Talk:Scientific consensus on climate change/Archive 7

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 1

←

Archive 5

Canada Federation of Earth Sciences?

This organization is currently listed as "concurring", but to me the reference puts them squarely in the non-committal category. The way the statement is quoted in the article seems a bit misleading, as it implies that the listed "consequences" are said to be consequences of GHG emissions, where I read them to be saying that these are possible consequences of potential warming, the cause of which is in doubt. In essence, the paper says a few things:

"regardless of the causes, our global climate will continue to change for the foreseeable future"
"Earth scientists know that our global climate has changed significantly, at times with dramatic speed and magnitude, over many millions of years. For example, Earth scientists have demonstrated that as energy received from the sun varies, so too does our climate. As a second example, Earth scientists have carefully mapped evidence on our landscape that demonstrates that large sheets of ice covered most of Canada only 15,000 years ago. "
"humans are adding greenhouse gases (GHGs) to our atmosphere at an ever increasing rate. The level of CO2 in our atmosphere is now greater than at any time in the past 500,000 years; there will be consequences for our global climate and natural systems as a result. Canada's Earth scientists are continuing to conduct crucial Earth science research to determine what these consequences are likely to be. "
"Members of our community are available to help societies understand the wide range of issues that they may face as a result of global climate change. These could include..."

This all reads to me like a statement that tiptoes around whether humans are primarily causing climate change. Nowhere do they outright state that human CO2 is causing warming. "There will be consequences" is a very vague statement that I don't believe is strong enough to label them as concurring. Therefore, based on this paper, I think they need to be moved to noncommittal. Oren0 (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Note that all of the points that you state -- climate always changes regardless of cause, climate has changed over many time scales, etc. -- are fully in agreement with mainstream climate science and are specifically covered in the Fourth Assessment Report (see e.g., chapter 6 of the WGI report). People sometimes get the mistaken idea that because climate has changed due to natural causes it cannot change because of human influence, or vice versa. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not stating that these points are in contradiction with the IPCC. But stating that this statement in a vacuum indicates agreement with the conclusions of the IPCC isn't right either. If a scientific organization's position paper only said "we accept that climate is changing", certainly you wouldn't say that would be enough to indicate that the given group concurs with the main conclusions of the IPCC. What if the statement only said "the sky is blue"? The fact that a statement doesn't contradict the IPCC doesn't mean that it agrees with it either, that's what the "noncommittal" section is for. In my opinion, there are two ways a statement can be included in the "concurring" list. One is that an organization's statement explicitly calls out agreement with the IPCC or another organization who does. The other is an agreement regarding the same three main points that the "opposing scientist" list requires one dispute to be considered "against" the IPCC: that the Earth has warmed, that the warming is primarily attributable to human causes, and that continued warming will cause negative effects. I don't see how a statement that doesn't cover these basic criteria (IMO the Canadian paper states 1 and 3 but not 2) could be labeled as concurring. Oren0 (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd call this one more "unclear" than "noncommittal." On the one hand, they're not explicitly endorsing the IPCC position (though they're implicitly endorsing much of it). On the other, they aren't explicitly setting forth a noncommittal position like the AAPG. Maybe we could expand the title of the noncommittal group to "noncommittal or unclear." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have done as you suggested. I attempted to choose representative quotes in the article that show the unclearness of the statement, but feel free to tweak it if you don't think I've represented them correctly. Oren0 (talk) 05:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. The statement is not as clear as it could be, but the stress on CO2 levels, CO2 reduction, and the list of possible effects puts them in the supporting camp. As Boris wrote above: They write nothing not in agreement with the IPCC position. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing not in agreement is not the same as agreeing outright, which I don't believe they've done. Nowhere in that statement do they state that humans or GHGs are primarily responsible for warming, and thus we can't list them as "concurring". Oren0 (talk) 08:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Good points everyone. I apologize for not being more diligent when I first posted the CFES under concurring organizations. Their position paper was rather wishy-washy. However, they did make a more definitive statement in their 2001 position paper Mitigating climate change: Putting our carbon dioxide back into the ground :

We contribute to the global problem of changing climate by our missions of greenhouse gases - especially carbon dioxide – from industrial processes. A warming Earth has significant problems for Canada – instability in agricultural productivity, sinking of northern infrastructrure into melting permafrost, greater vulnerability of low-lying coastlines to storms.

BUT...later in the same position paper they say, "While the Canadian Geoscience Council is not at this time taking a particular position specifically on the issue of global warming, the Council is establishing a position on the use of geological sinks to mitigate emissions of greenhouse gases, particularly CO2."

BUT...the earlier paragraph DOES take a position on global warming: emissions of greenhouse gases = warming Earth = significant problems.--CurtisSwain (talk) 12:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The new ref above (We contribute to the global problem of changing climate by our missions of greenhouse gases - especially carbon dioxide – from industrial processes.) does not leave any room to doubt their position. I have restored CEFS to the concurring section. Raul654 (talk) 13:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't we attempt to derive their position on an issue from the position paper that is currently linked from their website, rather than another document? Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that their currently linked position paper would reflect their current position on a subject? Also, I'd be curious which of these documents is more recent, but I don't see a date on the position paper. Oren0 (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I went digging on their website and found this - their minutes for the Autumn 2007 meeting, at which they approved they web position statement. (See item #13 - November 18, 2007) Mitigation (which is what the second reference pertains to) is mentioned as a topic to be discussed in the future. This suggests to me that the latter reference is, in fact, the more up-to-date one. Raul654 (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The current reference in the article was in fact published in 2004 ([1]), which would suggest that this later position paper should take precedence. I also find the note in these minutes by the author of the paper ("CFES should not take a position on climate change but should focus on helping to understand consequences and how to deal with it") to be interesting, as it clearly indicates that the position paper is not taking sides. Doesn't that put it back in the noncommittal/unclear section? I don't see how we can choose an earlier statement when the later one is published as the organization's official position on the matter. Oren0 (talk) 03:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Those darn Canadians! They can't commit to anything, not even their own name. Are they the Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences or are they the Canadian Geoscience Council?

