Talk:Scientific consensus on climate change

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 6 June 2021 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Scientific consensus on climate change. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

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

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to climate change, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

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

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 30, 2008	Articles for deletion	Kept
December 22, 2009	Peer review	Reviewed

Science Mid‑importance

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Environment High‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[scientific opinion on climate change#Joint science academies' statement 2005|Joint national science academy statements]]

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Section sizes

Section size for Scientific consensus on climate change (15 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	8,881	8,881
Existence of a scientific consensus	9,935	9,935
Consensus points	4,194	4,194
Statements by major scientific organizations about climate change	950	950
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change	99	39,472
1970s	2,827	2,827
1980s	452	452
1990s	3,697	3,697
2000–2004	3,646	3,646
2005–2009	9,972	9,972
2010–2014	10,433	10,433
2015–2019	4,505	4,505
2020s	3,841	3,841
See also	261	261
References	9,931	9,931
Total	73,624	73,624

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Wiki Education assignment: Disrupting the Status Quo- Social Justice in Technical and Professional Com

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 2 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sylvia.Noralez (article contribs).

Section on consensus points

I've just added this intro sentence to the section on consensus points: The current scientific consensus regarding causes and mechanisms of climate change, its effects and what should be done about it (climate action) is that: but then I realised we are not including any bullet points about climate action. Is that on purpose? I think there are some general statements we could add there as consensus points about adaptation and mitigation, couldn't we? Perhaps it would be useful to give this section a sub-structure so that we can group it broadly along the lines of WG I (causes and mechanisms), WG II (effects and adaptation), WG III (mitigation). Perhaps take from here but be careful of copyright infringement (?): https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/IPCC_Sixth_Assessment_Report#Synthesis_report_for_all_three_working_group_reports EMsmile (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have already explained this in my December 24th comment at "IPCC/Other reports structure" section, though I'll admit it's now a more than few posts up and can be easily overlooked.

TLDR; this clean-up and list of points was about as much as I was willing/able to do for this article at the end of 2023. I'll certainly be adding more points on those subjects once I have the time for it in 2024. Further, I think my decision to cite both IPCC and NCAR (or potentially another gold-standard source) for every bullet point should insulate the article from this; WP:LIMITED is a lot easier to argue when similar phrasing is used in two separate references. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rate of warming

What exactly exactly is the evidence for this article's thesis that the 20th century warmed more than the 19th or 18th centuries. The tidal gauges don't show that. Is there any evidence for that belief? 2600:6C40:0:204E:3681:F966:2A8F:2034 (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The very first image on the page shows the increase in warming - and the six independent datasets used to establish that. And the whole point of the references is to place "the evidence" a single click away. You should try that. You can also read Instrumental temperature record.

The tidal gauges don't show that. They do: "Sea level rose by 6 cm during the 19th century and 19 cm in the 20th century." InformationToKnowledge (talk) 05:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your link states there isn't evidence amd that your claims are based on models 2600:6C40:0:204E:4436:C268:B2A6:265D (talk) 05:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Results from analysis of individual long observational records do not present enough evidence for an unambiguous global acceleration" 2600:6C40:0:204E:4436:C268:B2A6:265D (talk) 06:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Section on SCIENTISTS DISSENTING is missing

You cannot talk about "near-consensus" w/o seriously discussing the counter-theories and opinions among dissenting researchers. Grave mistake. A dedicated section is needed, with cross-ref. to mainstream replies to each counter-theory. Arminden (talk) 10:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can find those people in the article Climate change denial. They are off-topic here. See WP:ONEWAY. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is paramount to a biased scope. Both agreement and dissent must be equally regarded, proportionally to their preponderance, in order for an accurate appraisal of the general consensus to be made. Relegating such voices to the Climate change denial article (which is treated as pseudosience and conspirationist) tips the scales against those statement's perceived validity. 37.132.177.37 (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is "proportional to their preponderance" would be determined by peer-reviewed consensus studies, the most recent of which show 98.7% to 100% agreement. See

. These two positions should not be "equally regarded". —RCraig09 (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This entire page is biased toward an intended outcome rather than a neutral summary of the current science. There are multiple sources to debunk the 97% consensus statement - which was a statement created by politicians over a decade ago, but no one here appears to have done any work to give an honest assessment of consensus. To counter the graph stated above, I will point you to an actual scientific analysis done on the claims made in the Lynas 2021 paper, which was easily discredited as biased junk science, as are most of the consensus papers cited:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4313837

If you actual read this paper, you will see that of the 3,000 papers Lynas reviewed, 2,104 had no opinion on climate change. Lynas defined consensus as a "lack of objection to a prevailing opinion," drastically skewing results. The ACTUAL support for the AGW hypothesis was apprpximately 32%, drastically lower than claimed.

This page makes no detailed analysis of the current science and instead appears to be a political page that needs to be noted as biased.

An analysis of dissenting opinions or positions counter to the stated position must be added to validate the actual scientific consensus. 174.173.155.67 (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a two-year-old preprint concerned with only one of the many studies that arrive at a consensus close to 100%. Don't give us such crap. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) Denial is an affirmative act: a consensus study of rocketry articles could reasonably conclude that rocketry articles not affirmatively denying the earth is round, can be counted toward the consensus that the earth is round. Procedural critiques of consensus studies are themselves not consensus studies, and, further, the critiques are distinct from affirmative climate change denial. The Climate change denial article deals with the deniers. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]