Talk:Scientific consensus on climate change: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:27, 12 December 2009 editZuluPapa5 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers6,447 edits →IPCC “Scientific Opinion” on other climate change causes: new section← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:48, 12 December 2009 edit undoNigelj (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers13,869 edits Undid revision 331286210 by ZuluPapa5 (talk)When you have sources, post proposal, not WP:SOAP Next edit →
Line 1,264:		Line 1,264:
	*'''Support''': not 100% sure on the section 5 thing, but this proposal seems certainly to be progress. ] (]) 08:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)		*'''Support''': not 100% sure on the section 5 thing, but this proposal seems certainly to be progress. ] (]) 08:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
	::There can still be a one sentence mention and wikilink to the consensus section as it is pertinent. --] (]) 10:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)		::There can still be a one sentence mention and wikilink to the consensus section as it is pertinent. --] (]) 10:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

	== IPCC “Scientific Opinion” on other climate change causes ==

	The IPCC appears to be meeting its mission to produce -- ''' information relevant for understanding <u>''human-induced''</u> climate change risks'''. However, for a balanced view in this wiki article, I am looking for sources to illustrate how the IPCC included beliefs about other aspects of climate change causes.

	Specifically:

	# IPCC beliefs on natural process as a primary cause
	# IPCC beliefs on climate projections as a reliable source
	# IPCC beliefs that climate change causes may be indeterminable
	# IPCC beliefs that climate change is on a negative cycle


	(Note: The above categories have been applied here in Wiki: ] as if to imply that the these individual beliefs are a POV in opposition to the IPCC mission.

	What seems most relevant is:

	*Could the IPCC be acting in ignorance of these other beliefs?

	*Why does this page of organizational opinions and surveys seem like ] on a IPCC POV?

	*Are there structural issues with the IPCC processes that are affecting the NPOV issues with this article?

	By IPCC structural issues, I mean ''“Inadequate models, incomplete or competing conceptual frameworks, lack of agreement on model structure, ambiguous system boundaries or definitions, significant processes or relationships wrongly specified or not considered.”'' As taken from the IPCC guidance and applied for NPOV in this article.

	] (]) 17:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

	----

Revision as of 17:48, 12 December 2009

Environment B‑class

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

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

view · edit Frequently asked questions

Under construction! "‡" indicates answer not yet prepared. See Talk page for current discussions.

To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question.

Q1: Is there really a scientific consensus on global warming? Yes. The IPCC findings of recent warming as a result of human influence are explicitly recognized as the "consensus" scientific view by the science academies of all the major industrialized countries. No scientific body of national or international standing presently rejects the basic findings of human influence on recent climate. (Discussion) (From GW/FAQ:A1) Q2: Is the section on "dissenting organizations" adequately supported? The current consensus is that it is. There have been numerous lengthy discussions regarding the AMQUA and AAPG sources. Some have criticized the AMQUA letter as an unreliable reference. Others have stated that the combination of the AMQUA letter and the AAPG statement is against WP:SYN. The most recent consensus on this topic can be found at Talk:Scientific consensus on climate change#straw poll. Q3: How can you say there's a consensus when someone has compiled a long list of skeptical scientists? Over the years, a number of lists of so-called "skeptical scientists" have been produced. Notable among these are the Oregon Petition (circa 1999-2001, and re-circulated in 2007) and James Inhofe's list (originally released in 2007, re-released in 2008 with additional names added). These petitions have proven to be riddled with flaws To wit:

Many of the people listed aren't really scientists. For example, the definition of a "scientist" used in the Oregon Petition includes anyone who has a bachelor's degree – or anyone who claims to have a bachelor's degree, since there's no independent verification. Using this definition, approximately 25% of the US population is qualified to sign.
Some of the people listed aren't even people. Included on these lists are fictitious characters ("Dr. Perry Mason"), hoaxes ("Dr. Geri Halliwell"), and companies.
Of those who have a scientific background most work in fields unrelated to climate, such as the chemistry of coal ashes or the interactions between quarks and gluons.
Those who are scientists are listed arbitrarily, and many aren't skeptical of global warming. The Inhofe list was compiled by Inhofe staffer Marc Morano with no effort to contact the people listed. One climatologist, George Waldenberger, even informed Inhofe's staff that he is not skeptical of the consensus on global warming. His request to have his name removed from the list was ignored. Similarly, Steve Rainer of Oxford University has asked for his name to be removed and calls his inclusion "quite outrageous". The Heartland Institute has stated that scientists who have told the Institute that it misrepresented their views on global warming "have no right – legally or ethically – to demand that their names be removed" from the Institute's list. (From GW/FAQ:A2)

Q4: Why should scientific opinion count for more than public opinion? Because "science" – either as the time-tested methodologies for learning about the world, or as the immense body of knowledge that has been garnered by those methodologies, or even as the international "scientific community" of tens of thousands of highly trained professionals that use these methodologies – has the better track record. Because the science of climate is based on fundamental laws of physics and chemistry, with the conclusions based on factual data, and the consensus "opinion" has been vetted by hundreds of experts. Whereas the contrarian portion of public opinion has a poor track record, being shaped by politically motivated rhetoric (financed by the "interested" industries) that pushes certain points of view in disregard of objective, factual reality. (For an example, see the previous question.) Q5: Weren't scientists telling us in the 1970s that we were cooling instead of warming? No, they were not – see the article on global cooling. A 2008 paper in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society reviewed "what the scientists were telling us" in the 1960s and 1970s, and found the following.

One of the earliest papers in climate science, published in 1963, reported that a global cooling trend had begun in 1940s, which seemed to be underscored by unusually severe winters in 1972 and 1973 in parts of North America. (It was later shown that this supposed global trend was limited to the Northern Hemisphere, and offset by a warming trend in the Southern Hemisphere.) Other papers, looking at natural causes of climate variability, such as the Milankovitch cycles, "predicted" another Ice Age in 20,000 years (but only if human activity did not interfere). A survey of the peer-reviewed literature for this period showed a total of seven papers that predicted, implied, or indicated global cooling.

On the other hand, 44 papers were found that predicted global warming. That there was some diversity of outlook is not surprising, as scientists often have extremely narrow, "knot-hole" views of a subject, and their conclusions are usually limited to whether the particular phenomena they have studied makes a positive or negative contribution to a general trend. The net result of many such contributions, and the overall effect or trend, is assessed by the occasional review paper, or expert panels at scientific conferences. By 1979 the scientific consensus was clear that the eminent threat was not global cooling, but global warming. The common misperception that "Back in the 1970s, all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming" – in less than 20,000 years – is fictional, based on a few studies that were sensationalized in the popular press, and subsequent misrepresentation by political writers.

(See also GW/FAQ:A13) Q6: Why should we trust scientists that work for the government? ‡ (Discussion) Q7: Why does this article rely primarily on the conclusions of the IPCC? Because the conclusions of the IPCC, produced through the collaborative efforts of thousands of experts, are the result of the most thorough survey of the state of climate science (or of any science) ever done. There is simply no other organization or effort that is comparable. Q9: Isn't the IPCC a biased source? ‡ (Discussion) Q10: Why should we trust reports prepared by biased UN scientists? The IPCC reports are not produced by "UN scientists". The IPCC does not employ the scientists who generate the reports, and has no control over them. The scientists are internationally recognized experts, most with a long history of successful research in the field. They are employed by a number of different organizations, including scientific research institutes, agencies like NASA and NOAA, and universities. They receive no extra pay for their participation in the IPCC process, which is considered a normal part of their academic duties. (Discussion) (From GW/FAQ:A11) Q11: Why doesn't the article include dissent from the consensus by noted scientists and IPCC contributors? The IPCC consensus regarding climate change was formally developed by thousands of experts, based on the entirety of climate science research and interpretation. The "several prominent contributors" said to be "critical" of the consensus do not constitute a sufficiently significant minority view to warrant inclusion (per the policy of WP:WEIGHT). Nor has any scientific authority been cited that suggests these criticisms in any way challenge the science of the consensus.

medical associations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Basically: AWG is an ARTISTIC body of national standing. --Jaymax (talk) 11:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

'Scientific opinion' is an oxymoron

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GSA heads up

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

Dissenting opinion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction to introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article has been moved?

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

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

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

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

Is it fair to assume

that organizations not listed in support are undecided?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

introductory sentence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We need a FAQ

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

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

That's an excellent idea!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Per discussion above:

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

FAQ 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Location of non-committal organisations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Would this count?

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

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

Should this be worked into the article?

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

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

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

Survey of American Meteorologists

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

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

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

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

Censorship

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

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

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

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

Recent addition by SanAntonioPete

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article needs a controversies section.

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

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

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

Here's a better link: .

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

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

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

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

Here's a starting proposal:

In the wake of the Climategate revelations, the Wall Street Journal summed up the potential impacts on the public perceptions regarding the scientific consensus on global warming as follows:

"The furor over these documents is not about tone, colloquialisms or whether climatologists are nice people. The real issue is what the messages say about the way the much-ballyhooed scientific consensus on global warming was arrived at, and how a single view of warming and its causes is being enforced. The impression left by the correspondence among Messrs. Mann and Jones and others is that the climate-tracking game has been rigged from the start." -- WSJ, 27 November, 2009

and then cite the indicated article above. --GoRight (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that certainly sounds like NPOV .... not. Using an editorial (which is opinion - no matter if its from the WSJ or another source) as authoritative on public perception is POV, and rather extreme undue weight. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It isn't scientific opinion. It's the stated opinion of some journalists. --TS 05:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. It is discussing the controversy surrounding the subject of this article. It is not being used to establish or state any scientific facts. --GoRight (talk) 05:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If it is relevant to the Scientific opinion, then it is valid. It does not deserve undue weight however, the article requires a NPOV on the scientific opinion. The source can be attributed. Must start this section somehow. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with User:ZuluPapa5. This seems like a reasonable start. Pete Tillman (talk) 05:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Scientific opinions are not sourced from non-scientific sources - and certainly not from editorials and other opinion articles. The editorial is reliable for only one thing: The opinion of the WSJ editorial board (assuming that its the main editorial). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Any attempt to push non-scientific views into this article is likely to fail messily. --TS 08:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is good to see so many newbies take an active interest in this article. However, it needs to be pointed out that a topic such as Climate change is so huge, no single article can possibly incorporate all pertinent and important information. Therefore, large complicated topics will usually branch off into smaller articles where pertinent and important aspects can be covered in more detail. When you have something you think is important, the trick is to find the appropriate place for it. If you click on "Category:Climate change", or "Category:Global warming" at the bottom of the article, you'll find there's hundreds of articles covering various aspects of the topic. This article, as stated in the first sentence, documents current scientific opinion on climate change as given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. It does not document what newspaper editors or other laymen have to say about scientists' opinions. What the editors of the WSJ or any other newspaper have to say would be more appropriate for Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, and/or maybe Global warming controversy. --CurtisSwain (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I see no push when the proper qualifications are WP:NPOV and WP:RS, the article must serve these. Readers and editors are not being helped as to the proper place to place views that come from reliable editorial boards. TS, I would appreciate your help, over threats. CurtisSwain Misplaced Pages is not a place for "documentation", it is for NPOV. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

GR's climategate suggestions are a joke and don't really merit discussion William M. Connolley (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a legitimate controversy which warrants mention in this article. It is not a joke. --GoRight (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Where are your sources, William M. Connolley. Last I checked, climate gate was reliably published and relevant to controversies with this articles subject. NPOV clearly says: "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." Why do you wish to negotiate this? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering that there are now reliable sources questioning the legitimacy of the CRU’s temperature history and the fact that they “lost” the source data for it, a controversy section is entirely appropriate. WVBluefield (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Newspaper journalists are not reliable sources for scientific research. If the UEA, the CRU or any other scientific body of national or international standing issues a statement saying that they have changed their opinion as a result of what's in these e-mails, then that would be worth covering. --Nigelj (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Appreciated ... this article is not scientific research and it must have a NPOV. It is about the organizational scientific concensious. Reliably sources about this subject are valid. Somehow, I get the impression amateur wiki scientists are working WP:OR here. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk)

ZP5 hits a home run, this article isnt purely scientific, and as such all notable POV's should receive consideration. WVBluefield (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

WVBluefield-"this article isnt purely scientific" ? Where? Where in the article is any space given to non-scientists?--CurtisSwain (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is scientific - sorry. And all notable POV's amongst scientific organizations are included. What you (and others) are proposing is public opinion/opinion in editorials which has absolutely zero context/meaning in an article about scientific opinion. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

citation is needed for "“lost” the source data" - as far as i know the source data is still available at the individual stations, and at NOAA. As for "reliable sources questioning the legitimacy of the CRU’s temperature history" that is a scientific area, and thus journalists and opinion writers aren't reliable sources to it. As for having a controversy section - such sections are generally discouraged on Misplaced Pages, and the reasons for it are fairly simple: they are prone to be used as coatracks for criticism without due weight. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point about coatrack, it can be managed. NPOV is the issue at hand. The criticism has valid weight. It is always best to properly attribute and let readers decide. Unless you are in denial, there are many sources criticizing the scientific organizations. They have a valid voice on Wiki.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"many sources criticizing the scientific organizations" - sorry but if they are the usual rabble of opinion articles, pundits etc. then they aren't relevant as to the scientific opinion. If you are talking peer-reviewed critique, then its another thing - but then it isn't, is it? Criticism on an article about scientific opinion must be scientific. And due weight must be addressed which is why individuals criticizing is undue weight. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this article is not restricted to scientific discussions only. I will repeat this in case you somehow missed it above, the article I am using (a) is NOT from an individual but rather is the editorial opinion of the WSJ itself which gives it plenty of weight for inclusion, and (b) it is not making any scientific claims (which does not disqualify it from inclusion since this encyclopedia covers both the scientific and political aspects of any topic. If you prefer, we can point out that this is a political point and not a scientific one, but it is clearly an appropriate one for this page. --GoRight (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, the article restrictions demand a NPOV. Rules must be balanced too. This is no game ... folks can not trump NPOV with article rules. The rule makes a NPOV even more obvious. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, in this corner we have the U.S. National Science Foundation, the Royal Society of the U.K., the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, the European Geosciences Union, the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, the Royal Meteorological Society, and the World Meteorological Organisation.