Anyway, their statement Global Climate Change is the most recent, but it's also the most vague. It's not so much noncommittal as it is poorly worded. Their statement Mitigating climate change is much more definitive. They specifically say they are "not at this time taking a particular position" on global warming. That puts them squarely in the noncommittal camp. The fact that they also clearly say emissions of greenhouse gases = warming Earth = significant problems just shows they're even noncommittal about being noncommittal. (What a bunch of hosers:)

Therefore, I propose we use the two quotes from Mitigating climate change and place the CFES under "noncommittal statements", (dropping the word "unclear" because it's kind of redundant). How's that sound?--CurtisSwain (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The very fact that they put out a paper on mitigating climate change strongly implies they think (a) that it's real, and (b) that it's subject to human mitigation and therefore anthropogenic. But I think Curtis's suggestion about moving them to the noncommital camp and using relavant quotes from the mitigation paper is fair enough. Raul654 (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Done.--CurtisSwain (talk) 02:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Add 2007 STATS/Harris poll

Between March 19 through May 28, 2007 Harris Interactive conducted a mail survey of a random sample of 489 self-identified members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union who are listed in the current edition of American Men and Women of Science. A random sample of this size carries a theoretical sampling error of +/- four percentage points. A detailed description of the study’s methodology as well as that of the earlier Gallup survey is available on request.

STATS survey of experts reveals changing scientific opinion on global warming, extent of pressure to play up or down threat.--Jaymax (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. There are some missing details: the writeup says they surveyed AGU and AMS members listed in American Men and Women of Science, but the press release calls the respondents "climate scientists." How did they winnow down the respondents into climate scientists versus others? Both AGU and AMS include lots of people who don't have anything to do with climate science. Nonetheless, the results don't seem too far out of whack. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Good work Jaymax. Thanks for finding that survey. I'd say go ahead and add it to the article.--CurtisSwain (talk) 08:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Done, but plenty of room for improvement Jaymax (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Some issues: First, is STATS a reliable source? [2] Robert Lichter, a Fox News contributor, is known for seeking out liberal media bias. Second, the inserted text (from the US News article) is: "74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence substantiates the occurrence of human-induced greenhouse warming" which is incomplete and seems potentially misleading, since the pool that they are choosing from contains many who are not climate scientists. The STATS article itself states "84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure." Many without expertise might choose "unsure" regarding the evidence as is the case with many of the other questions. Full results (rather than just an article) would be useful. Gmb92 (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree more documentation would be good - and it would also be nice to establish a firmer basis for STATS. Personally, I gain some comfort from their tendancy to be publishing a quantity of work that is far from conservative in it's conclusions, while being accused of being a conservative organisation. For myself: I rate them on appearance only as considerably less ideologically driven than the SourceWatch community :) Unfortunatly, at this time, I can't find anything more (I have scoured the Harrison Interactive site - but I guess as commissioned work, this doesn't get mentioned there). For the moment, we have what we have, and there does not seem any reason to exclude the poll Jaymax (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It would be very good to have the raw results from the poll and not just the press release, since press releases can differ substantially from what the actual questions and numbers say (whether inadvertently or by design). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well...I'm not suggesting we include SourceWatch either. The article seems to make a few assumptions, one in particular being that any randomly selected self-identified member of AGU or AMS is a "climate scientist".Gmb92 (talk) 06:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

But are you suggesting that the poll should not be included at all? While it's reporting is far from ideal, I think inclusion does contribute to an understanding of the page topic. Jaymax (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think there's some important information from the article, missing here: "A slight majority (54%) believe the warming measured over the last 100 years is not 'within the range of natural temperature fluctuation.'" "Only 29% express a 'great deal of confidence' that scientists understand the size and extent of anthropogenic [human] sources of greenhouse gases, and only 32% are confident about our understanding of the archeological climate evidence." "Overall, only 5% describe the study of global climate change as a 'fully mature' science, but 51% describe it as 'fairly mature,' while 40% see it as still an 'emerging' science." It would be nice to see the actual results! But I think a fair conclusion is that a lot of scientists are much more humble about the state of their knowledge than is usually described. Since the main issue here isn't "who do you think is right if I force you to choose", but "is the issue closed or a matter of active scientific debate", I'd submit that the STATS survey actually is evidence of an active debate.MikeR613 (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I added a couple of the other pieces of data from the survey; I think they round out the picture presented.--MikeR613 (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverted. "I think you are cherrypicking things that sound non-scary; we could as easily pick other items)" - William M Connolley. That is exactly what I did, as I said before: To round out the picture presented. Till now, the article cherrypicked the things that sounded scary. What is your criterion for which cherries should be picked?--MikeR613 (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Dunno. Just use the info in the first para, Scientists agree that humans cause global warming perhaps? But relying on their own press release is dubious William M. Connolley (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

So could you explain what you think should be in the section? Currently it has every one of the more scary statistics, none of the more nuanced ones, and seriously distorts the impression given by reading the STATS press release. Presumably that isn't what we want.--MikeR613 (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

We should NOT be seeking to list the entire results of the survey - just the major findings that go to indicate whether or not there is 'scientific consensus'. I would suggest a limit of two datapoints. The one about the 2 degree increase is fairly meaningless - what if the question had been 1.5 degree, or 5 degrees, etc.

