| Revision as of 10:44, 3 January 2010 editWilliam M. Connolley (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,015 edits →What are the criteria for Synthesis Reports: no← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 16:41, 17 December 2024 edit undoRCraig09 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users18,785 edits →Section on SCIENTISTS DISSENTING is missing: reply to IP |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{afd-merged-from|Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature|Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature|6 June 2021}} |
|
{{Community article probation|main page=Climate change|] for full information and to review the decision}} |
|
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
{{Talkheader}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|cc}} |
|
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|action1=AFD |
|
|action1=AFD |
| Line 6: |
Line 8: |
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Scientific opinion on climate change |
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Scientific opinion on climate change |
|
|action1result=kept |
|
|action1result=kept |
|
|
|action1oldid=215852537 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action2=PR |
|
|
|action2date=05:54, 22 December 2009 |
|
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Scientific opinion on climate change/archive1 |
|
|
|action2result=reviewed |
|
|
|action2oldid=333122277 |
|
|
|
|
|
|maindate= |
|
|maindate= |
|
|currentstatus= |
|
|currentstatus= |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBanners|1= |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Science|importance=mid}} |
|
{{Environment|class=B}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Environment|importance=High }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Climate change|importance=High }} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
{{notforum}} |
|
|
|
|target=/Archive index |
|
{{Round In Circles}} |
|
|
|
|mask=/Archive <#> |
|
{{FAQ|quickedit=no}} |
|
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
<!-- {{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|
|indexhere=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|counter = 10 |
|
|counter = 25 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|algo = old(2d) |
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Scientific consensus on climate change/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
}} bot temporarily deactivated; please unhide these lines on 2009-01-12 or when Request for comment below closes --> |
|
|
|
{{Broken anchors|links= |
|
{{Archives|search=yes}} |
|
|
|
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
== Background to RfC == |
|
|
|
{{section sizes}} |
|
* Yes it is balanced. Given that, no it doesn't need an NPOV tag. Yes, 1RR limit would help avoid disruption ] (]) 22:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{British English}} |
|
* No, the ] 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 ], and striking the section here and adding a brief pointer, per ], would resolve the POV issue. ‒ ] 23:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
{{collapse_top}} |
|
|
:*Given the current configuration of the two articles, what Jaymax said makes a lot of sense.--] (]) 23:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::* ''"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."'' - I agree. This is in essence the point I have been making and it is the basis of my proposed solution above. My only other related point is that as long as the redirects and wikilinks related to a discussion of "the consensus" are used to direct people here (thus effectively establishing this as the "main article" for that specific discussion) then there is still a problem, IMHO. I have begun the process of trying to rectify that specific point but my efforts yesterday were "hampered". --] (]) 00:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
{{collapse_bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
* The article topic is too poorly defined to enable any consensus to emerge. The reason is that it is a ] from the article ]. identifying the article as a fork is not hard to do because the form of the title runs contrary to ], as it uses the convention "Scientific opinion on...." in its title which seperates in from ] 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). --] (]|] 00:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* This hatnote, ''"This article <u>'''does not include the views'''</u> of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor lists of individuals such as"'' 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 ]) 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.) ] (]) 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: |
|
|
*# 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 |
|
|
*# Allow those points of view to be expressed on this page as ] 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 term''positions'' 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". --] (]) 00:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
{{collapse_top}} |
|
|
:: Agree with GoRight. ] (]) 01:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
{{collapse_bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
*Here's a thought: The primary purpose of an RfC is ] 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? ] (]) 03:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
{{collapse_top}} |
|
|
:: Beeblebrox said "''it would be best if each made a '''brief''' statement here summarizing their position''" - some are more brief than others - follow-on discussion (including this entry of mine) is mostly unhelpful ‒ ] 03:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:: <s>GR, would you consider removing your discussion reply to me; ZP5 would you consider removing your disussion reply to GR; Curtis, would you consider moving your comment to be its own statement; Jaymax, would you consider deleting your discussion reply to SBHB? Oh, that's me, right, yah sure - I'll do it once it's had time to be seen by the involved parties. ‒ ] 03:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC) </s>collapse in good ‒ ] 06:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
{{collapse_bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
* 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 ], ] and to some extent at ]. Perhaps we should have another article as well called ] (seems there is a lot of material), but it certainly doesn't belong here.--] (]) 03:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
{{collapse_top}} |
|
|
:: Q: Who's ''"purpose"'' does this article serve? And how?](]) 04:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::{{ec}}It serves the purpose of describing the ''scientific'' opinion on climate change, it does it by documenting every official statement that has been made from major scientific bodies on climate change as well as all surveys that we know of that have been conducted on the subject (including two from Bray & von Storch who are "unofficial" (ie. unpublished)).--] (]) 05:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::: You may have confused "purpose" with "function". "Purposes" serve an intended subject (i.e. a person or org, while "functions" serve another object. You have described, "scientific opinion" as an object here. I have not seen you identify who (person or org) the article serves? Sincerely, ] (]) 15:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: Kim, does the article also represent the Pielke's perspectives, he leads a fairly large group of researchers after all, and does it represent von Storch's, Zorita's (yep, there are more bloggers out there these days). Does the article represent the UAH's views (Christy & Spencer)? Does it represent Lindzen's group's views? I think this may be GR et al's point.] (]) 05:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::We do not document individual opinions, nor do we document self-selected lists of specific viewpoints - such as the 1700 british scientists who just signed a statement to confirm that there is a consensus. The reason for this is simple: They do not show what the collective opinion is - but instead how singular (or polar/biased) viewpoints see things. --] (]) 05:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
{{collapse_bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Request for comment === |
|
|
|
|
|
*The crux of this debate seems to hinge on two issues: |
|
|
:*Is the article balanced with regards to ] and which sources are accepted as ] enough to merit inclusion here? |
|
|
:*Is the above problem bad enough to merit keeping a <nowiki>{{pov}}</nowiki> 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. ] (]) 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 ] in order to encourage discussion rather than revert warring? ] (]) 23:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: '''Note:''' in the interests of encouraging ''outside'' participation, I have copied the opening statements to ], 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. - ] <small>(])</small> 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. - ] <small>(])</small> 18:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
{{calmtalk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
: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.] (]) 12:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: The only remotely sensible objections are about the Climate Change Consensus page. There is no sensible objection remaining to the current version of this page. If you want to delete the Climate Change Consensus and fork, fine. Propose on that page's talk, and the main page's talk. |
|
|
: There is a proposal to keep the tag "while the article includes a section on the debate around whether there is consensus" |
|
|
:This has been done - "Surveys of scientists and scientific literature". |
|
|
:The "Consensus" section merely reports that people want to know what the scientific consensus is and that scientific organizations use this word themselves. |
|
|
: The remaining objections to this page boil down to "Are scientific organizations reliable sources for scientific opinion?" and "Public opinion isn't represented on the scientific opinion page." |
|
|
: The answer to both these questions is a straightforward "Remove the POV tag now." |
|
|