And in this corner, ladies and gentlemen, we have... an editorial in the Wall Street Journal.

I almost feel sorry for you guys. No, I take that back. Lt. Gen. Pedro Subramanian (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Except that the WSJ is NOT being lined up to either support or refute the science as your (false) analogy would suggest. The WSJ editorial is discussing relevant public perceptions and opinions as they relate to the topic of the article. This is not the same thing, nor does it require any scientific background to formulate so all the grandstanding about "scientific opinion" is irrelevant to the point being discussed. --GoRight (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

all the grandstanding about "scientific opinion" is irrelevant... I forgot -- now, what's the title of this article? Dr. Dr. (Mr. M.D.) Arthur Resnick (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

More WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? If a controversy erupts concerning the topic described in the title of this article, where exactly is it to be discussed if not in this article? --GoRight (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The WSJ is not a "scientific opinion". The editorial doesn't even talk about "scientific opinion" it talks about a specific issue, and "public opinion". It is completely off-topic in this article. And while this may be the editorial opinion of the WSJ - it is still opinion. (and not a scientific one) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that the informed scientific opinion on climate change should be balanced by ill-informed, non-scientific opinion. That isn't how neutral point of view works. --TS 21:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, that may be how some see it ... that's not what I am saying. I am saying wiki has NPOV standards that include "all significant" views. It is largely irrelevant, that they are "scientific" or "non-scientific" what is relevant is that they apply to the organizational "scientific opinion" from reasonably reliable sources. No OR, coatracks or undue weight is necessary. Now please hear this carefully. WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS THAT THEY ARE PROPERLY ATTRIBUTED. (Being bold, so folks can address this issue, please.) The attribution takes care of many wiki policy concerns and balances NPOV at the same time. It is simple magic, right!! (Now I only wish the scientists get the source attribution correct, they likely have the same issues we do ... smile). BTW, I believe it is presumptuous to imply folks are "ill-informed, and non-scientific" just because they are not inside the official scientific process. The Philosophy of science holds that all humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, and that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world. (Please lets not talk about philosophy further in this thread, start an new one). Sincerely, Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The views of non-scientists are not relevant to scientific issues. This is why we don't put nonsense about Genesis and Noah and talking snakes into the article on evolution. --TS 22:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The public perceptions of the process by which this "scientific opinion" has purportedly been reached are clearly relevant to this article. The issue at hand is not a "scientific issue", as I know you are perfectly aware, so your apparent repeated claims that you didn't hear that are disrespectful of your fellow editors and are not at all helpful in the process of consensus building, IHMO. --GoRight (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but it is your personal original research that the scientific opinion is based in any significant part on what the WSJ is talking about. Not to mention that you yourself are suffering from a bad case of i didn't hear that when you both ignore the intro sentence to the article, as well as several people pointing out that this isn't the correct article. Public opinion is not scientific opinion, and the opinion of the WSJ and other editorials are not appropriate sources for or about the scientific opinion. The article that you do want is Global warming controversy, where it would be relevant, but might not be sufficiently notable (yet) to merit inclusion. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, please review WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. "it is your personal original research that the scientific opinion is based in any significant part on what the WSJ is talking about" - Let me repeat the quote here and highlight the part that ties it to this article:

"The furor over these documents is not about tone, colloquialisms or whether climatologists are nice people. The real issue is what the messages say about the way the much-ballyhooed scientific consensus on global warming was arrived at, and how a single view of warming and its causes is being enforced. The impression left by the correspondence among Messrs. Mann and Jones and others is that the climate-tracking game has been rigged from the start." -- WSJ, 27 November, 2009

Is the highlighted portion not EXACTLY what this article is about? Hopefully that clears things up for everyone. --GoRight (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't clear anything up. The highlighted sentence is the only statement in that editorial that talks about scientific consensus. Its cherry-picked. And you may also want to note that while they say that its a discussion on how the scientific consensus is arrived at, they aren't saying that it is based on that. And it is still only the opinion of the WSJ editorial staff, which for all their credentials aren't in any way or form authoritative (or even interesting) on scientific opinion. Not only is it off-topic, its also a cherry-pick and undue weight. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a cherry pick, it is clearly the primary point of the entire article. Your personal POV concerning the WSJ editorial staff, while amusing, isn't really relevant to determining whether they are noteworthy. They clearly are. There is not undue weight here despite this being the typical last ditch argument in these types of discussions. --GoRight (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is not a "personal POV" that the opinion of the WSJ staff isn't a scientific opinion, nor is one that the WSJ aren't experts on scientific opinion. As for "clearly", well then it seems to be rather strange that its hidden all the way in the middle of the editorial. As for "notable", well that always is determined by context, and in the context of scientific opinion the WSJ doesn't even come close to being notable. For now this will be all, since i've repeated myself sufficiently. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I get the distinct impression that folks can only point out absurd examples to make their points here. Let me make a simple logical case, they are entirely relevant, because (Set A) and (Set Not A) are required to have a balanced view in any valid process to verified truth, that is scientific or wiki standards. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

We're going round in circles. You can't shoehorn non-scientific viewpoints into an article about scientific views by saying that non-scientific viewpoints are needed to "balance" the scientific views. And that's the way it is. There are articles about the political controversy surrounding global warming, about the email hacking incident and its fallout, and even one about global warming conspiracy theories, and that isn't an exhaustive list. This particular article is about another subject: scientific opinion on climate change. If and when there are significant developments there, this article may change. --TS 00:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

So stop repeating yourself on irrelevant points. Non-scientists can certainly form opinions about the processes by which scientific ones are formed, as is being shown in this example. There is no wikipedia policy that allows a given page to be artificially restricted to one POV as you are attempting to do. WP:NPOV demands that all significant points of view be represented, and the POV of how the public perceives the credibility of this purported scientific consensus is clearly relevant to this page. --GoRight (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Non-scientists can certainly form an opinion on the processes. But no matter how you turn that - it is still not a scientific opinion, and while you seem to ignore it, that is the topic of the article. (not: non-scientific opinion on what scientific opinion is or how its arrived at). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes! This article is "restricted to one POV", a scientific one. Unfortunately, some people just can't accept the fact that, other than a tiny handful of marginal scientists, the entire scientific community completely supports human-caused global warming. --CurtisSwain (talk) 08:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

...and your addition was quickly reverted. As Boris pointed out, the list is not one of "individual scientist opinions", but only one of dissenting opinions. As stated in this article's FAQ, numerous individual scientists have made a variety of public statements on this topic, both dissenting and concurring, and everything in between. There are hundreds of thousands of scientists in the world. Collecting and organizing their individual statements on the topic would an impossible undertaking, and would be like conducting our own survey. Fortunately, others have surveyed individual scientists, and their results are summarized in the Surveys section. Additionally, nothing is being suppressed here. This article links to the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming in the Statements by dissenting organizations section.--CurtisSwain (talk) 07:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The FAQ and the initial directions are not adequately helping to prevent disruptions to this article. The list is buried down deep and should be brought up front and center too. It's a qualified list. No one is asking for the impossible. It is possible to put the link near the instructions. "For individual scientific opinions, ~~options~~ see List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" on a separate line would be adequate. This is a common approach on Wiki. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The list is not a list of "individual scientific opinions" but a list of "scientists opposing the mainstream scientific opinion" - there is a large and not very subtle difference. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Please help us find the right list. The difference may be the title to the list article is misleading us. Seems like directions at the top of this page, to see the drop-down boxes (or whatever they are called) Is an appropriate civil solution. Some kind editors are better organizing these. Still in favor of a controversies section (per discussion above). Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Such a list doesn't exist (and probably never will). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Kim D. Petersen, would you deny the right for such a list to exist? Would any other editor like to declare their intentions with regards to preventing such a list? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Any Misplaced Pages editor is entitled to argue the case for the deletion of a particular article through the deletion process. There's no reason why a Wikipedian should support the existence of every conceivable article on a subject. On the other hand, creating a stub article on this subject would be the work of a few seconds. --TS 00:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I've started List of scientists supporting the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Let's hope the servers have enough space... Lt. Gen. Pedro Subramanian (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I give you an A for Misplaced Pages:Writing_for_the_opponent I pray you do not encounter prejudice on its existence. I'll abstain from editing because these views are given undue weight (smile)Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No i would not "deny" such - i've simply taken Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of scientists supporting the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming into account. A "list of scientists supporting..." wouldn't be significantly different from a "list of scientists." --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Offensive to NPOV vs on topic

I suspect this article is offensive to WP:NPOV. The issue seems to be what is on topic and what makes a NPOV. Does anyone have relevant guidance to point to in this conflicting matter? I could not find the on topic guidance. Thanks. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that there are scientific organizations not listed here? Lt. Gen. Pedro Subramanian (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. How is that relevant? --GoRight (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I am looking for the off/on topic wiki guidance. Did you WP:IDHT with feigned incomprehension? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That is not the correct answer to this question. -5 points. Dr. Dr. (Mr. M.D.) Arthur Resnick (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this your idea of good faith discussion? --GoRight (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Please comment on the edit, not on the editor. Hope this helps. Dr. Dr. (Mr. M.D.) Arthur Resnick (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, are these edits consistent with good faith discussion? :) --GoRight (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Lets try again. Have you read the line on top of the article? The one saying:

That is the topic of this article. And Boris' question about whether there are scientific organizations not listed here - is entirely on point with regards to NPOV of the article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Why yes I have. No one is disputing that that is the topic of the article, which is precisely why the WSJ article needs to be referenced here because it is discussing a public controversy ABOUT that very topic. Should I start a new article titled "Public controversies surrounding the scientific opinion on climate change?" I guess I could and cross link the two, but under other circumstances I would expect that (unidentified) people on your side of the discussion would claim that I was creating a POV fork. So, what's your preference? A section in this article or a whole new article with cross linkages? --GoRight (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Public controversies surrounding the scientific opinion on climate change wouldn't be such a bad idea, but then we already have Global warming controversy. Dr. Dr. (Mr. M.D.) Arthur Resnick (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"but then we already have Global warming controversy" - Nope, it's not the same topic. --GoRight (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If you think the encyclopedia is missing an article, please create it. --TS 02:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

An article about controversies over scientific consensus on climate change already exists. Its summarized on the controversies page (from which it was forked when that article got too big). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Really, to what specific page are you referring (that specifically discusses controversies over the scientific consensus)? --GoRight (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It takes very little time to go over to Global warming controversy and checking which articles that are summarized in the section called "consensus". But i will help you: Climate change consensus is the article you seek. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I did go there as you say and found that specific page. However that page is NOT discussing the controversies surrounding the scientific consensus. That's why I was confused by your comment and sought clarification. That page reads a lot like this one, actually. This page has become a POV fork and should be deleted, IMHO, as discussed below it should be merged into Climate change consensus. Much of the material between the two is redundant and therefore is being given WP:UNDUE weight. --GoRight (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Concern Summary

Thanks, sure I've read the intro directions by now. I even tried to improve them with 2 solutions offered and 2 others in mind. I am still looking for guidance to support its existence. Let me summarize my concerns. The directions create a NPOV issue. Wiki is not a place to "document" a POV ... it is for NPOV. The article has structural issues that do not help the reader or editors maintain NPOV. I seek to be civil and help folks reach a NPOV. "non-scientific" and individual scientists views are not adequately covered in this article. I suspect the structural issues are going to be easiest to address. (see: Misplaced Pages:STRUCTURE) I guess the FAQ require work too. Kindly, Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "NPOV issue"? You really haven't clarified what you mean by that. Surely it's not a simplistic "some say the Earth is flat, while others believe it is round," but it isn't at all clear what you do mean. Dr. Dr. (Mr. M.D.) Arthur Resnick (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"What do you mean by "NPOV issue"?" - I would assume they mean that you are excluding legitimate points of view from the article as they relate to the scientific opinion on climate change. Is there some other interpretation that you are thinking of that I am not seeing? Please elaborate on why you find this so confusing. --GoRight (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair ... This is abstract and simple. The directions specify View A. Folks are excluding (Not A) and focusing NPOV on A only. In reality A and (Not A) exist in View B. It the NPOV for View B that has issues. This can be fixed with reasonably attributing the existence of (Not A) and helping the reader find (Not A) articles. NPOV always applies to A and B. Seems like folks claim (Not A) is the same as (Not B), which is false. Arguing with (Not B) seems to be absurd right now. I can't find guidance to support A only views. Breaking for a few. Thanks Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I understand the concept you are describing here but I am having trouble mapping the A and B back to something specific in our current context. For the sake of this discussion, A = ?? and B = ?? in your view? --GoRight (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, A = the directions specification. Not A = is other relevant WP:RS pertaining to A. B = the universe of reasonable opinion with an editorial board per WP:RS, on both the issue of A and (Not A). So, B is made NPOV whole by addressing Not A. Not B is irrelevant. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the attempt, but I'm of good solid hillbilly stock and have trouble with all this symbolic logic stuff. Is it possible to lay it out in plain language? Dr. Dr. (Mr. M.D.) Arthur Resnick (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It has been said above in this talk in plain language, adding the guidance context would be productive. The abstraction diffuses the POV folks are attached to. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Where is the guidance?