I suggest "84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring" and "51% describe the study of global climate change as a 'fairly mature' science". [note that the 84% personal opinions of the scientists re warming goes directly to whether there is scientific consensus, whereas the 74% 'substatiation' figure is somewhat indirect.Jaymax (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I quite agree that we should only list what defines whether there is consensus. STATS explains in the release article that 2 degrees is the point at which the IPCC said there would be major environmental disruptions, so that seemed important to me to note - do scientists expect major problems or minor ones? That additional background fact would need to be noted.
The stuff about mature science is a lot more blurry and I wouldn't mine skipping it.--MikeR613 (talk) 02:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

External links

Does this article need an external links section at all, and if so what should be in it? I noticed someone adding a link to a page of an insurer's website with the opinion of a scientist on the subject; but that doesn't fit the criteria the article uses. Even links to national or international scientific organisations seem superfluous, since they would already have been referenced at the appropriate place in the article, if they had one. N p holmes (talk) 06:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I can't think of anything this article would need an external link to.--CurtisSwain (talk) 07:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This article proves that the claim of a consensus is misleading.

This article cites organization after organization that state opinions that global warming is caused by man-made CO₂ emissions. However, all but two of the organizations cited don't specialize in climate research. The only organization cited that does, the American Association of State Climatologists, makes a non-committal statement. The Survey of U.S. state climatologists has the consensus that reducing CO₂ emissions to 1990 levels will not prevent global temperatures from rising. I'm sure that this article will remain as "proof" that there is a scientific consensus on global warming. However, when I'm doing my part in expelling this myth, this article gives me one more piece of ammunition. All I have to do is point-out that the consensus is among non-climate scientists and that the scientists who actually study the climate disagree with the amateurs. Rsduhamel (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, State Climatologists focus on climate "at the state and local level" [3], not on a global scale. The extend to which they actually study the global climate varies from individual to individual. Some State Climatologists have been recent contributing authors to IPCC reports, while other members of AASC are actively retired.[4] Mostly, they simply interpret synoptic and mesoscale data from various weather and climate monitoring agencies and communicate that to their respective states. As a body, the AASC is not heavily involved in global climate research and analysis. Although they are the only scientific body with the word "Climatologists" in their name, it would be a profoundly inaccurate to refer to other scientific bodies as climate "amateurs." Additionally, the AASC's non-commital statement is out of date, and no longer in affect, and the survey you referred to was conducted more than a decade ago.--CurtisSwain (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Include WHO?

What do y'all think about including the World Health Organization's report on climate change and health [5]? WHO is not exactly a learned society, but they're certainly authoritative.--CurtisSwain (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I suspect it'd be hard to argue they are not "a scientific body of international standing" - and therefore they should be included by the rules. Should perhaps note that they are UN though, and so adoption of the UN IPCC findings may be less subject to any input from their own internal scientific community, than with other groups?Jaymax (talk) 23:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Done.--CurtisSwain (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

"Scientific Opinion" is a POV title

THe title of this article is POV because "Scientific Opinion" implies that there is only one, but no group, no matter how large, will ever have The Scientific Opinion. If this article were named "Scientific Opinions on climate change", there would be no contest, but to say that a consensus of opinions can create one singular opinion is misleading and POV. Mrathel (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

But I do think the neautrality of the article needs to be assessed. To say that there is a scientific opinion on any subject is to say that there is only one acceptable theory, which goes against very basic rules of the scientific process. I agree that there is an overwhelming consensus on climate change, but no matter how many groups accept a theory, it is never the theory on the subject. Mrathel (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, The section for alternative opinions is incredibly small given the amount of information on the "opinion", and none of the basic principles of the dissenters is listed. A NPOV article should allow opposing views to be stated in connection with the general subject matter, allowing different opinions to be expressed about, but in this case, the POV of the article's title plays another role and keeping dissent at a minimum: because the article implies that there is only one "opinion", alternate theories and views are intrensicly impossible. All problems with the neautrality of the article seem to originate from the problem with the title. Mrathel (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted your tagging. Slow down please (miscapitalisation and misspelling are a hint that you are going too fast), read the back story on this talk page, and make your case here. Please don't re-add the tags, it will only end in tears William M. Connolley (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

lol funny guy you is. perhaps i could caution you to slow down yourself; neautrality tags kindly suggest that they stay up until the debate has ended; and to my knowledge, they don't have a speed limit attaached:) But if you are going to revert the tagging, I think we need to have a serious discussion, and I will even consider refining my language for you. The previous ones don't seem to hit the key issue here, which is the article tite and whether or not a "scientific opinion" can possibly exist without suggesting a POV. Perhaps you can explain to me how the singular form of opinion is justifiable. To be honest, I don't care much about the subject matter and I don't want to hear facts or statistics; the issue here is semantic. Let me add two things before you start:

