Talk:Scientific consensus on climate change/Archive 19

This is an archive of past discussions about Scientific consensus on climate change. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

→

Rigorous scientific research demonstrates...

NEAG reverted an edit by ParksTrailer that added the phrase "rigorous scientific research demonstrates" to the lede, in place of the IPCC's "more than 90% certain" wording (regarding the human attribution of current climate change). This phrase was in fact sourced in ParksTrailer's addition, to [1]. I don't have a strong opinion in this matter, but that 'climate letter', although US-centric, certainly looks like a reliable source, and is signed by some pretty impressive sounding people. Just saying. What do others here think? --Nigelj (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh so it was! My apologies to ParksTrailer and everyone, for not catching the word "rigorous" in the letter. So I have to re-evaluate. For now I am not self-reverting, even though the original revert was based on a factual error on my part, because the proposed RS is still a letter - something we generally have taken a dim view of, for example the recent letter by 16 people claiming expertise to the Wash Post, saying more or less that there is no AGW worth worrying about. How do we evaluate letters by one group of claimed experts from letters from another?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

PS Note that the letter also uses the phrase "consensus scientific view" too. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Dead Links

The link for reference 120 from dels.nas.edu is dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jushusted (talk • contribs) 13:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. I've updated the link. Enescot (talk) 10:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Section on "synthesis reports"

I think this section is in need of revision. The section on the IPCC does not provide an adequate summary of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report. It excludes a number of key findings from all three IPCC Working Groups. It also contains errors. The summary of IPCC sea level projections is wrong, as is the assertion that "very likely" means 90-99 % probability.

I also do not see why the New York Times and Associated Press need to be referred to. The IPCC reports should be referred to directly.

Another problem is the section on the U.S. Global Change Research Program. It is biased to highlight impacts in the US over impacts in other regions.

In my opinion, recent reports by the US National Research Council [2] should be referred to in this section. US NRC is an authoritative source. Enescot (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like we need a (A) sub-sub-section about your desired changes to IPCC section, (B) a sub-sub-section about your desired changes to section on the US GCR program, and maybe one or more others. So far, all I know from this, really, is that there's something on your mind and that it might be too large for efficient discussion under just one heading. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Enescot (talk) 10:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

IPCC summary

I've prepared a draft of how I think the IPCC reports should be summarized:

The IPCC has produced a number of reports on climate change. The lead summarizes some of the key findings from the IPCC's Fourth Assessment report (AR4), published in 2007. In addition to these findings, the IPCC has concluded that climate change will lead to an increase in the frequency and severity of some extreme weather events, such as heat waves and wildfires [3]. Other effects include sea level rise and ocean acidification [4].

AR4 contains an assessment of policy responses to climate change. These are divided into two main categories: policies to adapt to the effects of climate change, and policies to mitigate the effects of climate change. Adaptation are efforts to reduce the negative effects of climate change, e.g., through building levees in response to rising sea levels. Mitigation are actions to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions, e.g., by increasing use of renewable energy sources and reducing deforestation. AR4 concludes [5]:

- "Some planned adaptation (of human activities) is occurring now; more extensive adaptation is required to reduce vulnerability to climate change."

- "Unmitigated climate change would, in the long term, be likely to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to adapt"

- "Many [climate change] impacts can be reduced, delayed or avoided by mitigation."

Enescot (talk) 10:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

What the IPCC says about policy responses isn't really the topic of this article. It is about the first part, is climate change happening to a major extent and are people causing it? A bit can be in the article as about what major means but really that is the politicians, manufacturers, farmers etc and general public concern and not much to do with whether there is a scientific consensus on climate change. Dmcq (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

As I recall, I've already responded to your point in the thread Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change#Unable to verify statement in lede. I'll repost my response here:

"I've already cited authoritative scientific sources that comment on impacts and policy, e.g.,:

"The projected changes in climate will have both beneficial and adverse effects at the regional level, for example on water resources, agriculture, natural ecosystems and human health. The larger and faster the changes in climate, the more likely it is that adverse effects will dominate.

[...] We urge all nations, in the line with the UNFCCC principles, to take prompt action to reduce the causes of climate change, adapt to its impacts and ensure that the issue is included in all relevant national and international strategies. As national science academies, we commit to working with governments to help develop and implement the national and international response to the challenge of climate change." - 2005 joint-statement by the science academies of the G8, plus Brazil, China and India [6]

"We call on all governments to [...] agree at the UNFCCC negotiations in Copenhagen to adopt a long-term global goal and near-term emission reduction targets that will deliver an approximately 50% reduction in global emissions from 1990 levels by 2050" - 2009 joint-statement by the science academies of the G8, plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa [7]

By comparison, other editors have not provided any reason why "scientific opinion" should only cover observed climate change and its attribution. Perhaps you can explain to me why the IPCC's integrated approach is wrong, or why the views of major science academies do not qualify as scientific opinion? I should note that the article already discusses policy:

"Among other actions, the declaration urges all nations to “(t)ake appropriate economic and policy measures to accelerate transition to a low carbon society and to encourage and effect changes in individual and national behaviour."" - from the article"

Enescot (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

There's lots of stuff in the IPCC reports, this article isn't a rag bag of everything in them. What this article is about is described in the first paragraph of the lead. It is about the scientific consensus on climate change. It is not about climate change, government policy or mitigation. The possible effects etc are just follow ons from the scientific opinion. Government action is not climate change. Mitigation is not climate change. The effects of climate change even are not climate change. Dmcq (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You haven't cited any sources in support of your argument. I have cited several reliable sources that support my viewpoint. These are the IPCC 4th assessment, and 2 joint-science academies statements that discuss impacts and policy issues.

An appropriate policy response to climate change requires a scientific understanding of the subject. This is reflected in sources that I have cited, e.g., see the IPCC 3rd Assessment Synthesis Report, Question 1:

"Climate change impacts are part of the larger question of how complex social, economic, and environmental subsystems interact and shape prospects for sustainable development. There are multiple links. Economic development affects ecosystem balance and, in turn, is affected by the state of the ecosystem; poverty can be both a result and a cause of environmental degradation; material- and energy-intensive life styles and continued high levels of consumption supported by non-renewable resources and rapid population growth are not likely to be consistent with sustainable development paths; and extreme socio-economic inequality within communities and between nations may undermine the social cohesion that would promote sustainability and make policy responses more effective."

Science academies have often made statements that focus on policy issues, and they sometimes make specific recommendations. In addition to those that I have already cited, here are a few other examples:

- IAP - IAMP Statement on the Health Co-Benefits of Policies to Tackle Climate Change

- Doha Declaration on Climate, Health and Wellbeing

- IAP - IAP Statement on Tropical Forests and Climate Change

- IAP - IAP Statement on Transition to Sustainability

- IAP - IAP Statement on Population and Consumption

- IAP Statement on Ocean Acidification

Enescot (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

They are not relevant to the topic of the article. Being part of something larger does not mean the something larger is part of it. Dmcq (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I've referred to numerous reliable sources that support my viewpoint. The article already contains comments by science academies on policy issues, and I do not see why the IPCC's conclusions on this topic should be excluded. I therefore intend to go ahead with my suggested edit. Enescot (talk) 11:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

They are not relevant. do not go ahead with your edits. You have already caused enough trouble with this sort of stuff as described at the end of the discussion at the end, see "Ah! I think I might know what is behind some of this. In this edit Enescot (talk · contribs) changed the list of the 'main points'."." Dmcq (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Section on "Dissenting"

On June 15, 2013 the Chinese Academy of Sciences will be publishing the NIPPC report in Chinese. As this is one of the 34 national science academies listed in the Concurring section a revision may be needed. 98.227.226.178 (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Even if true, publishing it does not imply endorsing it. But first, do you have any source for the claim? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering what on earth could have prompted this idea as it seemed so stupid and a quick search on the web led to The Heartland Institute's skeptical Chinese fantasy. So basically it is the Heartland Institute doing what they're paid to do. That Guardian article could I guess be used in the Climate change denial article. Dmcq (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points.