These , , , , revisions require guidance support for the on/off topic issue and for the article instruction/directions. These edits were made for a WP:NPOV and then reverted. Someone should kindly provide wiki guidance on these reversions to maintain them. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

found Misplaced Pages:Stay_on_topic#Stay_on_topic Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added the POV intro dispute tag. This is an issue Misplaced Pages:NPOV_tutorial#Information_suppression, the directions have constructed an unsupported POV rule to suppress information. I'll give it some time. My intentions are to change the intro to better support a NPOV. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You linked to the wrong section. You meant Misplaced Pages:NPOV tutorial#Expertise. -Atmoz (talk) 06:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It is NPOV supression by strawman experts. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 06:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The intro directions are a Strawman fallacy issue. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion? You've raised lots of objections, but have made no recommendations for an alternative to the present wording. I'll remove the tag absent such. Dr. Dr. (Mr. M.D.) Arthur Resnick (talk) 05:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you offer any consensus? The first one I made you reverted without adequate guidance support. I discussed them above here in this talk page at least two times and you still don't hear them ... do you?. Now I fear, you disruptively reverted the POV tag without resolution . The onus is on you, my friend to find guidance on your unsupported reverts. My proposals are made. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 06:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth I have a suggestion: Hat notes following the description of what is in the article in the form:

Notable non-scientific opinions on climate change are located here.

Disputes as to what the scientific opinion on climate change is are located there.

etc.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you link to the actual articles you'd like in the hat notes? Having a link to XYZZY is probably an improvement to the current article, but I don't think it's on topic. -Atmoz (talk) 06:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

great suggestion. let me cool off some, they are in the Template section for controversies. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 06:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea where it might be. KDP made a suggestion for the second link, but I don't see that one as appropriate. Some surveys seem to be here (in the article), but I don't know where they should be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see . Thanks this would help, but does not solve the NPOV issue. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 06:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you read my edit summary, as well as other comments on this? You said "individual scientist views," without further qualification. As we have pointed out to you that's obviously wrong. Had you said something like "the views of individual global warming skeptics" there would have been no problem (at least for me). Dr. Dr. (Mr. M.D.) Arthur Resnick (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a simple fix to hat notes (adding the POV term is provocative and uncivil, you with many provocative names), lets cool off a bit and return. (BTW, if the POV-Tag is being reverted, that's a good sign the article has POV issues.) Cheers Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk)

Proposing solution to concerns

It sounds like what some editors really want is to make this article more like Climate change consensus. Which is probably a good idea, merge the two articles to create one that's a bit more inclusive and comprehensive. Maybe say some something in the lead like various commentators, politicians, bloggers, etc. have made a wide variety of assertions about the degree of validity human-caused climate change has within the scientific community. Then give some examples with proper refs: There's a consensus. There is no consensus. A growing number of scientists doubt it., etc. Then go into how the article documents (or summarizes) current scientific opinion on climate change as given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists, but also include petitions and open letters like Climate change consensus does. Of course, we'd still have to be careful to avoid undue weight, so the article still wouldn't include individual universities, or laboratories (which tend not to issue position statements anyway). Statements made by individual scientists would still be excluded, again to avoid undue weight, but the article could still provide a link to the List of scientists opposing... for those readers who want to take a trip out to The Fringe. I think this would greatly improve the article, and (hopefully) reduce the number of POV accusations it gets. How do y'all like that idea?--CurtisSwain (talk) 08:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

My immeadiate reaction is no. I don't much like Climate change consensus. This article is about the *scientific* opinion on climate change, which is the bit people ought to care about. Leave the bloggers out of it William M. Connolley (talk) 09:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, there is a vast difference between the scientific opinion on climate change, and the public opinion on climate change, they are completely separate - and should stay that way (since that also reflects the real world). Here we describe the expert opinion, and in the other article we describe the philosophy/controversy/individual views etc. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a useful page documenting exactly the scientific opinion on climate change, and it does this quite well. It also has a simple and clear structure that makes it easy for readers and editors to use. Note how comparatively little of the usual bickering we have had here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Right. I think we're actually in agreement here, in so far as what is most important is to describe the expert opinion. What I'm saying is that this article should briefly acknowledge that all kinds of non-scientists make all kinds of wacky assertions about the scientific opinion on climate change, and then give them the real deal (synthesis reports, position statements, surveys, etc). --CurtisSwain (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I love this story: There are two ways to find the distance to the moon. Either you set up a radar system and measure it, or you go into the street, ask a thousand people how far they think it is, and average their answers. With more people taking Media Studies than Physics at university, some may want to explore the world via the blog, the focus group, and the talent show. There is no way that wishes, opinions and prejudices should be weighed seriously against facts and the combined consensus of the world's climate scientists. If Misplaced Pages were to decide to go that way, I suggest the movement start at Lunar distance (astronomy); we'll see how far they get with that first. --Nigelj (talk) 12:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"ask a thousand people how far they think it is, and average their answers" - Ironically, you have just described how the scientific consensus on climate change has been arrived at. That's pretty much what the word consensus means. --GoRight (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the point where you have to try to grasp the difference between the opinions of "people with PhDs who spend their whole working life studying things in a highly structured way" and those of "people in the street". That you equate the two is the whole point, I think. --Nigelj (talk) 12:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No irony. Ask a thousand professional astronomers how distant the moon is, average the answers, and you'll probably get the same result as the radar. Why? Because they read the results of the radar experiment. There is a difference between 'scientific consensus' and 'consensus'. To get a 'scientific consensus' on climate change you don't even poll all scientists, just the one's in the relevant fields.--Jaymax (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Briefly acknowledge is the right way to go. Good proposal, but the articles are too big to merge. Consensus in fixing the hat notes should help folks find Climate change consensus and others with high relevance. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I know of no consensus that the hat note needs 'fixing' - there is nothing wrong with it. Maybe what we need is some kind of Climate Change info box or link box or whatever you call it, like the top one in the right-hand margin on OOXML? --Nigelj (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That wouldn't be adequate. The dispute over what is "scientific" and what is "mainstream scientific consensus" (in other articles) means that we'd need an additional phrase, or possibly sentence, covering each of the related articles. That would seem to me to make it too large for a disambigbox. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

My dispute is over how to balance opinions, where one category is "Scientific opinion" Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Cease-fire on POV template

Okay, all of you. Quit inserting and removing the POV tag on the header. Rather than full-protecting the article, I will block editors that insert or remove it for WP:3RR/WP:EW. Consider this your warning, I won't be leaving warnings on editor talk pages. tedder (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I protest. You have issued your warning with the article in the wrong state. Please issue your warning after the POV tag is restored. --GoRight (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:WRONG, ~~and as ZuluPapa5 said,~~ the POV tag is provocative and uncivil; it doesn't help the article at all. The article is very active- the {{pov}} tag is best for articles that need attention- this one certainly doesn't. tedder (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Tedder ... misrepresented me. I placed the POV tag and claim their are POV disputes all over this talk page to justify its existent. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 06:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

GET REAL FOLKS.... THERE IS A POV DISPUTE HERE ... NO NEED TO DENY IT. Warning given and taken. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If thre is a POV dispute, it is presumably under "Offensive to NPOV vs on topic". But I see no coherent explanation there of what the dispute is supposed to be, let alone an attempt to resolve whatever that dispute might be William M. Connolley (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Look again please ... there are reverted diffs and proposals. It is pointless to challenge NPOV with out supporting guidance, good sir. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is nothing more than a POV fork from Climate change consensus. It should be AfD'd on that basis. --GoRight (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you really think so, then the course is obvious. May i btw. point out that Climate change consensus is a very recent article (created March 30, 2009), whereas this article originates Sep 2003 . --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't much matter how they came into existence, my use of the term "POV fork" was meant figuratively and not literally. But for those who wish to focus on the literal definition, I stand corrected. The substance of the point remains, however. --GoRight (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Kim is right. Climate change consensus was created as a content fork from Global warming controversy. This information is readily available via the "history" tab at the top of every article. Editors should do a bit of research before posting comments on talk pages. That way they may avoid looking like they don't know what they're talking about.--CurtisSwain (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the history. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If there's any more nonsense on this article, I'll be suggesting some kind of administrator action. That probably won't be further protection in this instance. --TS 20:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm here in a mop role only. If anything beyond blocking and protection is needed, it'll probably need to go to WP:DR. tedder (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If you're considering admin action, I'd like to point out that several of us have asked for a clear statement of quite what the POV controversy is over this page. WVBluefield, GoRight and ZuluPapa5 have all added the POV template - presumably any of them should be capable of explaining why they have done so (in fact, any of them should be able to point to existing text on the talk page that justifies the template); but none of them have.

My best guess would be that the tagging is "revenge" for not being allowed this edit . That edit (a) introduces non-science opinion into an article about scientific opinion, and (b) deliberately uses the "climategate" redirect for POV-pushing, which is why it is unacceptable William M. Connolley (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for others, but you have correctly identified my reason. It has nothing to do with revenge, though. It has everything to do with only allowing this page to present a single POV when it's content so closely mirrors that of Climate change consensus. I don't care which article came first. My use of the term POV fork was figurative and not meant to be taken literally. The fact remains that the two articles share significant amounts of content and should be merged, and all significant POV should be addressed per WP:WEIGHT. This obviously includes things like a discussion of the public perceptions of the so called scientific consensus on climate change.

"(a) introduces non-science opinion into an article about scientific opinion" - No, it introduces a relevant discussion of a controversy surrounding the exact topic of this article. The refusal to allow this discussion to be introduced is the source of the POV controversy, which has been perfectly obvious from the start. Responding to your query about what is the source of the controversy would have (as is now obvious) been redundant and a waste of everyone's time.

"(b) deliberately uses the "climategate" redirect for POV-pushing, which is why it is unacceptable" - Well, if this is the only thing holding up inclusion of this discussion I would be happy to instead use the CRU email incident link instead. I only used the Climategate redirect for brevity, as well as the fact that it is also quickly becoming the most widely recognized moniker for the incident in question. --GoRight (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The content of that edit grossly misrepresents the nature of the 'crisis' that was engendered by the e-mail hack. The crisis is one that may affect the future career prospects of some senior employees at the university; it may affect the standing of the university in the academic community; it may affect the way scientists feel able to communicate for years to come. These are serious issues. What it does not do is make one ha-peth of difference to the science of climate change, the projections, the causes, the necessary CO2 cuts, the consequences of going over a 2 deg C rise since pre-industrial times etc etc. All of this is easily sourced by reading the article on the hack. See for just one. --Nigelj (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The content of that edit is a verbatim quotation from an editorial written by a major news source of considerable note which directly discusses the topic of this article. The rest of your statement has no bearing on this particular discussion. --GoRight (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it is good that GR has finally stated (or rather, agreed that I have correctly stated) the reason he added the POV template. It would be graceful we he to admit that he was wrong to add the template prior to such a justifiaciton being on talk. Furthermore, I'd like to note his comment "I can't speak for others, but you have correctly identified my reason" - this, accurately, points out that it isn't possible (as I and several others have said) to guess why WVBluefield and ZuluPapa5 added the template. I'm confident that no-one would consider accusing either of adding a template that they hadn't bothered to read, so they must have noticed The neutrality of this introduction is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page - which means, as I and several others have been saying, that they were incorrect to add the template.

GR's objection, however, is spurious. He asserts that It has everything to do with only allowing this page to present a single POV but this is not true. The page presents scientific opinion. Were there several, we would be happy to present them. But there aren't. GR seems very hung up on Climate change consensus. He made the bizarre suggestion that This article is nothing more than a POV fork from Climate change consensus. It should be AfD'd on that basis. When it was pointed out that in fact the situation was reversed - Ccc is the younger article - GR, logically, should have proposed AFD of that page. He hasn't. The solution to this otherwise puzzling problem is trivial - GR is a POV pushing GW skeptic (this isn't a secret - he admits it) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"GR is a POV pushing GW skeptic" - I'm curious, WMC, where have I ever admitted to this? You can label my suggestions any way that you wish, which is obviously just a distraction from the substance of this discussion. These two articles clearly share significant overlap and should be merged, and one of the AfD'd. Since the other article has already been described as including discussion of controversies surrounding the scientific consensus on climate change it only makes sense to retain the other article. This article clearly suffers from the problem that people seem to be resisting the introduction of legitimate content pertaining to the topic at hand. Regardless of how you try to distract people with labels, this remains true. --GoRight (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

My point exactly - an editorial opinion piece is only a valid source as to the opinion of the author. The author is not a scientist, his/her opinion is not subject to proof or evidence or open to peer review. This is an article on scientific opinions, as it should be. There are many more op-eds in the world mainstream press that take the opposite view, as I cited above. No scientific body has issued a statement retracting any previous AGW position in the light the hacked e-mails. Etc etc. This is not a POV issue, it is a non-issue for this article. There are other articles where such journalistic and public opinions are laid out, end-to-end with due weight and balance. --Nigelj (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

WMC, I added the POV template because this page is full of POV dispute. My specific issue is the hat notes (direction, instruction) as discussed above and in my diffs presented. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it is excellent that you, like GR, have now clarified what you think is wrong. I don't expect you, any more than GR, to admit taht you shouldn't have added the template until you'd done so, and had a chance to discuss the matter. That leaves WVB who seems to have tagged-n-run: I guess we can at least be grateful for the latter portion William M. Connolley (talk) 09:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

GR re-added the POV tempalte. I've re-removed it. As I said above GR's objection, however, is spurious. GR has, subsequently, produced nothing to make his objections non-spurious. This article clearly suffers from the problem that people seem to be resisting the introduction of legitimate content pertaining to the topic at hand is vacuous without diffs to support it William M. Connolley (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Random note: I've struck out my reference to ZuluPapa5, as it was unintentionally taken out of context. tedder (talk)
The issue is covered on my talk page. It is difficult for me to dispute intentional statements. I know what I felt and talked. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Restored after PA No tampering. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Warning

It appears a POV tag edit war is being escalated again and disrupting this page. Request for oversight. I intend for the tag to be on. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

NPOV issues with the hat notes

Before advancing a proposal, let me clarify the NPOV issues with the hat notes that are causing a POV problem. These issues are a serious offense.

Editors are acting as if they OWN the interpretation of the hat notes.
Editors present as if one given opinion is "right" and therefore other opinions have little substance.
Editors are entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it not credible to this article subject. In disagreement with the actual source read.
Editors are ignoring or deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Misplaced Pages terms, but claiming it may not be admitted to this article.