there are no articles on wikipedia that begin "Scientific Opinion on" and don't deal with global warming. If the term "scientific opinion" were a viable prefix, there would be "Scientific Opinion on Gravity" and "Scientific Opinion on that thing on Gorbachev's head"..etc.
the article for "Scientific Opinion" redirects to "scientific consensus", which is a strange path to be honest, but suggests that they are either one in the same (which would defy the denotations of the words) or that the former does not exist. Actual evidence that "consensus" and "opinion" proof inherently interchangable in the scientific community is the only way I can see the article remaining as it is.Mrathel (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You're kind of splitting hairs there in regards to the title, but I wouldn't object if we changed it to "opinions". The title would be accurate either way. The singular form is often used to refer to a diversity of views of a given group. For examples, see public opinion, Public opinion and activism in the Terri Schiavo case, or Public opinion of the 2006 Thai coup d'état. However, you are correct in that the section for alternative opinions is incredibly small, but that's only because nobody has been able to find any legitimate scientific body that denies AGW. You're certainly free to search for one, and place them in the article. The Scholarly Societies Project would be a good place to start. So far, we've only been able to find 5 scientific bodies that have issued non-commital statements, and their basic principles are quoted the same as all the AGW confirming bodies. In fact, the State Climatologists have one of the longest quotes in the whole article. There's plenty of room for dissenting views in this article. However, there is virtually no dissent within the scientific community other than a small handful of individuals, and their views are given space in List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, which this article links to.--CurtisSwain (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that it is hair splitting, but I would like to make two quick observations. The first is that "public opinion" is inherently different that "scientific opinion" becuase the prior is an established term with general connotations. The use of "public" as an adjective functions quite differently than the use of "scientific"; the former suggests consensus among the general public whereas the latter suggests factual establishment. In other words, it appears when you say "the scientific opinion" , it appears you are saying:"the educated opinion on climate change" or "the factual opinion on climate change." However, I have heard "scientific consensus" used far more often and it more aptly describes the content of the article.

There is nothing inherently different between "public opinion" or "scientific opinion" with regards to being an established term. (as quick checks with google with will tell you (news[6],science[7],web[8],education[9],government[10]). As for using consensus instead - i'm not opposed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

As for the alternative views, the problem is that there are few alternative views when you lump all "scientific opinion" into one category rather than showing it as a diverse range of opinions. Even though most scientist agree on the basic facts of climate change, there are diverse opinions about the extent caused by certain gases, the affects it will have in the future, and there are various opinions within the studies shown on the page. Every time a new report comes out, it is not the same opion on climate change, it is a different opinion on climate change...even if the differences are minute.Mrathel (talk) 12:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you're miscategorising the problem - The term "scientific opinion" is well understood - as pointed out above, it is a consensus opinion, not at all disimilar the the concept of 'public opinion', just with scientific rather than media support (only semi-serious there). And just as it's entirely proper and perfectly good english to say "Public opinion on the matter is varied", likewise, the scientific opinion of climate change can be varied, the thing is that just like 'public-opinion' implies a degree of consensus, so does 'scientific opinion'.

Indeed, I would go further and suggest that the title of this article is something that could be positively looked on for adoption elsewhere on WP where the nature of current scientific opinion is relevant and of interest.Jaymax (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Just found via Google this example: "Scientific opinion is divided about the biological nature of the agent that causes SEs. The two main theories are the Prion hypothesis and the Virus theory." Jaymax (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I am not entirely sure that the term "scientific opinion" is as understood as you are suggesting. The relationship between the term and "public opinion" is tenuous to say the least, and if we are to go by google hits, the vast majority of results (excluding those associated with this article) deal with a single, individual opinion regarding something scientific, not a consensus of opinions. Mrathel (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually that isn't what the vast majority of results show - i did check before posting. ;-) [i btw. also checked "scientific opinions" and "current scientific opinion" none of which indicate that your position is correct] Of course google shouldn't be used as more than a guidance to usage - but that guidance is rather clear.--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I discarded all article dealing with climate change and global warming in my count; and while google searches are tailored to the individual and thus can't be compared among users, I counted only 2 uses of the term "scientific opinion" regarding a consensus among more than 50 result; the majority being "the scientific opinion" of an individual or single group of individuals.Mrathel (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting - because not a single hit on my first google search page (with your criteria and personalized turned off (&pws=0)) [11] gave any personal opinions, but instead where on consensus. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I find it fascinating that the passage of time is inversely proportional to the number of scientists who embrace manmade global warming. Isn't that a bit odd? Would be nice to see this article address this phenomenon

[Citation needed] Raul654 (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"Inversely proportional" ? I think what you mean to say is the passage of time is directly proportional to the number of scientists who embrace manmade global warming. Unless some of the earlier position statements have been rescinded or changed. So far, the only scientific body to change their position is the AAPG, and they went from contrary to non-commital. If you know of any scientific body that has changed it's position, please make appropriate changes to the article. --CurtisSwain (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

A bit of a misscommunication here Kim; when i say singular opinions, I mean opinions by a person or a group. Any article that has "a scientific opinion" is excluded because that is not how it is used in the article. So "EFSA has today published its final scientific opinion" does not meet the criteria b/c it does not use "scientific opinion" in the same way that one would use "public opinion", such as "Scientific opinion suggests that...". If a group name is before it or the article "a", then it is not referring to a consensus of scientists the way this article does. Mrathel (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Mrathel (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Then it seems to me it is referring to 'scientific opinion' in the way the term is meant in the article heading. You search for 'scientific opinion' and you get lots of groups who have expresses a formal opinion. We have to be very careful about the distinction between opinion and consensus. But the scientific opinion (ie: the position) of a scientific group represents the formally agreed consensus position of THAT group.

