this article. Addressing the NPOV issues without "feigned incomprehension" will move the article forward. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You need to say things much more clearly and not make it personal. As far as I can see you are saying that there is a WP:neutral point of view or weight issue with the article. What you primarily need for that is to show the consensus that the leader says is there is not there, you have to find a citation for a scientific society where the society disagree to a large extent with the conclusions endorsed by the IPCC. The statement there is verifiable, you have to produce a WP:Verifiable citation which contradicts it to some degree. Dmcq (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Dmcq, point taken about sources which are many here. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

@Dcmq - "What you primarily need for that is to show the consensus that the leader says is there is not there ..." - That is a silly statement. You are, in effect, asking us to show that the majority here agrees that they have created an article in violation of WP:NPOV. Such a thing can never be obtained since the majority will simply refuse to acknowledge the point ... exactly as we have been seeing over the past week or more. --GoRight (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I too am puzzled (I'm ignoing the PA stuff). Which rules? What filibuster? Do you mean, you don't like proposal 2? If so, we already know that William M.

Connolley (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing personal intended ... it's all wiki business, right. Perhaps, I should make a few sourced content changes when the article opens .... then clarify things in an RfC here after the above one closes? Seems like I should have an RfC go here. Would you agree, WMC? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There's quite a few there but they seem to be individuals and newspapers, could you narrow it down please to something relevant to the subject of the article? An official statement from a scientific society is what is needed not articles by individual scientists. Which ones do you think are especially relevant? Thanks. Dmcq (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Dmcq, the sources are relevant for anyone who is open to accepting this Misplaced Pages:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balance. Talk about what "Scientific Opinion" means might be better directed to the Opinion article, where verified sources can be addressed there. Perhaps we should start a new thread here on the specific topic of these sources to provide a balanced "Climate Change Opinions" article here (please note the plural "Opinions"), yes? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk)`

You seem unwilling to point to whatever it is that you think is relevant. It is up to you to show why the article does not have a neutral point of view. You have not done so. I have looked at the opinion article and I am pretty certain that if a lot of scientific societies say one thing and there aren't any that disagree to any great extent than they should be given much greater WP:WEIGHT than individual dissenting scientists. You have to find a scientific society or something of equal weight that backs up whatever point it is you have to oppose what is there. This article is about scientific opinion not climate change opinions in general. Dmcq (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I pointed to the sources (with my comments) and to the NPOV guidance. I have made changes and will add further sourced content to address my concerns. The article currently has undue weight (like a coatrack). When editors hold one opinion category as a distinctly separate article, they are attempting to negotiate a POV, which is in clear opposition to NPOV principles. Please do not dictate to me what I must do. Is there a reason why you find other than scientific opinions less then worthy for this article? Thank you.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The title is Scientific opinion on climate change. That is why 'other than scientific opinions less then worthy for this article'. This page is for discussing improvements to this article. The article Climate change consensus sounds like what you are looking for. If you were looking at an article on the Catholic view on the sanctity of marriageyou would not expect it to list the views of the Mormons or atheists. Dmcq (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Wiki is about NPOV before any article title. The current title serves a narrow point of view. GoRight has proposed a merger with Climate change consensus. I now propose this article is a content union with Climate Change and Opinions. If I were where looking for an example of how "heresy" were where excluded from Climate Change Opinions, I would look to the current state of this article. Kindly Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You've got this neutral point of view thing wrong. It is about treating the subject dispassionately according to sources about the subject, it is not about some global consensus which extends down into each article. Please consult Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard if you disagree with that. Non scientific opinions are not the subject of an article about scientific opinions. There is no overall consensus in WIkipedia about articles, they stand on their own. Tghis is not conservapedia or something like that where the overall ethos of beliefs has to be respected in each article. If you believe the article should not exist then you may nominate it for deletion otherwise the subject of the article is what this discussion page is about and nothing else. Dmcq (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns Dmcq, and I checked the notice board. Could you perhaps point to some specific guidance for me to address your views on a NPOV? I shared my specific references ,. It's difficult to asses "right" or "wrong" without some particular guidance. Frankly, it seems like a Non sequitur (logic) to argue one view is better than another when discussing NPOV ... if I understand correctly that is what you are attempting. With regards.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you be specific please and give a particular place in the article which is not neutral or one fact you'd like mentioned somewhere in the article that would make it slight better accord to NPOV? Not a great big list of names, just one statement in the article or one statement you'd like to see in the article plus one citation for it. Then we can analyse it according to WP:NPOV aor pass it over to the Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard to see what they think there? Thanks. Dmcq (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_9#Global warming should address most of your questions about NPOV and this article I believe. Dmcq (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed it. Am I correct in assuming that discussion treated "global warming" as an academic topic to refute other views? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe it was treated according to wikipedia policies in the noticeboard about neutral point of view. I take it you think the noticeboard did not treat it according to your interpretation of the policy WP:NPOV? If so this is not the appropriate forum, either the talk page of WT:NPOV or the village pump about policies WP:VPP are the places to discuss the problem if you think the noticeboard is applying policy wrongly. However in the interim I believe consensus here would side with any decision in that noticeboard. Dmcq (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm still looking for an answer to what ZP5's 'The filibuster is occurring over silly (waring) rules put forth by... is supposed to mean William M. Connolley (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