Would anyone disagree that this is occurring when enforcing the hat notes? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Rev. Willie Archangel (talk) 04:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I see ... strike a NPOV dispute with a yes, and yet reverted and deny my NPOV tag, then change the signature. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Please follow my advice and take it to Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. This will keep the same topic from coming up in multiple articles and save time. It also may be a forum where we can avoid flaring tempers that reduce grammatical consistency; please refrain from making comments about other editors, Awickert (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

What would you have us bring up at WP:AN? Is this not merely a content dispute? WP:AN will simply say that they don't address content disputes, no? --GoRight (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Not WP:AN, but rather WP:RSN. I would discuss the issues that Zulu Papa 5 speaks of with respect to the use of sources. Getting a more definitive answer about the use of sources would help to consolidate the debate that is currently occurring on at least two talk pages. The debate over what sources are acceptable needs to be checked off the list before actual content discussion can be productive. Otherwise there are two levels of dispute (the content and the acceptability of the sourcing), so things are getting convoluted. Awickert (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: RSN vs AN. My bad. Sorry for the confusion. --GoRight (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see evidence for any of this. How about, just as a start, you present some diffs to support your very first point William M. Connolley (talk) 09:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence to justify your position either. Does this not imply that we are in dispute over the POV represented in this article? --GoRight (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Surely there is a limit to how often the same editor or two can re-start the same argument again under a new thread? Surely once the facts have been explained a few times, and a clear consensus shows up again and again, we have to give it a rest? In very simple terms, the article is about scientific opinion, which limits it to scientific opinion. If this wasn't clear enough, there is a hat note that helps explain it. The reason this is useful is that this is a place on WP where you can read about 'scientific opinion on climate change', hence the name. If there was any scientific dissent, it would be covered here. Even scientific non-committal-ness from petroleum geologists is covered here. What you can't do is compare uninformed blogs, conspiracy theorists, creationists, tin-foil hatters, political journalists and other nutters with scientists, and pretend that doing so leads to a balanced discussion of the facts. --Nigelj (talk) 12:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

More WP:IDHT. You can't change the facts by merely repeating your flawed positions. The fact that you are trying to bully people to get your own way is clearly indicative of the fact that there is a POV problem with this article. The WSJ opinion piece provides a legitimate description of a controversy relating specifically to this article. There is no wikipedia policy that restricts this page to only scientific opinion, quite the opposite. WP:NPOV clearly states that all significant POV must be represented and the public POV is clearly being excluded from this page in contradiction to WP:NPOV. --GoRight (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

"bully people to your own way" is rather interesting. You seem to be arguing that we should change the whole topic of this article, and since there isn't consensus for it - we are bullying. "scientific opinion" no matter how many times you are ignoring it - is not determined from opinion articles in the WSJ. You are 100% free to address NPOV by adding contradicting scientific opinions from relevant sources, and relevant sources are scientific ones. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

"In very simple terms, the article is about scientific opinion, which limits it to scientific opinion." - Simply put, I dispute your ability under wikipedia policy to enforce this statement. This is in direct contradiction to WP:NPOV. --GoRight (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

ZP asserts Editors are acting as if they OWN the interpretation of the hat notes. I want to see some diffs that support this assertion. Apparently this is an issue so serious that it justifies a NPOV tag, so there ought to be clear signs of someone trying to "NPOV" these hatnotes and someone else stoutly resisting. Where is this evidence? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

~~WTC~~ WMC... fair demand, you will see evidence all over this talk page. First .. someone tampered with the evidence . Next, we must have NPOV qualifications to prevent a corrupt process. Folks who has a WP:COI to declare? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZuluPapa5 (talk • contribs) Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think it is now entirely clear that ZP5 is wasting everyone's times and polluting this talk page with nonsense and abusing the page itself with edit warring. ZP5: this is your last warning: if you have nothing serious to say, go somewhere else. If you cnotinue to waste people's time here, it is RFC time. Your unproductive antics are the reason we need admin "watch" over this page William M. Connolley (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

~~WTC~~, WMC, I don't want to waste folks time with a corrupt process. Specifically to WMC ... Does ~~WTC~~ WMC have a WP:COI to declare? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Zulu Papa 5, you can find everything you want to know about WMC on the internet. Your current behavior is not becoming of polite discourse, so please cool down a bit before writing again. Impolite discourse is unproductive. Awickert (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Awickert ... presumably when dealing with COI issues on content I must file a notice board issue. Does Awickert have a WP:COI to declare? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

In good faith I will tell you that quite a bit of my work has been relevant to petroleum geology, so if anything, I might have an anti-global-warming COI. But that's the end of my patience; one more accusation from you and I will have a LOI due to unpleasantness of working with you. Awickert (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I accept and honor your COI statement. Asking for a COI statment is civil. I will make mine in due time. (P.S. your LOI might be considered threat aimed at me. Web info is inadmissible COI unless the ed brings it in.) Regards Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk)

It is not a threat, it simply means lack of interest, as I have been kindly ignoring what I perceive borderline behavior from you for some time now (have been chalking it up to the nature of these talk pages), and I really really dislike unproductive talk page discussion. Asking for statements of COI from everyone who diagrees with you is also borderline IMO... seems like an investigation due to mistrust of the motives of everyone who disagrees with you. But if that is the way you want to go about this, you should state your potential COI now, not in due time, because it is honorable to hold yourself to the same standards you request of others. And after that, let's move on to content, Awickert (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

COI and Policy Issues First: I would like to move onto content. I have at least 3 content proposals in mind to present. However, I know there are two issues to be discussed first:

I've reviewed all the talk here and archives, there is significant evidence that Reliable Sources are being ~~deigned~~ denied a home in Misplaced Pages. Moreover, the NPOV arbitration process has not adequately served ~~severed~~ the sources by negotiating an attribution to a valid article on Misplaced Pages. The presents a significant conflict of interest to Misplaced Pages principles~~als~~.
The Misplaced Pages:OC#OPINION and Misplaced Pages:Stay_on_topic#Stay_on_topic guidance appears to be most relevant in properly addressing the hat notes. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Restored after PA No tampering. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you translate this into English, or any other language I understand? Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I would be glad to help you, unfortunately folks are demanding content from me, over my peaceful talk. Please direct me to a thread on your talk for this discussion. It would help if you could be specific about your misunderstandings. I should not talk further here about it, until content is added. My correction may help. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

NPOV issues with this article.

Since WMC feels that we have not sufficiently followed what he sees as the proper process for establishing a dispute over the NPOV of this article, let us simply rectify that situation by following the steps he has outlined. From that perspective, I offer the following.

This article suffers from a WP:NPOV issue in that discussion of public controversies surrounding the topic of this article are being inappropriately excluded. The public perception and discussion regarding the purported Scientific opinion on climate change and the Scientific consensus on global warming represent a valid POV under WP:NPOV as it relates to the topic of this article. Excluding such a discussion creates an misleading impression for wikipedia readers regarding the overall level recognition and acceptance that this opinion enjoys, or not, among the world's overall population.

Some of the primary issues that have been identified thus far are documented in the following sections:

--GoRight (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I request we hold off on this, until we get WP:COI and evidence tampering taken care of properly. That is the correct process. thanks Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem you face here is that the criticisms against the validity of the official scientific opinion is not based on good evidence. The criticism certainly exists, but the sources in which they are published allow the crtics to get away with poor rhetorical arguments. Also there is not peer review here, so flawed statements can be made by the critics with impunity.

This means that you cannot argue here like "X made statement Y in the WSJ, the WSJ is a reliable source, therefore statement Y belongs in this article." If editors here are willing to spend the time engaging with you about statement Y, then that would have to happen on a "first principles" basis, in which scientific sources can also be used. These discussions are (in principle) allowed despite the OR and Synth policies, because these only apply to what is edited in the article. Count Iblis (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, please read the discussion above and particularly the suggested quote from the WSJ article. It is not making an argument of the form you describe. That article is not making a scientific argument, so it does not require that the author have any scientific credentials nor that the article itself be peer-reviewed. The opinion being expressed by this notable source relates to how the general public perceives the legitimacy and the credibility of the scientific opinion itself (i.e. the subject of this article) as well as how that opinion was formed. So, despite the fact that this is not a scientific opinion in the sense that you mean it, this discussion nonetheless belongs in this article. The public's opinion on this topic represents a valid POV that is being excluded in contradiction to WP:NPOV. --GoRight (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but then the legitimacy and the credibility of the scientific opinion needs to be discussed in this article in a NPOV way. On this talk page we would need to tackle this issue head on. In the article, you cannot just have a statement saying that some fraction of the population think that the scientific opinion is obtained in a flawed way, without also all the facts that exist that strongly dispute this. We would need to write about how the peer review process works, the fact that there have been no officially recognized instances of failures of the peer review system as far as climate science is concerned etc. etc. Count Iblis (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to a fair discussion of the issue based on WP:RS sans any WP:OR. I don't believe that this requires a complete overview of the peer review system, however, which would be WP:OR as it relates to this topic. Besides, this is likely already described elsewhere. If you have secondary WP:RS that discusses the topic that would serve as a reasonable counterpoint to the WSJ opinion. I will again note, however, that once this is added it only underscores the overlap between this page and Climate change consensus and the need to merge the two, IMHO of course. --GoRight (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Another new thread, same two editors, making the same point. I cannot explain what 'scientific' means again. Thank you for trying, Count Iblis; you have the patience of a saint. --Nigelj (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

First, I am concerned with what NPOV means. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

To be termed NPOV, an articel's method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. Wiki NPOV philosophy looks at the underpinning logic of the NPOV method, at what separates NPOV from POV, and the ethic that is implicit in NPOV. There are basic assumptions derived from wiki philosophy that form the base of the NPOV method - namely, that reality is both objective and consistent with reliable sources, that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, and that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world verified by reliable sources. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I think a simple hat note specifying where material that does not belong in the article should go should be adequate. I can see the difference between (established) scientific opinion, and the opinions of (established, respected) scientists, and the latter may belong somewhere. I do not see an NPOV concern other than ambiguity over what should be in this article rather than that article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

When there is a legitimate public controversy about some topic X which warrants only a short paragraph or two to describe, is it not customary and appropriate that this be described in a controversy (or similar) section within the article on topic X itself? In this case, topic X = "the scientific opinion on climate change". Ergo, the description of this controversy belongs in a section of this article. --GoRight (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, all i've seen so far, is a few editors who seem to be unable to grasp that failure to gain consensus isn't a POV dispute. Since my arguments have been stated several times, i'm going to stand by my statements, without extra comment, until such time that actual arguments that haven't been discussed over and over again come forward - or an actual consensus emerges. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Please no prejudice ... NPOV is consensus and may change like anything else. No change is evidence for a POV in effect.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk)

I see that GoRight has re-added the POV template, in clear contradiction of Tedder above: "the POV tag is provocative and uncivil; it doesn't help the article at all. The article is very active- the {{pov}} tag is best for articles that need attention- this one certainly doesn't." There is little point in typing comments to people who don't read them, including an administrator's warning directed straight at them. This topic has been done to death: Two editors against a clear consensus. --Nigelj (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

My intent was corrupted to keep the POV tag was corrupted. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

With the exception of the subsection on 'consensus', this article is nothing more or less than a list.

It is reasonable to debate what the criteria should be, or should not be, for inclusion in the list - although that debate has been had several times, resulting in the consensus italicised para in the lead.

It is reasonable to debate whether a particular entry should or should not be included, according to the list criteria as currently defined

Beyond those two points, I fail to see how POV can be argued. It's just a list.

(I personally believe that the 'consensus' sub-section doesn't belong in this article - it doesn't fit within the lead definition of what this article does - and the rules for inclusion are a lot less exacting than those for published scientific opinions of institutions or surveys of relevant scientific opinion.) --Jaymax (talk) 01:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is an interesting point because I have for the past couple of days been considering making a proposal here that may resolve my POV concerns. It is closely related to your observation. My concern is, indeed, closely related to the "consensus" aspect of things and not specifically with how the "scientific opinion" has been articulated above. It has been suggested that Climate change consensus is the more appropriate venue for my concern since that is where the controversies are claimed to be addressed.