I thought you were arguing that the term 'scientific opinion' was POV though, so why are you bringing 'consensus' into THIS debate? Consensus (in the broad sense) is something that is only seen after looking at the current state of 'scientific opinion'. OK - I went back to you top post - it seems to me that this is a simple case of definition and semantics - and that your understanding of the term 'scientific opinion' is different to the way it is MEANT in the article. And to be fair, it's not easy to find a good definition. Perhaps we should look to provide one. Jaymax (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

PS - It's worth noting that this article, under the same heading - used to include varying opinions. The change has been that there are no longer any organisations meeting the long-agreed criteria with positions significantly contrary to the majority. The near-100% consensus you are seeing (that leads to you perceiving the article title to talk about a singular opinion, rather that the collective (and varied) opinion as is meant) is something that has evolved with the drift of scientific opinion (as represented by the formally adopted opinions/positions of organisations) over time. Jaymax (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess that we are coming to a strange circle here. I agree that there is a consensus among scientists regarding climate change; I am just confused about how "scientific opinions" evolves into "the scientific opinion", which is a scary term not used widely outside of this particular topic. I understand that it is MEANT to say that a consensus among opinions has lead almost to an understanding, but it is confining all the same. To say that the views expressed by these groups is "the scientific opinion" is to say that dissenting views are "non-scientific"... even if this is not the intent of the term, it is a result that does not face an article titled "Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" or "Scientific Opinions on Climate Change". If examples of the use of "the scientific opinion on..." were more prevalent in other genres of science, I would be more at ease. Mrathel (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the phrase 'the scientific opinion' can be a mis-used phrase, but it doesn't appear on this page anywhere - googling "'the scientific opinion' -climate" returns about half as many as "'the scientific opinion'" alone - and a good number of fair uses (as in eg: "review the scientific opinion") I'm no linguist, so I don't know what the right word is, but to me, it is the same as 'public opinion' in the sense that it would be wrong to say e.g. 'going up against the public opinion' - but okay to say 'going up against public opinion', implication being that public opinion is sufficiently aligned for there to be an understanding of some level of consensus.

My quick (but quite possibly wrong) google-driven inference, is that "the scientific opinion" combined with "climate" is primarily misused by those who mean "the scientific consensus" and disagree with it. One could hypothesize that the primary reason for the misuse is that the same people very often don't want to acknowledge any such consensus, and 'the scientific opinion' is easier to deride.

So I think we agree that usage of the phrase "the scientific opinion" to mean a singular opinion is incorrect, and that such incorrect usage is sometimes seen within the climate debate - but not on this page. Therefore a 'dissenting view' from the consensus can certainly be part of 'scientific opinion' (or "the scientific opinion"), and were such a dissenting view to be held by any organisation of national standing, it would be included on this page as representing a significant part of current scientific opinion on climate change.

As you say, strange circles. Words: hate'em but kinda need'em... Jaymax (talk) 03:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

We are getting somewhere. I guess I just equated the article's use of "the current scientific opinion" with "the scientific opinion"...which may very well have been misreading since "current" does in some way modify the term... I simply don't have an answer, but I think I will go back to editing poetry articles and let you guys decide for yourselves:) Mrathel (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol! Me: 'Words: hate'em' - You: 'editing poetry articles' heh... I think it's been a very useful discussion, and something we should be clear about in the article intro. The fact that searching 'scientific opinion' on WP links straight to the 'scientific consensus' article, and there is no clarification there, doesn't help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaymax (talk • contribs) 03:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

What is a synthesis report?

I think it would be very helpful to our readers, and beneficial to this article as a whole if the "Synthesis reports" section had a brief introductory paragraph explaining what a synthesis report is. I'm certain that most lay people (non-scientists such as myself) have no idea what a synthesis report is, or how they differ from any other scientific report. I have searched the Internet and various scientific dictionaries and encyclopedias, but have yet to find a concise definition other than this from the Northern Climate ExChange (NCE) program at the Northern Research Institute of Yukon College:

Synthesis reports are essentially literature reviews that are designed to achieve a broad level of understanding, or to describe the state of knowledge. These reports compile the results of a number of stand-alone studies. Gap Analyses are a type of synthesis report that seek to identify what is known about a particular topic, and to highlight where there are gaps in the information base. Synthesis reports can be useful to demonstrate the level of understanding of what information currently exists, and to identify areas where further work is required.[12]

It appears to be a thesis from a couple of grad students. Would this do as an introduction to the "Synthesis reports" section, perhaps leaving out the middle sentence about Gap Analyses?--CurtisSwain (talk) 07:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've waited over a week, and nobody has commented on this. I have to assume that's because of one of two reasons. Either...

a) What a synthesis report is is patently obvious to everyone else and I'm the only idiot who thinks we need to provide a definition. Or...

b) Nobody else really knows how to it define either.--CurtisSwain (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Still no response? Fine. I went ahead and added a descriptive into. Jeez, do I have to do everything around here? ; ) --CurtisSwain (talk) 02:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The punishment for doing a good job is working in isolation. If you screw up, you'll gain a lot more... "friends," shall we say. ;-) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

supportJaymax (talk) 04:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Reorganise Intro?

I think the article should start out with explaining what it does (ie: third-para to top - what is collected here) and then have that followed by a summary section which covers the the first and second paras. The current flow could give an impression that the 'rules for inclusion' somehow stem from the adoption of IPCC etc. Perhaps we could include word like ... documents the current state of scientific opinion as given by...Jaymax (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Have kicked this off, still plenty of room for tweaking. Also kicked off addition to opinion article.--Jaymax (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That's definitely an improvement. Good work.--CurtisSwain (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Polish geologists

The Polish geo's clearly feel left out and need to say something, or else we'll all ignore them. Sadly they have f*ck*d up, because During the last 400 thousand years – still without anthropogenic greenhouse influence – the content of carbon dioxide in the air, as indicated by ice cores from Antarctica, was repeatedly 4 times at similar or even slightly higher level than at present. [13] is b*ll*cks. You have to be fairly badly detached from reality to make a mistake as bad as that, so I presume they have been hijacked by wackos William M. Connolley (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Bizzare - however, I don't think analysis of the various opinions has a place in this article, and I it should probably be removed.--Jaymax (talk) 05:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Will remove the analysis in a couple of days unless objections. Should the excerpt about ice cores remain or not (I think it should go, as it's not part of their opinion per se, but part of there (apparently faulty) evidence+reasoning, which we don't include for others.--Jaymax (talk) 03:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