WMC, please tell me what you believe my statement means? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You made a statement. It seems you are unwilling to explain it. And WMC please drop it if he doesn't answer the first time. If it is very relevant to the subject I'm sure they would try harder to get the point across. Dmcq (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Dmcq, I am willing to explain it and I would like to answer his specific misunderstandings. I would not like to make any false or bad faith assumptions about him. He can represent himself very well when he chooses. Thanks. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk)

You were asked to explain it and didn't. I have not asked for an explanation. There is no point in making obscure statements and requiring people to scratch around for meanings. Please discuss improvements to the article and lay off the puzzles, they don't help that I can see. Dmcq (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This is directly relevant to the WQA "WoT" issue. Which Zp5 is nicely demonstating William M. Connolley (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 2 has enough consensus to be a goer, and the others are all non-starters. We can safely assume that it would be the most acceptable course of action. --TS 15:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

As I said, that proposal is stale and a non-starter as a result. It is addressing a NPOV tag that doesn't even exist at this point. The WP:1RR question was evaluated on its own and soundly rejected. --GoRight (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That was my, in retrospect overly bureaucratic, proposal to reduce 3RR to 1RR. Repeatedly reinserting a contentious change without clear consensus is still edit warring. I have not decided yet whether to allow protection to expire in about 24 hours and block liberally, or extend the protection until the RfC closes or there is a clear indication here that the article will not again immediately descend into a battleground. Any advice on this matter is welcome here or at my talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 1 for the current protection.

In the interests of finding some truly middle ground here, please consider the following:

1. Remove POV check request from the top of the article.
2. Place a POV dispute template in the consensus section where it shall remain until disputes over that section and the consensus related redirects to this page are resolved.
3. Article down to semi-protection.
4. Normal editing rules apply.

--GoRight (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Support:

1. --GoRight (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC) (as proposer)

while reserving my right to subseqently support WP:1RR as a stand-alone issue ‒ Jaymax✍ 00:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I support the insertion of a POV section tag on Section 5 while it remains here. But, per below, protection levels are out-of-scope, and I like WP:1RR ‒ Jaymax✍ 03:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Comment: I don't know how many times I'll have to say this before you all will get the picture. Page protection levels are not determined by polling. The protection is going to expire in the near future, and if edit warring comes back, it will likely be protected yet again, and/or blocks will be dispensed. Asking for semi is nonsensical anyway, the protection was in response to edit warring, not vandalism by new or unregistered users. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I find polling is occasionally a useful way to get a quick feel for the level of consensus or discord around an idea. But not for supplanting discussion. But I see your main point that such polls should not discuss protection levels. (just like straw polls in jury rooms shouldn't consider likely sentences.) Fair enough, striking vote. ‒ Jaymax✍ 03:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

What is to be done?

It seems to be there are actually only three choices facing the editors of this article:

1. Find one or more reliable, third-party sources that provide significant coverage regarding the title of this article which be used to define or describe its subject matter of this article in order to comply with the requirements of Misplaced Pages's content policies;
2. If no reliable, third-party sources can be found to define the articles subject matter, then accept that this article is a content fork from the article Climate change (or some other topic), and arrange the merger of the two topics. For as it stands, this article's subject matter is so ill defined that its existence runs contrary to both WP:NPOV#Point of view (POV) and content forks as well as WP:NPOV#Article naming;
3. Accept that no conensus can be achieved, and continue to engage in content disputes, edit warring and deletion discussions, which would be symptomatic of this article falling outside the scope of Misplaced Pages's content polices, in particular WP:NOTOPINION.

The good news is that at least one reliable third-party sources exists that could be used to define this article's subject matter, but what is really needed is at least one more so that it can be categorically "nailed down". This article suggests that this article is about the development or evolution of, or periodic changes in the Scientific opinion on climate change, rather than the opinions themselves, or specific instances of scientific opinion.
Once the subject matter of this article can be described or defined by an external source, I think you will find that the content disputes can be resolved without recorse to agruing over whose opinion is right or wrong. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Question: What about sources that describe 'Scientific Opinion' in the abstract, rather than GW specifically? Do these help, or are they valueless here? ‒ Jaymax✍ 10:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Ignore the abstract and read the paper where all the relevant issues are discussed.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"what is really needed is at least one more" ? ‒ Jaymax✍ 10:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

...so there can be no dispute from relying on just one source to define this article's subject matter. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I should have been less obtuse. I read the paper you reference yesterday. You say we need more than one - I am suggesting that another might deal just with the 'scientific opinion' aspect. ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Until more sources can be found, I propose dropping the (unsourced) hat note, and adding the following paragraph as the lead:

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.

Surveys of how scientists view the status of climate change research, conducted in 1996 and 2003, demonstrated a significant shift in scientific opinion regarding global warming, though there remains some disagreement about whether humans are responsible. There has been a significant increase in the level of expert confidence in some aspects of climate change research, most notably land surface processes and sea ice, but scientists remain uncertain about the accuracy of scientific models that offer predictions for future consequences of climate change.

I feel this source coverage of Scientific opinion on climate change represents a considerable improvement over the existing hat note and lead section. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Two problems with your proposal Gavin, (a) The source is a "political" science opinion, and (b)its a US organisation opinion and not a balanced world consensus option. Recommend looking for a source from climate scientists and a consensus opinion at that. Problems with vague wording "some disagreement", whats that then - 1%, 10% of scientific org opinions?.. or "scientists remain uncertain" about what exactly? this blurb gives a nice fuzzy interpretation of climate science as of today, with references to studies from 1996 and 2003, sure why not go back to the 70 and 60 for opinion, might water it down a bit more.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Windandsea (talk • contribs) 18:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Problems, problems, problems. I am not saying this citation is perfect, but in the absense of any good source about the title of this article, it has got to be an improvement. If you can come up with a better alternative, all well and good. But in Misplaced Pages, reliable secondary sources such as this are valuable additions to any article. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I would oppose this change for reasons adequately described already on this talk page.Airborne84 (talk) 04:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, please c.f. List of Conan O'Brien sketches. ‒ Jaymax✍ 08:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we will even find a source that is indicative of what any one or group of editors perceive to be the Truth™, but we can find sources that are verfiable and reliable, and replaced unsourced statements that are not. What ever objections Airborne84 has about this source, he needs to back up his assertions with some sort of reasoned arguement supported by evidence. Alternatively, if he can find a better source, then let him put it before us so we can verify it and check it for reliablity. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

GC, you're still operating from the incorrect premise that the hat-note consists of original research and needs changing. I can't count the number of times you've asserted this with no agreement from editors. To make it easier for you to read the paragraph in WP:DISRUPT on Tendentious Editing, I'll paste it below for you.