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

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

This seems to me to be a reasonable way to address the current dispute on this page and it has the extra benefit of reducing duplicated content between the two articles. Would other editors find this approach acceptable? --GoRight (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Shall I interpret silence as consent to put this proposal into practice? I'll wait a bit more but lacking any objections I'll move forward with it. --GoRight (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No. You should interpret it as this talk page having a lot of traffic and obviously implausible suggestions not garnering much attention. Oppose William M. Connolley (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

A better solution would be to delete CCC and have a single coherent article (the present one). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, then it would seem that the WP:DISPUTE is still on. Pity. I hereby request that the {{POV}} template be placed at this top of this page to reflect this on-going dispute. --GoRight (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Why? Because you haven't attained consensus? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Because there is a dispute over the neutrality of this article. I made a legitimate proposal. No one responded for 2 days. Now that I have asked if silence is consent WMC has rejected the proposal. I am certainly open to alternatives on how best to address the problems, but wherever the consensus is documented it needs to be presented in a WP:NPOV way, which includes some discussion of the controversy surrounding it. --GoRight (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, i didn't notice it. Frankly i thought that this part had been discussed to its death. So start an RfC already - that would be the next step - correct? I suggest you start a new topic and parlay out a wording for it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not convinced that an RfC would be the best choice. You frequently raise objections to !votes. I need to review the options available to us (in a reasonable time, obviously). How would you feel about a mediation, assuming that people would agree to be bound by the outcome up front and that we could agree on a mediator who would even agree to tackle this. Although the point to be decided is narrow (i.e. whether notable controversy, both public and scientific, should be included in any discussion of the consensus). Let me sleep on this one. I will try to get the ball rolling tomorrow. --GoRight (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have bad experiences with mediation (ie. they end up unresolved (at least those i've followed)). RfC's are not for !votes, but for bringing input, ideas, editors and seeing how people see the dispute from the outside. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Mediation is fine with me, however why should it be binding. It should help bring clarity to things. Although, it does seem like eds may have their headphones on and trenches dug.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I hereby request that the... - ah, Thats what your about - this is merely your excuse for re-tagging the article. No; you're acting in bad faith here, again - all you are doing is angling to damage the article William M. Connolley (talk) 08:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC) And GR apparently interprets "I hereby request that" to mean "I'm about to" . Perhaps we have a language issue? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"Perhaps we have a language issue?" - No, not really ... at least on my end. I can't speak for yours. Here's the timeline: , , , , and THEN . Also, let me draw you attention to all of the discussion below concerning this topic, which you apparently believe is from a different timeline. --GoRight (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, slow down. It's a busy time in the world of climate science with the whole CRU-email thing and COP15. But, I like the idea of "reducing duplicated content" and I think Boris has the right idea. I've been trying to merge the two articles in my sandbox, but haven't had the time. I think we need to consider why readers come to this (or the other) page, and what it is they're looking for. If this page contains virtually no information about the minority view, I'm afraid many average readers will think it's just a bunch of "biased" "POV" BS, and will go elsewhere. It would be best to show the minority view here where readers can see it along side the majority view. You know, kind of like having two people stand next to each other to see who's taller.--CurtisSwain (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Per the discussion on Tedder's talk page, I am restoring the {{POV}} until such time as this dispute is resolved. --GoRight (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify what you mean by "this dispute is resolved." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

By "resolved" I mean that the dispute no longer exists ... in that we are collectively agreed on how to present the material in a WP:NPOV manner, which must (IMHO) include a reasonable treatment of the controversy or controversies surrounding the consensus (both public and scientific). --GoRight (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

So as long as one person disagrees the tag stays up? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not 1 person, it was three at least and I am sure others would agree. I like Tedder's answer to your query, after WP:DR has run its course. I am considering the WP:DR options that may have some chance of success in resolving the matter. Do you have any preferences for where to proceed first? --GoRight (talk) 02:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I note you didn't actually answer my question. Note that the WP:DR process is designed to provide advice rather than to arrive at a definite conclusion (except for arbcom cases). So, my question still stands. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

For the duration of the WP:DR yes, but not indefinitely. Clearly the intent of the tag is for it to be temporary and as the essay it references points out we should all be able to agree to that. I am no exception.

So long as those objecting remain engaged in the discussion and WP:DR is progressing the tag should stay up. This IS a finite duration with a well defined conclusion. WP:DR can't go on forever, obviously. Either we will reach some accord during the process or I guess ultimately Arbcom or a mediator (assuming people agree to be bound by the result up front) will make a ruling on whether this article is consistent with the WP:NPOV policy.

In any event I am quite confident that Tedder will insure that one person is not allowed to disingenuously keep the tag up as you seem to fear. --GoRight (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You've nearly answered my question, so allow me to press a little further: Would it be correct to state that the tag stays up until the conclusion of the formal WP:DR procedure? Is that the case, regardless of the outcome of the procedure? (PS. Please do not impute unstated "fears" or other subtexts to the statements of others.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"PS. Please do not impute unstated "fears" or other subtexts to the statements of others." - No offense intended. Concerns, then, if you prefer.

"Would it be correct to state that the tag stays up until the conclusion of the formal WP:DR procedure?" - I can't speak for others, but for my part yes. This is agreeable.

"Is that the case, regardless of the outcome of the procedure?" - Again, I can't speak for others but I would certainly be willing to abide by the outcome as long as you (collectively) likewise agree up front.

So there is no misunderstanding, here, I am talking about a reasonable application of WP:DR which is viewed as having multiple levels of escalation if memory serves - not that I would want to drag things out unreasonably or unnecessarily. For example, if we do an RfC I would reserve the right to appeal to either a mediation or an Arbcom hearing although I would prefer to avoid that. In the case of a mediation I would only agree to that method of WP:DR as long as both sides agreed up front that it was binding (and hence there would be no appeal to Arbcom). --GoRight (talk) 03:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's clear enough. So let's get it going. I for one will not agree to mediation because it appears to seldom have a useful outcome. Participants (including the mediator) tend to tire out and the whole thing fizzles with no result. So it's an RfC and then Arbcom, right? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Boris, I am in the count ... and you count too. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Which WP:DR to use?

Well it seems the first order of business is to agree on which form of WP:DR to use. There seems to be a wide variety opinion on that topic so perhaps we should see if there is even a consensus on how to proceed. This seems important so that individuals will be more likely to buy into the result. Interested parties should declare their preferences below:

In the interests of time I lean towards binding mediation myself as some of the people involved have traditionally complained about things that look like a !Vote, and it is unclear what we would do if it fails to demonstrate a consensus either way. Then it would either go to mediation or Arbcom which only drags the whole thing out further, which I want to avoid. If the majority of people here prefer to start with an RfC I am fine with that but I reserve the right to appeal the result. --GoRight (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
If we do an RfC it is not clear to me how this would be structured. We have multiple related but independent issues that need to be resolved:
1. Where should the primary discussion of the "scientific consensus on climate change/global warming" be documented? In this article or the overlapping Climate change consensus?
2. Should the primary discussion of the "scientific consensus on climate change/global warming" include a discussion of the controversies (whether public or scientific) with that consensus?
3. Where should the "scientific consensus" redirects point the reader to? They currently point to this page but if the discussion of the consensus is moved elsewhere and this page remains should the redirects be redirected?
4. Where should wikilinks for the "scientific consensus" be directed? There are many that point to this page but if the discussion of the consensus is moved elsewhere and this page remains should those wikilinks be updated?
I am not sure how we would try to put all of that into one RfC and be able to discern any reasonable interpretation of the results. So do we run independent RfCs for each, or what? I lean towards independent RfCs to keep the results clean but I can understand if others disagree. Do we use the standard BOT implemented 30 days for the RfC or something else? I see no reason to use anything other than the standard period but I expect others will have differing opinions. Which RfC categories do we put these in? I lean towards both science and politics. --GoRight (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

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

I call for a source list to, verify and validate the sources for inclusion to address this objection. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Mediation - The evidence can be established here (not suppressed), if folks continue in NPOV denial after making it abundantly clear, then must begin a seriously formal and in-depended process. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean "independent process" as there is no such word as "in-depended."--CurtisSwain (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Who

GR sez It's not 1 person, it was three at least. Who are these people? GR, and I presume he is counting ZP5, but who else? (PA RMV by ) doesn't count: he has made not the smallest of constructive contributions to any GW page or talk page, and is frequently incoherent William M. Connolley (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

. --GoRight (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Saying "WVBluefield" would have been easier. But no: look at his contributions to this talk page: negligible. This is a one-person campaign by you (well, now a 2-person campain sinc Tedder has joined in, but he isn't talking here either) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I count like any other non-COI editor would. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

James Hansen

A user added a link to this guy, obviously on topic and William M. Connolley came along and just deleted it saying "we don't need it." Isn't this against policy? Shouldn't it be discussed first? It seems kind of rude. I reverted, but please explain or does this page have some special rules of which I'm unaware?. Lexlex (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

See the hat note: " does not document the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories". It is simply neither practicable nor useful to put in links to every scientist, or even every notable scientist working in the field. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Mr Stephan Schulz, why are you enforcing these hat notes? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Restored after PA No tampering. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Ummm. Apparently you have a very expansive definition of personal attacks. We are enforcing these hat notes because, as I wrote above, it is "neither practicable nor useful to put in links to every scientist, or even every notable scientist working in the field". There are thousands, of different levels of qualification, notability, and relevance. The major science organizations are doing a good job of condensing and representing the scientific opinion, and they are reliable sources for it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Right. There are at least 50+ BOLPs on climate scientists in Misplaced Pages alone. Placing them all in the See also section would be extremely gratuitous.--CurtisSwain (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Enforcing the 'hat notes' is no different to enforcing that an article about Orange (mobile phone co) shouldn't talk about oranges (fruit), because the article is not about fruit. The 'hat note' exists specifically to define the article content with more precision than the title allows - there are similar italicised disambiguation notes all over Misplaced Pages, and it is the responsibility of ALL editors to make sure they are enforced appropriately.--Jaymax (talk) 01:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Please, "neither practicable nor useful to put in links to every scientist, or even every notable scientist working in the field" is an absurd distraction with an extreme view. This doesn't seem like good faith in editors (you, me or any other one) to condense text into something reasonable. Does it seem reasonable, that when enforcing these notes, the editor is assuming the POV of "Scientific Opinion" which is a single category opinion that should be neutralized ~~ist~~ with adequate reference to other opinions? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

ZP5, your arguments are very difficult to follow. I'm utterly baffled as to what "assuming the POV of 'Scientific Opinion'" might mean, unless you're arguing for the inclusion of unscientific opinions. Is that the case? If not, can you try restating your concerns? Not necessarily in greater detail -- using fewer words often is helpful to clarity. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

We are running out of indent space. I can see how it may be difficult for you. "Scientific Opinion" is a category of opinion, that must be balanced with other categories of opinion. "Scientific Opinion" is not an absolute and unchanging objective fact. The process by which it changes is NPOV. Humanity and civil discussion demands multiple opinions. (I can elaborate further on your talk page, point me to your thread there. Unfortunately, long peaceful talk could be considered disruptive here on this page.) Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm beginning to see. Why don't you start an article Public opinion on climate change (or whatever is appropriate) for non-scientific opinions? We could then link this article from that one, and vice versa. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

ZP5-This section (or ‘’thread’’) of the talk page concerns whether or not the BOLP for James Hansen (and by extension, any climate scientist) should be included in this article’s ‘’See also’’ section. Your last two postings here would be appropriate in any of the NPOV threads above, but not in this one. I don’t see how POV issues come into play in this particular discussion, especially given the fact that Hansen is one of the world’s staunchest and best known proponents of the scientific consensus summarized in this article.--CurtisSwain (talk) 05:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Time for content (Proposal 3) sorry we were interrupted Boris, seems like that idea was onto something productive. (taking a break now (smile))Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Curtis, only in as much as talking about Hansen specifically (in the first of ZP5 posts referred), must lead to discussion of the (same) general point, and it is the general point that excludes Hansen, along with any other individual.

ZP5, you said "neither practicable nor useful to put in links to every scientist, or even every notable scientist working in the field" is an absurd distraction with an extreme view.. Please specifically expand on this. It is not practical, because there are tens of thousands of such scientists, and no-one has yet come up with an meaningful objective criteria to judge which scientist's individual opinions could be included. Thus, without this restriction, the article would soon be swamped with a huge list of POV pushing individual opinions from both sides (eg: a Hansen quote will result in two skeptic quotes, etc etc etc, with no basis to remove them from the list. It is not useful because then we would have a valueless, gigantic article which would be high in noise and low in credibility. The argument is most certainly not a 'distraction', it is key. --Jaymax (talk) 05:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The article has issues because is forces the reader to assume the POV of "scientific opinion". As such, this is creating disputes so that all new material must be judged to have a POV. (Along the way, new eds are being POed). There appears to be some fear that things may get out of control and disruptive. This could be best managed by assuming good faith in editors to edit reasonable summaries, correcting the hatnotes for navigation and clarification, or restarting the article so it doesn't take an opinionated POV. Propagating fear that the article may get out of control is counterproductive. CurtisSwain was correct in bringing me back to the specific See Also issue, for I should not assume too much out of context either. I do believe the article could benefit from recognizing the the prime architects of the current scientific opinion POV. Regards. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The whole point is that science isn't a 'POV'. See Age of Enlightenment for example. --Nigelj (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "scientific fact" isn't "science opinion" is, please enlighten to the distinction. Fact is necessary for NPOV, while categories of opinions alone are sufficent. Get real and accept the logical predicates which quantify the range of discourse for what exists here. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well if there are unaddressed opinions from synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing or surveys of opinion among climate scientists, then please do add them. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Many would validly argue that there is no such thing as scientific fact, only that when the consensus of scientific opinion is sufficiently strong, we tend to regard things as fact - this argument is supported throughout history when new scientific evidence has shown established so-called scientific fact to be wrong. In any event, this article is ABOUT Scientific Opinion. The article (eg) Christianity does not address the pertinant POV of aetheists, or of other religions - that does NOT make that artcle Christian POV pushing, because the article is about that POV, and is neutral within the article scope. For this article, as User:KimDabelsteinPetersen points out above, it is, if possible, even less of a concern; because dissenting scientific opinions meeting the criteria WILL be included. --Jaymax (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The hatnote / disambiguation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Royal Society's position

Should the Royal Society's position as per this be included?--212.183.140.19 (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Their position is included in reference under #Joint science academies' statements. The current link appears to be dead, but is the same as http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/292/5520/1261. Your link is a much more detailed and recent explanation of their position - thank you.

Does anybody actually involved at this article have an opinion on where/whether this should be added and what text to use? This is a matter of detail and weight, and deserves some discussion.