: The POV tag on this article is ridiculous and reflects poorly on wikipedia. Unless, of course, you want to put a POV tag on the evolution scientific consensus pages, and also the relevant cosmology pages - then we can all breathe easy and forget about wikipedia being taken seriously at all. ] (]) 23:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* '''Comment''' Some of the comments above suggest that some editors may misunderstand the purpose of the POV template. It is not a "badge of shame" or a "warning to readers" or a disclaimer. Its ''only'' acceptable use is to request that editors join a discussion about improving the article. If you're using other means (e.g., this RfC) to do that, then it becomes redundant. If the discussion stops -- whether because it is resolved or because you all just get tired of it -- then the tag should be removed under the 'active dispute' clause. ] (]) 20:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*:Do you have any policy doc ref for that, WhatamIdoing? Or does anybody else? A couple of editors here recently have been prepared to have the article locked for days, or get themselves blocked, rather than to have that POV 'badge' removed. Obviously every active editor here is well aware that there is an argument in progress, but much of the time it seems to be about the POV template itself. We had one admin, who for a while took a view similar to yours, but he later appeared to change his mind, and then withdrew from the page anyway. Some actual policy would be useful regarding the use of the POV tag as a "badge of shame". --] (]) 21:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* '''Comment''' I don't understand anything of this RfC. The discussion seems to be spread all over the talkpage, and I cannot see any statements of the involved parties, nor a place to put my opinion. ] (]) 07:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I have removed that RfC tag as it mainly seemed to have been about a NPOV flag on the article. Thankfully that edit war seems over now but other's will doubtless start - see about being on probation at the end. ] (]) 11:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The RfC was refractored to where the comments are ahead of the intro. Seems like this should be changed and a place for new comments should be made clear. As a precaution, the RfC time may require extension. ] (]) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Locked == |
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion here still seems unresolved and bitter enough to give me a strong suspicion that ] 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 ] and ], the article may remain in semi-stasis edited only through {{tl|editprotected}}. |
|
|
|
|
|
The proposed merge target for ] is in flux; this may or may not affect that proposal, as might 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 ]. 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 ], ] 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 ] has ], 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 {{tl|POV-check}} has received input here, and no contrary input at ]. 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 ]; any editor who does so will be ] for a short period to limit ]. Removing any similar tag will be considered ''prima facie'' evidence of ]; any editor who does so will be ] for a short period to limit ]. Every non-trivial change to the article should include in the edit summary explicit reference to ] at a talkpage section; for example: ''tag removed per ] and ]''. Editors making repeated undiscussed obviously and blatantly controversial changes will be ] for a short period to limit ] and ]. 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. - ] <small>(])</small> 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 ] should be a voluntary measure at first. Kindly ] (]) 20:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Comment:''' I oppose the removal of the NPOV tag until the disputes have been resolved. --] (]) 22:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC) <small>(Obligatory Statement)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
'''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 ]? --] (]) 22:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Question:''' What is the time limit, if any, associated with the adding and removing of NPOV tags? --] (]) 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. - ] <small>(])</small> 02:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* Short version: only edit if ] has been reached at a relevant talkpage section, referenced in the edit summary, or you are reasonably confident that ] will not object to the change. The latter condition applies primarily to grammatical fixes and other minor edits. If a change is reverted, follow ] 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. - ] <small>(])</small> 02:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* Unlocked. Please edit only according to clearly expressed ]. Any ] will lead to ], as this article has been protected too long already. I intend to monitor this article as closely as I can for the next little while, but if problems develop without speedy redress, please make use of ] and ]. - ] <small>(])</small> 07:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== hatnote removal == |
|
|
I've reverted gavin.colin's change from the hat-note, to something that is based entirely on a single source. First of all, as we've discussed earlier, i don't believe that there is consensus for such a change. And secondly because the change is to something that is less neutral and more value-based than what we are attempting with this article... We've been through 4 AfD's where this has never been an issue - so i rather doubt gavin's interpretation of policy. |
|
|
|
|
|
To be more specific: We are not (and should not be) taking a stand as to what the scientific opinion is, or what it means - but instead just focus on documenting what it (currently) is, per the limitations set out in the hat-note. We can't and shouldn't make statements on what individuals think or whether there is an opposition or not (unless it falls within the scope of the article), since that invariably will make us/the article take a stand, and move away from NPOV. --] (]) 10:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:Is that because you believe the hat note represents the truth, where as reliable secondary sources do not? Don't forget that the threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. I belive that is not the consensus in Misplaced Pages, but here as well. --] (]|] 11:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::No, it doesn't represent "truth", it represents the limits that we've agreed upon via ''consensus'', over a long period of time. The article is ''entirely'' based upon reliable sources (to rather extreme degree even) --] (]) 11:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Comments on ] would be appreciated. ‒ ] 11:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Then if it does not represent the "truth", why would you want to lead this article with a statement that is ]? I don't see how you can base consensus on original research. --] (]|] 11:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I'm not altogether happy with the change but I think it was much better than the hatnote. I think it should be put back in and people try editing it rather than going back to the hatnote. ] (]) 11:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: I would have to correct KimDabelsteinPetersen: there is more than one source replacing the hatnote. If there is an objection to those sources, then name then give reasons. Just because you ''think'' it is consensus, is not a valid reason. --] (]|] 11:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Gavin, what, specifically, are you saying is OR? Can you rephrase the statement that the lead makes that you regard as OR? Is it that ''scientific opinion'' is limited to societies, or what? What I want to dig out, is whatit is that you see, that others don't - getting you to rewrite what you see may make us all go 'ahhhh' (but I'm not betting on it :) ‒ ] 11:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Since the hat note is not sourced, the statements of opinion it contains cannot be verified. It says ''This article is about formalized scientific opinions on climate change''. What source says this? What is a "formalized" scientific opinion? <br />To be brutally honest, I think this hat note is not about scientific opinion at all: it is acutually acting like a sort of teritorial marker, which says this article is ]. Lets face it, "formalized" scientific opinion is too vague a concept to be meaningful. It is a sort of code, along the lines of "formalized" scientific opinion = Truth™. --] (]|] 12:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::For the record, I just changed ''official'' to ''formalised''. Again, how can you source a statement that says 'this article is about ...' - it is illogical. There may be an implicit statement that should be sourced, but, just as it's impossible to source a statement that says "This article is about the bow used to play a string instrument.", it is impossible to source a statement stating what ''any'' article is ''about''. You need to clarify a specific implicit or explicit statement that is not self-referential to the article, that is contained in the lead. ‒ ] 12:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::It is possible. If a reliable secondary source that is independent addresses the subject matter of the article topic directly and in detail, it effectively defines the topic. Look at lead of the article ] for example. It does not say "This article is about...", it simply discusses the subject matter without having to resort to original research. --] (]|] 12:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::''"formalized" scientific opinion = Truth™'' is/was not my intent. And I agree it's vague. Aristotle apparently listed (paraphrasing some guy named Otfried Höffe) the weighting criteria for deciding controversy as "wide distribution, a certain amount of justification, venerable age, and the support of recognized authorities". Considering the first and last of those is what gives us 'formalised'; the second of course gives us 'scientific'. ‒ ] 12:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::'This article is about ... ' is standard wikipedia disambiguation template text intended to assist people who might come to an article expecting to find something different. ‒ ] 12:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::There is nothing "standard" about the hat note as it stands. It attempts to define the article's subject matter, without providing any verifiable source for that definition, and because of that, it will always open to challenge in accordance with ]. It may say what you want it to say, but regardless of whether your opinion is right or wrong, it is your statement of opinion. Whether your opinion is correct, a matter fact, the truth or divine revelation, I cannot judge. But if I replace the hat note with significant coverage from a reliable secondary source that can be verified, it may not be perfect by any means, but at least it can be verified in accordance with Misplaced Pages ]. --] (]|] 13:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::What is my 'statement of opinion'? What the article is about? Is the hatnote at article ] a statement of opinion? I am really trying to work out what you're getting at here. ‒ ] 13:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Your statement that this article is about formalized scientific opinions on climate change is a matter of opinion. What is "formalized" scientific opinion anyway? Does it involve scientists wearing suits & ties, as opposed to white coats and protective goggles? You do realise that "formalized science" is not defined anywhere in Misplaced Pages, let alone "formalized sccientific opinion". What is your source for this statement? --] (]|] 13:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Not still on about this, are you Gavin? I have been through this, at length, with you on your own arguing this exact point, for days, and so have others here. An article's title and its hat note do not need a citable source: As long as there's enough verifiable and cited material to make an article, and the title and hat note describe the content of the article, that's it. It's a sub-article of one aspect of a bigger subject. You're going to have to think of something else to debate with us here, as we can't all just keep debating this forever with you alone. --] (]) 14:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I'm done as well, I have made a genuinely good faith attempt to understand your issue, but I have failed. And all my attempts to reference other examples, so that perhaps an analogy or comparison might, perhaps, enlighten one of us, by some difference or similarity, have gone un-addressed. ‒ ] 14:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::My parting gift ‒ ] 14:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Forgive me for labouring the point, but whilst an article's title and its hat note do not need a citable source, they can't exist simply as a hook on which to hang original reasearch. Whilst the term "formal opinion" may appear in a Google Search, the fact that does not make it any less the opinion of Jaymax as to how this article is defined.