On what grounds do you believe this should be removed? Because William disagrees with their science? Oren0 (talk) 03:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that JM wants to keep the committee listed as a noncommittal statement, but will remove the text that exposes the incompetence behind their evaluation. I'd think that would be an ideal arrangement from your perspective? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't read this closely enough, though I'm not a fan of the implication that I would support something just because it meets my assumed POV. That being said, the insertion of "erroneously" without a source is textbook WP:SYN and I can't see how anyone would advocate its inclusion. Oren0 (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean you both agree with my suggestion? 'cos sounds like you two agreeing would be notable in itself? Lol - will return when sober.--Jaymax (talk) 08:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, remove "erroneously" and the excerpt about ice cores.--CurtisSwain (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Georgesdelatour (talk) 09:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Opinion Of The Polish Academy Of SciencesGeorgesdelatour (talk) 09:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

http://www.kngeol.pan.pl/images/stories/pliki/pdf/Com._Geol._Sci._PAS_Climate_change.pdf

Why am I not surprised that they don't even know what IPCC stands for? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

But notice how much error-free material comes before that sentence! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That was actually translator's fault, the original statement in Polish says "Międzyrządowy" (Intergovernmental).--Adi (talk) 06:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

PAS

The Polish Academy of Sciences (as distinguished from its Committee on Geological Sciences, one of 90 committees of the Academy, and part of the Division of Earth and Mining Sciences) has not released a public statement on climate change.

That's not true - General Assembly of PAN on Dec. '07 did agree with and endorsed IPCC, although as far as I know, the statement did not get English translation. See http://www.planetaziemia.pan.pl/GRAF_aktual/Stan_ZO-PAN.pdf --Adi (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for this reference! Google translator does a good enough job to get the main points, but it would be helpful to have an accurate translation. Are you fluent in Polish, or do you know someone who is, and would be willing to translate? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm the author of this article on pl wiki and would gladly help with translation. PAN should be added to Academies of Science list. Here's a rough sample, as close to the literal meaning as possible:

General Assembly of Polish Academy of Sciences (PAN) on December 13th, 2007 has issued the statement, which endorses IPCC pleas and states that "it is a duty of Polish science and the national government to, in a thoughtful, organized and active manner, become involved in realisation of these ideas" (Polish: "Jest powinnością nauki polskiej i władz państwowych, aby w sposób przemyślany, zorganizowany i aktywny włączyć się w realizację tych idei."). The statement also says that:

"Problem of global warming, climate change and their various, negative impacts on human life and functioning of whole societies is one of the most dramatic challenges of modern times" ( Polish: „ Problem globalnego ocieplenia, zmian klimatu i ich różnorodnego, negatywnego wpływu na życie człowieka i na funkcjonowanie całych społeczeństw jest jednym z najbardziej dramatycznych wyzwań współczesności.")

BTW, up to date, PAN did not issue any statement regarding Geological Committee's statement. Regards,--Adi (talk) 05:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Another main point: "PAS General Assembly calls on the national scientific communities and national government to actively support Polish participation in this important endeavor". (Zgromadzenie Ogólne PAN zwraca się do krajowych środowisk naukowych i do władz państwowych o aktywne wsparcie polskiego udziału w tym waŜnym przedsięwzięciu.)

As for the rest, it goes into specifics about CO2 concentrations and mitigation of global warming. Let me know if more is needed.--Adi (talk) 05:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Input requested for sandbox article, "History of climate change science"

Given that this article discusses current scientific opinion, I think it would be useful to have an article focusing on the history of the scientific developments in the field starting back in the 1800s and moving forward. I've tried a draft article here and would love to have some input: User:Brian_A_Schmidt/Sandbox

The article could use some work: it ignores the history of paleoclimate science after the 1800s (and I think that subject really deserves its own article); it doesn't discuss greenhouse gases other than CO2 and water vapor and is really focused on CO2; and each period could use some fleshing out. Still, I think it's a decent start.

I haven't used sandboxes before for starting a new article so I'm unfamiliar with the process, but I'd welcome input and advice on when to take it live. I'll also post this notice at one or two other climate change articles.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

History of climate change science is now an actual article. I'll add a link in the "See also" section, on the assumption that's not a problem.Brian A Schmidt (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Nice work.--CurtisSwain (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus on climate change controversy

Is it just me, or is Consensus on climate change controversy a WP:FORK of this page? Disembrangler (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

My 2c - I think there is a place for that article - for one, scientific consensus is not the same as scientific opinion, although it logically follows from. Also, analysis in the media about consensus, scientific or otherwise, and things like whether the public believe there is a consensus of scientific opinion don't belong in this article. --Jaymax (talk) 10:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, I've always thought the 'consensus' section of this article didn't really fit here - perhaps we could offload it there? --Jaymax (talk) 10:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't address the actual content of Consensus on climate change controversy versus the content of Scientific opinion on climate change. I find it extraordinarily hard not to see the former as a WP:POVFORK of the latter. And the title is strangely meaningless, as if to enable such forking. Disembrangler (talk) 13:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree, and have left my 2p-worth at Talk:Consensus on climate change controversy#Why does this page exist? --Nigelj (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It may be a fork from Global warming controversy and the debate should perhaps be taken there. The title does indeed approach meaninglessness, but the misleading misuse across, and confusion between, 'Scientific Opinion' and 'Scientific Consensus' is pertinent here. My read of the article content there does not support a fork from here.--Jaymax (talk) 07:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that it is not a fork of this page, but of Global warming controversy, as Jaymax indicates above. The difference is that Consensus on climate change controversy has a scope that is broader than the science, as does Global warming controversy, while this article does not. Awickert (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

????? What part of Consensus on climate change controversy has a scope broader than the science? Disembrangler (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean the text, or the concept. An argument can be made that much of the lack of consensus (including the Heartland list) exists outside of science and the scientific method.--Jaymax (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This article limits itself to statements by scientific organizations, along with a few surveys. As for Consensus on climate change controversy, the title indicates that it is about the controversy (which is, if one reads the scientific literature and the news media, often a separate issue from the science). Within that article, the Heartland Institute is a politically-motivated organization and many of the petitions are likewise politically-motivated; some have loose standards of "scientist". IMO it lends itself more in title and feel to the Global warming controversy article, though I could see petitions by only climate scientists being put here. Awickert (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well let me put it this way: there are 3 articles here that overlap a lot. How can we best reduce that number? Disembrangler (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, my thought would be to move the consensus on climate change controversy article material mostly to the global warming controversy page, and maybe a little to here. Then it could be AfD'ed. I think that there should be 2 articles at the end (sci opinion and GW controversy), because the popular controversy is often very much separate from the scientific debate. Awickert (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no issue with having three articles which deal with three topics, if that is the case. If there is overlap between this article and another dealing with a related but separate issue, that can be addressed by ensuring the appropriate content is within the separate article. Overlap does not logically lead to an automatic conclusion that there are too many articles--Jaymax (talk) 12:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a spin off from Global warming controversy, explicitly described in archive 7 [14]. The rationale is backed by WP:SIZE, 60kb to 100kb is the limit for articles under accessibility (for load time and low-end systems), Global warming controversy is about 120kb. Overlap happens, these articles are not entirely independent of each other, but whether the differences are reasonable or whether we can improve it by better defining the scope—that the question I'm trying to answer. "Consensus" is controversial in popular controversy, this lends the article interest and the opportunity to provide greater depth probably too specific in scope for "scientific opinion" to cover in much detail. Under WP:LEAD, the "consensus controversy" still needs a first sentence definition[15]. If we first better define what these three articles are going to be about, then perhaps it would make more sense to argue where it's overlapping, and what we could do to correct that. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The title is either vague and meaningless or POV. Disembrangler (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Vague and meaningless, or PoV—this entails three question. How is it vague and meaningless? How is it PoV? Which is it? I do not believe it's PoV, PoV entails a non-neutral title, The title is objective. I do not believe it's meaningless, the title describes a reasonable subject. Vague is probably it. How does Climate change consensus controversy sound? In my opinion, it seems more natural and it flows. The alternative would be to remove the "controversy" and simply address the consensus portion: Climate change consensus. Consensus doesn't seem controversial scientifically, at least not the major conclusions, but it does in the popular context. The article addresses but does not enter into much depth about: alarmism, denialism, and the media—so removing "controversy" is reasonable. Disembragler, I think you're being ambiguous. Can you explain what you want? ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I would support a change of that article title to "Climate change consensus" or similar (or better). With a subsection on 'Scientific consensus' that properly referenced the consensus of scientific opinion per the weight of this article, but acknowledged the dissent of certain scientists, pseudo-scientific petitions etc, to that consensus; suitably, and encyclopaediacly. --Jaymax (talk) 09:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Done the article is moved. I'm not sure how you want to lay out it out though. ChyranandChloe (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

petro geologists

I think they came off the fence recently. can someone please date the stance statement used, to check it's current? Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

From looking through their website it seems that they still hold to the same statement, which still includes the same factual errors ("certain climate models" etc). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

AAPG's position is to support more research. Awickert (talk) 07:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the statement we use is AAPG's most current. Their web page doesn't give a date, but the PDF does (2007). References have been fixed.--CurtisSwain (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Dissent from consensus by noted scientists and IPCC contributors

To highlight dissent from the consensus by noted scientists and IPCC contributors, I thought we should add the following:

"Several prominent contributors to IPCC reports are critical of the claims of consensus on global warming. One contributor, Dr. Paul Reiter, professor of medical entomology at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, France stated in testimony to the United States Senate "…such consensus is the stuff of politics, not of science. Science proceeds by observation, hypothesis and experiment. The complexity of this process, and the uncertainties involved, are a major obstacle to a meaningful understanding of scientific issues by non-scientists. In reality, a genuine concern for mankind and the environment demands the inquiry, accuracy and skepticism that are intrinsic to authentic science. A public that is unaware of this is vulnerable to abuse."^[1]. Similarly, Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, indicated “Claims of consensus…serve to intimidate the public and even scientists” and are “a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition.”^[2]"

Thanks. Istranix (talk) 05:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No. See the lead section "[This article] does not document the views of individual scientists" - and in particularly not any issued in political statements and blogs, and not in a proper scientific venue. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes...this should include those challenging the "consensus." Not sure how this crept in there (BOLD EDIT). Thanks.Istranix (talk) 06:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Boldly reverted. Maybe you should consider why we do not include individual scientists. And you should certainly understand that Inhofe's joke blog is not a WP:RS for anything, much less for scientific opinion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Istranix- Quoting individual scientists is no way to asses the scientific opinion on anything. There are millions of scientists in the world, and anyone can easily find "scientists" who support such concepts as intelligent design or even the existence of Bigfoot. However, you are correct in that there is a small minority of scientists who do not endorse AGW. Their views are documented in the article List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, which this article links to.--CurtisSwain (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Another reason to off-load the 'consensus' section from this article. The only consensi [go on latinarians] appropriately covered here are formal consensus statements of scientific organisations (incl, of course, the consensus position of the IPCC) - but NOT whether there is an INFORMAL overall 'scientific consensus' - let the body of significant scientific opinion (as reflected through the FORMAL, published, consensus opinions of organisations of national standing, surveys, etc...) speak for itself. --Jaymax (talk) 09:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about Scientific opinion on climate change#Scientific_consensus or some other section? Because that one contains only formal statements referring to the consensus... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That is the section I mean - I've long felt uncomfortable with it here - as, while they are formal statements (or small parts thereof) - it's a bit of a mishmash of stuff that includes the word 'consensus'. And as yet, I havn't seen any 'scientific test' to establish whether there is overall 'scientific consensus'. I think this article stands stronger doing what it says it does in the title and intro. If this article seeks to address the much more fickle (and much less scientific) question of whether there is a universal scientific 'consensus', then it can do so only by acknowledging and report the notable (however unscientific, or incorrect) sources which say there is not. But to do so here would dilute horribly the quite precise collection of formal 'scientific opinion' we have gathered.