Updating a deadlink from a full copy at the Royal Society page to the same text at Science would seem to be non-controversial, but I would like to see a nice consensus before making the change. Would anybody object to this? - 2/0 (cont.) 19:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the Royal Society are notable enough to have their own sub-section, and their statement, in the new link from 212.183.140.19 is clear enough and easy to summarise. Were you thinking of adding them under 'Academies of Science'? I would agree with that. --Nigelj (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Content fork

I think this article is clear example of a content fork from the article Climate change. Simply listing the opinions, instead of featuring them in article is not a valid excuse for a content fork.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong, and its rather clear that you haven't done your homework. *If* this was a content fork of anything, it would be of global warming. CC is a different article - try reading it William M. Connolley (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If this article was a content fork from global warming, the title would be "Scientific opinion on global warming", wouldn't you think? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If you have an opinion on content forking, then you must ipso-facto also have read the article that you state that this article is a content-fork from. Can we please stop with the vagueness: Are you really really arguing that this article is a content fork from Climate change? Can you please explain how this article would fit into climate change? And which part of it that its a content fork of? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Bray and von Storch 2008

Someone competent needs to add a section for this survey ( http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/CliSci2008.pdf ), with some of its conclusions. I just added a link at the end of the 2003 survey section. MikeR613 (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Has it been published? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No. As far as I can tell, the only place the survey is available is on Dennis Bray's home page, and he doesn't list it in his "Selected Publications and Presentations", and it doesn't come up in Google Scholar. Although the results endorse the IPCC and the mainstream consensus, I don't think it should be included in this article until it's been published in a peer-reviewed journal.--CurtisSwain (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Though so, too bad, because it actually is interesting. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Bye the bye, your comment that "Although the results endorse the IPCC and the mainstream consensus" makes me nervous. What's that got to do with it? Besides, the survey shows much more detail. It shows that though a good majority of the scientists agree with the consensus, with a very high percentage on some questions, there is a considerable minority that dissents on a number of the important issues. MikeR613 (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I just said that to make it clear I wasn't dismissing it because I didn't like what it revealed.--CurtisSwain (talk) 00:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. But the earlier Bray/von Storch survey (2003) wasn't published in a peer-reviewed journal either, and we had a section on it. As the article says, it was "reported through non-scientific venues". MikeR613 (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, good point, and I was thinking that same thing after my earlier post. People coming to this page may have heard about it and be wondering, "What about that new survey that says...?" I think it should be noted but not elaborated on much, and with a similar qualifier or disclaimer.--CurtisSwain (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that it's required that polls listed are published in peer-reviwed journals in any sense. Even an unscientific poll of actual climate scientists that manages to somehow find a significant number of doubters should be included if there is a secondary source. Nothing prevents inclusion of in the text here of useful RS critiqe and commentary (obvious: goes for existing entries too) --Jaymax (talk) 11:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggest removing the word "opinion" from the title, since the scientific process is about removing subjectivity and aiming for fact.

Suggest removing the word "opinion" from the title, since the scientific process is about removing subjectivity and aiming for fact. 99.155.145.169 (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Strongly Agree - Wiki guidance says to avoid making articles on categories of opinion. By assessing the NPOV disputes on all the talk pages here, with possible information suppression, the title is "likely" to be contributing to disruptions here by means of a "structural bias" having ambiguous boundaries and definitions of opinions. In addition, to the possibility of wrongly specified hatnotes, there may be categories of opinions which are not represented here. Finally, there may be "overconfidence" created by "anchoring" to the nearly unanimous opinion presented. Article titles should be extensively objective, unless for BLP subjects. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Strongly oppose- The title would look pretty silly if we removed to the word "opinion": Scientific on climate change.--CurtisSwain (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course it would silly, how about the title Scientific view on climate change and global warming? 99.155.145.248 (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.184.231.226 (talk)

How about the title "Scientific view on global warming and current climate change", since global warming is what is happening on average globally, while climate "change" is the local temporarily current disruptions due to the on average warming (the overarching current event).

As a side-note, both of those terms miss the broader scope of gases & soot (greenhouse & "forcing agents"), deforestation, mass species extinction, rising oceans (with loss of dozens of small nations predicted), drying of soil & increased rainfall intensity (degradation of agriculture, loss of potable water), ocean acidification, softening of permafrost (buildings and trees falling-over) with methane leaks from the land and lakes (even catching on fire), ocean acidification (corals dying, shell of shelled sea animals softening and the collapse of entire ecosystems), etc ... being discussed at COP-15 by the vast majority of Heads of State of the entire planet. Polar bears dying-off and glaciers melting are minor in the big scope of the trends viewed around the world. 99.184.231.226 (talk) 05:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "scientific opinion" (the link goes to opinion). Scientists have opinions, but science is a process, a method. 99.155.149.81 (talk) 06:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Check further down in the article on opinion (under "Collective and Formal Opinions") --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Strongly opposeper CS above. And i unfortunately fail to comprehend what ZP5 is saying. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC) - from reading the below discussions i seem to get the feeling that ZP5 is suffering from the common misunderstanding of what "fact" means in a scientific context. Gravity is not fact - it is theory. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

KDP: we can reach an understanding ~~stating~~ on my talk page. However, pending this, would you agree that mediation might be helpful for a mutual understanding here? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If you have anything to discuss about this article, please do so here, where others can see and contribute. Don't try to isolate your opposition one by one in private. --Nigelj (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Strongly oppose per above. --Nigelj (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
oppose and lament that there is still no article for scientific opinion - a common phrase in the scientific community, and well understood by many others, but not universally understood. ZP5 - Am I right that english is not your first language? I recommend a google search on scientific opinion, ignoring the links to Misplaced Pages. --Jaymax (talk) 12:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

How about ignoring wp in general, as it seems to be showing irrelevance on importance. Isn't wp "supposed to be" encyclopedic, not a chat room? Please help me understand the ignorance of all this "hot air" (hot CPUs)... 209.255.78.138 (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per above, and echo the call for a scientific opinion article (or section in opinion or somewhere). (edit conflict) Verbal chat 12:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC on Merger with Climate Change

{{rfctag|sci}} Closed. No support besides nominator. -Atmoz (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The lead of this article says:

This article is about scientific opinion on climate change...

It is clear that this article is a content fork from the article Climate change, as both articles are based on scienfic opinion. Afterall, what other opinion could both of these articles be based on? I propose that the two article are merged to avoid further duplication of article content. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Strongly oppose-The article Climate change is primarily about historic changes, whereas Scientific opinion… is concerned solely with “recent global warming…. observed over the last 50 years” as clearly stated in the lede. Although, it is true that understanding past climatic changes is required in order to understand the current changes. If anything, one could argue that the title of this article should be changed to Scientific opinion on global warming, as Gavin did in a thread above. Although in both the popular press and in scientific literature both terms are often used to refer to the recent warming, “global warming” is used more commonly, and is more generally understood to mean recent trends.--CurtisSwain (talk) 10:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

*Merge – Looking at this article the encyclopaedic content of it is minimal. It's just a list of references, from which the key points have been extracted and a sentence "Such and such said this, at this time" added. But an article should not largely consist of copied text, while there are standards and templates for citations that work better than finding lots of ways of writing "This person or group said that". Take out all of that and there's very little well written prose. It could be condensed into whatever length's appropriate for Climate change, backed up by a very good set of references. JohnBlackburne (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

oppose. I've removed the merge tag. This isn't going to happen. By all means learn why here, but the tags are just pointless William M. Connolley (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment I am not sure removing the merge tag is the right thing to do whilst the RFC is in progress. I would be most grateful if it could be restored so that other editors will be alerted to this discussion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree - Seems like the removing ed is being disruptive and no one is stepping up. Please see my talk page to realize what corruption can be. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Climate change is on climate change in general. This documents the scientific opinion on (recent) climate change and the extraordinary lengths scientific organizations have gone to properly communicate it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Objection - When applying the term "document", please consider WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTCENSORED in that "document" could be an issue with these guidelines as to the structural NPOV problems with the article. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per above. Global warming (about post industrial revolution change) is distinct from the historical climate change over geologic time. Vsmith (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps the article should be renamed to more properly reflect that difference, as there seems to confusion about the meaning of "climate change". Vsmith (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

*That* discussion is happening (or not, really) a section or two higher up William M. Connolley (talk) 14:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstain – It doesn’t matter to me if this article is merged (although, I said it shouldn’t in my talk above, because of length issues.) What matters is that this article has an “exceptionally unlikely” chance of being upheld because of the obvious structural issues creating POV disputes. I have confidence then when an article history analysis is completed; the article will be heading for a NPOV change. If eds don’t take some steps to address the highly opinionated and redundant POV in the article (see WP:NOTOPINION, then wiki may be considered “pointless” too. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose and close Climate change is about climate change throughout Earth's history, whereas this article is about recent man-made changes to climate. Per WMC and Stephan Schulz. Verbal chat 14:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Rename – having read what other people have written here and elsewhere on this page I (and maybe the nominator) looked at the wrong page to merge this with. The reason is this page is misleadingly named, as it's about opinions on global warming not climate change. I think that should be addressed first, as it's a much more straightforward move/rename. --JohnBlackburne (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. If you don't like the article take it to AfD. All these articles are way too long to merge. --BozMo talk 15:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

*Redistribute There's a lot of content here that might be better organized, but I think the main problem with this article is that it's a subarticle of Climate change consensus, and that's really the questionable fork, rather than the main Climate change article itself (which has other issues). The Evolution article might be a good example of how to organize the content, with the dispute visible but primarily wikilinked out in the "main" article. SDY (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per Misplaced Pages:CFORK#Article_spinouts_.E2.80.93_.22Summary_style.22_articles. This is a subarticle of Climate change consensus. It's a one-sided argument, and that could be a little clearer (the hatnote suffers from TL;DR), but it's not a stand-alone article. I have some problems with the way Misplaced Pages handles sub-articles in general, but this is not unusual or actionable. SDY (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose per length - this is clearly a sub-article. --Nigelj (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Climate change certainly can't be the article that this would be a POV-fork of, since it is about previous climate changes primarily. The topic of recent climate change has many sub-articles, where this is one of them. The topic of climate change is a huge topic, and thus we have sub-articles on Climate change and agriculture, Global warming controversy, Regional effects of global warming, Ocean acidification etc etc. many or which again have sub-articles. All of these are content forks of either Global warming or Climate change and possibly other articles where they intersect, such as agriculture, political controversy,. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose because this article is distinct - it is a list of opinions, not a statement of the consensus opinion. But also strongly object to the removal of the merge tag. User:William M. Connolley is running for the Arbitration Committee. I cannot fathom this kind of solo pre-judgement by a potential arbitrator, even when the obvious is blindingly obvious. On the flip-side, if anything this is a fork of Global Warming and utterly not the Climate Change article, and I'm wondering where User:Gavin.collins who I've got a fair bit of respect for around some WP:GUIDELINES, is coming from with this. --Jaymax (talk) 12:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose and close ASAP. Two unrelated articles - can not fathom how a merge would work (or why a RfC was required for something so obviously wrong). That article is about past changes, while this article is about scientists talking about current changes, so I have no idea why someone would put that up at RfC. I've been out of the loop, but somehow an RfC came up on merging this article even though there's no evidence for an attempt at a standard merge (which would have instantly been closed due to the irrelevance). This should be closed ASAP, as continued discussion merging two unrelated articles can be nothing but a waste of time. Awickert (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Rename to "Scientific opinion on global warming"?

Scientific Opinion on Climate Change, or SOo Global Warming

This has bugged me (but only mildly) for a while, but my fourth suggested 'for X see Y' above draws it into sharp focus. According to WP Climate change is about the climate changes from year-dot to today; whereas Global warming is about current-day climate changes. So which is THIS article really about? Should it be renamed (with redirects) for consistency to Scientific opinion on global warming ? --Jaymax (talk) 09:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any ipso facto (or documented) distinction between the two terms 'climate change' and 'global warming' that makes one cover from the year dot and the other refer just to the last century. The real distinction is obvious and mundane - change can go in either direction, warming is in just the one. There has been lengthy discussion at Talk:Global warming#Lede is (deliberately?) misleading as to whether that article should cover the whole period or just the current. I argued there that adding a full discussion of another several hundred thousand years would make a long article far too long. I think the reasons AGW deniers would always like to broaden the definition is that it takes the focus off the present and opens the door to, "Well, it's all happened before" and "God will provide" type political cop-outs, overlooking critical points like, the last time it happened there were only a few 100,000 (not 6 billion) humans on Earth, and that the concept of 'land ownership' had not yet really developed, let alone infrastructure and civil defence. I think the day was carried by finding a modern dictionary definition that restricted that term just to the current warming. Current usage rules rather than 'true meaning' per WP:COMMONNAME. Consistency is a big task in such a rapidly changing and highly emotive political landscape. Introducing our own artificial distinctions of meaning wouldn't really help, I don't think. --Nigelj (talk) 13:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)'

Agree with all that - but haven't the 'artificial distinctions of meaning' already been entrenched on Misplaced Pages with the titles of the two existing articles - which I assume are extremely unlikely to change? --Jaymax (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Either one is fine. The two terms are being used interchangeably in the pop media, and "SOoGW" redirects to this article.--CurtisSwain (talk) 12:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've also become aware that the two categories for GW and CC are being used somewhat along the lines of the like-named article descriptions (noted an editor removing CC category tag from a GW article (defn's again per GW/CC articles). But that rabbit hole lead to the discovery on innumerable articles with inconsistent titles and/or categorisation :-/ There's a bigger issue here - consistent use of the terms is good for Misplaced Pages, but buggered if I'm going to start chasing this particular rabbit all through the wikiwarren! --Jaymax (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with drawing such a distinction re categories. An article can only have one title (plus redirects), but it can be in many categories. I think that everything that's in a CC cat, should be in the equivalent GW cat, and vice versa, lest it becomes some kind of coded POV fork. --Nigelj (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

New discussion

Given that modern warming is addressed at global warming (not climate change) and Misplaced Pages's predisposition for using common names, should this article be retitled "Scientific opinion on global warming" for greater clarity? It seems like it might make the intended content a little more obvious. Dragons flight (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Though great minds think alike, they apparently don't always read prior discussions. Seems someone already proposed this higher up the page. Anyway, it has my support. Dragons flight (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this will address the structural issue that causes this to appear a POV fork. The concern, as far as I can tell, is that this is potentially a misleading subset of opinions in the controversy. It's akin to having an article on Communist opinion of Mao's Little Red Book. There are certainly some capitalists who also have strong opinions about the publication, but those opinions are being excluded because the article is just about a subset of opinions. Renaming the article to "Communist opinion on Mao Zedong's philosophies" doesn't address the concern that it's a biased subset of all opinions on the topic. I personally believe that as long as the "balanced" view is obviously available, the internal views of a notable subset of the "balanced" view is suitable for coverage. SDY (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That's nice, and totally irrelevant. If you want to fundamentally change the content of the article, then that's a discussion for elsewhere. I'm just interested in the best title for the current page. Dragons flight (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