<br />] states that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves".<br />Since there is consistent disagreement about the title or the scope of article (even the third opinion seems to have his own personal view on the matter), it seems to me that if a "Scientific opinion on climate change" has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, you would want to cite those sources as the start of this article so that it is clear that the article satisfies the ] for a standalone article.<br />Maybe there have been so many title and content disuputes about the article (not to deletion nominations), perhaps any change seems threatening, but I would have thought the addition of high quality sources would be the least of your worries and would actually contribute to resolving all these disuputes. I am not sure how you are going to make any progress without good sourcing. --] (]|] 15:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::We ''are'' relying on reliable third-party published sources, and it is rather hard to think of organizations with higher reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. And we aren't relying on "opinions of Wikipedians" - in fact we are doing so ''less'' than most other articles, since we are including ''every'' reference that falls within the scope of the article. Your "consistent disagreement" is rather overstated, and seems to be the opinion of a minority of editors. <s>We have been through 4 AfD's which indicate that notability certainly ''isn't'' the problem (all with a ''very clear'' consensus for keep)</s>. Can we please stop beating on this ]? --] (]) 17:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC) <small> ] (]) 17:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)]</small> <small>] (]) 17:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)]</small> |
|
|
::::::::I think it is fair to say that this article contains lots of reliable, third party sources, but there is still a problem with the key lead section, in that neither the lead not the hat note address the subject matter of this article topic directly or in detail, nor without resorting to original research. If you have a better proposal for the lead, bring it on. However, a hat note based on the opinions of Jaymax, is not as good as reliable, third part sources, I think you will agree.<br />Until earlier today another version of the unsourced hat note existed. Now there is another one. It seems to me that opinion is cheap, and is likely to be changed every time someone takes a dislike to it. If sourced coverage is the currency that buys credibility for an article topic, I would have thought reliable, third party sources that address the articles subject matter directly and in detail are the gold standard which we should all be working towards.<br />] says "Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented". So in answer to KimDabelsteinPetersen, it is not a deadhorse that I am flogging, I am merely arguing in favour of applying the three core content policies that determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles.<br />So far, Jaymax has argued that a Google search is sufficient to justify having the current hat note in the lead section, but I don't think that arguement is worth much in terms of currency that buys credibility. Restore the sourced material and lets take it from there as ] recomends.--] (]|] 17:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
===Third Opinion=== |
|
|
I have never seen this article before and am responding to the request for a third opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
The article was much better without the changes to the lead from Gavin Collins. Those changes miss the point of what the article is about. However, I think it would help if the name of the article was changed so that it better reflected what it is about. I suggest '''''Collective'' scientific opinion on climate change'''. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 12:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It is difficult okay. I'm not keen on the formal or collective because it is simply scientific opinion and all the individuals dissenters are not represented because of ] rather than by the definition that removes them in the leader. However without such a word in people will keep arguing for inclusion of all sorts of things that more properly belong in an article like ] or ]. ] (]) 12:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:Though i do appreciate the input from Yaris678 - I've removed the ] tag, since there are significantly more than 2 editors disagreeing on this. The correct venue for getting extra input would be an RfC. --] (]) 13:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::GC, I can't say I'm surprised that you unilaterally changed the hat-note. Please refer to 2/0's comments in an above thread: |
|
|
|
|
|
:::''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.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
::Did you not read that or do you not care? I oppose the change. What consensus have you built? Please address the question instead of launching into another diatribe which will just cause me to repost the section on Tenditious Editing. ] (]) 00:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I know Jaymax was making a good faith effort, but I think all (or at least most) of us can agree that we don't need a modifier like "formal" or "official". Although those may be accurate descriptions of the position statements, they're not quite right for the synthesis reports, and they certainly don't work for the surveys. So, can we at least agree on removing the word "formal"? --] (]) 08:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I've got no objection to it's removal. ‒ ] 08:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Done.--] (]) 23:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
That's good. Now, I have a worry about the use of the plural "scientific opinions on climate change" in the hat-note. I think there is a subtle difference between this and the title of the article, "scientific opinion on climate change", One includes the possibility of ''everyone's'' scientific opinions, but the other, the subject of the article, is about the collective opinion of science itself, of the body scientific. I think we should lose that s. --] (]) 15:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:Singularized it like the title (there's a new word) ] (]) 16:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=singularize |
|
|
::But anyway, I think it should be plural here - The article reflects scientific opinion, by collecting scientific opinions according to criteria intended to ensure they are representative. (See new section below). I think it's right that the lead introduces the plural opinions that we collate. ‒ ] 09:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== add IPCC context and mission per talk? == |
|
|
|
|
|
I've just removed this . ZP5 added it with an edit comment of ''add IPCC context and mission per talk'' but I don't see the consensus to add it. Per what talk? ] (]) 12:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
To be clear: this article isn't the IPCC opinion on climate change, and although that has been suggested often it has been rejected often. So over-emphasis on the IPCC in the lead is wrong ] (]) 12:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:To de-emphasise the IPCC in the lead, we need a different strong source for the statement of consensus. If IPCC continues to be used as the 'starting point' for separating the article into 'concurring' and 'dissenting' then it's not so terribly wrong to give the context in the lead as well - But it would be better to move most reference to the IPCC in the lead into it's Synthesis Report section? ‒ ] 00:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I don't see why you need a different strong source. I don't think you will find a better source - unless WMC knows different? However, if you want to de-emphasize the IPCC in the lede, then there is still no need for any citations other than the IPCC report itself. How many climatologists' work is outside IPCC remit? Anyway, the sources in the article itself back up that the majority claim. ] (]) 01:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::The IPCC is just an assessment of the state of the science, just as the ] (now USGCRP again). It is the assessment that is most used in this context, but not the only one. If you compare the USGCRP and the IPCC reports they say must the same thing. So the emphasis on the IPCC is understandable, but misleading. And a description of the IPCC seem quite off topic here (thats what wikilinks are for). --] (]) 08:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for talking WMC. This article is lead by the IPCC statements, the IPCC mission provides context for these statements. .... KPD ... "A description of the IPCC seem quite off topic here" ... Folks progress in this article is continues to be obstructed by uncompromising editors who insist they must define the article POV. How unreasonable is it to have a simple sentence stating the IPCC mission? ] (]) 14:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Anyone who wants to see what the IPCC is about can follow the link. It's not necessary to duplicate this material in every article that mentions the IPCC (or any of the other organizations in the article for that matter). Oh, and calling everyone who disagrees with you "uncompromising" and "unreasonable" really isn't in the Christmas spirit. ] (]) 14:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:: It's reasonable to have greater context then a link. ] (]) 14:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:It is off-topic/unreasonable here because this article has nothing to do with the mission of the IPCC (or the IPCC), thats something that can (and is) described in-depth at the IPCC wiki-article which is linked. --] (]) 14:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Get real KDP ... this article would not exist but for the IPCC mission and statements. And it should be included for context. ] (]) 16:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It is very likely that an article such as this would exist without the IPCC mission and statements, since the science still would say the same thing (the IPCC still doesn't do science - it assesses the state of the science). --] (]) 16:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: KDP, I find your arguments to be approaching ], while is a strict sense the IPCC mission may not be the logical subject of this article. In all good faith to wiki humanity ... the IPCC mission is relevant, notable and sourced for inclusion here. Please show faith and allow a compromise so we may move forward. I've added the IPCC mission to the IPCC section. ] (]) 16:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::We were told not to do any edits here without consensus, and you clearly haven't got a consensus. So i've reverted it. I've already told you my objections (as have several others)... Calling them absurd is not really getting us anywhere does it? --] (]) 16:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: Where would you like to go with this, KDP? ] (]) 16:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zp5 has made two more changes that clearly lack consenus. I've notified 2/0 ] (]) 15:17, 21 December 2009(UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:See ] please. Now discuss your revert, WMD. ] (]) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: I think that has already been done. Article is not about IPCC. Science would be the same without the IPCC. |
|
|
:: IPCC are a strong and reliable source, but that does not mean the lede need bother explaining who the IPCC are. ] (]) 16:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Please see my point above about ].] (]) |
|
|
::::There's hyperlinks to them and a bit t the top of the section saying see the article for more about them. The name itself is also pretty self-explanatory so I really don't see why more needs to be said about them here. One of the big advantages of WIkipedia over a conventional encyclopaedia is how much easier it is to click on a link and find the associated information. ] (]) 16:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Links are fine however, this issue requires not to cite the IPCC 'out of context'. Since the IPCC mission takes on a discourse and convention, as to its object of analysis. Reasonable context for the statements will occur when the IPCC statements are placed in their mutual ] relationship between the statements and mission. Without the mission the IPCC statements may be interpreted incoherently. I've seen evidence for this in wiki. ] (]) 17:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::: I ] your point about ], and it's the same as your ] point about Absurdism. That is, it isn't a ], it's an unsupported ]. |
|
|
:::::: What Dmcq said about ]. |
|
|
:::::: "Since the IPCC mission takes on a discourse and convention, as to its object of analysis" is not especially coherent. |
|
|
:::::: ] (]) 17:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(outdent) I don't see why the context is needed and it seems out of place in the main text, but as it is my wont to compromise, would others agree that the cited mission of the IPCC be given between "ref" tags as a footnote to the first mention of the organization? ] (]) 17:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Per ] I am about to proceed with Awickert's proposed compromise to foot note the IPCC mission. The issue could be better addressed in the main text, however footnote is ok with me now to move on. ] (]) 04:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Well i still don't agree - for exactly the same reasons as i've given before (IPCC is not in focus here). Silence here only means that the only proponent for such a change "left" for a while. --] (]) 00:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Am I to assume you are uncompromising here KDP? The IPCC happens to be front and center in the lead, yes. The IPCC findings are what many of the orgs reference, Yes. The IPCC is the major proponent of the singular scientific opinion presented in this article, YES! I am puzzled by your consistent negativity. If you offer no consensus, than perhaps you should consider silence. What will you consent to KDP? ] (]) 01:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Yes, i can see no rationale whatsoever to include anything about the IPCC's mission statement. The IPCC is an assessment report of the scientific literature on the subject, just as the US CCSP, had the latter been earlier, all the organizations would refer to it instead of the IPCC. It is not the IPCC which does the findings (the IPCC doesn't do any research itself). There is no such thing as a "major proponent" here (unless you are speaking about the parity of the scientific literature). --] (]) 02:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: The IPCC mission statement helps to attribute the IPCC source with RS material that is beyond your opinion. When you say "no" to including the IPCC mission, you may be unreasonable to wiki principlas for source attribution. You are ignoring my stated rational. Sorry if I may be trespassing on your views about the IPCC, but can you see RS atribution is necessary given the NPOV RFC underway in this article? ] (]) 03:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Copying the IPCC mission statement into a note is not attribution, it doesn't add value or any missing context to the articles, it would just be clutter. --] (]) 08:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::: ] ''"Misplaced Pages'' 'footnotes''' serve two purposes. First, to add explanatory material, particularly if the added information would be distracting if written out in the main article. Second, they are used to present to reliable sources that support assertions in the main article."'' With the substantial value the IPCC has contributed to this article, the IPCC mission adds derivative explanatory value to provide the reader with the IPCC's motivation. The negation of the IPCC mission as clutter, seems odd. No one wants to defile this article. The mission statement helps the reader appreciate the IPCC's solical political context. No matter how much science seeks to run away from this, it's a scientific reality (and sourced). Wiki has room for a footnote. It not like it's some kind of ] now is it. Open the article to a footnote and be done. ] (]) 15:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::This article is not here to make the reader "appreciate the socio-political context" of the IPCC. That is what the article on IPCC is for. We are also not here to describe each scientific societies mission statements, which actually would be more relevant. It doesn't add value, and thus it is clutter. (btw. i think you need to brief up a bit on English "defile" seems to be a rather far-out word here). Science is not "trying to run away" --] (]) 17:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::: I said "help" you said "make". You can stretch my words into the absurd, but the reader benefits by their choice. While you are seeking to withhold from them. That's a selfish goal. The negativity offered seems to be for your purposes (no clutter, no value, no context) with little faith in the wiki reader to say "yes" under their own choice. ] (]) 18:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{outdent}} Peaceful meditative silence here is good faith to proceed. ] (]) 00:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
→ I have blocked {{userlinks|ZuluPapa5}} for 31 hours for edit warring. Please do not let this affect this discussion if it is productive. Please also remember to discuss potentially controversial changes here first, point to the relevant consensus in the edit summary, and do not re-revert or otherwise edit war. - ] <small>(])</small> 17:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== American Geophysical Union article == |
|
|
|
|
|
* "Recently a major study in the American Geophysical Union's official publication, the Journal of Geophysical Research, supported earlier research in concluding that least 80 percent and perhaps far more of the observed warming over the past half-century is natural. Factors well beyond our control, such as cloud cover... matter far more than we do. " • ] 09:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Individual studies like that go into ]. ] (]) 11:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Perhaps, and without all the gratuitous puffery. ] (]) 15:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: What criteria are you applying Dmcq, to direct this scientific opinion? ] (]) 15:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::: In summarising the breadth of scientific opinion it's inappropriate to concentrate on a single paper presenting a minority opinion. --] 16:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::That's basically it. Individual studies just don't cut it in the weight department for an article like this when measured against the statements of the scientific societies. The article ] deals with the wider business of the public perception of whether there is a scientific consensus and so if the study has been used in any notable way in that debate it certainly should feature there. It might also be used in a more specific article about the subject of the study. ] (]) 21:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I believe is the article being discussed. It appears to have been published in July of this year. Like any scientific article, its level of legitimacy and significance will be determined by how well it's received by the scientific community. Either the consensus article or the main ] article may eventually be the right place for it if it proves its worth. --] (]) 23:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I'm no climate scientist but on a quick read of that it's clear to me that it is only the first step in showing anything meaningful about climate change. Fora start no explanation is given of why the Southern Oscillation does what it does so there is no strong implication one way or the other in the correlation. It needs a lot more digestion and comment before people can conclude anything from it. ] (]) 23:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::The article's main point is that there is a correlation between ENSO and global mean tropospheric temperature, to which anyone conversant in climatology would respond "well, duh." The article also contains lots of errors, such as the assertion that climate models don't include ENSO. ] (]) 23:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe I am inappropriate, but sounds like folks are saying this source carries no weight, therefor "scientific opinion" criteria are irrelevant? That would be worth reconsidering. Does anyone have faith it can be properly attributed? ] (]) 06:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:Can ''WHAT'' be "properly attributed"??--] (]) 09:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:I'm not saying it carries no weight at all. I'm saying the weight is too small for an article like this which lists things like scientific societies and synthesis views. Individual scientific papers contribute to an opinion, they don't describe the opinion. ] (]) 09:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::A paper in a journal is a statement of the scientific opinions of the individual authors, and excluded as such according to our current criteria. If the criteria allowed for this paper, we would have to include every other paper. I see this as potentially a good _example_ of the lack of unanimity, in the presence of strong consensus, at ]. ‒ ] 09:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Scientific opinion on climate change is ... == |