Here are some hints to help you recognise if you or someone else has become a problem editor

You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people. If your arguments are rejected, bring better arguments, don’t simply repeat the same ones. And most importantly, examine your argument carefully, in light of what others have said. It is true that people will only be convinced if they want to be, regardless of how good your argument may be, but that is not grounds for believing that your argument must be true. You must be willing to concede you may have been wrong. Take a good, long hard look at your argument from as detached and objective a point of view as you can possibly muster, and see if there really is a problem with it. If there isn't, it's best to leave the situation alone: they're not going to want to see it and you cannot force them to. If there is a problem, however, then you should revise the argument, your case, or both.

Cheers. Airborne84 (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it fair to say that my proposal is the only one sourced by significant coverage from a reliable secondary source that is indpendent. If you have source that is at least as good as or better than this in the sense that it addresses the topic in detail and without original research, then bring it on, but so far we only have your opinion that the hat note is not original research, when what is need are citations to back up your viewpoint. Without a citation to support the hat note, you opinoin carries no weight what so ever. Accuse me of what you will, but the incluison criteria for a standalone article in Misplaced Pages is based on reliable secondary. So far you provided nothing that suggests that this topic is suitable for inclusion, other than asserting that the hat note is all that is need. To that I say the emperor has no clothes. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to retitle to "Climate Change Opinions"

Oh spaghetti, yes another re-title proposal.

Proposing this article be retitled to "Climate Change Opinions" (Please notice the plural on Opinions. This allows for a NPOV here.

Reason being it is a content union between Climate Change and Opinions. This simple change would avoid many POV disputes here and assumes faith that editors can balance the opinions in fairly attributed weight to the respective sources. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If you can name a reliable, third-party source that cites this name, then you are on to a winner. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it very much (the winner part), since it doesn't encompass what the article is about. Count me as an oppose whether there is reliable sources or not for such a title. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"opinions" in an article title? Especially a controversial article? That looks like a NPOV nightmare. The article is necessarily very focused on accepted scientific consensus, this change is ill-advised. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Isn't Climate change consensus the more appropriate article if any for such a name as it covers this subject? A rename is if another name wold be more appropriate for the subject matter of an article. If you believe the subject matter of this article is not suitable for wikipedia you should be proposing an WP:AFD instead. Dmcq (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyway do you agree that the NPOV noticeboard represents NPOV reasonably or are you in disagreement with the noticeboard about WP:NPOV? Dmcq (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really clear why we have two articles on what is probably pretty much the same subject: this one and climate change consensus. Is there some way other than grabbing both talk pages and their archives, and potentially subjecting my brain to an aneurism, to find out what's going on? Would somebody care to bring me up to date? --TS 22:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

So you haven't spotted Economic opinion on climate change yet :) Dmcq (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Plus Public opinion on climate change though that's just a stub currently. Dmcq (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There's also Climate change denial Dmcq (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

And Global warming controversy, I think I better stop looking. Dmcq (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I know of the other articles. It's only these two articles that seem to me to be on the same subject. They should probably be merged. Vague stuff like "Opinions on global warming" are unhelpful. The understanding of public opinions on global warming is a separate subject (and the content might surprise many Americans, who are subject to a very limited range of views on the subject). Economic views is a specialist subject and takes climate change as a quantifiable variable that provides an input into the economic decision-making process. Climate-change denial is a bit iffy in my opinion; it's about a real subject but we haven't yet got a handle on it (possibly because original research by Wikipedians may outweigh verifiable information in that field.) --TS 22:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Look at the the outline of the Opinion article ....

Good points above. What is really troubling me, is that as far as I can tell, none of the other GW articles have such offensive hat notes. I mean sources are not finding a proper home. What I don't like about the word "consensus" is it must be qualified about which something is specifically consenting to, else the reader must guess. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean this bit?

'Scientific opinions' are opinions formed via the scientific method, and so are necessarily evidence backed. A scientific opinion, representing the formally-agreed consensus of a scientific body or establishment, often takes the form of a published position paper citing the research producing the Scientific evidence upon which the opinion is based. 'The Scientific Opinion' can be compared to 'the public opinion' and means the complex collection of the opinions of many different scientific organizations and entities, and also the opinions of scientists undertaking scientific research in the relevant field.

What exactly about it means you want to remove the 'scientific' from this article when there is another article without the 'scientific' in its title? Dmcq (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This article reads like a Wiki survey of opinions expressed by scientifically oriented organizations, from that perspective it could be a synthesis of "scientific opinion". Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources for the title: I performed some Googling on the proposed title "Climate Change Opinions" and it appears in several sources as if to indicate support for the surveys included in this article. As I consider the proposed title further, in light of the current article title, this current article may, in fact, be a synthesis of "scientific opinion" created by restrictive hatnotes rules. Looking for I found sources to support the current title. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If you can cite your source, then we can all see what you mean. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 00:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I apoplogize I cannot do more than guard the basement right now. I'd like to be a more active participant in improving these articles, and I applaud those that are engaged in this effort. However, I oppose a further title change (although I found some of the rationale in the archives regarding a change from "climate change" to "global warming" to be worthy of consideration).

Without going into detail, this discussion is moving down the slippery slope that I thought it would (straight toward the basement). Changing the "scientific consensus" to "scientific opinion" is arguably OK, but a further change to "scientific opinions" misses the point of the article. "Climate change opinions" places the title squarely in the basement in that it does not accurately describe this article.Airborne84 (talk) 04:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That is all well and noble, but what sources are you citing to support your proposal? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll admit I wasn't as clear as I should have been above. I oppose the proposal in the thread. Airborne84 (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal withdrawn and motion to reconsider as Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#I_had_time_to_create_a_new_article_:-.29 Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the time to participate in talk page discussions

I just had a quick look now, but I'll be too busy in the coming few weeks to do much here. However, since the discussions here are going nowhere anywhere, I reserve the right to revert the page back to the current version which includes the hatnote defining "scientific opinion". Any inclusion of political opinions (even about the scientific opinion) is i.m.o. unacceptable. There exists a scientific opinion on climate science and it should be possible to have a wiki article that exclusively contains that scientific opinion which is 100% free of political noise, opinions of lay persons etc. etc. Count Iblis (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

So do you support replacing the existing consensus section with a brief comment and then a reference to the corresponding section in Climate change consensus? I've already shown that the section in that article is more complete than the one here. This would move the non-scientific opinion BASED discussions you want left off of THIS page to THAT page leaving this one uncontested (by me at least). --GoRight (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Iblis, I think all but one editor here pretty much agree with you, including most of those who see a NPOV issue. ‒ Jaymax✍ 03:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Count Iblis, your statement is right on the money. GoRight's proposal also seems reasonable in that it:

1. Doesn't represent an attempt to merge article on a huge topic that needs separate, structured articles.

2. Leaves the dynamics of a useful article (this one) intact and undiluted.

3. Directs readers interested in information on the "consensus" to a more complete article - adding to knowledge, instead of subtracting from it.

I'lll admit there were a couple of aspects to the article GoRight mentioned that merit adjustments though. Conversely, if the change isn't necessary to help solve a huge rift between the editors, it may not be warranted. Cheers.Airborne84 (talk) 03:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Count Iblis, are you under the impression that you WP:OWN the article? --Tjsynkral (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Count Iblis. The inclusion of political or any other non-scientific opinions is unacceptable. This article is for people who want to cut through all the propaganda ("most scientists agree", "most scientists refute", "there's a consensus", "there isn't a consensus", "the consensus in growing", "the consensus in crumbling", "there's a growing body of skeptics", etc.) This article gives people what the scientific community actually says and in their own words. I also agree with GoRight and Airborne. If for nothing more than brevity, we should lose the whole consensus section. I've gone back and forth on this, but the word "consensus" is used in 7 of the statements this article quotes, and there's really no point in beating it over the readers' heads. Besides, the whole debate about "consensus" gets rather ridiculous with people arguing whether is means 100% unanimity or simply a vast majority (it actually can mean either). So, yes, the consensus section should go, and non-scientific silliness should stay out.--CurtisSwain (talk) 11:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This would go a long way to resolving my NPOV concerns with this page. However, if people are not currently aware of it there is a movement afoot that would make my proposal above moot, see . Now, if the Climate change consensus article is deleted and split between Public opinion on climate change and Scientific opinion on climate change I would find it acceptably NPOV to maintain a "scientific consensus" section in each of the two articles and cross link the two (i.e. the one here points to there and vice versa). Under that scenario the scientific position statements could stay in this article. --GoRight (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That sounds quite reasonable.--CurtisSwain (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I had time to create a new article :-)

See: User talk:ZuluPapa5/Climate Change Opinions‎

This intends to:

1. Keep the purist "Scientific opinion" in a separate article. (With brief acknowledgment and link)
2. Content fork the surveys from here into the new article
3. Merge Economic opinion on climate change into a section
4. Save Public opinion on climate change into a "Historical opinion" section
5. Create space and balance for "Editorial opinion" and 'Advocacy groups" sections

I predict this article will long survive the horde of noise, before the tide rises to swallow the wiki servers and humanity. (Smile it's just humor.)

Being my last two creations were deleted. Let's talk about this content fork and union here please. Sincerely, Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

How does that topic really differ from Climate change controversy, and the more narrowly focussed Climate change consensus? (just realised abbreviating to CCC in talk isn't such a good idea) ‒ Jaymax✍ 03:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That one is really called Global warming controversy. We don't need yet another page from ZP5 at the moment. Settle down William M. Connolley (talk) 09:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

WMC, as far as I am concerned, you may lead the way to merge in the CCC articles for which you have expressed disapproval. That could help moving things forward here. (smile) Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Good work ZuIu, I think it's a great idea that has lots of potential. Various groups of people have made public proclamations of their views of global warming/climate change, business groups, religious groups, etc. The article could become a valuable source for readers who want to know, "Hmm, what does the Catholic Church say about AGW? What do Buddists say? Economists? The insurance industry?..etc. However, you might want to change the title to Opinions on climate change. Your working title kind of sounds like the climate itself holds an opinion.--CurtisSwain (talk) 10:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "Opinions on Climate Change" would be a better title and that article could serve as a NPOV over-arching article that links to this one for the scientific opinion. Other categories of opinion could start as sections within that article and if they get too big could be spun off like this one. We sould have to reconcile that article with Climate change consensus and Public opinion on climate change so that the purpose of each is clearly delineated. --GoRight (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done Agreed, I'll change the tile and post redirects for the draft old title. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent idea, separation of science and all other options (media/political/economic/religious) can only help in adding clarity to this topic, as today there is so much noise generated by the fringe opinions and media opinions that they are presented on even paring with scientific opinions/papers/evidence based theories.
How will you divide the article weight for each category - in order of importance to average joe (eg political options first comprising of 25% of article length, next importance my guess is religious opinion 15% etc) Windandsea (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's work with something we already know and can easily quantify. For example, we know that the world's population is a little over 6.5 Billion and we know that some 2,500 scientists have a consensus on the scientific opinion. So, roughly (2,500 / 6,500,000,000) * 100 = ~0.00004% of the column inches should be dedicated to the scientific opinion in comparison to the rest. Make sense? --GoRight (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC) YMMV on my calculation for the appropriate weight of the scientific opinion. :)

Not sure i follow you GoRight. Are you arguing that each of the 6.8 billion personal opinions are of the same weight as scientific, political, media, religious org opinions, or are you just taking the piss because you dont approve of this new opinion article, that it goes against your own 'personal' opinions on climate change. if so, i suggest you create your own personal reflections blog. Windandsea (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Opinions must be from reliable sources for wiki, please. The 6.8 billion have a role in addressing the issues, but are off topic forum here. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Sorry, I guess I had my tongue planted a little too firmly in my cheek on that one. First, I am generally supportive of the article on opinions so your last bit doesn't seem to apply. As for the rest of my comment I was merely making the (tongue in cheek) point that when determining the relative "weight" of Public vs. Scientific opinion the applicable ratio would be 6.5 Billion to 2,500, roughly speaking. Obviously this is an upper limit, though, there could be other weighting approaches ... in reality there not only ARE other weighting approaches THEY would most likely be the ones actually employed. --GoRight (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will start a talk page with FAQ for the draft article. Also, I believe that if "climate change" issues are going to progress in society for a meaningful purpose, they must be open to all disciplines, and not solely the realm of scientific research. As far as deciding weight, I propose to organize sections along the lines of disciplines found in a university. The weight will work it self out in space in balance to the sources. When necessary, separate content forks can be created for space expansion, as long as a balanced summary remains and the fork itself is balanced. For now, merging in other articles may be beneficial to bring these issues together in one place. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

"For now, merging in other articles may be beneficial to bring these issues together in one place." - Agreed. --GoRight (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

How this proposal covers this dispute

As stated above, this article would be summarized and content forked in the newly proposed balanced NPOV article. This discussion belongs here. Thank you. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I should place this template Template:Topic_co-ordination_link on the articles in question, yes?Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk)

Please notice the 2RR , , with no talk from the 1RR proposer. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

No William M. Connolley (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Scope?

See climate change vs. global warming. We should use some consistent terminology, otherwise it's unclear what this is about. On a cursory examination it seems mostly about global warming, so I think it should be renamed. Pcap ping 11:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Global warming - increase in temperature Climate change - change in weather patterns Global warming is a behavioural subset of Climate change.. is the consensus scientific terminology used today, as it incorporates global warming, along with many other topics not mentioned in global warming article. Windandsea (talk) 14:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

See "Archive 9" for example ... "How about the title Scientific view on global warming and current climate change, since global warming is what is happening on average globally, while climate "change" is the local temporarily current disruptions due to the on average warming (the overarching current event). As a side-note, both of those terms miss the broader scope of gases & soot (greenhouse & "forcing agents"), deforestation, mass species extinction, rising oceans (with loss of dozens of small nations predicted), drying of soil & increased rainfall intensity (degradation of agriculture, loss of potable water), ocean acidification, softening of permafrost (buildings and trees falling-over) with methane leaks from the land and lakes (even catching on fire), ocean acidification (corals dying, shell of shelled sea animals softening and the collapse of entire ecosystems), etc ... being discussed at COP-15 by the vast majority of Heads of State of the entire planet. Polar bears dying-off and glaciers melting are minor in the big scope of the trends viewed around the world." 209.255.78.138 (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

So, the guys that promoted Global warming to FA status were all wrong and misguided? It seems that WP:UCN applies here. Pcap ping 15:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Locked

Discussion here still seems unresolved and bitter enough to give me a strong suspicion that edit warring would have resumed, so I have locked the article until just after the RfC concludes. If anyone else would prefer to unprotect now without waiting for the discussion below, you have my endorsement as long as you monitor the article aggressively afterwards. I would like to unlock this article for the reasons below, but if necessary to prevent disruptive and tendentious editing, the article may remain in semi-stasis edited only through {{editprotected}}.

The proposed merge target for Scientific opinion on climate change#Scientific consensus is in flux; this may or may not affect that proposal, as might this diff from GoRight, above. As at least the majority of the sources used in the section are solid and arguably on-topic, this question should not require protection; perhaps it could be rewritten to avoid bullet-point style. The several renaming discussions do not at this point seem disputatious enough to require edit-protection. Adding sources documenting views of non-scientific organizations or individual scientists would be out of the scope of the current title and article scope, and so discussion can be tabled until such a time as such a move has consensus. The issue of naming and targeting redirects has some bearing on this article, but does not justify protection. The wording and links in the hatnote have been discussed ad nauseum, but seem amenable to normal editing methods. Other dispute resolution mechanisms are in place or in preparation, but resumption of normal editing should not be dependent upon them. Assuming that it survives AfD, Public opinion on climate change should probably be linked somewhere in this article; excessive protection damages the encyclopedia.

For these reasons, I plan to unprotect the article in about a day, after everyone has had a chance to read and offer feedback on this section. The basic outline of #Proposal #2 has consensus, though not unanimity. The arguments offered in the surrounding sections, some of which are now archived, offer nuance and explanation to the bare poll. The {{POV-check}} has received input here, and no contrary input at WP:CNB. The tagging project has devoted a fair bit of effort to ensuring that the templated text does not take a position one way or the other, but its fundamental purpose is to attract interested editors. This article is actively edited, and other more effective input-gathering mechanisms are in place. For these reasons and none other, I plan to remove the tag in my capacity as an administrator enacting the clearly-expressed will of involved editors; had the article not been locked, I expect that it would have been removed already (again evidence that excessive protection damages the encyclopedia). Adding any similar tag will be considered prima facie evidence of edit warring; any editor who does so will be blocked for a short period to limit disruption. Removing any similar tag will be considered prima facie evidence of edit warring; any editor who does so will be blocked for a short period to limit disruption. Every non-trivial change to the article should include in the edit summary explicit reference to consensus at a talkpage section; for example: tag removed per Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change#Proposal #2 and Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change#Locked. Editors making repeated undiscussed obviously and blatantly controversial changes will be blocked for a short period to limit disruption and edit warring. Any material that is reverted is considered controversial, and should be discussed here before being reinserted. If a relevant talkpage discussion does not yet exist, the reverting editor should start one, clearly expressing his or her concerns. It is best practice to start the section before reverting the edit, and to include a compromise proposal. Please comment and advise. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Question: For clarification, how do you advise on (as restated by me) "Take the sources to the RS notice board", "Put the IPCC Mission in for context", "May I have the next RfC?" and "This dispute may be resolved by creating a Opinions on Climate Change" article points I have raised? Finally WP:1RR should be a voluntary measure at first. Kindly Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I oppose the removal of the NPOV tag until the disputes have been resolved. --GoRight (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC) (Obligatory Statement)

Question: You mention consensus for proposal 2 above. Does this mean that 1RR is in effect, and what are the parameters around it's meaning since this was unclear the last time it was brought up? Is this WP:1RR? --GoRight (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Question: What is the time limit, if any, associated with the adding and removing of NPOV tags? --GoRight (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The prohibition applies only to adding or removing such a tag without first gathering consensus here; if the editors here agree that adding or removing a tag is likely to lead to article improvement, then I support that. I left the time period deliberately open-ended in the hopes that at some point in the decently near future a consensus supported by everyone will develop and we can drop all this. If, after the current kerfluffle dies down, a proposal here detailing NPOV concerns goes unanswered, adding a tag would no longer be prima facie evidence of edit warring. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Short version: only edit if consensus has been reached at a relevant talkpage section, referenced in the edit summary, or you are reasonably confident that other editors with whom you are collaborating will not object to the change. The latter condition applies primarily to grammatical fixes and other minor edits. If a change is reverted, follow WP:1RR and do not re-revert; instead, wait for the reverting editor to explain his or her concerns at the relevant thread here. A reverted edit should not be reinstated until such a time as consensus is reached here. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

1. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ipcc-backgrounder.html#Consensus_Building_within_the_IPCC
2. 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
3. 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.4

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