We have articles on both Climate change and Global warming. I guess "Global warming" has already been deprecated in my vocabulary. This is sort of awkward from a structuralist standpoint. At any rate, if you change this article you should probably also change Climate change consensus. At first glance, this topic as a whole is a structural mess. SDY (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree - see my post in the previous section. In theory the current title is clear when considered alone, i.e. anyone who reads it will understand what it means. But it matches up badly with the two main articles Global warming and Climate Change, as it should be named like the former which it is related to. As Scientific opinion on global warming is just a redirect to here with minimal history nothing will be lost and everything will still work. There may jst be some double redirects to fix. --JohnBlackburne (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm weakly opposed. There is no great virtue to a page rename - it will solve no problems though it may make a few editors happier William M. Connolley (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting systematic switch change; however, does not adequately address the grammatically predicated structural issues about "opinions" as raised above. Reasonably reproducible evidence distincts fact from opinion. This discussion is distracting from the core issue. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm also opposed to a rename. The two terms are interchangeable. If we start renaming articles to imply a coded destinction, we do the sources and the English language a disservice. There is nothing to be gained and potentially some faithfulness to messy reality to lose. --Nigelj (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

They are not interchangeable, otherwise climate change and global warming would not both need to exist. While global warming has only one meaning climate change is more ambiguous, and I at least was initially confused by it in the merge discussion above.--JohnBlackburne (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think John made the best argument above when he pointed out the current title "matches up badly with the two main articles." Most editors who've chimed in support changing to SoGW. It's a minor change, and will just make things clearer to the average reader. Let's just do it, and have done with it. No biggie.--CurtisSwain (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm agnostic on this one. Whether we call it SOoCC and have SOoGW redirect to it or the reverse. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Since seeing that this issue is EVERYWHERE, I'm now ~~opposed to~~ slighty leaning against my own initial suggestion. Changing the article title will cause unnecessary and unhelpful confusion, and any benifit of consistency will be a drop in a bucket of likewise articles (ie: irrelevant in the big picture). I suggest instead, that the first hatnote "For, see" entry be "For recent climate change generally, see Global Warming" (I'd do it now, but article locked) --Jaymax (talk) 12:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

New section for NPOV issues with this article.

Preliminary discussion collapsed
Verbal claims that the discussion of the NPOV issues documented at has run its course. I disagree, but just to satisfy Verbal I'll start a new section. I hereby assert that the issues I and others have raised in have never been resolved and remain in need of attention. --GoRight (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Here ... Here ... orderly second the motion. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC) I think rather than asserting some vague following you should clearly identify those who you think support your POV. Apart from ZP5 (need I say more) I see no-one William M. Connolley (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC) It would appear that you feel the need to canvass . This is hardly good faith William M. Connolley (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC) It is not canvassing to alert people to when they are being discussed. Boris made that clear in the Abd-Connolley Arbcom case. --GoRight (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC) NOTE: I will make an attempt to consolidate and summarize the key concerns from the above section(s) into this one since WMC is of the opinion that the discussion thus far has been "ill-disciplined". I apologize for any delays that this may cause because this effort may require a reasonable amount of time to accomplish and I have real-world obligations that I must attend to this afternoon. --GoRight (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Motion to start with disputed sources list. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC) I don't see any specific issues here. I'll remove the tag until some are presented. Verbal chat 20:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Object - the issues are being restated in good faith please. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC) What issues? Verbal chat 20:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC) This is an issue-free thread. Nothing to discuss here, except that two editors want to keep an old discussion going, without saying what new or potentially decisive evidence they bring to do so. --Nigelj (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC) SECOND NOTE: I wish to apologize for not getting this material summarized per my statement above by now, but my work was disrupted and so it will have to wait until tomorrow. Please bear with me. --GoRight (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Tag reads "Please see the discussion on the talk page." There is no discussion on this talk page. You've been asked to summarize your concerns, but apparently you can't do that while the article is protected. What is the timeframe by which you will have your concerns summarized? Hipocrite (talk) 03:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Unless some actual, specific, issues are presented here within a reasonable time (or Tedder reverses his editwarring and incorrect protection per WP:PROTECT) then I'll ask for the tag to be removed via editprotect. Verbal chat 11:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC) All of the issues have already been described. Go read the discussions already linked above. I am only planning to condense things for easier digestion. I plan to work on this today. In the mean time, Jaymax has provided a section below, , which goes a long way towards describing the primary issue. Discussion of the consensus is inherently editorial and open to POV which go beyond just the peer-reviewed opinions of scientists because people other than the scientists have opinions and perceptions that are specifically about that consensus. Those views and a discussion of them are being excluded in violation of WP:NPOV. I have no problem with this page existing as long as it is merely the list of scientific ~~opinions~~ positions that Jaymax discusses below, but in its current form it goes beyond that and discusses "the consensus". The problem is further confounded by the fact the WP:OWNers of this page continue to try and claim it is nothing more that a list of the scientific positions but then they insist that global redirects and wikilinks which are focused on consensus (as opposed to merely the list of positions) point to here. Once the reader here has been led here, they then use the claim that this is merely "a list of positions" as an excuse to exclude other discussion of "the consensus". You can't have it both ways. If you want a page to simply be a list of the scientific positions, that's fine I don't object in the slightest, but then you have to stick to that topic. A discussion of "the consensus" is out of scope for this article under the scoping that says this article is nothing more than a list of positions. So as I have said before, and as I showed in my proposal in the discussion linked to above, and as Jaymax has now pointed out below we need to separate the discussion of "the consensus" from the "list of scientific positions". Once that is done my issue will be properly located wherever the main discussion of "the consensus" is. I don't care if that is on this page or another, but I do care that all aspects of "the consensus" are covered in a WP:NPOV way ... and that necessarily includes a discussion of both the public views and perceptions associated with "the consensus" as well as a discussion of any public or scientific controversies surrounding "the consensus". --GoRight (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Wow you guys have been busy while I've been ill over the past couple of days! How an admin (Tedder, never heard of him till now) manages to get themselves into a situation like this is bizzare. But WP:AGF should still apply - especially after reading the discussions elsewhere regarding his actions. Still, Tedder should (and I imagine chooses to) have nothing further to do with this article - that includes undoing his earlier possible mistake, there are innumerable others who can do that if required. As someone who believes AGW is going to kill most of us unless we do something about it, and also believes this article MIGHT currently be subject to a vested-interest tactic to ensure it's tagged during Copenhagen, I say "so what"? - Giving up on the ideals of Misplaced Pages is analagous to giving up on the ideals of democracy. If the guidelines don't work, then work on improving the guidelines, rather than ignoring them just because the whole planet is at risk. And if your reply is that saving the planet is more important than EVERYTHING, including fairness, then what are you doing here giving skeptics ammunition and encouragement by being rude and/or dismissive towards them rather than helping? Rant over (till I get down vvv there to the next load of whatever) Jaymax (talk) 12:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Yes, I'm a bit baffled by Tedder. He said, "the POV tag is provocative and uncivil; it doesn't help the article at all. The article is very active- the {{pov}} tag is best for articles that need attention- this one certainly doesn't", then threatened to, and I think actually did, block a few people for a few hours for re-adding it. Then he started adding it himself, and finally fully-protected the article with the tag in place and cleared off. I missed the discussion where we discussed that change of viewpoint as to the purpose of a POV tag. Did someone hack his account? Was he abducted by aliens and brain-washed? --Nigelj (talk) 13:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC) (Copied from my Talk page - no need for you to try to make your comments personal to me only:) Dear editor, please keep your talk , , on this article relevant to the points at hand within the thread. There are other active pages for discussing Tedder and the issues you raised. I find this talk to be out of order there. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC) --Nigelj (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Nigelj is out of order to Misplaced Pages:Talk#How_to_use_article_talk_pages. I protest and can not engage this disruption here. I motion to restart the thread. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC) ZP5 assuming you want to achieve some resolution, just ignore it and move on. I mentioned Tedder's getting himself in this situation. Nigel just expanded on his perception of that. And you can't motion to restart something for one action you think was out-of-order. Furthermore, article talk pages are TALK pages. You might be more comfortable with the official disputes resolution process. ~~I wonder if we can use the coincident synchronicity with Copenhagen to request some sort of highly accelerated binding determination on NPOV.~~ futile thought was futile Jaymax (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Interestingly enough, we have already agreed to accept a binding mediation, , it is the other side of this who abstain from that approach. --GoRight (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC) You're never going to get anywhere if you keep posting comments in the middle of the thread, and still avoiding stating what the alleged POV dispute is currently about. Is it a move request? Do you want to start a new article? --Nigelj (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Strange reading of that one. The only objection there, is to your expansion on issues that are outside of the scope of this article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Preliminary discussion collapsed

Verbal claims that the discussion of the NPOV issues documented at has run its course. I disagree, but just to satisfy Verbal I'll start a new section.

I hereby assert that the issues I and others have raised in have never been resolved and remain in need of attention. --GoRight (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Here ... Here ... orderly second the motion. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think rather than asserting some vague following you should clearly identify those who you think support your POV. Apart from ZP5 (need I say more) I see no-one William M. Connolley (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It would appear that you feel the need to canvass . This is hardly good faith William M. Connolley (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not canvassing to alert people to when they are being discussed. Boris made that clear in the Abd-Connolley Arbcom case. --GoRight (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: I will make an attempt to consolidate and summarize the key concerns from the above section(s) into this one since WMC is of the opinion that the discussion thus far has been "ill-disciplined". I apologize for any delays that this may cause because this effort may require a reasonable amount of time to accomplish and I have real-world obligations that I must attend to this afternoon. --GoRight (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Motion to start with disputed sources list. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any specific issues here. I'll remove the tag until some are presented. Verbal chat 20:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Object - the issues are being restated in good faith please. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

What issues? Verbal chat 20:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This is an issue-free thread. Nothing to discuss here, except that two editors want to keep an old discussion going, without saying what new or potentially decisive evidence they bring to do so. --Nigelj (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

SECOND NOTE: I wish to apologize for not getting this material summarized per my statement above by now, but my work was disrupted and so it will have to wait until tomorrow. Please bear with me. --GoRight (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Tag reads "Please see the discussion on the talk page." There is no discussion on this talk page. You've been asked to summarize your concerns, but apparently you can't do that while the article is protected. What is the timeframe by which you will have your concerns summarized? Hipocrite (talk) 03:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless some actual, specific, issues are presented here within a reasonable time (or Tedder reverses his editwarring and incorrect protection per WP:PROTECT) then I'll ask for the tag to be removed via editprotect. Verbal chat 11:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

All of the issues have already been described. Go read the discussions already linked above. I am only planning to condense things for easier digestion. I plan to work on this today. In the mean time, Jaymax has provided a section below, , which goes a long way towards describing the primary issue. Discussion of the consensus is inherently editorial and open to POV which go beyond just the peer-reviewed opinions of scientists because people other than the scientists have opinions and perceptions that are specifically about that consensus. Those views and a discussion of them are being excluded in violation of WP:NPOV. I have no problem with this page existing as long as it is merely the list of scientific ~~opinions~~ positions that Jaymax discusses below, but in its current form it goes beyond that and discusses "the consensus". The problem is further confounded by the fact the WP:OWNers of this page continue to try and claim it is nothing more that a list of the scientific positions but then they insist that global redirects and wikilinks which are focused on consensus (as opposed to merely the list of positions) point to here. Once the reader here has been led here, they then use the claim that this is merely "a list of positions" as an excuse to exclude other discussion of "the consensus". You can't have it both ways. If you want a page to simply be a list of the scientific positions, that's fine I don't object in the slightest, but then you have to stick to that topic. A discussion of "the consensus" is out of scope for this article under the scoping that says this article is nothing more than a list of positions.

So as I have said before, and as I showed in my proposal in the discussion linked to above, and as Jaymax has now pointed out below we need to separate the discussion of "the consensus" from the "list of scientific positions". Once that is done my issue will be properly located wherever the main discussion of "the consensus" is. I don't care if that is on this page or another, but I do care that all aspects of "the consensus" are covered in a WP:NPOV way ... and that necessarily includes a discussion of both the public views and perceptions associated with "the consensus" as well as a discussion of any public or scientific controversies surrounding "the consensus". --GoRight (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow you guys have been busy while I've been ill over the past couple of days! How an admin (Tedder, never heard of him till now) manages to get themselves into a situation like this is bizzare. But WP:AGF should still apply - especially after reading the discussions elsewhere regarding his actions. Still, Tedder should (and I imagine chooses to) have nothing further to do with this article - that includes undoing his earlier possible mistake, there are innumerable others who can do that if required. As someone who believes AGW is going to kill most of us unless we do something about it, and also believes this article MIGHT currently be subject to a vested-interest tactic to ensure it's tagged during Copenhagen, I say "so what"? - Giving up on the ideals of Misplaced Pages is analagous to giving up on the ideals of democracy. If the guidelines don't work, then work on improving the guidelines, rather than ignoring them just because the whole planet is at risk. And if your reply is that saving the planet is more important than EVERYTHING, including fairness, then what are you doing here giving skeptics ammunition and encouragement by being rude and/or dismissive towards them rather than helping? Rant over (till I get down vvv there to the next load of whatever) Jaymax (talk) 12:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a bit baffled by Tedder. He said, "the POV tag is provocative and uncivil; it doesn't help the article at all. The article is very active- the {{pov}} tag is best for articles that need attention- this one certainly doesn't", then threatened to, and I think actually did, block a few people for a few hours for re-adding it. Then he started adding it himself, and finally fully-protected the article with the tag in place and cleared off. I missed the discussion where we discussed that change of viewpoint as to the purpose of a POV tag. Did someone hack his account? Was he abducted by aliens and brain-washed? --Nigelj (talk) 13:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(Copied from my Talk page - no need for you to try to make your comments personal to me only:)

Dear editor, please keep your talk , , on this article relevant to the points at hand within the thread. There are other active pages for discussing Tedder and the issues you raised. I find this talk to be out of order there. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

--Nigelj (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Nigelj is out of order to Misplaced Pages:Talk#How_to_use_article_talk_pages. I protest and can not engage this disruption here. I motion to restart the thread. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

ZP5 assuming you want to achieve some resolution, just ignore it and move on. I mentioned Tedder's getting himself in this situation. Nigel just expanded on his perception of that. And you can't motion to restart something for one action you think was out-of-order. Furthermore, article talk pages are TALK pages. You might be more comfortable with the official disputes resolution process. ~~I wonder if we can use the coincident synchronicity with Copenhagen to request some sort of highly accelerated binding determination on NPOV.~~ futile thought was futile Jaymax (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, we have already agreed to accept a binding mediation, , it is the other side of this who abstain from that approach. --GoRight (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You're never going to get anywhere if you keep posting comments in the middle of the thread, and still avoiding stating what the alleged POV dispute is currently about. Is it a move request? Do you want to start a new article? --Nigelj (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Strange reading of that one. The only objection there, is to your expansion on issues that are outside of the scope of this article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Background:

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

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

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

Key aspects that need to be addressed

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

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

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

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

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

Redirects to here:

Scientific opinion of global warming (noredirect) links (one link)
Global warming survey (noredirect) links (one link)
Global Warming Survey (noredirect) links (zero links)
Scientific consensus on climate change (noredirect) links (one link)
Global warming consensus (redirect page) (noredirect) links (one link)
Scientific consensus on global warming (noredirect) links (seven links)
Scientific opinion on global warming (noredirect) links (one link)
Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (noredirect) links (zero links)

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

Possible solutions

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

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

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

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

GoRight's Proposal

(Reproduced here from above for convenience.)