|
|
|
|
|
Para 1 currently reads ''"Scientific opinion on climate change is given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. This does not include the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions."'' |
|
|
|
|
|
We need an adjective to make it make sense, because "Scientific opinion on climate change" DOES "include the views of individual" - it is the article which doesn't, and I think we can do better that be arbitrary. We need a word that distinguishes what makes polls, synthesis, and organisations from individuals to make that para true. Someone chucked in 'official'; I tweaked that to 'formalised' to make it slightly broader, and Curtis rightly removed it. But what IS it that distinguishes the opinions we collect here, is it that they are ''"representative"''? Is there a better word? What is the fundamental reason we distinguish between the two, and can we get it defined in a word (or two?) |
|
|
|
|
|
We can all see it, all define it in a paragraph, and it is an obvious inference for the great majority of visitors to the article. But 'obvious inference for most' doesn't feel very encyclopaedic - and yes I know the bolding indicates the statment is about the article, but still... |
|
|
: ‒ ] 09:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I think that is mainly there for the various climate change sceptics who want to insert their dissenting opinions. They take a paper by some scientist who finds problems with some aspect of climate change and turn it into a dissenting scientific opinion. As to the specifics, why do you say scientific opinion includes the views of individuals? As normally understood it doesn't as far as I'm aware except when one goes deep down to find the strength of the opinion. For instance with evolution I'm sure it is possible to find some scientists who'll say earth was created 5000 years ago and men and dinosaurs walked on it together in harmony, but that is not scientific opinion by any stretch of the imagination. ] (]) 12:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::As I understand it, a scientific opinion is any opinion formed scientifically, whether held by an individual or formalised in an organisational opinion paper. This 'specific' is key. See ] - ], who has had much to say about Scientific Opinion, said: "Scientific opinion itself cannot be said to exist except as ''the opinions expressed by person'', who are recognized as scientists." - If you can find a ref that defines scientific opinion to exclude individual scientist's scientifically formed opinions, I'll be delighted to add it to my list! ‒ ] 13:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::So you quote the author of 'Life's irreducible structure'. Well I can easily see them rejecting anything like scientific opinion as an overall concept. Possibly consensus view or something like that would be better as a title but if you really wish to reject the idea of scientific opinion as used by this article you should try changing the consensus at the ] article first. How would you characterize the standing of evolution as opposed to irreducible complexity or suchlike? ] (]) 14:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I thought this was getting nailed by "'''Scientific opinion''' can be used either as a ] or as a ]" et seq (]). After that is it not simply a matter of linguistics? We have "a scientific opinion" as Jaymax defines above (anybody's); "scientific opinions" - lots of the same, still relatively meaningless; finally we have "scientific opinion" itself - the collective opinion of the body scientific. It is the latter that forms public opinion and policy, puts men on the moon, and that is taught in schools and in universities etc., that usually stands for centuries before being tweaked, and very rarely overthrown by something bigger and broader. What does ] have to say about this in ]? Lots of relevant stuff about paradigms and consensus (I don't have a copy), maybe not the exact pairing "scientific opinion" followed by a neat definition, but I think our anti-scientific friends here are scraping the barrel when they say that they contest that there is any such thing until we can prove that there is. --] (]) 14:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Dmcq: ''"you really wish to reject the idea of scientific opinion as used by this article"'' I do NOT want to reject the idea of scientific opinion as used here, and I WROTE the definition at ]. What we have here is an article that addresses the collective mass-noun scientific opinion, by listing 50+ ''representative'' count-noun scientific opinions, from polling of individuals, from societies (of individuals), from synthesis (of papers written by individuals). Regarding ''scientific opinion as an overall concept'': you really should check out those refs. Polanyi doesn't reject it, he not only embraces it, he puts it on a huge pedestal. ‒ ] 22:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Well thanks for that opinion article as it has saved some arguments here. I don't see what your problem is, societies are not the same as a collection of individuals because they come to consensus decisions. You may have written that bit in the opinion article but it would be reverted or changed without consensus. It is no longer purely what an individual wrote. ] (]) 22:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Exactly. Societies published opinions ARE different to individual's opinions, and carry much greater weight. All I'm saying, is that the fact should be touched upon in the lead, perhaps by inserting a word '____ scientific opinion on climate change is', which summates WHY we don't list individual's scientific opinions, and makes sense leading into the second sentence. ‒ ] 23:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
I would use the term "collective scientific opinion" for now, as I suggested at 12:19 on 19 December. If we can write a decent article on "scientific opinion", which clarifies this issue (and is in article space, not a user sub-page) then maybe we can revisit the issue. ] (]) 21:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Suggest applying a convention for singular "opinion" when there is a mass POV (unified group or individual in weight) and plural "opinions" when there is countable diversity on a topic or issue that may be quantified in range. ] (]) 16:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) == |
|
|
{{archive top}} |
|
|
Consensus to include this organization has failed to materialize owing to overwhelming opposition and multiple identified issues. Please take this to ] if a second opinion is desired. |
|
|
---- |
|
|
Is the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) actually a part of ] or how is it funded does anyone know? ] (]) 19:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I don't think it needs any regular funding, since it's not an ongoing organization with a staff. Heartland and others fund its meeting(s). ] (]) 19:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::See also ] from which the NIPCC sprang.--] (]) 19:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I guess also being funded by Heartland doesn't automatically make an organization non-scientific though it might instill doubts. The major reason I'd say it wasn't a scientific body is that it was set up specifically with a point of view and the people who join it are selecting themselves as being biased that way. In science one aught not start off with ones conclusions. ] (]) 19:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::It makes it not of 'national or international standing', so WP:UNDUE here. --] (]) 20:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::The funding of an organization, although relevant, should not be the criteria for deciding whether it is scientific in nature or not. The important thing is the method: it uses reviewed and published data and studies, discloses its methods and opens its results for criticism. Science is about intellectual openess, curiosity and honesty. I have seen no explanation of undoing my edits, aside from the NIPCC being "un-scientific", without further explanation of this claim. |
|
|
:::::Yes, the NIPCC was set up because they had some doubts about anthropogenic climate change, and it is not hiding it. Its just the same way that the IPCC was set up because they supposed something was going on. |
|
|
:::::"National or international standing" is a convenient way to discard a non-governmental organization which you may not agree with. ] (]) 20:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Is there any evidence that it ''is'' a scientific organization? (aside from assertion of the NIPCC/Heartland? (who are the members?)) Do we have any indication that it has had ''any'' impact on the scientific opinion? In fact: Is there any indication that it is taken seriously from a scientific point of view? (my answers would be: No, No and No. - but please show that i'm wrong) --] (]) 21:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::It was not set up in the same way as the IPCC. If the IPCC was set up that way it would start with the result that there was global warming and the people in it would be self selected for their bias that way. There's a big difference between the ] and people with an agenda. And yes it isn't an organization of anywhere near the same calibre as the various scientific societies listed in the article. ] (]) 21:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: It is good to see that governments and politicians don't have bias. In that sense, the IPCC is less scientific than the NIPCC. Also, the "self-selection" argument is unconvincing, as any researcher working on a topic is self-selected. 01:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: In this case, as far as I'm aware, NIPCC's influence is not of international scale. It might have influenced, possibly, a now defunct American government. It now influences no government of which I'm aware, it has no influence on the science because it doesn't summarise the peer reviewed literature in the same way IPCC does. It exists solely, as does Heartland, to sow ] (FUD) on well settled science that threatens its interests. --] 20:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::: What is the criteria of "influence" have to do with deciding if a piece of work is scientific or not? Similarly, whether an issue is supposedly settled is orthogonal to whether some work is scientific. ] (]) 01:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: I don't think it is clear that the NIPCC even exists, in a meaningful sense. It looks to me like Singer and a few cronies, presumably with someone else ghostwriting the docs. What JC says above is pertinent: its methods are unclear, it avoids the P-R literature, its reports are not open for review before publication, it is dishonest ] (]) 21:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::As far as I can tell, no author takes responsibiliy for any chapter - it's a collective work (or, more likely, the work of the two listed Heartland editors pasting together the standard sceptics arguments). 20% or so is a list of (alleged) signatories of the discredited OSIM petition. --] (]) 22:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::This is a summary report which does put together all the critiques of the IPCC report in one consistent volume. Each chapter provides detailed references for the sources, with individual authors. was apparently good enough to contribute the IPCC report (as lead author for one chapter), so he presumably is good enough to criticize it too (both the analysis, results and the process). ] (]) 01:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The report is listed here as a synthesis report, but going by the list of references (last page of there's no way it qualifies as one. ‒ ] 22:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:Do you care to clarify your point? Maybe read chapter 1... ] (]) 01:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::(e/c) Fair enough - for the benefit of others: it appears each section is followed by numerous journal references. ‒ ] 01:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:: I guess I have a problem considering a group of individuals gathered together to deliver a predetermined result (the NIPCC), to be a scientific process - regardless of the credentials of the people involved. Am I missing something? ] (]) 01:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::While I have the same problem, I think we'd need some very strong independent secondary source to state authoritatively that the outcome was truly pre-determined. It'd have to establish that there was zero possibility of the prior opinion of the authors being unchanged in the presentation of the report. And I don't see how that can be established. ‒ ] 01:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
A discussion about the membership self-selection bias in both the IPCC and NIPCC could benefit from reliable sources. Is there any source to distinguish or discuss these? It might even be worthy of a paragraph or section in the article for specific context to how the "scientific opinion(s)" were formed. Self-selection bias is a relevant and valid scientific topic along with many others in ]. Specific sources should lead the way.] (]) 03:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, I found a few reliable sources on the IPCC version of "scientific opinion" still looking for the NIPCC. |
|
|
* Call, Vincent, "SUPPORT FOR CALL FOR REVIEW OF UN IPCC" nzclimatescience.net, 09 March 2008, |
|
|
|
|
|
* Morano, Marc, "Disband UN IPCC? The Dirty Politics of Climate Science", Right Side News, 27 November 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
* Morano, Marc, "IPCC Scientist Calls Global Warming Fears the Worst Scientific Scandal in History", Right Side News, 17 June 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
*Heiser, James, "Poll Shows Belief in Global Warming is Declining", 23 October 2009, |
|
|
|
|
|
* CFACT, "Climate realists to ice down IPCC fever at CFACT’s International Climate Eco Summit", 10 December 2009 |
|
|
* Scherm, H. "Simulating uncertainty in climate–pest models with fuzzy numbers",Environmental Pollution, Volume 108, Issue 3, June 2000, Pages 373-379 |
|
|
|
|
|
*McLean, John , "The IPCC's dubious evidence for a human influence on climate" October 2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
*Crook, Clive, "Trust the Public on Climate Change", Financial Times, 14 December 2009 |
|
|
] (]) 04:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After reviewing these, and the article talk above. I am arriving at the view there is substantial '''skepticism''' within the IPCC about the role of natural sources in climate change. No wonder the "opinion" on this page seems off balance. ] (]) 15:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Please review ]. Your current interpretation is severely at odds with the current interpretation. Neither "Right Side News" nor "CFACT" nor opinion pieces are are reliable sources for anything but the opinion of the author. --] (]) 17:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Thanks for providing the wikipedia guidelines to support the discussion. I would consider NIPCC a "significant-minority view" according to this framework. Do you have specific concerns about the reliability of the NIPCC work, authors or publisher? ] (]) 18:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:'Arriving at the view' sounds like synthesis or original research to me. What you really need to do is find some renown society or some such institution like the ones listed which gives an opposing view. ] (]) 17:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::What is it exactly about the ones listed which makes them listable? Surely you can't mean government-sponsored ;-) Remember that the page is called "scientific opinion on climate change", not "majority opinion" or "mainstream opinion". The for NIPCC report surely appear to be credentialed in the scientific field. That said, credentials alone are not proof of good scientific work, but it should shift the burden of proof to show that the work *is not* scientific, rather than the opposite. ] (]) 18:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Most of them are government sponsored, do you have some conspiracy theory going about governments colluding about global warming? They certainly seem to have been good at their cover up! Why is that that people always seem to be saying things wrong of others what's most wrong with their own case rather than finding specific differences, it's weird. Look all you have to do is get some report from the National Instiute of Higher Studies of Shambala or Wu or wherever that supports what you say, Tuvalu probably wouldn't mind some money for instance so the Heartland Institute could probably get something notable there. ] (]) 18:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: Yes, thanks to Stephan Schulz as with any other opinion, they originate with the author(s). Now, I suppose this is the stage where folks apply '''owned''' "expert" opinions to discredit one author over the other? Well, I say we must have a diversity of attributed opinions to represent "scientific opinion" so this article may have space and balance for a NPOV. The NIPCC provide a balanced view to the IPCC. The editorials provide the context on the imbalance of each. ] (]) 19:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Please see ]. This article uses the singular referring to official declarations as opposed to the views of individual scientists. Grouping a bunch of scientists who are opposed and giving them some grand sounding name is not the same as having a reputable body which has done an impartial review of the science. Find some such body if there is such a case to be made. ] (]) 19:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Dmcq, I am sorry to insist but you did not actually answer my question. What is it exactly about the ones listed which makes them listable? Is being government-sponsored the criteria? Is that what you mean by "official"? What is the criteria which makes one synthesis report more acceptable than another? ] (]) 23:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: I suspect it's what they're ''not'' that is important in this case. They're not ad hoc organizations set up to push a specific point of view. --] 23:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::That reference I gave said it all and referenced ] for the institutions, what was the problem with that? In particular read the bit there about 'Speaking for the scientific community' there. You might also want to follow the reference there to ] there. ] (]) 23:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC) (and exactly where are these sharply discounted rates that are a major benefit for members that are noted in 'learned society I wonder) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::: Reliable sources are defined by what they are, and are attributed as such. Attempting to reject things by what they are not, is simply unfaithful to what they are and can be. The sources have a role in this article, now let move forward on the proper weight. ] (]) 01:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
{{archive bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Article source quality standards == |
|
|
|
|
|
Currently, there are 102 references listed for this article. They appear to have a wide range of quality to support the current view in the article. (some with broken links) However, when new sources are presented to expand the view, they somehow are being judged as not reliable. I am concerned about potential double standards in this article. In particular, when comparing sources that support the NIPCC statements for this article. Would it be productive to classify the sources here, in an effort to have some meaningful standards based on precedent? ] (]) 15:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Comment''' If there are deadlinks being cited in this article, please update them or link to an archived copy of the relevant page. ] may help. - ] <small>(])</small> 18:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: I've run checklinks ... Don't know how to link to an archive. Should I just label with death dates for dead links? ] (]) 19:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: There should be a link to archive.org in the script, though I usually just end up fixing the article manually. The citation template has a field named ''archivedate'' or something like that, which needs to be filled if ''archiveurl'' is used - link to the original, and use the last good date/url from the Wayback Machine. Of course, if the page has just moved to a different location by the same publisher, updating the link is preferred. On the same topic, there was a thread an archive or two back on the Royal Society that seems to have gotten lost. It also touched on organizational issues so I will not update it myself, but it could take care of one of the dead links. - ] <small>(])</small> 20:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: Ok, ran the waybacks on the dead links, no reincarnations, maybe on the next craw. Will check again in the New Year. Will try to heal the non dead. Thanks. ] (]) 20:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: We've just been through NIPCC above. Don't restart it, it would be a waste of time ] (]) 21:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I would have thought this would be seen as leaving a fairly low threshold, you don't have to find a ] of particularly high repute so what's the problem? ] (]) 22:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are perhaps at least two methods to classify the sources A. Make a table of qualities with relevance to and populate it with the sources or B. examine the common denominators. To avoid further disputes, I suggest looking for common denominators for relative comparison. ] (]) 23:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:A reliable source on the wrong subject doesn't count for too much compared to a reliable source on the right subject. How about looking at whether they are relevant to 'Scientific opinion on climate change'. ] (]) 00:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I realize that the NIPCC discussion has been closed (quickly, which seems to be the norm when people don't want to discuss certain aspects), but this is simply ridiculous. This article is the scientific opinion on climate change, how can anyone with good conscience not include the opinion of Singer (who is a well known Climatologist) just because he doesn't toe the company line. The efforts by some to 1984 the climate articles are simply sickening. ] (]) 01:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Please read ] and its link to ]. Sanger simply does not speak a scientific opinion in the form of a scientific consensus, he gives an individual opinion which contributes to the overall scientific opinion. The NIPCC is a group formed of scientists dissenting from IPCC. It is not a learned society evaluating the various papers and giving its overall opinion. To say that Sanger is equivalent to a learned society would be at best original research and synthesis on the part of wikipedia. This stuff goes at ] which describes the controversy over whether there is a real consensus over climate change. As I said before the easiest thing to do if somebody is desperate to put this in is have him speak to a learned society somewhere they have lots of sceptics and he might get them to say something different. The point is you need review and overall agreement by peers that the material is right, saying it oneself or gathering a group that agree is not enough. ] (]) 08:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Although, The IPCC is also not a ] but we (rightly) include their synthesis report ‒ ] 08:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==== Verifications ==== |
|
|
|
|
|
I've verified there are reports applied as reliable sources in this article which were published from ] and are comparable to the NIPCC report in quality. |
|
|
|
|
|
* The Heartland Institute is an 24 year active 501(c)3 org, with an approved U.S. mission which precludes solely private benefit (as verified by their website and www.IRS.gov.) |
|
|
* A Heartland Institute press release responded to attacks on the NIPCC report . It claims a long history of publishing reliable scientific and economic analysis of global warming. The NIPCC report is a '''synthesis''', written by S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. and an additional 23 contributors, including some of the most accomplished atmospheric scientists in the world. The synthesis references approximately 200 published (peer-reviewed) papers and scientific reports in support of its conclusions. |
|
|
* The report itself may be currently undergoing peer-review in the public domain. |
|
|
* These attributes of the NIPCC report can be included in this article with faith in the reader. |
|
|
] (]) 19:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Hmm, so as the treasurer of a registered charitable institution that has been around longer than that I should have a voice too? :) Anyway here's a link to ] on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 19:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==== Validation ==== |
|
|
'''Note:''' The validation of the Heartland Institute NIPCC report in relation to the IPCC and Scientific Opinion is occurring on a parallel path here ] ] (]) 20:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Thanks for pointing out that discussion. However validation is not a term that conveys anything to me in this context. What I can see is that there is a discussion on ] about the NIPCC report which this discussion also discusses. Whether or not it is included there doesn't seem all that relevant to the arguments here saying it shouldn't be included. ] (]) 21:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:: You are welcome .... let's try again from above. What criteria would you apply to ] a source's qualities for inclusion in this article? Listing them out with link to wiki guidance, might be helpful here. ] (]) 00:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I have explained that 'validation' in one article does not imply the same for another. Please try and use references to wikipedia policies instead so people don't have to learn new words with new meanings which haven't been agreed. Misplaced Pages already has words for practically all the applicable concepts honed through an enormous number of discussions, they are given in its policies and guidelines like ] and ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::As you wish to "try again from above" I will quote what I said above to Azrel so you can see it: |
|
|
|
|
|
::::"Please read ] and its link to ]. Sanger simply does not speak a scientific opinion in the form of a scientific consensus, he gives an individual opinion which contributes to the overall scientific opinion. The NIPCC is a group formed of scientists dissenting from IPCC. It is not a learned society evaluating the various papers and giving its overall opinion. To say that Sanger is equivalent to a learned society would be at best original research and synthesis on the part of wikipedia. This stuff goes at ] which describes the controversy over whether there is a real consensus over climate change. As I said before the easiest thing to do if somebody is desperate to put this in is have him speak to a learned society somewhere they have lots of sceptics and he might get them to say something different. The point is you need review and overall agreement by peers that the material is right, saying it oneself or gathering a group that agree is not enough. ] (]) 08:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)" |
|
|
|
|
|
:::or do you wish to start at an earlier point? ] (]) 10:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: Which guidance says being a "learned society" is a valid qualification for inclusion in wiki? Did you miss, that the report was published by the Heartland Institute under their editorial standards which meet the reliable source guidelines. Sorry to repeat myself, however this "learneed society" requirement seems like original research. Can you please site a guideline for it? ] (]) 00:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::I did not say that a source had to be a learned society to be a reliable source. You're thinking about that other article you mentioned above when you go on about reliable source, it doesn't even get as far as that consideration here. That's what I was saying about your 'validation'. I said this particular article was about scientific opinion as in its title 'Scientific opinion on climate change' and I pointed you at what ] was about. There are many articles where that is not a requirement. It is a requirement here because this article is about scientific opinion. The Heartland Institute is not a learned society. It is not relevant in any way to this article. Even under reliable source guidelines if this was aboutr scientific opinions in general rather than scientific opinion as a collective it wouldn't qualify because of ] as this is about the science side. It might only qualify as part of the public perception and that is covered under ] or some particuar points in it might be relevant to particular points in the scientific argument. ] (]) 02:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::: Do you have a reliable source(s) that classifies ''"The Heartland Institute is not a learned society"'' or as ''"public perception"'', they themselfs and other reliable sources indicate they present scientific opinions? see: ]] It might be productive to attribute weight to what they are with reliable sources, rather then speculate what you say they are '''not''' ... would you agree? ] (]) 03:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::What has this article got to do with public perception? An why have I to find some source that specifically says ] is not a learned society? I think I'd find it easier to show Ronald MacDonald's university is a learned society, at least they're interested in whether their hamburgers taste okay or not. There's nothing at the debate you point to showing they are regarded as a reputable scientific society. That seems to be a debate about whether they have weight enough to even be included in that article in the criticism section. Personally I have no particular feelings on that matter and I'd probably include it there as an inclusionist but it definitly doesn't belong in this article. ] (]) 07:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::We have three essential lists here, a list of scientific learned societies, a list of surveys of individual climate scientists (and, by proxy, abstracts) and a list of synthesis reports. The criteria for inclusion are different - but both the talk of 'source quality' and 'learned society' are, I suspect, not getting at the core of the question. ‒ ] 08:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::A separate section was started on this below by Jaymax. ] (]) 10:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Article probation== |
|
|
|
|
|
Please note that, by a decision of the Misplaced Pages community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under ]. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. Please see ] for full information and to review the decision. -- ] (]) 01:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
The hatnote serves to disambiguate, and assist people coming to this page who might be looking for something else. |
|
|
|
|
|
If someone is looking for opinions of individual notable scientists working in the field, they should go to ] - a few minutes clicking on the articles listed there will demonstrate that they virtually all include the opinion of the listed scientist. |
|
|
|
|
|
It is an absurdity to say that because the actual opinions are a click beyond the listing, we should not point to the list in the hatnote. If the issue is with the wording (I thought Curtis' implementation of "a|and|b" was fine) then tweak the wording, don't damage the hatnote by making it less useful by removing the link. ‒ ] 03:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Support''' for putting in that list reference. I don't like long hatnotes but people might want to see what individual scientists think when they go to an article about the overall scientific opinion. Lets get this resolved quickly one way or the other and not turn it into another thing like the great NPOV tag marker debate. ] (]) 07:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''oppose''' ] is just that - a list. It doesn't contain those people's opinions. Nor it a list of people *working* (it contains stiffs). Please do not fall into the error of considering it a negative of the list-of-sci-opp page (for example, it contains Lindzen). Nor, in many cases, do the articles of the scientists contain their opinions, J's incorrect assertion to the contrary (for the obvious reason: agreeing with the prevailing opinion simply isn't notable). J, may I suggest that if you want polite discourse you avoid referring to my opinions as absurd. I invite you to refactor your comments above ] (]) 10:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== What are the criteria for Synthesis Reports == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Wiki Education assignment: Disrupting the Status Quo- Social Justice in Technical and Professional Com== |
|
The NIPCC debate seemed to be going well, but closed without resolution. Rather than re-opening it, I would like to hear opinions on what OBJECTIVE criteria should be applied to determine if a synthesis report (note: this is distinct from the organisational criteria) is to be included. AFAICT, no one offered any objective basis for including IPCC, USGCRP, and ACIA. So, specifically, what should be the OBJECTIVE criteria by which we evaluate whether a report which PRESENTS ITSELF as a comprehensive review of the published science, should be included or excluded here? ‒ ] 08:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Maine/Disrupting_the_Status_Quo-_Social_Justice_in_Technical_and_Professional_Com_(Spring_2022) | assignments = ] | start_date = 2022-01-18 | end_date = 2022-05-02 }} |
|
*Declaring my position: We should use notability throughout - if an entity produces a 'scientific synthesis report', and that entity is notable (eg. would survive an AfD) then it should be included here (alternately, that the report itself is notable) ‒ ] 08:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Section on consensus points == |
|
This article is about ], not about synthesis reports. Because it reports on a number of synthesis reports does not mean it is about synthesis reports. The title is 'Scientific opinion on climate change'. Learned societies have contributed synthesis reports. That does not mean that anyone giving a synthesis report is a learned society. Besides which many people doubt the NIPCC report is a synthesis report even as you can see from the other debate ZuluPapa5 referred to. The NIPCC debate was closed because it was just going over all the same old ground again and the result would lead to the same old conclusion again. It was a broken record. ] (]) 09:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've just added this intro sentence to the section on consensus points: {{tq|The current scientific consensus regarding ] and mechanisms of ], ] and what should be done about it (]) is that:}} but then I realised we are not including any bullet points about climate action. Is that on purpose? I think there are some general statements we could add there as consensus points about adaptation and mitigation, couldn't we? Perhaps it would be useful to give this section a sub-structure so that we can group it broadly along the lines of WG I (causes and mechanisms), WG II (effects and adaptation), WG III (mitigation). Perhaps take from here but be careful of copyright infringement (?): https://en.wikipedia.org/IPCC_Sixth_Assessment_Report#Synthesis_report_for_all_three_working_group_reports ] (]) 18:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
In fact have a look at the Frequently Asked Questions box at the top of this page to see answers to the questions. ] (]) 09:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:You're missing the point a bit, as the article has evolved, three lists, representative of scientific opinion, have been incorporated. By far the biggest is the learned societies. But nothing requires that a survey comes from such an organisation; likewise, nothing requires that a synthesis report should come from such a society; only the organisational statements do. The FAQ does not address the question. :-/ ‒ ] 10:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I think I have already explained this in my December 24th comment at "IPCC/Other reports structure" section, though I'll admit it's now a more than few posts up and can be easily overlooked. |
|
::This is about ] as in "formally-agreed consensus of a scientific body or establishment" and using "the scientific method". It is not about synthesis reports. It is not about non-scientific bodies. It is not about groups who come together with an agenda to push a point. ] (]) 10:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:TLDR; this clean-up and list of points was about as much as I was willing/able to do for this article at the end of 2023. I'll certainly be adding more points on those subjects once I have the time for it in 2024. Further, I think my decision to cite both IPCC and NCAR (or potentially another gold-standard source) for every bullet point should insulate the article from this; ] is a lot easier to argue when similar phrasing is used in two separate references. ] (]) 14:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Rate of warming == |
|
:::(e/c) So you argue that the NIPCC is not a scientific body? SUBJECTIVELY I agree with you. Now please present the OBJECTIVE test we can use here. Separately, how do polling organisations fit into that? Or a single scientist reviewing abstracts (both of which are currently included in the article) ‒ ] 10:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What exactly exactly is the evidence for this article's thesis that the 20th century warmed more than the 19th or 18th centuries. The tidal gauges don't show that. Is there any evidence for that belief? ] (]) 23:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
::Perhaps you've missed the articles ] which debates whether there really is a scientific consensus, or ] which is about opinion on it in general? ] (]) 10:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:The very first image on the page shows the increase in warming - and the '''six''' independent datasets used to establish that. And the whole point of the references is to place "the evidence" a single click away. You should try that. You can also read ]. |
|
:::Respectfully, please stop assuming I'm somehow either new around this article, or uninvolved in articles such as ], especially when we've engaged at some length on that articles talk page. ‒ ] 10:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:{{tq|The tidal gauges don't show that.}} They do: ] (]) 05:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Your link states there isn't evidence amd that your claims are based on models ] (]) 05:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::"Results from analysis of individual long observational records do not present enough evidence for an unambiguous global acceleration" ] (]) 06:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Section on SCIENTISTS DISSENTING is missing == |
|
::::I think perhaps you want this article to be about a different subject. If you can give the first paragraph summary for the leader of what you want the article to be about instead and people could debate that. Otherwise please stop going on about something the article is not about. ] (]) 10:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot talk about "near-consensus" w/o seriously discussing the counter-theories and opinions among dissenting researchers. Grave mistake. A dedicated section is needed, with cross-ref. to mainstream replies to each counter-theory. ] (]) 10:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
Asking for an objective test of a scientific body is as pointless as asking for an objective definition of a scientist. This section is trying to solve an insoluble and pointless problem ] (]) 10:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:You can find those people in the article ]. They are off-topic here. See ]. --] (]) 11:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::That is paramount to a biased scope. Both agreement and dissent must be equally regarded, proportionally to their preponderance, in order for an accurate appraisal of the general consensus to be made. Relegating such voices to the Climate change denial article (which is treated as pseudosience and conspirationist) tips the scales against those statement's perceived validity. ] (]) 18:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::: What is "proportional to their preponderance" would be determined by peer-reviewed consensus studies, the most recent of which show 98.7% to 100% agreement. See ]. These two positions should not be "equally regarded". —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">] (])</span> 19:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::This entire page is biased toward an intended outcome rather than a neutral summary of the current science. There are multiple sources to debunk the 97% consensus statement - which was a statement created by politicians over a decade ago, but no one here appears to have done any work to give an honest assessment of consensus. To counter the graph stated above, I will point you to an actual scientific analysis done on the claims made in the Lynas 2021 paper, which was easily discredited as biased junk science, as are most of the consensus papers cited: |
|
|
::::https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4313837 |
|
|
::::If you actual read this paper, you will see that of the 3,000 papers Lynas reviewed, 2,104 had no opinion on climate change. Lynas defined consensus as a "lack of objection to a prevailing opinion," drastically skewing results. The ACTUAL support for the AGW hypothesis was apprpximately 32%, drastically lower than claimed. |
|
|
::::This page makes no detailed analysis of the current science and instead appears to be a political page that needs to be noted as biased. |
|
|
::::An analysis of dissenting opinions or positions counter to the stated position must be added to validate the actual scientific consensus. ] (]) 13:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::That is a two-year-old preprint concerned with only one of the many studies that arrive at a consensus close to 100%. Don't give us such crap. --] (]) 16:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: (after edit conflict) Denial is an affirmative act: a consensus study of rocketry articles could reasonably conclude that rocketry articles not affirmatively denying the earth is round, can be counted toward the consensus that the earth is round. Procedural critiques of consensus studies are themselves not consensus studies, and, further, the critiques are distinct from affirmative climate change denial. The ] article deals with the deniers. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;color:dark blue;">] (])</span> 16:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
What exactly exactly is the evidence for this article's thesis that the 20th century warmed more than the 19th or 18th centuries. The tidal gauges don't show that. Is there any evidence for that belief? 2600:6C40:0:204E:3681:F966:2A8F:2034 (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
You cannot talk about "near-consensus" w/o seriously discussing the counter-theories and opinions among dissenting researchers. Grave mistake. A dedicated section is needed, with cross-ref. to mainstream replies to each counter-theory. Arminden (talk) 10:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 2 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sylvia.Noralez (article contribs).
. These two positions should not be "equally regarded". —RCraig09 (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