The references for this statement do not back the statement up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tolo4zero (talk • contribs) 07:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't find it either. It appears twice in the article. Can anyone quote from the reference to support the assertion or produce another source? TippyGoomba (talk) 07:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they do back up exactly what the article says. You have to read the whole statement, and then the references are at the end of it. You are not the first people to come across these statements. Please review the talk archives and come back if you have new sources that are relevant. --Nigelj (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Which reference? This one? Can you quote from it? I can't find anything. TippyGoomba (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)::

p. 68: ". . . all of the major scientific bodies in the United States whose membership's expertise bears directly on the matter have issued reports or statements that confimr the IPCC conclusion."

p. 71 No refereed paper published from 1993-2003 "refutes the statement: 'Global climate change is occurring, and human activities are at least part of the reason why."

That's from Oreskes' book in footnote #11. Yopienso (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Oreskes is only talking about the US , not international, she also does not claim they support all the points the wiki entry claims.Tolo4zero (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: No refereed paper published from 1993-2003 "refutes the statement: 'Global climate change is occurring, and human activities are at least part of the reason why."

Again, Oreskes is only talking about the 928 papers she looked at, she admits in a letter to Pielke there may be dissent, but not in the papers she looked at, this is a far cry from the Wiki statement, its is very misleading and is obviously only an opinion, not fact.Tolo4zero (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I hope you haven't just come here to start an argument. You don't seem to have even read the text you quoted in the title here: We're meant to be discussing whether a "scientific body of national or international standing" disagrees, and straight away you are going into strawman arguments about scientific papers. I knew it would take a while before we could get around to talking about the American Association of Petroleum Geologists updating its 1999 position in 2007, but I didn't expect to have to start right back there. Please discuss something on topic, after having read the article, WP:NOTAFORUM, and preferably the talk page archives. --Nigelj (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

No argument, I'm bringing up a valid point, which has not been resolved. I have read all the text, I was responding to Yopienso comments about Oreskes. Oreskes comment is ONLY about the US not all International science bodies, which the Wiki statement claims. I never brought up the AAPG, where did you get that ? Where does the statement "No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points" come from, it is not Oreskes.Tolo4zero (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

If you don't know why I mentioned the AAPG, you haven't read the relevant text in the article. While you're at it, you need to know that the WP:LEDE summarises the body of the article. --Nigelj (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

You mentioned AAPG not me. I repeat I have read the article, it does not contain the facts to support its statement, and the references it usesTolo4zero (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC) also not support the statement. How about answering my question about Oreskes, do you agree Oreskes only talks about the US and not international, its very clear in her information, if so, that reference should be removed as it has nothing to do with International science bodies.

I view that more as a common sense summary of the position and Wikipedia is allowed to do straightforward summaries. You only have to look at the section just before this one #Section on "Dissenting" to see how places like the Heartland Institute would be over the moon to find such a dissenting organisation but have to manufacture silly stories like that one. What exactly would you like? just remove the section altogether or simply have it say the last American one disappeared year ago, and would that be more correct than what is there now? Or do you think you or someone else might suddenly suddenly find something the Heartland Institute missed? It isn't as though international scientific bodies are that numerous or hard to identify. Using WP:CALC and a tiny smidgen of commonsense we get a pretty obvious zero rather than treating scientific organizations as hard to find oysters that might have some rare pearl to be discovered inside them. Dmcq (talk) 10:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It's unfortunate there is so much animosity in trying to make Wiki a good source of information. Your argument and others is it's just common sense, but we really don't know that ALL the worlds scientific bodies agree with ALL the points mentioned in the summary. Maybe, just maybe all they agree with is the main points of the IPCC which is the world is warming and man is very likely the cause, they may not agree on the other points listed. Wiki does not have every scientific body listed with their statements, so it cannot be verified in the article itself. The only other verification is the references, which as I have explained don't. Did you notice how my question about Oreskes only being about US science bodies goes unanswered. So at the moment that statement stands as an opinion, not a verifiable fact, if the references don't back up the statement the references should be removed, you can leave the statement in if you like, it just won't be verifiable, and without references people who look into it a bit deeper will know it's no fact but an opinion. This has been an eye opener for me, I will surely check all references prior to taking Wiki's word for anything.. And when someone refers me to this article with that statement, I will be sure to tell them it's only an assumption by the authors of Wiki as the references do not back it up. Tolo4zero (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

This thread is starting to go off the rails. Oreskes is only talking about the US , not international. Exactly, this is my problem with the source. Yopienso, what would you suggest? Can you provide an alternative source or wording? TippyGoomba (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

On pp. 67-68 of the same book, Oreskes refers to the assessments of the IPCC ("I" = Intergovernmental = international), created by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program.

I suggest these page numbers be added to the reference.

Note that the subject here is scientific bodies, not individual scientists. For individual dissenters, see List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Yopienso (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Another suggestion: one of you can source to an international scientific body that does maintain a formal dissenting opinion from any of those main points. Yopienso (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You're saying IPCC represents the opinion of all scientific bodies? Does the source say that as well? TippyGoomba (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yopienso, yes scientific bodies, Oreskes only mentions the US not international, your suggestion to find a international science body that dissents from the four points to invalidate the statement is not an appropriate solution. Whomever made that statement did not search all the scientific bodies to see if any dissents from those 4 points, but yet made the statement based on two references, both do not validate the statement, the onus is on whomever made the statement to cite the source, not for the person challenging the statement to prove its wrong. I am not saying it's wrong by the way, it may very well be right, BUT the cited sources do not validate the statement. If you want to leave that hanging it doesn't look very credible for the rest of the article, and can be used as an example of misinformation.Tolo4zero (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

p.s. Not the Chinese Academy of Science [this is not a reliable source] . . dave souza, talk 20:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree that the sources do not fully back up the statement. Additionally, it is a dated statement with regard to those papers being reviewed from 1993-2003. Arzel (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't dismiss statements because the source is not absolutely current. It wouldn't be possible to put anything in at that rate. What we're talking about here is Wikipedia policies about 'verifiability not truth', the actual truth of the statement is amply validated by the failure of the Heartland Institute to show anything wrong with it. The point being made is that the statement should be removed as original research to summarize the status as found from the listing of scientific bodies and the failure over the years to find any dissenting organisations. Personally as I said before I think it is a reasonable summary per WP:CALC but you're always welcome to raise an WP:RfC. Dmcq (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

"Wikipedia doesn't dismiss statements because the source is not absolutely current. It wouldn't be possible to put anything in at that rate. " Then I suggest you not insert declaritive statements like the one that source is using. The way it is worded implies that currently it is true. By your own admission there is no way to know if it is true or if it was ever true in the context which it is being used. Arzel (talk) 13:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

This whole thread is just getting silly. We don't put things in biographies saying at a particular date they were still alive. We don't stick stuff into medical articles saying the current belief from the studies at such a time is that xyz is bad for you but that might have changed since in some study that hasn't been noticed yet. Dmcq (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

At a simple level, a blog by a published expert on the topic states "There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one." The intermediate level gives links to statements made by such bodies. As for dated regarding papers, what evidence is there of any change? Note that we also cite Anderegg et al. and Cook et al. on the topic, whose papers confirm the results of the earlier study. . dave souza, talk 19:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no doubt that the statement is true. But we need a source explicitly supporting the statement. Are you proposing we use a blog? Are you proposing we do some WP:OR by observing our collection of scientific bodies which have positions consistent with the statement? I guess I'd be content with the blog. TippyGoomba (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLOGS – "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter,[8] whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."[9] . dave souza, talk 20:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Sound good to me. Shall we use the blog to support the statement then? Does that work for everyone? TippyGoomba (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Works for me. . . dave souza, talk 20:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hang on, the statement in the blog is not referenced either, also the statement in the blog states "There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one." The blogger may have gotten that from Wiki itself. Also that is different than the statement "No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points" .....Further, if Wiki wants to reference a blog, it may not sit well with people who read it,but at least they will know its not from a peer reviewed source, and the statement would have to be changed to the wording in the blog, also the previous two references would have to be removed. Tolo4zero (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Could you put the signature at the end please. Have you some indication that comes from Wikipedia? The wording is considerably different. We should in general paraphrase what people say not copy them. There is no rfrason I can see to remove references that cover part fo what is said. Dmcq (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Either the author lifted it from wikipedia or the statements are different, you can't have both. You can have neither. Referencing a blog in this manner, based on the expertise of the author, is in line with the policy souza quoted above. Indeed, we'll have to rearrange the statements and references. TippyGoomba (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

They have an acknowledgment "Many thanks to Joe Crouch for his efforts in tracking down scientific organizations endorsing the consensus as well as links to their public statements." so it looks like they did their own study of various organizations and what they said. Dmcq (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I copied this here from the article, and I'll go through it with you: "As of 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[108] no scientific body of national or international standing rejected the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.[10][11]" Ref 108 is a 'non-committal' statement on AGW, suggesting continued research, issued by the AAPG in June 2007, and ref 10 (from Jan 2007) says "The AAPG stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming." The extent of the in-house logic we apply is "1 - 1 = 0". In summary, again, we have a ref saying "The AAPG is the only dissenter", and other from the AAPG saying, "We don't actually dissent any more". --Nigelj (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Given the publicity over fake efforts to claim such rejection by a scientific body, any real rejection would be well publicised. The sources above work well together. . dave souza, talk 22:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I am fine with using the blog reference as long as the wording matches the blog - "There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one." I still don't think the Oreskes ref applies as she only discusses the U.S. not international.Tolo4zero (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

See WP:QUOTE about the guidelines for quoting. We shouldn't do it in general and this does not seem to be one of the recommended cases that I can see. What exactly do you see as special about the words they used? Or in what way does the meaning differ significantly? Dmcq (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The original statement "No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points." whereas the blogger statement isn't as specific "There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one." The references given, Oreskes and the AMQUA, do not specify the points listed in the top summary, and neither does the blog statement. It doesn't appear that a formal study has been done on all of the worlds scientific bodies statements, (both Oreskes and AMQUA and the blog do not have data supplied for statements) so at the moment both are just statements. Keeping the " dissenting from any of these main points" does not reflect the statements.Tolo4zero (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

A formal peer reviewed study is more than Wikipedia requires for verifiability. We know it is true. We have a statement by a reputable person in the field who has done a study of things like this that it is true. We know that an organisation with millions to spend and a real interest in showing it wrong as evidenced by their statements about the Chinese Russian and Polish Academies has been unable to come up with any evidence otherwise. But you want someone to spend their time submitting a paper for peer review on it and others to spend their time peer reviewing it. Exactly why? Dmcq (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I brought that up, to point out the blogger statement more accurately reflects the previous references, they do not claim the scientific bodies do not dissent from the main points specified in the summary, only that there is no dissent about AGW. I'm not asking for it to be done, just pointing out it hasn't.Tolo4zero (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you have some point there okay in that it is claiming too much in that. It looks like people have been expanding on what the IPCC says without considering the context. That bit about the IPCC shouldn't be linked so closely to the basic issue of the consensus that humans are causing significant global warming. Dmcq (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

That's why I think this source supplements the other sources rather than replacing them. . . dave souza, talk 20:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah! I think I might know what is behind some of this. In this edit Enescot (talk · contribs) changed the list of the 'main points'. Where we previously had just three - basically that the temperature has risen; that this is attributable to human activities; and that the warming will continue - we now have five, each of which is much more specific and detailed. It is easy to see why people reading this will say "I'm sure someone must disagree with that very specific proviso, or this exact wording". Without looking back through the history, I'm not even sure where the third previous point came from: I'm sure we had just the two for a long time - that scientific opinion was that the temperature has risen; and that this is attributable to human activities. When it was that simple, it was easier for the rest of the article to hang together, IMHO. On the other hand, since we are talking about a "scientific body of national or international standing" disagreeing with anything significant, as someone said above it would cause such a hoo-haa now if one did, that we'd all know about it for sure. --Nigelj (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI, the third bullet was imported from "List of Scientists Opposing.." in this 2012 edit. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

This really should be fixed properly Enscott is threatening to stick even more of this stuff causing even more discrepancies with the topic in #IPCC summary above. What ewxacrtly is compatible with the statement about what the scientific bodies have supported and what is the scientific consensus about? I'm pretty certain it is not about all the IPCC policy recommendations. Dmcq (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Scope of this article

In another thread (Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change#IPCC summary), I have argued that this article's summary of the IPCC 4th assessment report should be revised. In my opinion, the IPCC's main conclusions on the effects of global warming and policy responses to climate change should be included. Dmcq, however, thinks that only observed climate change and its attribution should be mentioned. What is the view of other editors?

I have already pointed out to Dcmq that this article already discusses impacts and policy, and that these topics are mentioned in some of the statements by science academies (see the thread I referred to earlier). I think that there should be consistency over which topics are covered in this article. For example, the article mentions policy recommendations contained in the 2005, 2008 and 2009 joint-statements. However, the article omits the the IPCC's assessment of policy responses.

In my opinion, it is a distortion not to mention the key policy recommendations of science academies. Some of the statements contain unambiguous policy recommendations. For example, the 2008 joint-statement says "Immediate large-scale mitigation action is required [10]". The 2009 statement says "We call on all governments to [...] adopt a long-term global goal and near-term emission reduction targets that will deliver an approximately 50% reduction in global emissions from 1990 levels by 2050 [11]"

Additionally, there are other statements that focus on impacts and policy, e.g., the IAP - IAMP Statement on the Health Co-Benefits of Policies to Tackle Climate Change. In my opinion, statements like this should be added to the article.

Enescot (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the IPCC policy recommendations should also be included (at minimum!). Those are part of the scientific opinion, after all.. - Parejkoj (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The main body of this article is about what the scientific bodies have said and what the surveys of scientists have said. It should not be driven by just what the IPCC said which is covered by other articles. If anything about policy is stuck in we'd have to be careful is it something that the scientific bodies in general have actually agreed to and scientists have been surveyed about. That after all is what this article is about and not the IPCC itself. Recommendations because of the scientific consensus seem to me to be going away from the basic question that the article is about. The section 'Scientific consensus' at the end of the article defines the basic range of the topic of the article. Dmcq (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Rename, talk policy elsewhere I think we should rename this article to Scientific opinion on existence and cause of global warming; I also think we should cover policy opinions of the scientific community, just not in this article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The vast bulk of the body of this article consists of "Statements by scientific organizations of national or international standing", which is further subdivided into "Concurring", "Non-committal" and "Dissenting". The lede and earlier sections define what exactly it is that these scientific organisations concur, etc, about. There are two choices. (1) We can say that there is no need for such an article any more - there are no organisations in the dissenting camp, and even the president of the United States says that global warming is real, is a problem, and is anthropogenic. In this case, it is time to write a new article about what it is that people agree and disagree about what is to be done, in what order and how soon. (2) Alternatively, if we are going to keep this article, then adding more and more detail about mitigation, recommendations for action, targets, costs, dangers and benefits to the early sections (even if these were uttered or endorsed by scientists at some point) just blurs the integrity of the rest of the article. The more complex the introduction becomes, then what exactly are the organisations in the body of the article concurring with, being non-committal about, and dissenting from? I propose course (2), and that we should rename the article as suggested by NAEG above so that its purpose and integrity are made clear and are maintained. The material proposed, and in some cases already added, by Enescot should be moved out of here into other articles - either new or already in existence - where it is a better fit, and can be developed in the years to come. I understand that as the years go by, this article will become less and less interesting until finally all the world's scientific organizations of national or international standing are in concurrence with the basic facts, but at least it will have made sense the whole time. --Nigelj (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it is a bad idea to cover the opinions of scientists with respect to policy, policy is politics. The specific political options which have scientific validity should be laid out in some article, but the actual opinions of scientists about which route to take is irrelevant since it involves a value judgement which is outside the scope of their field. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

There are two questions in this thread, IRWolfie.... you answered one of them (no to scientists' policy statements either here or in a different article). Before we move on, what do you think about the proposed name change, limiting THIS article's scope to the existence and cause of GW? If this one's name is made more precise as I proposed that would still preserve your objection on the policy bit, just in context of whatever other article becomes the possible home for that info. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think article names need to be made absolutely precise. That's sticking an article into its name. The summary at the top should says what an article is about. The article title should correspond to how people would normally refer to the topic and when people talk about whether scientists agree about climate change they don't mean about policies for mitigation, they mean do scientists think it is happening and are humans causing it. Dmcq (talk) 10:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

First, note the nutshell at WP:TITLE which says titles should be unambiguous. Our lead currently defines the scope as limited to their opinion on existence, and cause type concerns. But as Enescot points out, they have plenty to say about policy recommendations based on that science. This started with E asking to cover the policy stuff here.... and it is very confusing when eds answer only some of the interconnected questions.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

There are three questions floating about in this thread. To aide discussion, here they are. Hopefully new comments might reference the question numbers.

Q1 Should we cover policy recommendations by the organizations of the sort in this article?
Q2 If you said "yes" to Q1, should we do that here or elsewhere (and if so where)?
Q3 Should the scope of this article stay as like it now is, but be renamed to Scientific opinion on existence and cause of global warming?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Answers be me!

Q1 Yes

Q2 Elsewhere, maybe at Climate Change Mitigation, maybe at Scientific recommendations re: global warming policy

Q3 Yes

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Anybody can generate spurious ambiguities with any title if they try. If you would actually read the policy it says 'Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that.' The sources that talk about consensus amongst scientists about climate change do not talk about mitigation policies, sticking that into this article is WP:OR.There is no need to make the title longer. Dmcq (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Dmcq (talk · contribs), no one has said we need to present their policy recommendations as though there is, or is not, a vast consensus. We haven't got that far, unless I missed it. Q1 above, which you failed to answer, includes an implicit question with an obvious answer: Do the RSs include policy recommendations that have been made by various scientific bodies?? I assumed you would admit this is true, since Enescot (talk · contribs) has already provided samples of quotes from this very article which contain such things. With lots of RSs that talk about these policy ideas, the only possible answer to Q1 appears to be "yes, we can cover their policy recommendations in some appropriate manner". With the RSs before our noses, do you have any basis for saying "no" to Q1, other than you don't want us to? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I said covering such policy in this article would be WP:OR as the sources talking about consensus do not talk about that. This article is not about various ideas various scientists have about all aspects of climate change. It is about whether there is a consensus scientific opinion on the basics. We have sources which specifically consider the scientific consensus. Dmcq (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, great. For the third time, how do you answer Q1, or do you "pass" and officially take no position on Q1? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

This talk page is improving this article, not about other articles. I have already said I do not consider that stuff as relevant to this article. We cannot/should not determine the contents of other articles here. Dmcq (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe you would benefit from a review of WP:TALK and the part of WP:DISRUPT that frowns on repeatedly refusing to answer simple questions. In any case, a policy section has already been added to this article. Unless someone deletes it it, we are talking about this article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I have said quite clearly that I do not believe that policy is something that should be covered by this article. As to covering it elsewhere that is not covered by this article. As to your quoting WP:DISRUPT to me, my answer is you can feck off with your badgering. Dmcq (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

To question 1. Do reliable secondary sources cover this topic in such a way as to satisfy WP:GNG? IRWolfie- (talk) 01:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm going by scientific opinion as being a consensus and that the topic should just cover those bits clearly covered by the section scientific consensus in this article. Dmcq (talk) 08:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I went on a semi wikibreak since the policy discussion started, and only realized yesterday that a policy section was added to the article in the interim. To answer IRWolfie's question with a question, what do you think of the text and supporting RSs at Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Policy ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewsAndEventsGuy (talk • contribs) 13:04, 5 August 2013‎

I've had another look through this article. I want to re-emphasize that it already contains numerous comments by scientific bodies that relate to policy. Another point is that the article is around 58 KB long, which is quite big.

Based on what other edtitors have said, I suggest the following:

- In my opinion, renaming the article as suggested by NewsAndEventsGuy is not necessary. I think that it would be better to include a brief summary of the findings from IPCC Working Groups I and II. This would include their projections.

- I think that this sentence sums up what I think should be included in this article: "A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems" - Advancing the Science of Climate Change, US National Research Council

- The article would focus on what science academies have said about observed climate change and attributing climate change to human activities. I don't think that it is necessary to say much about the effects of climate change. From what I've read, the science academy statements on this issue are generally consistent with the IPCC Working Group II report. The article could refer the reader on to effects of global warming.

- As for policy, I think that this article should provide a brief summary of how science relates to policy, and refer the reader on to other articles for more information. The article already mentions that policy decisions require value judgements (section on "policy"). I suggested that the detailed policy recommendations by science academies be moved to avoiding dangerous climate change. Adaptation to global warming, climate change mitigation, ocean acidification and geoengineering might also need to be revised. Enescot (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

If we retain a policy paragraph in this article, such as what we now have, I agree with Enescot and renaming is not necessary. If that paragraph goes away, then I think renaming IS necessary, to avoid "ambiguity" per WP:TITLE, since scientists make statements about both (A) observed/attributed global warming as well as (B) policy recommendations. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

If the coverage of policy confines itself to basically saying that policy is not covered by this article, saying why, and pointing elsewhere I've no complaints. It might help readers to draw a distinction between saying the resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded and saying that people should try and do something about it. That many bodies do put in some policy recommendations doesn't mean they are expressing it as a scientific opinion never mind the question of whether they are united on what should be done. I don't think we need to go overboard in trying to excise all policy recommendations in statements, it might change the sense of what's said and I believe in keeping a little context, however I wouldn't include them unnecessarily. The main topic of the article is I see it in covering the topic 'A question that frequently arises in popular discussion of climate change is whether there is a scientific consensus on climate change'. Policy doesn't really come into it when people say Genesis proves there is no climate change because "While the earth remains Seedtime, harvest, cold and heat, Seasons, days and night", and you've got oil companies paying huge amounts for deliberate obfustication. Dmcq (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

What's currently there in the section, particularly the first paragraph and quote, looks good. The sources are of good quality (though I haven't looked at the specifics for OR etc). For a policy page, I would call it Policy options on climate change, where the scientifically respectable options are discussed (only scientifically respectable options because they are the ones with WP:DUE weight). I don't think scientists making value judgements should be included, only political groups. Scientific commentary and critiques are relevant of course (but only from a scientific perspective, not value judgements), and clearly more respected options get more weight per WP:WEIGHT. Silly options with no scientific credibility, but which are critiqued by many scientific sources may also possibly be mentioned per reasons of weight. Thoughts? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to creating a new article about policy options on climate change. However, I would prefer it if we revise existing articles instead. For example, avoiding dangerous climate change could be expanded.

I'm going to backtrack on what I said earlier. In my opinion, policy relevant issues should be briefly mentioned. As I recall, Dmcq has said that he/she only wants observed climate change and attribution included in this article. I think there should at least be a brief mention of climate change projections and policy responses. The article could simply refer readers on to the relevant articles, e.g., effects of global warming.

I think that the article should mention that the IPCC reports include an assessment of policy responses to climate change. At present it does not. I think this is important because you hear some people claiming that we can comfortably adapt to the (unmitigated) effects of climate change. The IPCC report makes it clear that this is not true [12][13][14]. The article does not have to include the IPCC's conclusions on policy, but it should at least refer readers on to another article that does.

A number of science academies have endorsed the IPCC's work or referred to its conclusions. I think that their support of the IPCC deserves greater prominence in this article. For instance, the following could be added to the section on the IPCC:

"A number of science academies have referred to and/or reiterated the conclusions of the IPCC (see Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change#Endorsements of the IPCC)."

Enescot (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The policy section in this article already points to avoiding dangerous climate change. I am mainly concerned that we avoid trying to make up our own topic of all the various opinions scientists express about climate change and stick with the source topic as expressed in for instance Oreske 'The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, How Do How Do We Know We're Not Wrong?'. The article is not about the science itself. I feel I really haven't communicated when you say I only only want observed climate change and attribution included. I believe that is immaterial in itself to the article - the article is about there being consensus about the science rather than newspaper and television business of balancing everything. Dmcq (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is a quote from one of your previous posts in the thread "IPCC Summary" [15]:

"There's lots of stuff in the IPCC reports, this article isn't a rag bag of everything in them. What this article is about is described in the first paragraph of the lead. It is about the scientific consensus on climate change. It is not about climate change, government policy or mitigation. The possible effects etc are just follow ons from the scientific opinion. Government action is not climate change. Mitigation is not climate change. The effects of climate change even are not climate change."

In this thread, you've stated:

"If the coverage of policy confines itself to basically saying that policy is not covered by this article, saying why, and pointing elsewhere I've no complaints. It might help readers to draw a distinction between saying the resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded and saying that people should try and do something about it. That many bodies do put in some policy recommendations doesn't mean they are expressing it as a scientific opinion never mind the question of whether they are united on what should be done. I don't think we need to go overboard in trying to excise all policy recommendations in statements, it might change the sense of what's said and I believe in keeping a little context, however I wouldn't include them unnecessarily. The main topic of the article is I see it in covering the topic 'A question that frequently arises in popular discussion of climate change is whether there is a scientific consensus on climate change'. Policy doesn't really come into it when people say Genesis proves there is no climate change because "While the earth remains Seedtime, harvest, cold and heat, Seasons, days and night", and you've got oil companies paying huge amounts for deliberate obfustication."

As I see it, there is scientific opinion on:

(1) observed climate change,

(2) attribution of climate change,

(3) projected impacts of climate change,

(4) evaluation of policy responses. These evaluations can be either (i) prescriptive (i.e., policy recommendations that include value judgements) or (ii) descriptive (e.g., the IPCC report, which is non-prescriptive)

I would like to know how these topics should be covered in this article. As I've previously stated, I think that there should be consistency over what topics are covered. At present there is no consistency. For example, the IPCC's descriptive assessment of policy responses is excluded from the article, but there are numerous examples of policy recommendations that are included in the article.

Enescot (talk) 12:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I just don't seem to be communicating with you and I've really tried. You've quoted what I've said and I thought I said it clearly. Just ask yourself how what you want to stick in is relevant to 'A question that frequently arises in popular discussion of climate change is whether there is a scientific consensus on climate change'. The national scientific communities agreeing that there is shows consensus about it. The surveys of the scientists who know anything about it shows it. The topics you are talking about are only relevant in so far as they are part of the dispute about whether there is climate change and whether humans are causing it. People say the scientists involved do not agree with that. There's other articles about the actual science and the actual policy recommendations etc etc. Have we got surveys for instance detailing the subjects you're talking about and gathering statistics about the scientific opinion on them? If you want a straight criterion to measure eligibility a couple of proper surveys on something related to climate change would normally qualify the subject for inclusion I believe. Dmcq (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Referring to Oreskes (2004), I take it that you want:

(1) observed climate change – included in this article

(2) attribution of climate change – included " " "

(3) projected impacts of climate change – Excluded from this article

(4) evaluation of policy responses – Excluded " " "

In that case, I agree with NewsAndEventsGuy with his/her suggestion to rename the article "Scientific opinion on existence and cause of global warming". In my view, topics 3 and 4 are within the scope of "scientific opinion on climate change", defined in this article as:

"This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys."

There is a vast published literature on topics 3 and 4 – refer to the IPCC reports. In my view, there is no reason for "scientific opinion" to only include surveys of the published literature or the opinions of individual experts. In my view, the work of the IPCC and science academy statements fall within the scope of "scientific opinion".

On the issue of overlap, I don't see why topics 3 and 4 from my list are any different from topics 1 and 2. There are already articles on the effects of global warming (i.e., topic 1) and attribution of recent climate change (topic 2). I recognize that there should not be unnecessary overlap between articles, but articles should cover all topics that are relevant. Overlap can be avoided by writing brief summaries of the issues that are discussed in more detail elsewhere.

Enescot (talk) 14:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Observed climate change is not a scientific opinion nor is anything else you mentioned. There is scientific opinion about it because there have been surveys about and scientific institutions have issued statements about it, but that is at another remove. The scientific opinion about it as expressed in those sources and qualified as being from those sources is what is relevant. The observed climate change itself is not of itself directly relevant.

As to renaming the article "Scientific opinion on existence and cause of global warming", that is constraining the article's scope and is trying to write the article in the title. The summary at the tart is what says what an article is about. WP:TITLE is the guide about this and it encourages short easily recognised names without going for total precision just disambiguation. The constraining comes because you are concentrating on specifics that have currently been covered by surveys of scientists and the scientific bodies. If some more surveys came out that dealt with future policy then that would have good grounds for inclusion. But that would not be because the scope of this article included policy. It would be because this article covered scientific opinion on climate change. Dmcq (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Daily Telegraph

The article contains the following text:

"The Royal Society of the United Kingdom has not changed its concurring stance reflected in its participation in joint national science academies' statements on anthropogenic global warming. According to the Telegraph, "The most prestigious group of scientists in the country was forced to act after fellows complained that doubts over man made global warming were not being communicated to the public".[38] In May 2010, it announced that it "is presently drafting a new public facing document on climate change, to provide an updated status report on the science in an easily accessible form, also addressing the levels of certainty of key components."[39] The society says that it is three years since the last such document was published and that, after an extensive process of debate and review,[40][41] the new document was printed in September 2010. It summarises the current scientific evidence and highlights the areas where the science is well established, where there is still some debate, and where substantial uncertainties remain. The society has stated that "this is not the same as saying that the climate science itself is in error – no Fellows have expressed such a view to the RS".[39] The introduction includes this statement:

There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation."

I think that the issue of "doubts over man made global warming" is misleading, and the section is unnecessarily long. The Daily Telegraph has a track record of misrepresenting climate science. I've read the Telegraph article, and it follows a familiar pattern of distortion and misrepresentation.

In my opinion, if climate change scepticism is to covered in this article, it should be done so properly. For example, refer to this summary by Prof David King (paragraph 11). Any coverage of so-called sceptical views should include reference to the numerous rebuttals that have been made of sceptics' arguments.

The concern expressed by the unidentified follows of the Royal Society is, in my opinion, not even accurate. Refer to these guides published by the Royal Society [16] [17][18]. In my opinion, the reference to the Daily Telegraph article should be removed from the article, and a brief summary added of the Royal Society's statements on climate change.

Enescot (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Good catch. As you say, given their track record, I would be very surprised if there is anything useful that the Daily Telegraph can add to scientific opinion on climate change. --Nigelj (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've written a draft revision that removes the Telegraph's comments:

"The Royal Society of the United Kingdom has issued several statements and reports on climate change [19] [20]. These publications have endorsed the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [21] [22]. For example, a booklet published in 2010 (p.1) by the Royal Society describes the IPCC's "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis" report as "the most comprehensive source of climate science and its uncertainties". The booklet also states that "[there] is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation"."

Enescot (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that's fine. Well done. --Nigelj (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Unscientific Implication.

This is not a forum (WP:NOTFORUM). IRWolfie- (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

This article implies that a consensus of opinion among scientists has some sort of bearing on the actual validity of a scientific theory. This has not often been the case historically. In 19th century London, a large majority of experts at the time held the consensus that cholera was caused by foul odors. The few who believed it was carried in the water were dismissed and ridiculed, which caused many deaths until scientific testing validated the theory that cholera was indeed a water-borne disease. The same has been true for many scientific discoveries.

The scientific method is based on testing evidence, not tallying votes of what people believe. Anthropogenic Global Warming may indeed be a fact, but only the scientific weighing of evidence has a bearing on the soundness of the theory; not the weighing of the balance of opinions by scientists.Landroo (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Scientists with the relevant training are best qualified to evaluate the evidence. Their consensus is the best proxy we have. Yes, Copernicus was wrong, Kepler was wrong, Newton was wrong, and even Einstein is almost certainly wrong. But they are "wrong" in increasingly smaller aspects of their theories. Widely held scientific theories are very rarely completely overturned. I'll notice that your example is more than 150 years old - both the body of science and the scientific method were much less developed and established than they are now. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

This article implies that a consensus of opinion among scientists has some sort of bearing on the actual validity of a scientific theory - does it? Per Stephan, I think that the consensus of opinion does matter (or at least informs our non-expert evaluation of a theory), but I'm not sure the article says that. The article is about what is says its about: the scientifc opinion on CC. If we were to write, say, an article on the "scientific opinion, in 19th century London, on the causes of cholera" then we'd say what that consensus was. If you belief is correct, then likely we'd also say that, with the benefit of hindsight, they were wrong. But in this case we have no hindsight, just current-sight. So I'm really not sure what exactly you're objecting to William M. Connolley (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Flat earth has the same flaw. I'm not sure what we're supposed to do about it that's consistent with wikipedia policy. Are you making a suggestion? TippyGoomba (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Even though the scientific consensus is as stated scientists do still test all sorts of aspects of it. As you said it was scientific testing that found there were problems with the then current belief. There is no such thing as 'fact' in science, the closest there is to anything like that is the scientific consensus and how strong it is. The consensus on global warming is very strong. There is no sch thing as scientific weighing independent of scientists themselves. Dmcq (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

This thread lacks any suggestions for improving the article as expected by the talk page guidelines. In the current version, for cite #4 we quote from the RS in the ref section as follows:

"there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations. * * * Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities." (bold added)

Since the thread lacks article-improvement ideas, it should be collapsed. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

AMS Survey

Added a reference to the Americal Meteorological Society survey 2012 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1), in which only 52% of respondents agreed with the AGW consensus. It was reverted with the comment, "Misleading cherry picking". Cherry picking it was, but I don't think misleading. I think it would be more appropriate to add other relevant conclusions of the study; that was an important one. MikeR613 (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be making the usual rounds of the usual places [23] William M. Connolley (talk) 22:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I think there should be something somewhere about that report but that it should be reported in fuller detail,, much of it is a study of the link between political ideology and belief. The society has a large number of members with little scientific training but it is a recognized society that is directly involved in the area and we shouldn't cherrypick. Dmcq (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)i

Fuller detail is a good idea; I was kind of hurried. But in terms of this particular article, the fact that I posted is the most important result of the study: to what degree do AMS members agree with the consensus on AGW? Especially it's interesting because they actually got responses from 26% of their 14000 members. That's not far from an actual vote (though I guess it wasn't presented that way). Are there similar votes on the topic from other professional and scientific organizations (in addition to the statements from the organizations themselves posted here already)? MikeR613 (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Consider me underwhelmed with the analytical vigor on display.... They got a 26% response rate from members with known email addresses, not of the full membership.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Good point. But that was still 7000 members, and they'd excluded associate and junior members. Nicely large sample, and a much larger fraction of the population, and "having their email address" seems unlikely to bias the results. Self-selecting, but all votes are self-selecting, and choosing not to vote is also a vote. - Compare all this with the other surveys that are reported in this article; this one looks better than any of them.MikeR613 (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I would say that it is dubious as to whether this survey even belongs in this category, since 43% of the survey population aren't scientists. (non-publishing members (800 out of 1821) What is even more dubious is to cherry-pick "conclusions" from some table in the paper that isn't directly addressed by the paper itself. Above you also confuse the response rate with the actual sample size of the table entry you picked (which is 1821, thus not 26% of the 14000). --Kim D. Petersen 18:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree that the obvious thing to do is to pick the conclusions from the conclusions that the survey presents. We shouldn't ignore what the paper itself says are its own conclusions in favour of something plucked out William M. Connolley (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The AMS is already referenced in this article. In any case, your point is addressed in the study; they break out their results by expertise and publication. The numbers move upward, but are still very different from the other surveys quoted here. "Third, engagement efforts should include refutation of the idea that members who do not share the consensus view in climate science are lacking in expertise. A substantial number of expert AMS members – 22% of the most expert group in our sample – do not subscribe to the position that global warming is mostly human-caused."

The sample size issue I already mentioned in the comment above. 26% of 7000.MikeR613 (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You are drawing your own conclusions from a table, and not from the paper itself. As for your 22% - they do not actually fall into the category that you describe... Which is one of the many reasons that we as editors should let the papers authors do the research and conclusions. The authors themselves consider the conclusion, drawn from the set you describe, to be equivalent to Doran & Zimmerman's results. --Kim D. Petersen 21:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC) Do notice that the asking about global warming over the timeperiod of 150 years, as opposed to the usual 50 years, by the authors own words may scew the results to the "..represent a more conservative estimate of the consensus on global warming..." (section starting on line 389) Again a reason for not interpreting the results ourselves. --Kim D. Petersen 21:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. My 22%? I should let the authors do the conclusions? That was a direct quote from the paper's results, p. 20 in the pdf. As for the 150 years, Doran and Zimmerman did more-or-less the same on global temperature rise, and this article cheerfully reported as if it's news and evidence for the consensus. It's not my fault that all these survey people start from 1850. MikeR613 (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it appears that i was a bit fast there. But then again the authors seem to misrepresent the consensus in that sentence, since there is no consensus that most of the warming in the 20th century is human-caused. (the consensus position is: "most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities"). Doran&Zimmerman doesn't make that mistake since their question is whether humans had a significant influence (ie. not a "most of" but a "significant portion of") which is rather different. --Kim D. Petersen 17:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I should let the authors do the conclusions? - indeed: so why have you selected that little bit? The "capsule summary" is "In a survey of American Meteorological Society members, perceived scientific consensus was the strongest predictor of global warming views, followed by political ideology, climate science expertise and perceived organizational conflict" William M. Connolley (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thr capsule summary sounds like a more suitable thing to form the basis of a summary here from. Otherwise we need to find another reliable source that discusses the survey to form a basis of what should be here. Dmcq (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Time for an update?

The IPCC conclusions in this article are based on the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. However, on 27 September 2013 a Summary for Policymakers was published, based on the forthcoming IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. In several important respects, its conclusions are different from the 2007 ones. For instance, it now states that human influence being the dominant cause of climate change is extremely likely (95-100%), whereas the 2007 result thought it very likely (90-100%). Is there a specific reason why, as of yet, the new 2013 Summary for Policymakers has not been incorporated into this article? If not, then I propose that we swiftly do so. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to stick in the change, that sort of straightforward update from a new issue of something should normally be pretty okay anywhere in Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh sorry I just saw the 'forthcoming' word. I think we better wait till it is adopted rather than is forthcoming as they can change things. Is the summary for policymakers fixed or is it a draft anyone know? Dmcq (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the answer to your last question (which I don't have), I would like to point out that the current version of the article is also based on a 2006 Summary for Policymakers released ahead of the full 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I really don't see any relevance of that. The only real question is whether the summary for policymakers is a draft or is a final version. Dmcq (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

AR5 WG1's SPM is indeed final, no? The full WG1 report and tech summary will be "final" in Jan but the real-deal SPM has been released, or so I thought. Personally, I want to be able to read the cited sections before adding stuff from the SPM, which is why I am not jumping up and down to start updating things based on the WG1 SPM. On the other hand, if it has been officially released then its certainly an RS if anyone just can't wait to get started NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

In which case inclusion sounds good to me. Dmcq (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I just reverted the addition of generic ref pointing to the AR5 homepage. That's not the report, that's a report homepage. After WG1's full report is released, we will be citing from different things, and each needs a citation. They include (1) The Summary for Policy Makers, (2) the Technical Summary, and (3) the full report, for which in the past we have added separate citations to individual chapters. I'm opposed to being such eager-beavers that we make our future work harder by tweaking text for just these next few weeks with generic pointers to the AR5 homepage instead of to specific AR5 materials that are no longer in draft form. At the moment, there is only one of those: WG1's "Summary for Policymakers". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your call for consistency. However, in your edit summary you seem to state that the Harvard citation "Must point to WG1's 'Summary for Policymakers' specifically". To me that seems to be inconsistent with how it's done in the rest of the article. The other Harvard citations point to a report's homepage (e.g. IPCC AR4 WG2 is a general reference to WG2's contribution) and only in the in-line citations is the Summary for Policymakers specifically referenced and linked. Here's an example from the article itself:

{{citation | author=IPCC | title= Magnitudes of impact | chapter=Summary for Policymakers | url=http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/spmsspm-c-15-magnitudes-of.html | chapter-url=http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/spm.html }}, in {{harvnb|IPCC AR4 WG2|2007}}

If we would now start treating the Summary for Policymakers as a separate citation (e.g. IPCC AR5 SPM), wouldn't that in itself introduce an inconsistency? - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The issue is "What AR5 materials are currently in "reliable source" status?" Answer: Only WG1's "Summary for Policymakers". If you want to support article changes by citing AR5, you currently have a single WP:RS from AR5 to choose from; WG1's "Summary for Policymakers". The rest of the WG1 report has only been released in draft form and says on its face that it is "not approved in detail". So we can't cite something from IPCC that has not been finalized and officially released. Whether you use harv or some other template to cite the Summary for Policymakers, I don't particularly care. But its the only IPCC thing for AR5 that is - so far- fair game as an RS. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The fact that the report homepage is linked in the citation, while only the SPM is currently in finalized form, shouldn't have to be a problem, as long as – until the full report is finalized – we don't make reference to any other part of the report than the Summary for Policymakers in the article text. That shouldn't be too hard to accomplish: if any editor adds something that is referenced from the non-finalized parts of AR5, we simply revert it.

The reason why I propose doing it this way is that we, by doing so, create a framework which can later be expanded upon. The moment the full report is finalized, we can add data and conclusions from other parts, whilst still using the IPCC AR5 WG1 citation. Perhaps the current URL needs to be changed, as the IPCC will probably host the full report in its publications_and_data folder, but that is literally a 5-second tweak.

The alternative is to now create a IPCC AR5 SPM citation, specifically for the Summary for Policymakers. This would mean that the in-line citations are not going to contain the reference I supplied in my previous post – it would be redundantly stating that the source is "Summary for Policymakers. In: IPCC 2013, Summary for Policymakers". Next year, when the full report is released, we'd want IPCC AR5 SPM to cease being a separate citation, for consistency's sake, and just have the references link to the main citation, specifying that the source is "Summary for Policymakers. In: IPCC 2014, AR5". This would mean changing all the in-line citations that reference the 2013 SPM. I think that would qualify as the "future hard work" that you say you want to avoid. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I have a mental block to citation nuances, but maybe others, especially J. Johnson (talk · contribs), will chime in. I mentioned JJ because he knows citation mechanics well and invested a lot of good faith energy towards simplifying cites to AR4. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me (as I no longer watch these pages). In regard of creating AR5 citations: this has already been anticpated (see Talk:IPCC_Fifth_Assessment_Report#IPCC_citations), and some of the chapter details can be found at Talk:IPCC Fifth Assessment Report/citation. I anticipate the citations for the reports themselves and the general format to follow those of AR4 (such as the example above, and see Talk:IPCC Fourth Assessment Report/citation). (Although I think a more parameterized format should be adapted.)

Regarding use and citation of draft reports offically released (distinguished from any unofficial or leaked drafts for which the IPCC has not given its imprimatur): certainly, but only until the final report is available. It is therefore extremely important to clearly identify all such citations.

I recommend adding "draft" to the author string, so that the example above gets changed to: {{Harvnb|IPCC AR5 WG1 draft|2013}}. (This implies a corresponding citation template.) Also, I strongly recommend that all citations of a draft report should be tagged with

{{Update after|2014|December|reason=Citation of draft; check and re-cite to final report}}

to aid in finding and replacing them with the final reports become available.

Let me know if anyone needs more details. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

IPCC AR5 citations

I have prepared templates for citing AR5 WG1. Details at Talk:IPCC Fifth Assessment Report/citation. Note that these are not yet complete, as some details are not yet available. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

1950-2013 temperatures

NASA recently (Jan 21, 2014) released this short video

NASA scientists say 2013 tied for the seventh warmest of any year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures. With the exception of 1998, the 10 warmest years in the 133-year record all have occurred since 2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the hottest years on record.
NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, which analyzes global surface temperatures on an ongoing basis, released an updated report Tuesday, Jan. 21, on temperatures around the globe in 2013. The comparison shows how Earth continues to experience warmer temperatures than several decades ago.
The visualization shows a running five-year average global temperature, as compared to a baseline average global temperature from 1951-1980.

— NASA, Six Decades of a Warming Earth, Video on YouTube

I thought it was worth mentioning here. Perhaps it would be useful. --CyberXRef^☎ 01:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The video emphatically does not show "global temperature" over this period. Rather it shows global surface temperature. Since ~90% of global warming's added heat energy has gone into the ocean, any video purporting to show "global temperature" should show more than changes just at the surface. That said, the video strikes me as quite visually distracting to run in an article, but I have no opposition to adding a frozen still in a thumb and letting people click to run the show. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Come to think of it, did we recently discuss this video at Global warming? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the graph in the article is much better. This illustration goes more towards what the climate change article is about rather than scientific opinion. Something which illustrated the idea of scientific opinion might be an idea - this just shows one result. The graph shows uncertainty estimates which is at least a nod towards scientific opinion and consensus. Dmcq (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

On controversial topics, information in Wikipedia cannot be trusted

Standard wikipedia-bashing WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM from an ed listed under notice section of WP:ARBCC

I find Wikipedia extremely useful. Thanks to Wikipedia, I have avoided many trips to the library to seek information (which was the standard practice in the pre-Internet age).

However, while Wikipedia is great for general information, on controversial topics such as climate change, the information in Wikipedia is no better than the mouthpieces of the former USSR such as Pravda and Isvestia and cannot at all be trusted.

Listen to the last 5 minutes of this BBC podcast with testimony from a scientist to understand how activitists with an agenda enlist themselves as "Editors" and censor sites like Wikipedia to dupe the population out of essential information that contradicts their beliefs: http://stitcher.com/s?AACAAKEgI&refid=asie - that's how activists distort Wikipedia and persecute those who dare to defy it.

The Wikipedia page about the poor scientist in the podcast was distorted by these so-called editors to demote him from a full professor to a "post-doctoral student".

Information on Wikipedia on controversial topics is a disgrace, and that's why I have stopped contributing. I would strongly urge the managers at Wikipedia to re-asses the way that they handle quality-checks of articles, in particular, to find a way to vet so-called "editors" to be unbiased, rather than being activists pushing an agenda, which is too often the case today.

Multiple testimonies (including mine when I tried to change the article a while ago and was immediately reverted and threatened with an edit war) prove this bias. The BBC has already caught on to this, and it is only a question of time before the reputation of Wikipedia is further maligned, unless serious steps are taken to rectify and arrest the influence of activists with an agenda.

After all, Wikipedia is supposed to be an information source, not an outlet for activists on controversial subjects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benutzer (talk • contribs) 10:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Amen, brother. Like the NPOV hatnote, too.... ;-/ --Pete Tillman (talk) 05:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

agreed, i believe it should be mentioned that sun is the main driver in climate change, and that 95% stat is bogus based on that fact alone, all the other local planetary bodies are changing temperature accordingly as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Human000 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

You have been lied to. Please see Talk:Global_warming/FAQ Q15. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Scientific "opinion"?

Why opinion and not consensus? The Wookieepedian (talk) 10:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Because it is about scientific opinion. There is a very strong consensus. Putting consensus in the title would be putting the cart before the horse. If there was a study of the fuel efficiency of a car the study would be titled the fuel efficiency of car X, it is the sales guy who puts up front a billboard the 60mpg car X. Wikipedia articles are not sales blurbs. Dmcq (talk) 11:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The way I understand it, it is definitely not plural: This is not an article about random people's opinions. There is only one overall scientific opinion - think of it like medical opinion rather than 'a medical opinion'. I think it's slightly broader than 'scientific consensus', in that in general you could say that that scientific opinion is both (a) there is a scientific consensus in all these areas, while (b) at the same time there is still some discussion over this or that point. --Nigelj (talk) 11:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand that, it's just that I worry that it gives people (especially deniers/conspiracy theorists) the wrong impression when they read this article, "Oh, it's just an opinion no different than any random guy's on the street." The Wookieepedian (talk) 12:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a soapbox even in the interest of truth justice etc. Dmcq (talk) 12:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course not. But using "opinion" instead of "consensus" could be seen to undermine the scientific method. The Wookieepedian (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@Nigelj, I'm pretty sure we agree, but to be picky about words (maybe for others), I don't quite embrace the notion that "there is only one overall scientific opinion" on climate change. For some aspects (e.g., fact that is warming or that we're most responsible) at this point in the professional literature that statement is certainly true. However, as we have discussed from time to time in the various climate pages, there are also current scientific debates among these same experts (e.g., Climate sensitivity), so in that sense for some important issues in the ongoing research areas, there really are multiple opinions by various publishing experts.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Non-conructive trolling WP:SOAP by 2601:8:1E00:138:A09B:6206:4FA0:F0D2 deleted per WP:TPOC NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Lovejoy paper

In this pair of edits, a very recent single paper was added. It is an interesting work and worthy of mention somewhere, but I don't think any single recent paper should appear in the lead (see WP:RECENTISM). If these findings "stick" they will work their way into future large literature reviews from PNAS, RoyalSociety, etc.

Can anyone suggest a good alternative place for including this very recent paper? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy - FWIW - Thank You *very much* for your comments - and suggestions - regarding several recent and relevant (afaik atm) references =>

< ref name="MCG-20140411">Lovejoy, Shaun; Chipello, Chris (11 April 2014). "Is global warming just a giant natural fluctuation?". McGill University. Retrieved 17 April 2014.</ref>

< ref name="CD-201404">Lovejoy, S. (April 2014). "Scaling fluctuation analysis and statistical hypothesis testing of anthropogenic warming". Climate Dynamics. Retrieved 17 April 2014.</ref>

Not sure atm about a good place to insert the references in the Scientific opinion on climate change (or some related?) article(s) - perhaps a new section to accomodate such studies may be in order (or, at least, considered)? - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Besides WP:RECENTISM also beware of WP:LINKFARM NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The conclusion from the paper appears noteworthy, Even in the most unfavourable cases, we may reject the natural variability hypothesis at confidence levels >99 % prokaryotes (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Part of the idea is that other professionals get a chance to digest and criticize. Ink has barely dried yet. If it proves to have "stick" then their conclusion will bubble up to color major lit reviews down the road. I note that Drbogdan did add it to Global warming controversy, in what I at least think is a more appropriate place, at least so far. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree with NewsAndEventsGuy here, this article needs to be based on well established stuff rather than the latest idea that hasn't been pored over properly yet. Dmcq (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)