To put it another way - if Scientific Entity X states their opinion is Y, well, that IS their position. - If Scientific Entity W states that there is consensus between them and everyone else that Y is what everyone agress, well, they're still only speaking for organisation W - it's qualitatively different, and qualitatively less authoritative.--Jaymax (talk) 10:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing the “Consensus” section from the article is something we discussed about a year ago (see archives 6, section 20), and we decided to keep it. I actually proposed removing it myself, because, like you, I thought it was redundant. However, I have come to appreciate it, and I believe it does have value. It gives readers a quick and easy summary of what scientific bodies say about the level of acceptance AGW has within the larger scientific community. I believe that’s what many readers are looking for when the come to this article.--CurtisSwain (talk) 09:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm the 'you' above - I don't think it's so much redundant, as misplaced in THIS article. I haven't engaged on this before, because I wasn't aware of the existence of a separate 'consensus' article. Anyway, I'm still arguing with myself on this one as well.

In that vein, and closely related - it occurred to me that surveys of climate/earth scientists goes to Scientific Opinion (covering off the net-individual-scientists aspect), whereas surveys of the published literature goes to support Scientific Consensus - perhaps - just thinking atap here.--Jaymax (talk) 04:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control

I've removed the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, as it is neither a science academy nor a professional society, but an agency of the European Union, and at this point in time, we are not including government agencies. Whoever added them to the article should have been more careful. Oh wait, that was me. My bad.--CurtisSwain (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

medical associations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'Scientific opinion' is an oxymoron

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

(*http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Scientific_method) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.7.180 (talk) 01:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or, if you mean the editors of this article have cherry-picked data from the surveys in order to push a particular POV, then you are free to edit those entries so they more accurately reflect the results of those surveys. As for Oreskes's survey of the scientific literature, are you asserting that the Bush Administration euphemistically relegated it to the place where "government officials deposit politically inconvenient documents and records to be destroyed"? I wasn't aware of that. But, I am aware that some people, like social anthropologist Benny Peiser, have asserted that Oreskes' methodology was flawed. However, others have found flaws in Peiser's critique.^[1] And, her piece was not only published in Science, it's been cited in more than a few other peer-reviewed journals as well.^[2] So, it can't be simply dismissed. As for not including "open letters by scientists"...public statements made by individual scientists only reflect the opinions of those individuals and not of the scientific community as a whole. Whereas, surveys and position statements made by reputable bodies encompass the opinions of much larger groups of scientists.--CurtisSwain (talk) 08:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Science as a an apparatus for neutral objective truth is kind of an obsolete engineers view (IMHO), see the pretty obsolete logical positivism versus critical realism, Karl Popper, and Imre Lakatos. Science, according to my gut feelings, uses mass evaluations and an intensive and systematic opinionating and criticism in order to get a verifiable mean opinion of all observing/measuring guys called "scientists". There is no democracy in science, so there are no votes, instead there is a "ballot by evolution" where opinions are put under an intense evolutionary pressure. If the system is somehow cut off from observation and measurements, it stops being science. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 09:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

GSA heads up

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

Introduction to introduction

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

I'm at a loss to understand this tagging [16]. There can be no doubt that the article does indeed do exactly what that says. In what sense can it be considered dubious? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER)

I've removed [17]. We've been through this before, though I forget where William M. Connolley (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

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

For prior discussion, see archive 6 section 33 from back in March. Additionally, although JSER states they are "an academic society", they are not listed in the Scholarly Societies Project, or even in a list of Japanese Academic Societies. Nor can I find their journal Energy and Resources in Science Citation Index [18] (but maybe I just don't know how to look). Even if JSER turns out to be a legitimate learned society, the document you referenced appears to simply be a report they published, and not a position statement issued to express the views of the organization as a whole. Also, a discussion about the reliability of The Register can be found here (it's not).--CurtisSwain (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article has been moved?

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

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

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

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

Is it fair to assume

that organizations not listed in support are undecided?

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

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

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

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

Just a note: assuming such a thing would be WP:OR. On the other hand: assuming anything at all about their stance would be WP:OR ... of course unless reliable sources can be found. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 09:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

i disagree. here is an example from my country [20] stating global warming effect has been even underestimated. so similarly, there are probably dozens of other academies that made statements, either supporting or opposing the IPCC statement. anyhow, this list seems to be arbitrary, and may in fact in part be WP:OR/WP:SYNTHESIS (no reliable sources presenting such a list). or there may be such sources. in any case, making this list more comprehensive would be a good thing. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

introductory sentence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

^ Peiser, Benny (October 12, 2006). "RE: Media Watch enquiry" (PDF). Media Watch. Retrieved 2007-04-12.
^ [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686}

[1] ttp://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/reiter-042606.pdf

[2] ttp://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

[PeiserMW-3] Peiser, Benny (October 12, 2006). "RE: Media Watch enquiry" (PDF). Media Watch. Retrieved 2007-04-12.

[4] [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686}

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]