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

Which WP:DR to use?

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

(Reproducing my previous comment here along with KDP's comment.) In the interests of time I lean towards binding mediation myself as some of the people involved have traditionally complained about things that look like a !Vote, and it is unclear what we would do if it fails to demonstrate a consensus either way. Then it would either go to mediation or Arbcom which only drags the whole thing out further, which I want to avoid. If the majority of people here prefer to start with an RfC I am fine with that but I reserve the right to appeal the result. --GoRight (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
If we do an RfC it is not clear to me how this would be structured. We have multiple related but independent issues that need to be resolved:
1. Where should the primary discussion of the "scientific consensus on climate change/global warming" be documented? In this article or the overlapping Climate change consensus?
2. Should the primary discussion of the "scientific consensus on climate change/global warming" include a discussion of the controversies (whether public or scientific) with that consensus?
3. Where should the "scientific consensus" redirects point the reader to? They currently point to this page but if the discussion of the consensus is moved elsewhere and this page remains should the redirects be redirected?
4. Where should wikilinks for the "scientific consensus" be directed? There are many that point to this page but if the discussion of the consensus is moved elsewhere and this page remains should those wikilinks be updated?
I am not sure how we would try to put all of that into one RfC and be able to discern any reasonable interpretation of the results. So do we run independent RfCs for each, or what? I lean towards independent RfCs to keep the results clean but I can understand if others disagree. Do we use the standard BOT implemented 30 days for the RfC or something else? I see no reason to use anything other than the standard period but I expect others will have differing opinions. Which RfC categories do we put these in? I lean towards both science and politics. --GoRight (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, there you go. Proof that I'm right. When a single notable authority, scientific or governmental, starts to swing with your personal pendulum, we'll have a discussion.

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

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

--Nigelj (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Remove tag

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Scientific consensus on climate change. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

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

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

Change title to "Official positions of scientific societies on climate change"

In WP:VPP#Problems with subarticles it was suggested the title be changed to that above. Reading the discussions in this talk page and the caveat at the start of the article I believe the suggestion is a very good one. Dmcq (talk) 08:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact I would like to propose verbatim the change Jorge Stolfi suggested there:

Title Official positions of scientific societies on climate change

::I'm going to throw in another title idea, just so I don't feel left out List of published scientific opinion on global warming and a fork: List of surveys of scientific opinion on global warming (or CC in both cases) Jaymax (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Well count me as an oppose to these. "Scientific opinion" is the general term for statements by scientific bodies or broad agreements amongst scientist, and while this to a large extent is a list (but not entirely), the addition of "list of" is just confusing things. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Count me as a retrospective oppose as well. Jaymax (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This to better reflect the content and because science is a method and not an orthodoxy oor society or person and doesn't have an opinion.

This seems to be a misunderstanding on what "scientific opinion" is. Please see Opinion#Collective and Formal Opinions. Another good look would be to check scholar for "scientific opinion", or Google university sites for the term. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Remove POV marker and caveat in leader and insert:

The official positions of scientific societies on climate change are the current positions assumed by national and international scientific societies, usually as majority or consensus decisions of their governing bodies, on the reality and degree of the anthropogenic climate changes in the last century.

These positions have had a significant impact on the emerging global consensus views on climate change, as well as on the government policies and popular opinion of many nations. However, decisions of scientific societies generally have no legal binding power, and should not be assumed to coincide with the positions of institutions and individuals affiliated to those societies, of the respective national governments, or any other organizations. Indeed, there are many scientists who hold dissenting views on this issue.

Jorge Stolfi also suggested "Rather than state upfront that they all agree, it would be better to merely give a table listing all societies and a half-line (or coded) summary of their positions. Then perhaps give the tally of the table. Or just stop there — let the reader look at the table and draw her own conclusions." Dmcq (talk) 08:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggest more completed title, such as "Scientific societies official positions on global warming and current climate change"... 209.255.78.138 (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No, we can't change the title to "Official positions of scientific societies..." because this article also contains synthesis reports and surveys which are also good indicators of where the scientific community stands.--CurtisSwain (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Support - These appear like objective titles to me. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

DOA. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Another rename proposal

The opposition to merging in the RFC above above seem to focus on this article being about recent climate changes, while the other article isn't. The title doesn't really differentiate it from Climate change in that way though. How about we just change the title to make that distinction? Equazcion (talk) 10:59, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

I tweaked my proposal here #The_hatnote_.2F_disambiguation after reading the debates above. Can we make the distinction in the hatnote? Jaymax (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the title should be changed. The point isn't just that this article isn't properly distinguished from another; the title is basically not an accurate description of its content. An article on "Scientific opinion on climate change" needs to include the history of climate change as well. If it's only to contain recent change, the title needs to reflect that. Equazcion (talk) 14:30, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

I have a question about the scope of this article.My (simple) understanding is that Global warming is a recent and ongoing phenomena, caused at least in part by human activity, whereas Climate change is more broadly defined, encompassing both past and present climatic events, whose cause can be both manmade and natural. If there is a distinction between the two, which of these does this article seek to address? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Within the context of the definitions you have used above, this article is about Global Warming. However, those definitions are somwhat arbitrary: they are consistent with the key CC and GW WP pages, but there are MANY other articles on WP about GW (according to those definitions) that use CC in the title. In the public dicourse, the terms are often used interchangably - and (again external to the WP CC & GW main articles, both on WP and externally) Global Warming is also used to refer to historic warming periods. This article is quite definitely about the recent and ongoing phenomena however. Jaymax (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It does appear to me to be a bit strange that so many contributers would have added content to this article without knowing which of the two subject matters it was addressing, which supports the idea that this article is a content fork, it is just not sufficiently well defined to determine which article is forking from. Would I be correct in thinking that global warming and climate change are used interchangeably, depending on context? Could this the source of the confusion (if there is any)? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is any confusion. The actual difference between the terms is obvious - change can be either way and warming is just up. The other distinction - all the changes (i.e. coolings and warmings) since the formation of the earth vs only the current warming phase - is not really contained in or implied by the words GW or CC. You can talk about the global warming that brought us out of the last ice age as legitimately as you can talk about current climate change and vice versa. There is no confusion, however, that I have seen in the Wikipadia articles of their titles, i.e. there is no article titled with global warming that goes on to discuss cooling phases at length or anything like that. I think, where the two terms are interchangeable, we should continue to use them interchangeably. Each article has grown to its present state with whatever title it had and there is no problem with that, either, as long as the content and the title are compatible. Introducing our own new, WP:OR, artificial distinction would be a disservice. --Nigelj (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps plenty of confusion, depending on who you ask; more around CC than GW. And more arbitrary than depending on context in any simple way - even the UN Intergovernmental Panel on CC has a different definition from the UN Framework Convention on CC. Below from the UN IPCC Glossary at

"Climate change refers to a statistically significant variation in either the mean state of the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period (typically decades or longer). Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use. Note that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in its Article 1, defines “climate change” as: “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”"

Take your pick. I agree with Nigel that there is no confusion generally in the articles - and I've come around to agreeing that arbitrarily EXTENDING the at-times arbitrary distinction would be a bad move. The lack of clarity may result in debate in places (meta-example right here) Jaymax (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I had no idea UNFCCC had said that! Presumable they intended only to define CC in that way for the purposes of that document, not to redefine for all of us, for all time, the meaning of two well-used, well-known words and a phrase. Doing that would be a little outside their remit and many a publication on paleoclimatology would become out of date at a stroke. --Nigelj (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Why the Consensus article is not this article.

Several folk with whom I imagine I share basic beliefs about Global Warming have stated that they believe 'Climate Change Consensus' should be merged (or not further de-merged) with this article. I want to present my reasons why I think they are properly separate articles.

Consensus is editorial, Scientific Opinion is not - by this I mean that X can say Xo is their opinion, and there is no scope for debate (beyond are they lying, or their assumptions are wrong). When Y says Yo="there is consensus across all Xo", the same applies, but it is a different question/conjecture. - This article (question/facts) INFORMS that article (debate/conclusion)
Public Opinion and the public debate on whether there is Scientific Consensus is a worthy topic for the encyclopaedia, but will dilute the valuable, scientific opinions covered here
vice-versa on the above
This article is criteria-driven-list-based, rather than just RS-commentary-based - it is currently immune (in my belief) to any successful POV-alleging challenge. Combining it with the consensus debate will make claims of POV much harder to demonstrate to be incorrect (or if correct, to resolve)
This article serves as an information list, and serves a different purpose to the issue of whether there is consensus - rather it serves as a useful reference to those who might want to look up in an encyclopaedia EVIDENCE for consensus, without forcing or pre-determining a conclusion. (I say grasses are mostly green, you say they are mostly purple; this is an issue of public debate; you open an encyclopaedia-anyone-can-edit that states grasses are purple; I open one that has pictures of virtually every variety of grass, and they're almost all green. Who has the better evidence for their argument?) (edit+) even if your encyclopedia shows a whole bunch of pictures of purple grasses, I've already decided it's biased, 'cos it starts out stating something I (currently) know to be wrong.

I plead with those who think the articles should be combined to consider the above. Much depends on the public's understanding of whether there is Scientific Consensus on this topic. Telling a sceptic (and remember, scepticism is good!) that there is, achieves nothing - showing them (and remember, denialism is bad!) with uncontroversial evidence can achieve much.Jaymax (talk) 13:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you have written here. I think this is a nice articulation of the distinction that is being drawn between "the consensus" and "the list of position statements". I am mostly agnostic on whether these two are separate or combined, but if pressed I would be weakly in support of keeping them separate for the reasons you cite ... so long as "the list of position statements" is not the primary target for redirects and wikilinks associated with "the consensus". That creates the situation where legitimate points of view about "the consensus" are inappropriately scrubbed from that topic. --GoRight (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Curtis and some others can probably expand on this more - but I think this issue might arise in part because of the significant increase in the number of statements recorded here over time. The original thrust may have been the 'consensus' issue, and the collection of 'opinions' largely 'evidence' related to the intended thrust of the article. But with the vast number of opinions now recorded, and the continuing improvement to the article, the distinction became clearer. FWIW, up till a few months ago Scientific Opinion pointed at Scientific Consensus, even though that article did not touch on what a Scientific Opinion is. With somewhat less debate than we're having here, that redirect was repointed to a revised Opinion page. Jaymax (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand that things evolve. This is a wiki. Personally I am less concerned about the past and more concerned with the present and future. I prefer to focus on what are we going to do rather than how did we get here ... although having the historical context is nice. I am not here to point any fingers. I am not impugning people's intent. I am merely saying that the current situation is what it is, it is broken IMHO, and I would like to work out a mutually agreeable way to fix it. --GoRight (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Request change (editprotected after 24h)

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

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

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

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

I propose making similar changes here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed revised text #1 (Lead)

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

Proposed revised text #2 (Dissenting Organizations)

A section in which GoRight will detail the specific changes he feels must be made to the article to remove the NPOV tag.

Go to it. What exactly and specifically needs to be changed (use diffs, or a user-space draft) to demonstrate what you feel is the minimum that must be done to resolve the dispute. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing heard here, so what exactly is the nature of the alleged POV dispute? --Nigelj (talk) 20:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

As promised, I addressed these points above in the section already created for that purpose. Please see my comments there. I believe that this section is superfluous and can be removed but I won't be the one to do so. --GoRight (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy link section ~~Doesn't work - what'd I do wrong?~~ Jaymax (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I should have thought of that. --GoRight (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

protection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal #1 straw poll

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

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

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

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

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

Peiser, Benny (October 12, 2006). "RE: Media Watch enquiry" (PDF). Media Watch. Retrieved 2007-04-12.
[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686}
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/glossary/tar-ipcc-terms-en.pdf
^ "American Association of Petroleum Geologists Statements, Climate Change" (PDF). June 2007. Retrieved 2009-12-11.
Brigham-Grette, Julie. "Petroleum Geologist' Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate" (PDF). EOS. 87 (36): 364. Retrieved 2009-12-10. AAPG...stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Cite error: The named reference AQAonAAPG was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Brigham-Grette, Julie. "Petroleum Geologist' Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate" (PDF). EOS. 87 (36): 364. Retrieved 2009-12-10. AAPG...stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Brigham-Grette, Julie. "Petroleum Geologist' Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate" (PDF). EOS. 87 (36): 364. Retrieved 2009-12-10. AAPG...stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Categories: