Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Environment
Portal		 This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion in the past. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.


Contents

[edit] Source problems

A number of unfit references have been creeping into this article, such as; http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming] The Not So Clear Consensus On Climate Change

Neither of these, as an example, meet the criteria of "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. " from WP:V. We need to keep our sources up to standards. --Skyemoor 15:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I am amazed that as soon as one article saying we won't all die is posted, it is said to be unreliable. This is horrible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.163.140 (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brown et al survey

I added a section that reads:

Fergus Brown, James Annan and Roger Pielke, Sr. sought to establish a basis for whether there remains significant disagreement among scientists on the issue of climate change, concluding that "while there is strong agreement on the important role of anthropogenically-caused radiative forcing of CO2 in climate change...there is not a universal agreement among climate scientists about climate science as represented in the IPCC's WG1" Report[1]. While the poll admittedly is "not statistically formal", it asserts that it uses a "valid approach" in its assessment of whether a significant number of scientists disagree with the IPCC perspective. The survey decisively concludes that "[c]laims that the human input of CO2 is not an important climate forcing, or that 'the science is more or less settled', are found to be false".
The survey targeted scientists who have been published in a variety of climate science publications, including Geophysical Research Letters, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Climate of the Past, the Journal of Atmospheric Science and the Journal of Climate. It also targeted the authors of presentations in the 2007 American Geophysical Union and 2007 European Geophysical Union General Assemblies. The results showed that approximately 45-50% of the scientists surveyed concur with the IPCC perspective, while significant minorities (15-20% for each) believe the IPCC overstates or understates the influence of anthropogenic CO2 forcing. No scientist admitted to holding a position that global warming is a fabrication and that humans have no significant influence on global climate.
The authors of the poll are interested in obtaining further input from scientists who undertake activities that are relevant to the issue of climate change in order to develop a larger, more accurate sample. The poll summary outlines the procedures by which such scientists may include their opinions in the poll's sample.

We should pay attention to this poll so as to update the Wikipedia article when a revision is created. Zoomwsu 00:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not at all convinced this poll belongs William M. Connolley 08:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The future revision certainly doesn't belong, at least not if it is based on their solicitation of participation. --Nethgirb 11:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Why? Care to justify your statements? Zoomwsu 14:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Because of the self-selection bias due to soliciting input, which Raymond has explained below. --Nethgirb 21:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Has the paper been accepted for publication? Where? If not, it obviously must be dismissed out of hand. Raymond Arritt 16:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding me..."out of hand"? Can you cite anything that questions the veracity of this research? It has been posted on the Pielke Research Groups website under the heading "Reviewed Publications". Is this not good enough for you? Zoomwsu 16:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Is there any journal information as to where it was reviewed? I tried looking it up in Scirus and Google Scholar but found nothing. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Not sure...the Research Group website includes it under "Reviewed Publications". I confess I'm not terribly resourceful when it comes to this issue...Zoomwsu 17:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I tried looking on their main page, but couldn't find the link to this article. Where is this "Reviewed Publications" heading found? I might be able to find some hints there. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
[1]--Note the menu at left and the headline. Zoomwsu 17:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, so that says it has been submitted to EoS, but not yet accepted. Hence, it might or might not yet have been reviewed. (And, it might even have been reviewed and rejected, but that's less likely.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
(later addition). Oh dear. I just read the bit that invited other scientists to submit their views for inclusion. Self-selection bias, anyone? Raymond Arritt 16:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The paper is very clear about its methodology, and that has been conveyed in the presentation of its results. Partucularly since this is the most recent poll on the subject, why don't we keep the section and allow the reader to develop their own conclusions about its accuracy? Zoomwsu 16:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I'm confusing the "players" here, but it seems that people are arguing against their own perspectives but not in a "write for your enemies" deliberate way. This poll says that "there is strong agreement on the important role of anthropogenically-caused radiative forcing of CO2 in climate change" and that no scientist said "that global warming is a fabrication and that humans have no significant influence on global climate". Although it's possible that they're misrepresenting the number of scientists that think the IPCC is too conservative or not conservative enough, those numbers don't surprise me. I've heard several stories about what they left out because there wasn't enough information to make informed decisions on (e.g., ice streams). Most of those lead me to believe that the IPCC is probably too conservative (i.e., that things are worse than they are painted by the IPCC), although I fully understand that this is the way that science typically works. I agree that last paragraph could be omitted, and I do understand the self-selection problems inherent in it. Keep in mind, that the survey results being reported were from targeted solicitations and not necessarily (but possibly) subject to those self-selection problems. It's future results that would suffer from a selection bias. Finally, it seems no more or less reliable than most other poll results reported here. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it as unpublished research. Can you cite anything that questions the veracity of this research? is rather apposite: since its unpublished, no-one has had any chance to comment on it. This isn't wiki-news William M. Connolley 20:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this, but feel that after it has been published it deserves to be here as much as the other surveys. (Again, I rather think it strengthens the "scientific consensus" argument, but it seems that I'm the only one.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
No you aren't the only one :) - but the major issue is still its publication status. --Kim D. Petersen 20:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
It's been placed on a public website for crying out loud! Zoomwsu 22:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Where was the CSE Foundation Survey published? Zoomwsu 22:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, the Bray and von Storch survey was rejected, yet is still included! Zoomwsu 22:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Even further, the "older surveys" include surveys that haven't been published in scientific journals! There is a HUGE double standard here! Zoomwsu 22:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
It seems silly to me not to include it now. This isn't the same as research regarding a purely scientific issue (i.e. the bar shouldn't be set as high, since this isn't a scientific subject but a collection of opinions and survey results). The fact that the survey results have been placed for public consumption on the research group's website (under the heading "reviewed publications", no less) give it sufficient credibility to at least be included? Since when do poll results rise to the level of peer-reviewed academic research?
By the way, the Survey of US State Climatologists reference links directly to their website. Is this also "unpublished"?
Look, the purpose of this page is to provide references to scientific opinions on climate change. The Brown et al survey provides the most recent polling on this subject. The survey has been published on the research group's website, indicating it is intended for public consumption. There have been no points raised which question the veracity of the poll's results. Considering all this, why are we keeping it from being cited here? On balance, these points weighed against the desire to wait for publication in a journal clearly favor inclusion, particularly when viewed in light of Wikipedia's clear guidelines to bias towards inclusion of content. It is unfair to keep this out. Zoomwsu 22:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I understand your point about double-standards, and see why you would think that. However, I'm not sure what would drive that double-standard, as those arguing against including this survey right now the most are those whose POV is supported by it and not by the CSE study. A common complaint here, and in fact on a lot of Wikipedia articles (e.g., see the discussion on Gonzales' resignation) is that Wikipedia is not a news source and it's OK if we take our time in adding new sources. (Although this argument at times seems quite weak to me considering the number of articles that warn you about it being a current event.) At this time, the status of that source is still quite variable. I think you will see that this survey will get added, in time. As for me, I don't really care if it gets added now or later, but I do think it should be added eventually. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 22:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
My point is why not now? I've already done the research adn writing to include it, now it awaits some arbitrary qualification for inclusion that is not applied to other polls already on this page. Zoomwsu 22:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
In thinking about it some more (especially in light of your points about other surveys), I wouldn't really be bothered by including it now — as long as it's accompanied by an in-line disclaimer that it is a submitted work that has not yet been published. That should supply the appropriate context that this survey hasn't really had a chance to be critiqued yet. (For example, in scientific papers, I cite work that I've submitted but that hasn't been published yet — it's common practice.) A {{Current|date=August 2007}} tag wouldn't be unreasonable for the subsection, either. As for waiting, it could very well be more than 6 months before this survey gets published. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 23:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your approach and when it is finally published, we can remove said reference. I think it's a good idea to get this info in, as it makes the article more up-to-date. Zoomwsu 03:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
If the survey has been published by a reliable source, it should be included in the article, provided it is also notable (it seems notable with regard to this article's subject, although this also has to be considered). If it hasnt, it has to wait until. But there is no rationale for requiring a peer-reviewed scientific publication here. --Childhood's End 22:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
One problem (just to contradict my earlier point about it being OK) is that it (currently) fails the self-published sources guideline. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 23:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Apologies, but I must contradict myself yet again:

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

It seems I just looked at the title and didn't actually read the policy. Point being is that it doesn't violate that guideline, but caution should be exercised. I'm back to thinking including it now makes sense, although I don't feel strong enough to engage in any edit-warring over it. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 23:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Seems to me this is a perfect example of the exception cited in the policy. Pielke is an established expert and has previously published in this field. Combine this with the fact that this is the most up-to-date survey in the article by 3 years and it's pretty much uncontestable that it deserves to be included. KDP and WMC, I'm waiting for your objections...Zoomwsu 03:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


A few comments.

Firstly, the author order is B,P and A. Secondly, of course there's always an issue of self-selection bias in surveys of this nature. It is clearly acknowledged in the text, and an improved methodology is under discussion. Thirdly, its current "unpublished" status is hardly a reason to dismiss it out of hand, but for the sake of a week or two's delay it seems sensible to leave it out of the discussion for now, especially if people are going to quote directly from the manuscript. It is always possible that the language may change slightly prior to publication (and who knows, maybe it will be found to be unpublishable - stranger things have happened).Jdannan 03:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm especially concerned that the language and interpretation will change when it is published (as I have little doubt that it will be). We can wait until the paper is in final form before citing it. "Accepted" would be fine; we don't need to delay until it appears in Eos. Raymond Arritt 07:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Someone told me that Eos is more a scientific "newspaper" than "journal" and, as such, we shouldn't have to wait as long for publication as I previously assumed. I think waiting until it is actually published is not unreasonable. (I find it highly unlikely that it won't be published, so it's not worth discussing right now the possible "double-standard" that we already have a survey that was rejected from being published.) As Jdannan has pointed out, papers often change subtly (or in rare cases, not so subtly) between submission and publication. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 12:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Why can't we include it now and then update it when it's published in Eos? I guess I still fail to see the need to omit it entirely. Remember, unless the need to omit is compelling (which I don't think has been established), we need to bias towards inclusion per Wikipedia policy. Sure this may not be "wikinews", but it's very helpful to readers to see current polling data. Zoomwsu 15:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Citing unpublished manuscripts just isn't on. There are good reasons why WP:V emphasizes that sources should be independently vetted through review and fact checking. No convincing argument has been given for premature inclusion other than WP:ILIKEIT. Raymond Arritt 15:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel compelled to make up my arguments from thin air. The justification for inclusion is to provide up-to-date information. The most recent poll listed is from 2004, a full three years ago. A lot has changed in three years and it would be of benefit to readers to include the most recent data. There's your "convincing argument". Zoomwsu 18:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I would also like to point out that the concerns about self-published material (which is part of the WP:V article you cite) have been discussed and resolved. As I mention earlier, this is a pretty good example of the exception in the policy. Zoomwsu 18:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dead Links

Can anyone verify if the following are not working: [2] [3] Thanks, Brusegadi 20:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

neither works for me --Nethgirb 21:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I tried finding the articles but to see what I got I needed a subscription and I do not have one. Does anyone have a subscription? I will see what I can do. Brusegadi 22:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I found them. I was actually doing a search that was too restrictive because of a misunderstanding. I think that should do it. Brusegadi 22:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The following are also dead: [4] and [5]. I will try to find replacements. Anyone familiar with the the Institute for Coastal Research may be able to find a replacement for the first, since it seems that it was just a server change. Brusegadi 02:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The second one (heartland) works fine for me. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The first one can be found here: [6] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Guess i need to look at the dates instead of noticing the area of a diff ;-) - Oh well it corrected another broken link. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Schulte Study

Reports in the press indicate that a recent study (Schulte, publication "Energy and Environment") updates the result of the Oreskes study for the years 2004-2007 and indicate the cited consensus view is no longer the consensus.

Since we don't have a copy of the source document to confirm, it's probably inappropriate to change the article just yet, but good to keep an eye out for the results when they are published.

Story here and elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.155.65.226 (talk) 18:10, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

E&E is not a WP:RS. And the report on the study you is unclear - neutral papers seem to be papers that take no position - probably because it is not relevant for the topic at hand. That would leave a 45 to 6 majority for the consensus view - and I would very much like to see those 6% before I believe in them. --Stephan Schulz 18:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
For purposes of this talk page only, read what one blogger has to say about the study. Basically, it repeats what Stephan just said, and expands on it (perhaps a little less politely, though). Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I added the info about the study to the article, and go figure it was reverted post haste. I had counted on this. I suspect when the actual study is published that there will be no more legitmate arguments to having the info in the article, so I'll just bide my time till then. In the meantime though Stephan Schulz questioned the veracity and accuracy of the study above. I would suspect that if his arugment is used as justification to withhold the information from the article then Oreskes study info should be removed too. They are the same study, just for different time periods. Schulte used the same database and search terms as Oreskes. So if Schulte's study is flawed per Stephan Schulz comments then the Oreskes study is flawed as well since they used the same methodology. Elhector 20:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

What did you expect? 1) The study is unpublished. 2) The Moreno citation is not a WP:RS (its a WP:SPS). 3) Moreno hasn't read the thing (second hand information). 4) When the study comes out, it will be printed in a non-WP:RS publication (with a history for selecting by political agenda rather than scientific accuracy [7]). --Kim D. Petersen 21:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
See-also http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/08/classifying_abstracts_on_globa.php - it looks like at least some of the papers have been misclassified a-la Peiser William M. Connolley 21:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and while we're on it, you wrote "Only thirty two (6%) rejected the consensus outright" - this appears to be wrong, based on http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/consensus.pdf, which says only 7 papers explicitly reject (the 32 include implicit rej, whatever that is). Are you sure your sources are reliable? William M. Connolley 21:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, first things first. Concerning the 7 papers versus the 32, I just went off the source I had. I trusted this source because it's a page from the United States Senate Committee on Enviroment and Public Works. At this point I guess we really just need to wait for the study to be published to get the most accurate info. Secondly, from what I understand that this study can not be included in Wikipedia because the source it will be published in is not acceptable? I mean the study did happen. Why is the source of Oreskes (Science Magazine) considered reliable but the source for the Schulte Study (Energy and Enviroment Journal) not considered reliable? You claim Energy and Enviroment have "history of selecting by political agenda rather than scientific accuracy." Can you cite this? I can make the same claim about Science magazine. Bottom line is the study did happen, used the same methodology as the Oreskes study, and both of the studies are/will be published in equally reliable sources. Elhector 21:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Just compare the impact factors of the two journals. We should not use articles in journals that are not considered reliable by the climate science community for this wiki page. Articles that get lots of citations are more relevant than articles that are not cited. Count Iblis 21:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually you can't compare the impact factors, because E&E isn't even covered by the Science Citation Index. 'Nuff said. Raymond Arritt 21:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. See Energy and Environment and Science (journal) for more on the two publications. E&E is not included in any serious science citation index. Science is one of the most prestigeous scientific journals. If you think the two are of equal weight and reliability, you don't know what you are talking about. --Stephan Schulz 21:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I see! That's even worse than I thought. Count Iblis 22:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
(ec) First, your "EPW" source [8] is really the blog of Senator James Inhofe. Don't try to get your science from a politician. :-) Second, it's not enough to just say "the study happened" and presume that the methodology used was really as described and done correctly, etc.—this is what peer review tries to validate. Science is one of the most respected scientific journals in any field. Energy and Environment, on the other hand, is a social science journal which isn't even listed in the ISI database of scientific publications. Here is a news article published by the American Chemical Society discussing E&E in which E&E's editor essentially admits that the journal has a bias towards climate skeptics' papers, and which also discusses the journal's lack of prestige [9]. --Nethgirb 21:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
These are at least more of legitimate arguments then what I’ve been getting. The problem with them is that I don't think it's right to justify the relevance of a source based on how many times it's cited and by how other sources view said source. Especially by the climate science community. People make the argument that any dissenters to the human caused global warming theory are paid off by energy companies and special interest groups. This same argument can be made for the global warming consensus crowd. What I mean is that the argument can be made that global warming consensus crowd has been bought off by these carbon credit companies, environmental cleanup companies, and schools trying to receive funding for themselves. There is just as much profit in trying to "prove" human caused global warming exists as there is in trying to "disprove" it. Pretty much any study that is done that disagrees with the "consensus" is pretty much ignored and not cited anywhere except a few places that make those same claims about special interest groups and energy companies paying for them. Now personally I don't believe that both of these arguments are completely true. I'm sure there is legitimate research that is pointing to human caused global warming and I'm sure there is legitimate research pointing away from it. I'm also sure that there are studies that have been bought and paid for by companies and special interest groups on both sides of the aisle. My point is that Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV and fairly represent both sides of an issue completely without regard to how "fringe" a side might be. And it is supposed to do this objectively and without bias. There is obviously another side to the Scientific Opinion on Climate Change. If you read through this article though you'll find that the other side is not really represented at all. And any time someone tries to present the other side of the argument in any of the climate change related articles it's usually reverted quickly and wikilawyered out of existence. All I'm trying to do here is get legitimate information pertaining to the other side of the argument into the article. I'll wait until the study is published before I make any changes. The study will be published in a scientific journal. Someone's judgment about said scientific journals political stance and accuracy does not apply hear. It's still a scientific journal just like all the other ones that are used as sources for the other studies listed here and it fairly and accurately describes the other side of the human caused global warming argument. Once the study is published I will add it to the list of other studies. I'm sure it will get reverted again. I guess then we move onto an RfC or something... Elhector 22:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The topic of this article is Scientific opinion on climate science and therefore we must present that scientific opinion in a NPOV way. As others have pointed out above (I initially didn't realize that), E&E can hardly be considered a scientific journal. There are journals like E&E on creation science, there are physics journals like Physics essays, Infinite energy, etc. where people publish their pseudoscientific theories on cold fusion, etc. But these ideas are not considered to be valid arguments by the scientific community. Such ideas can be mentioned in wikipedia, but not on a page that is specifically about the scientific opinion or a page that discusses the science. Count Iblis 23:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so there is no scientific opinion against human caused global warming? What it sounds like your saying here is that any scientist who disagrees with the scientific theory on human caused global warming are not part of the scientific community. That may not be what you're trying to get accross here but that's how it reads. That doesn't sound right to me. Because a person's study gets published in a journal that is considered less then scientific by certain members of the scientific community has no bearing here. I'd even be ok with stating in the blurb about the study that certain people consider the journal to be psuedoscientific. That portion would just have to be cited. That is how this situation is handled in most other articles. They include opinions even from the fringe side of science, they just include the info that the opinion is considered fringe by the mainstream scientific community and cite the source that considers it fringe. My point is the title of the article is Scientific opinion on climate change and I find it really hard to believe that 100% of the scientific community supports this view. Maybe 99.9% support the view, but the .1% that don't support the theory are still part of the scientific community and I believe there point of view should be in this article as well. Like I said, I have no problem if someone wants to add the information about that particular journal being viewed as less than scientific by parts of the scientific community. There are members of the scientific community that do utilize this journal though, or else it wouldn't exist in the first place. Elhector 23:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:WEIGHT, as a small minority opinion, the skeptical side should get less attention than the consensus. The way that has been implemented is that the skeptical side is given equal opportunity, i.e., it's subject to the same inclusion requirements. Until very recently, the AAPG's statement was skeptical and was included. Now it is noncommittal, mentioning specifically that some members are skeptical, and it is still included. Nowhere does the article say that 100% of the sci community supports AGW theory, and the skeptical side does appear. As for this particular article that you wish to include, as a criticism of Oreskes I doubt it should belong since Science is widely considered much more reliable than E&E. You haven't given any evidence that E&E is considered reliable by any significant fraction of the sci community (and others have given evidence that it isn't). --Nethgirb 05:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Individual skeptics are given attention at Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming --Nethgirb 05:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

OMG, E&E rejected the "paper"...I can't imagine how bad it must had been for them to reject it. --Seba5618 00:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I always assumed that since E&E prints the bad ones, they must reject the good ones. This will require what strategists call "an agonizing reappraisal." Raymond Arritt 00:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
It never crossed my mind that good papers were even submit to E&E :-P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.31.203.28 (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heat

Could scientific opinion on heat be included here? I mean the opinion that heat from houses, cars, power stations, industrial processes etc makes a direct contribution to global warming/climate change (not just an indirect contribution due to emissions). I'd certainly find it useful to have this clearly covered - if heat itself is a significant contributor, 'carbon neutral' sources (such as biomass) may not be the answer, as they would still produce the same amount of heat. Perhaps this has been covered somewhere and I just haven't found it? Can anyone help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.249.135 (talk) 07:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it should be included here, because as an idea its so uncommon. Its wrong, of course. See http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/04/global-warming-is-not-from-waste-heat.html This was discussed somewhere else recently William M. Connolley 08:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
And even for the rather insignificant effect of waste heat: Fully renewable energy sources (like biomass, wind, water...) only redistribute heat, they do not add heat to the system. Biogas will be burned into water and CO2, the same endproducts as a ordinary decomposition. The same amount of heat is released either way (or we are in trouble with the first law of thermodynamics ;-). There may be second-order effects, of cource (biomass use captures Carbon in the form of methane that would normaly be released into the atmosphere and decay more slowly into CO2, acting as a greenhouse gas on the way). Nuclear power plants, on the other hand, really release energy into the system that would normally remain bound. But, concurring with William, the effect is minimal compared to Greenhouse gas forcing. --Stephan Schulz 10:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Entropy

Does entropy come into this at all? If it does, should it be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.251.57 (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Not in any meaningful sense. You can't get around the second law of thermodynamics in any energy exchange, but adding an explicit reference here makes no sense. --Stephan Schulz 21:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

I hope no one minded the new archive I created. I was careful in selecting very old stuff. Feel free to change the layout. Brusegadi 06:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I stopped at 'what about Mars?' because there was some discussion there less than one month old. Brusegadi 06:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Did a little more of this today. I got no objections before. Brusegadi 01:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NRC 2001 report

NRC panel member Richard Lindzen has criticised the way the NRC Summary was written without committee approval:

"...Another example of the misuse of the basic agreement to promote alarm consists in the opening lines of the executive summary of the US National Research Council (NRC) 2001 report: Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions. This hurried report was prepared at the specific request of the White House. The brief and carefully drafted report of 15 pages was preceded by a totally unnecessary 10 page executive summary. The opening lines were appended at the last moment without committee approval. Here they are:

Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising.

The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability.

To be sure, this statement is leaning over backwards to encourage the alarmists. Nevertheless, the two sentences in the first claim serve to distinguish observed temperature change from human causality. The presence of the word "likely" in the second statement is grossly exaggerated, but still indicates the lack of certainty, while the fact that we have not emerged from the level of natural variability is, in fact, mentioned albeit obliquely. What, as usual, goes unmentioned is that the observed changes are much smaller than expected.

The response from many commentators was typical and restricted to the opening lines. CNN's Michelle Mitchell characteristically declared that the report represented "a unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse, and is due to man. There is no wiggle room". Mitchell's response has, in fact, become the standard take on the NRC report. Such claims, though widely made in your country as well as mine, have no basis: they are nonsensical."

Lindzen, R. (2005). "Memorandum by Professor Richard S Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 'Climate models and baseless alarmism'". Written evidence to the UK House of Lords Economic Affairs Select Committee, 25 January 2005. The Economics of Climate Change. Retrieved 2 November 2007.

I'd like to revise the article to include this:

In 2001 the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions [8]. This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the scientific community:

"The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century... The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue."

[my addition follows]

The report has been criticised by one of its authors, Richard Lindzen. According to Professor Lindzen, "opening lines of the report were appended at the last moment without committee approval", the effect being to "encourage the alarmists" [my reference]. Enescot 05:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The page sez It does not document the views of individual scientists - I don't see why L should be an exception. If we included his views on every report, the page would be full of him William M. Connolley 19:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I apologise for not having taken that in. Perhaps I could suggest an alternative revision:
'In 2001 the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions [8]. The report said:
The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability... Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century... Because there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude of future warming are tentative and subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward)... The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue.' Enescot 20:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you're suggesting adding the bit in italics (my addition). Its fair an balanced; I have no objection from that point. But does it add much to the discussion? Is it worth the words? William M. Connolley 20:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Open Letter to UN Secretary General

How should we include the following info?

[10]

100 prominent scientists have sought to address the problems with the current "consensus" on climate change. Is there any way we can include this in the article? Zoomwsu (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Some of these self-styled "promenent scientists" have poorer publication records than our better graduate students. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
So what is the publication standard for being considered a scientist? How many IPCC authors meet that standard? My point is, we need to be careful about setting our own standards for who qualifies (OR anyone?). Zoomwsu (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Several are not scientists at all. It's an interesting list of signatories, though. Neither Christy nor either Pielke is on the list. We get only one of the M&Ms. I'm a bit surprised about Lindzen, Gray and Spencer - I would have expected better of them. Wegman, the "neutral" reviewer of the Hockey stick is there. When did Nigel Lawson become a scientist? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, on of them is Louis Hissink. Standards for prominence are clearly slipping. But to answer the question, I suggest we "include" the info by throwing it into the bin William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Mercy. Hissink's views sound like a cross between Tim Ball and Immanuel Velikovsky. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, in a certain weird and somewhat sad way, that makes sense. According to Usenet Velikovskyans, Venus heat has nothing to do with CO2, either. She just has not have had time to cool down after her recent expulsion fro Jupiter... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

At what point do we accept the fact that there are a significant minority of scientists who disagree with the conclusions of the IPCC, and therefore reject this fake "consensus"? A thought exercise: what would have to take place for the group here to reconsider its focus on the IPCC conclusions and broaden the CC articles to respectfully include the opinion of dissenters? Zoomwsu (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The articles do include the opinions of dissenters. If anything, the dissenting views are greatly over-represented when compared to the academic literature. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geological Society of America

The link to their statement does not seem to work. Also, unless there's something else in the full statement, the summary selected for the article cannot be said to be supportive but is obviously non-committal. --Childhood's End (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the broken link. I've fixed it. What makes you think it is "obviously non-committal"? Is it that they're saying that it might be only "partly" due to human causes? I'm not aware of anyone who thinks it is definitely due to only human causes. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 15:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes but to be committal, they would have to say that it is mostly due to human causes, something they avoided to say. Without this opinion or other clear pointers to the main IPCC conclusions, we must categorize it as noncommittal. --Childhood's End (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I just read the full statement. It's really dry and empty. The only indication of support is that they say that they support the statements of other organizations, but aside from this, they themselves produce nothing relelvant towards a commitment for one side or the other. --Childhood's End (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Did you read the whole thing? It seems we're looking at two different statements! It was almost a point-by-point agreement with the IPCC. There is global warming. Man is at least partly responsible. It's a bad thing. We have to do something about it. By the standards you're now suggesting be applied, Lindzen would also be noncommittal, rather than "opposed". Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Depends on how we read it I guess. From what I know, you can believe that man plays some part in climate change, but that's not where the IPCC needs support. It needs support as to the finding that man is responsible for most of it. Otherwise, saying that man plays some part may mean 0.1% responsibility and just be an escape-door-wording for the day the IPCC will crumble down. And no scientist denies that the climate changes all the time and that we have to adapt. --Childhood's End (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Compare your wording of "no scientist denies that the climate changes all the time and that we have to adapt" with "[f]urthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning." Doesn't the latter one seem just a tad bit more alarming than the former one to you? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
As you say, just a bit. That's likely the wording I would have used if I also had to be politically correct without taking sides in my public statement. --Childhood's End (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I've got to say, you've opened my eyes. I don't believe your POV, but I never before believed that an intelligent person could have such a POV. (That might sound like an insult, but it's not intended to be. I'm convinced you're intelligent, although misguided. Presumably, you feel the same about me. At least I hope you believe I'm intelligent.) Anyways, if you were trying not to take "sides", you don't think you'd omit the words "active" and "effective" and references to "the time scale" of the changes? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh dont worry, I've learned since long that point of views are less a matter of intelligence than of information. And even for well-informed persons, it's hard to escape our respective cognitive bias. Now as to what you say, frankly, with all my honesty and as hard as I try, I fail to see all the alarmism that you see in their statement. The whole sentence that includes the references to "time scales", "active" and "effective" lead to one thing : a recommendation for long-term planning. That's even less demanding than adaptation. With statements like this, I'll sleep very well tonight again. --Childhood's End (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prehistoric Carbondioxide Levels

I found a graph containing the CO2 levels for the past 600 million years, showing that global warming is a part of the natural cycle, which existed long before humans. The graph compares 3 models all showing that CO2 was historically 3 - 20 times higher than it is now. The CO2 released by humans comes from fossil fuels, which were originally plants and animals. The prehistoric plants took the CO2 out of the atmosphere and locked it in petroleum. Climate change has been proven to exist, but it has not been proven to be caused by humans. If you would like to have a look at the graph and its sources here's the link. Prehistoric CO2 Levels, at first it looks like CO2 is higher now due to the fact that it goes from present to past instead of the reverse, but it actually shows a huge CO2 deficiency in modern times. I just thought I'd put the link up there to see what everyone thinks. I'm not a scientist, but am trying to look at this scietifically, and it seems that the CO2 in fossils must have been in the atmosphere at one point, as it is not being made just released. Mason L. (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's precisely the accepted explanation. Atmospheric CO2 was fixed by photosynthesis tens to hundreds of millions of years ago. Eventually it turned into coal and petroleum. Now we're burning the fixed carbon and putting it back in the air. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The other point I was trying to make was that the CO2 seems to have gone up and down by large amounts in the past, would that have been from volcanoes or animals eating the plants, and whatever it was how are we sure that that is not happening right now? Mason L. (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The changes in the past took place over very long periods of time. The current changes are much, much faster than anything in the historical record. And we know from isotopic analysis that the current rise in CO2 is from fossil fuels, not from volcanoes or other sources (see e.g., Suess effect). Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the smartest thing about global warming I have ever heard. And, yes, volcanoes are the largest influence of temperature and CO2 on earth.

[edit] Incorrect statements and citation improvements

The text under Dissenting opinions regarding the AAPG's revised statement is incorrect. Although they support the research to reduce emissions, they no where commit to the premise of human influencded climate change. I believe an edit war is underway by some editors of this article. The citation of the dissenting statement states the following:

Excerpt: "It is somewhat unusual for a scientific society to criticize the actions of another learned or professional society [Brigham- Grette et al., 2006]. So when the Council of the American Quaternary Association (AMQUA) takes issue with the American Association of Petroleum Geologists over its 2006 Journalism Award to writer and climate skeptic Michael Crichton, citing a recently issued government scientific report [Karl et al., 2006], one must take notice. The AMQUA council members demonstrate that they have not read (or understood) the cited Karl et al. U.S. Climate Change Science Program report. It is true that the report’s summary (and press release) claim ‘clear evidence’ for anthropogenic global warming, but the report itself clearly contradicts this. Specifically, Figure 5.4G, which compares key observations with the calculations of major greenhouse models, shows a considerable disparity. There are other differences between observed and calculated ‘fingerprints’ of temperature trends [Singer, 2006], further demonstrated by more detailed comparisons [Douglass et al., 2004]. Note that even if there were agreement between observed trends and those calculated from greenhouse models, it would not logically constitute ‘proof’ of anthropogenic global warming, but simply make it more plausible. However, the demonstrated disagreement between observations and greenhouse models falsifies the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis and argues convincingly that human effects are minor and that natural factors are the main cause of current warming. This explanation fits well with the paleoclimatic evidence for a (roughly) 1500-year climate cycle, observed in ice cores, ocean sediments, and a variety of other data [Singer and Avery, 2006]. AMQUA members must surely be familiar with such evidence. The obvious disparity between the U.S. Climate Change Science Program report and its summary illustrates the common problem of relying on a potentially distorted summary for policy-makers. Perhaps we need a policy for summary-makers. (Eos, Vol. 87, No. 36, 5 September 2006)"

--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 20:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Read the AAPG statement. It doesn't say anything one way or the other about human influence. Thus the Wikipedia text is correct as written: the AAPG no longer denies the possibility of human influence. You seem to think that somehow this implies the AAPG accepts human influence, but the article doesn't say that. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
No, editors are fighting to kill any questioning of neutrality in this article. I read the citation you suggested, above are the words. I will watch this page closely, because I see that the agenda is to show that there is zero dissent on this subject matter. If that were true, there would be no international debate on the matter, but there is.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 20:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree with RA. Please note that AAPG's shift from it's previous dissenting position was notable in sentences 1-2 and in bullet number two of the new statement. It was widely reported that AAPG had abandoned it's previous position which explicitly denied human influence, while the new statement is now correctly interpreted as "non-committal". Please read here, and also check those citations.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Read citation 22.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 21:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are confused. The footnote you refer to is to the AMQUA statement in EOS. You cite from a letter to the editor in reply to it. The AMQUA statement is not used to criticize the AAPG statement, but to positively source the claim that no scientific associations except for the AAPG opposes the IPCC consensus. Note that this sentence refers to the old AAPG statement. This has since been changed to the current non-committal version linked in the article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Bingo. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
"If that were true, there would be no international debate on the matter, but there is." I think that we can all agree that nuclear proliferation is dangerous, yet, politically, there is much international debate on the matter. So, there can be agreement about the detrimental effects of something but no agreement (or willingness) in what to do about it. Brusegadi (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there certainly can be a continuing debate on the matter irrespective of whether or not "no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate". The continued existence of debate does not logically nullify the foregoing statement, which is both true and reliably sourced. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
No, there's a rule about "weasel wording", and I think the threshold has been met. Besides, anyone with their eyes open can see there is an agenda at work in this article. Good luck.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 03:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
What, specifically, do you think is in violation of (has "met the threshold" for violating) WP guidelines on weasle words? riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 04:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] EPA

I cut this section added by Nursebhayes:

Scientists know with virtual certainty that:
- Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the :atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
- The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
- An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans.
- The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore :virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
- Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.[2]

Should the EPA be considered a scientific body? I could be convinced either way... --Nethgirb (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think government agencies should be considered scientific bodies. Usually, a scientific body's policies and leadership are decided upon by their members. Government agencies don't do that. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
That's a very good question. And it's true that govt agencies tend to be policy or acquisition bodies rather than scientific bodies. However, that's not a certainty and agencies such as the CDC, NIH, NASA, and DoD RDT&E directorates do have scientific experts in certain fields. So the EPA may very well employ experts in certain area of environmental science; for how else can they monitor govt policies? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 17:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BAS

The British Antarctic Survey provides this assesment on their web site casting doubt on the supposed anthropogenic cause of global warming:

"Climate Change Position Statement - July 2006? . . . As part of the work undertaken for the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC13, about 20 different climate models were run to simulate the climate of the 20th century, with specified changes to natural and anthropogenic forcing factors. The simulated changes in Antarctic surface temperatures over the second half of the 20th century vary greatly from model to model (and even between experiments run with the same model but with slightly different starting conditions), with no single model reproducing exactly the observed pattern of change. This lack of a clear and consistent model response to changed imposed forcing suggests that much of the observed change in temperatures may be due to natural variability rather than changes in natural or anthropogenic forcing. However, some caution is called for as the models used may not adequately represent all of the complex processes that determine temperatures in the polar regions."

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/our_views/climate_change.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.43.116 (talk) 07:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I should probably leave this one to William ;-). Anyways, this is a nice example of cherry picking, quoting out of context, and misinterpretation. First, the BAS talks about antarctic climate only, not about global climate. Secondly, the discussion continues: "[...]This suggests that recent warm temperatures are exceptional within the context of the last 10000 years, making it unlikely that they can be explained by natural variability alone. Many of the theories that seek to explain the circumpolar warming of the ACC also have the strengthening of the westerly winds as their root cause. Whilst there is not yet a clear consensus on which are the mechanisms that are most important, there is increasing evidence that a significant part of this change is ultimately driven by human activities" (my emphasis). Unsurprisingly, the BAS has an official statement on the AR4: "British Antarctic Survey (BAS) welcomes the carefully considered and rigorous set of statements in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: The Physical Science Basis fourth report published today 2 February 2007."[11]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it is a nice example of dishonesty, besides cherry-picking. The quote in the anon comment does not appear in the BAS statement. Below I've modified the fake quote to show what does appear, with changes in strike and italics:
As part of the work undertaken for the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC13, about 20 different climate models were run with historical changes to natural and anthropogenic forcing factors to simulate the climate of the 20th century, with specified changes to natural and anthropogenic forcing factors. The simulated changes in Antarctic surface temperatures over the second half of the 20th century vary greatly from model to model (and even between experiments run with the same model but with slightly different starting conditions), with no single model reproducing exactly the observed pattern of change. However, when results from all models are averaged, the resulting pattern of change bears some resemblance to that observed, with greatest warming in the Peninsula region and little change elsewhere. This result suggests that some of the observed change may have an anthropogenic origin, but the This lack of a clear and consistent model response to changed imposed forcing between models also suggests that much of the observed change in temperatures may be due to natural variability rather than changes in natural or anthropogenic forcing. The IPCC model experiments fail to reproduce some of the observed features, notably the rapid warming of the lower atmosphere. These differences between modelled and observed changes could be used to argue against attributing change to anthropogenic forcing, but However, some caution is called for as the models used may not adequately represent all of the complex processes that determine temperatures in the polar regions.
--Nethgirb (talk) 11:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Good catch. It felt a bit fishy, but I did not compare it word for word! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The anon may have an old version, we changed it a bit recently. I'm sure the internet archive could tell us, if we really care about the details. However, the main point is that the BAS statement doesn't cast any doubt on the attribution of climate change on a global scale, it just says its harder over Antarctica William M. Connolley (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC: Is Scientific opinion on climate change neutral

Is overwhelming agreement reasonable and supported by all available evidence

  • I'd be glad to hear opinions, but the article does not claim "overwhelming agreement", it lists (with extensive quotes) the official position of recognized scientific organizations and of notable surveys of scientists and the scientific literature. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I only have a few little issues with this article, which perhaps I could submit here for thoughts :
i- There should at least be a mention that the statements provided by the various scientific orgs do not necessarily reflect the opinions of all their members.
ii- Focus on the main scientific bodies should be maintained, and the less relevant ones sould be cut.
iii- Perhaps the section about surveys of scientists and litterature could benefit from more openness towards the less notable but still relevant information in the likes of Inhofe's list, despite the fact that it is not 100% accurate. --Childhood's End (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Nothing is 100% accurate. If nothing else, science in the last 200 years has shown us how much we don't know. We should hold current science to a higher standard than the prior 1000 years. Part of that standard should be a healthy skepticism about what we "know today". Facts are a great thing, but let's be careful in chosing those that we label unquestionable. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 18:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree in general with User:Childhoodsend's assessment, with the added qualm that petitions and surveys of scientists (Oregon Petition, "Sixty Scientists", etc) should be moved from global warming controversy to here. If we want to discuss the opinions of scientists, then the opinions of individuals, groups, and societies/organizations are all relevant to that. I think there should be a section labeled "scientific dissent" (or "scientific skepticism" or similar) which should say that some individual scientists do not accept the GW consensus (with a main pipe to List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming and perhaps global warming controversy), list some notable dissenting scientists, and mention the petitions. I don't see why the opinions of individual scientists shouldn't be mentioned here. Oren0 (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh well, I guess the obvious needs to be said: there is no way Inhofes bunch of gardeners is going to be on this page. But feel free to talk amongst yourselves William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
And this is because? You will fight to the death to keep them off? There's no way, because you're the page owner, right? I don't understand, you want a nice clean page of 100% support for the so called "consensus"? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 12:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I see, just because Inhofe's numbers are inflated means no scientists dispute global warming? Punting the skeptics to other pages is one thing, but they at least deserve a mention here. Oren0 (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
If Inhofe produced an honest list with no blatant non-scientists, perhaps we might take him seriously. Until he does, hist list belongs in politics-land. This is all good knockabout fun, isn't it? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't ask for Inhofe's list to be included, and I'm not sure it should be. But what's the problem with, for example, the sixty scientists? Or mentioning/linking the skeptic list? Oren0 (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Because they aren't William M. Connolley (talk) 08:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Imo, Inhofe's list has still more scientific credentials than Oreskes' flawed survey. And yes, Inhofe's list includes names that should not belong, but a similar observation could be made about the statements from scientific orgs which necessarily speak for dissenters in their ranks. I dont see why it could not be mentioned in the Oreskes section, which really is the weak point of this article. --Childhood's End (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you seriously put more more trust into a list published by a politician than into an article published by Nature? On a scientific topic? Anyways, this is a question of proper attribution vs. original research. Oreskes, the Royal Society, the IPCC, the AMS, and all these other organizations have formed an informed position. We just quote them. Going from individual dissenters to a general claim of significant dissent is, on the other hand, an example of WP:SYN. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Nature also published the hockey stick and other fuzzy/dubious stuff over the years, so my trust goes to neither. But yes, you can fall back on attribution rules to dismiss Inhofe while keeping Oreskes if you want. --Childhood's End (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Lets not get too caught up with Oreskes. Only less than 2% explicitly agreed with the IPCC statement. ~ UBeR (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
So cobbling together the statements of various scientific organizations (which don't even claim to represent the beliefs of their memberships) and using them to draw conclusions about the opinion of science as a whole isn't synthesis but it would be if we included individuals or petitions? Care to elaborate? Oren0 (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
We haven't got any evidence (even circumstantial) that the statements from the scientific organizations aren't representative of their members opinion - if you have evidence that indicates otherwise then present it. On the other hand we have ample evidence that the petitions aren't representative of even the signers, evidence that the lists do not represent what they claim. And while the individual opinions of some scientists are interesting.. It doesn't tell us anything about the general scientific opinion - and thus doesn't belong. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Would you pretend that the statement of the American Institue of Physics fairly represents the views of Freeman Dyson, for instance? And no, you dont have "ample evidence" that the petitions arent representative of its signatories - what you have is 2-3 such occurences. You certainly do no want to make such weak hasty generalizations, do you? --Childhood's End (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes i do want to make such a statement - because its amply backed by reliable sources. And i have no idea whether the AIP statement represents the views of a single scientist - but then i haven't seen any scientist claim that it doesn't. And frankly i couldn't care less - since i have no indications as to Dysons official stand on the statement (have you? or are you guessing?), and since the AIP has thousands of members, i can't see why Dyson would be relevant - unless you have any indication that he represents more than his own personal opinon. And why would Dyson's opinion be worth more than Wearts? (just to take an example?) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
That was long for a non sequitur. I did not say that Dyson's opinion was worth more than whoeveryouwant's. I pointed to Dyson "for instance". And the fact that your 2-3 occurences are backed by reliable sources does not save your claim from being a hasty generalization. --Childhood's End (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
If you had no point in mind about Dyson - then why mention him at all. Either you have evidence to support that the members do not support the statements or you haven't - now which is it? As for your strawman about "2-3 occurances" - its quite a few more than that - in fact we have very little indication that anyone is supportive of the petitions, except for the usual political pundits (who are very much irrelevant in a science context - sorry). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I will only highlight that per what you say, you are not ready to accept that Freeman Dyson does not agree with the AIP statement. Not surprising though. After all, you also think that Yuri Izrael's comments about climate change were only about Antartica. --Childhood's End (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Very nice. You didn't read (or understand) a bit of what i said. Let me spell it out: I have no idea whether or not Freeman Dyson has an opinion on the AIP statement - i haven't seen either for or against (and i doubt if you have either. Have you? (3rd time i'm asking). And 3rd time again: Why would a single scientists opinion matter - the AIP represents >50,000 scientists with relevant expertises (and Dyson hasn't). And finally - please try to address the issue rather than the editor - something which i notice that you repeatedly forget. Thank you. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
It's you who's not reading! Per what you just said, what I said is true, i.e. that you dont accept that Dyson disagrees with the AIP statement (you say you dont know). And per what I said, it is clear that I believe he does. Now, as I also said, I pointed to Dyson as an example, and I did not intend to discuss his position here. Point is that statements such as those cannot be presumed to represent the opinions of the whole memberships. Everyone accepts it, and you should too. --Childhood's End (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
CE are you simply trolling here? You "believe" that Dyson disagrees? What exactly has your "belief" to do here on Wikipedia? While the statements from the academies may not represent each individual scientists opinion , we have no indication, no evidence to believe that it doesn't. Belief is simply not a factor here. You are hitting A) missing reliable sources to substantiate your "belief" - and B) Failing to understand undue weight. What exactly is your point? That single scientists may disagree? Fine - but that has to be backed by reliable sources that show that its not a fringe opinion, and that mentioning it isn't undue weight. You have shown exactly nothing of this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

(dedent) Why should we provide evidence that these statements aren't representative of their membership (though I'm sure we could find individuals in any of these societies who disagree)? Shouldn't you be providing evidence that they are? These are written by executive committees and I'd guess most members of most of these societies never even read them. If George W. Bush says something, would you allow me to state that his statement was representative of the opinion of the USA population without any evidence in the affirmative simply because you have no evidence to the contrary? Oren0 (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Sorry. As far as we know these statements are representative of their members views. Thats the reason given for the statements. And so far we have no indications that this isn't correct. The statements are reliable sources and we present them as what they are. If you are going to contest them, then find equally reliable sources (ie. weight) to substantiate your claims. Ie. you can guess from here on to eternity, but your guesses (or hunches) have no place on WP. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but that just sounds too much like a union leader speach. The follow-up to your answer above is OrenO's comment, and your answer to his is incorrect. Statements made on behalf of other people, especially in the case of large memberships, cannot be presumed to represent everyone concerned like you try to push here. Unfortunately, what you would like to be established and taken for granted simply cannot be proved, unless a vote has been taken on the statement and the result was 100% support. It is fallacious presumptions that have no place on WP. --Childhood's End (talk) 07:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
CE, please stop. Noone is saying that there aren't individuals within the organizations who can disagree. The question is: Is there a significant enough minority that disagree, so that a mention of this is merited. So far nothing indicates that this is the case. Unless you can point us to reliable sources that give us reason to suspect this - its out. Simple as that. Speculation, hunches, beliefs and so on, are something that you can use at home - but not here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
You can stop your lecture on speculation right there. To put a mention that organization statements do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the whole memberships would simply be factual accuracy, not speculation. Ignoring it because you presume, on the absence of hard evidence, that the number of members who do not support the statements is not significant (on what criterion?) makes you the only person speculating here. You do not need to reply; but a simple "ok perhaps I erred" would be perfect. --Childhood's End (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
"factual accuracy" - not so simple. Either its obvious, in which case stating it is superfluous and adding it is pure spin, or it is not, in which case we would have to attribute it to a reliable source. I go with obvious. The statements reflect the overall opinion of the members, not the exact opinion of each individual member. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Who says? How many of these statements claim to represent the opinion of even a majority of their memberships, much less back up that claim? They represent the opinion of the society as a whole, but barring any evidence it is incorrect to assume that the membership agrees as well; as far as I know the membership isn't asked their opinions, but rather executive committees decide. Many of these societies have thousands of members and no effort that I'm aware of has been made to poll them. Therefore, claiming that these societies represent their membership is speculative. Oren0 (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Afaik, most of these statements are done by drafted and discussed internally (amongst members) before getting released. That at least is the case for the AGU and AMS statements (as well as the AAPG one). I find it interesting that you think that its done in a void - but also rather irrelevant. In all cases though, if the statements weren't representative, it would have created waves - do you have any indication that it has? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
"In all cases though, if the statements weren't representative, it would have created waves" This is just more speculation. The part with which I could agree is that the statements probably reflect the opinion of a majority of members, as I do suppose (or so I hope) that there is a minimal internal consultation process. But a note indicating that such statements do not necessarily reflect the range of possible opinions of the whole memberships would be a good and fair addition. --Childhood's End (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Fact is, we don't claim anything about the statements except that the societies in question have made them. That's fine with me. I have a somewhat strong and somewhat informed opinion about the issue (and in fact, the AAPG example shows how irate members can directly influence such statements). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This article references assessments of scientific opinion on global warming. If we begin to list individuals and self-selected lists like petitions, we get into what is essentially original research in determining the broad scientific opinion. To the extent that skepticism appears in the assessments, it already appears in the article (e.g., noncommittal statements, surveys, and until recently the AAPG's dissenting statement). Regarding User:Childhoodsend's suggestions: (i): I'm not necessarily opposed. (ii): opposed; I think everything on the list is reasonably relevant, and I'm a fan of completeness. I would also point out that the American Association of Petroleum Geologists is probably one of the less relevant ones. (iii): definitely not, for the reasons above. --Nethgirb (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any doubt that an attitude exists that man-made climate change should be undisputed, and that this article should reflect a consensus so solid it could be compared with Newton's Laws. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 23:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Where can I find in wikipedia a summary and links of studies which dispute the human cause for climate change? Are there sufficient papers done about it to warrant a page about it? If not, then I'll just try to follow up on them on my own searching time. Thanks. 213.22.205.215 (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows for little material about this, but you can look at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming for a rough and perfunctory start. For most of the relevant information, you need to look outside Wikipedia (for instance, ICSC, International Climate Science Coalition or ICECAP). --Childhood's End (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cosmic rays

There are numerous articles about an alternative theory of global warming. It suggests that CO2 and greenhouse gases may have a negligible effect on climate change. It is clearly a minority view, and has some problems, but there is a strong, vocal minority of honest to god scientists (not oil company apologists) who support further research on the theory. There was a television documentary on BBC a few months back where some of these scientists expressed their dismay that funding for this type of research is very difficult to come by. Apparently, this topic has become so politicized that real science can no longer be done if the possible conclusions would run counter to the IPCC party line.

I really wish the issue in the publlic spotlight had not moved to whether or not there is still room for scientific debate on this subject. There should *always* be room for scientific debate on a subject this complex, and this trend to market a "consensus viewpoint" is harmful when it shuts out legitimate discussion. I think the public would be better served by honestly acknowledging some level of inherent uncertainty, while still maintaining that the risk of failing to act is so great that we still must reduce CO2 levels swiftly anyway. It is this notion that we can only act after we have all the facts which should be confronted directly, not the notion of whether there is any room left for scientific doubt. -- anonymous 148.87.1.167 (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The theory is old and WP:FRINGE. Still, we mention it in global warming. But it has extremely little support among scientists (in other words, the minority may be vocal, but it is not strong) or in the scientific literature. The "documentary" probably was The Great Global Warming Swindle, and has been widely discredited. Yes, funding is hard to get, but that is true for all scientists. The EU, for example, funds about 6-8% applications in it FP programs. In other words, if you get more than 1 in 12 projects approved, you are lucky or very good. Projects are evaluated and, with the usual margin for error, evaluated on merit. You don't get a bonus for being widely out of the mainstream, unless you can show compelling evidence that you are likely to be right. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Political Classification

The section Survey of U.S. state climatologists 1997 includes the text "conservative think tank Citizens for a Sound Economy surveyed..." Why are they identified as conservative? Other groups cited in this article are not labeled with their political positions -- conservative, liberal, or otherwise. I think it should be removed. Johnskrb2 (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, they are conservative, as described in reliable sources, e.g. [12][13]. The scientific groups do not have a political affiliation per se, unless you agree that reality has a well-known liberal bias. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
1) They don't apply the label to themselves, others do; they describe their mission as "to fight for less government, lower taxes, and less regulation." [14] Yes, it sounds conservative, but it could also be libertarian; 2) Journalists are more liberal [15] than the general public, but that doesn't mean that an individual journalist cannot put aside his liberalism to report the facts; simply being a liberal is not evidence of biased journalism. Along the same lines, simply being a conservative is not evidence of biased science; 3) University professors are more liberal [16] than the general public, but that is not evidence of biased science, so there's no need to label the scientists as "liberal"; 4) Most importantly, the label is non-NPOV because it is applied to discredit the study based on political affiliation rather than presenting criticism of the methodology or analysis. Johnskrb2 (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
1-3 are all irrelevant. We don't go by self-description, for obvious reasons. No reliable source has described the Royal Society or the United States National Academy of Sciences as politically partisan. "Scientists" and "Journalists" are not acting in an organized fashion, unlike a pressure group like Citizens for a Sound Economy. As for point 4, to quote you: "simply being a conservative is not evidence of biased science". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Concurring statements?

[edit] AMS

Here's the statement currently in the article:

"There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems.[10]"

I don't see any strong language that blames humans for the bulk of the increase in temperature; conversely, the statement seems to go out of its way to avoid saying that. Saying that "human activities have become a major source of environmental change" is not nearly enough in my opinion to say that they concur with the IPCC. I think this should be moved to the non-committal section. Thoughts? Oren0 (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You are cutting the statement rather short - try reading a bit further. The AMS statement refers directly to both the NRC and IPCC conclusions which both conclude that the rise in temp is mostly from humans and GHG's in particular.
But there isn't really any reason to discuss that particular statement since its been updated 2007 [17], and now contains the very strong:
Direct human impact is through changes in the concentration of certain trace gases such as carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor, known collectively as greenhouse gases. Enhanced greenhouse gases have little effect on the incoming energy of the sun, but they act as a blanket to reduce the outgoing infrared radiation emitted by Earth and its atmosphere; the surface and atmosphere therefore warm so as to increase the outgoing energy until the outgoing and incoming flows of energy are equal. Carbon dioxide accounts for about half of the human-induced greenhouse gas contribution to warming since the late 1800s, with increases in the other greenhouse gases accounting for the rest; changes in solar output may have provided an augmentation to warming in the first half of the 20th century.
--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't cut anything off, I copied/pasted from the article. Either way, you read that quote as explicitly agreeing that most of the warming is anthropogenic? That's my point though: it's OR to label any statement that doesn't explicitly agree with the IPCC (maybe they all do, I haven't clicked through and read them all) as "concurring" just because that's how an editor interprets it. And not to nitpick, but (in the intro at least, I didn't read the whole thing) the AMS mentions and quotes the IPCC and NRC but it goes out of its way not to endorse them or claim that they agree with their conclusions. Oren0 (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GSA

"The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning."[18]

Saying that GW is "due in part to human activities" isn't really committal. Almost nobody disagrees with that, but "in part" could be 10% or 90%. Since we require more than half of warming to be natural at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, it seems that these orgs should have to commit to at least half being anthropogenic to concur with the IPCC. I think this brings up the bigger problem of WP:OR though, see below. Oren0 (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This one is also rather moot since the statement directly refers and concurs with the statement from the joint academies. Which introduces with:
It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001). This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate.
--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:OR in making the call?

It seems that we're arbitrarily deciding which statements agree with the IPCC and which don't without any sources qualifying them as such. That's practically the definition of original research. The statements should stand for themselves unless we have reliable sources that classify them as concurring, non-committal, whatever. Oren0 (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems rather moot, since your "arbitrary" apparently comes from the old AMS statement, which references and cites both the NRC and the IPCC conclusions (including the most warming: human, most: GHG). Or are you of a differing opinion? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
As I said above, it quotes these conclusions and then says more research is needed in these areas, it doesn't say it agrees with these conclusions. I think that in order to label a statement as concurring, it either needs to explicitly endorse the IPCC conclusions, specifically say that warming is mostly anthropogenic, or endorse another group's statement that does one of those two things. I think you're going to start getting into judgment calls and that's why it's better to let the statements/excerpts speak for themselves. Oren0 (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Reading the 2007 report (which should be linked and quoted in the article instead of the current one), I agree that the AMS explicitly endorses the IPCC. But that endorsement should be explicit in the quote used in the article. And it doesn't change my position on classification as a whole. If I need to find another organization to prove this point, I'm sure I can. I'm sure that some of the groups listed don't explicitly fit the criteria I mentioned above. Oren0 (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I must agree. Even if it may seem in clear agreement in some cases, unless we have a source qualifying the statements as in agreement with the IPCC, it is OR to qualify them as such. There's a few blurred cases imo. I would have expected KDP to agree here. --Childhood's End (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Woods Hole

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution has a “Global Warming” web page which features Dr. Terrence M. Joyce’s “Observations on Global Warming”. Dr. Joyce, who is Senior Scientist and Director of WHOI’s Ocean & Climate Change Institute, states, “Global warming is real, is happening now, and has real consequences for life on Earth. The scientific community is largely persuaded that not only is Earth’s climate warming, but the rate of warming is accelerating, due substantially to human activity.”

The piece goes on to outline how anthropomorphic global warming works, the effect it’s having on the planet, the role the oceans play, etc. [18]

Would this meet the criteria for including Woods Hole on this page? --CurtisSwain (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably not. To cite from the article: This page documents scientific opinion as given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. It does not document the views of individual scientists, individual universities or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions. If we start listing those, this page will grow beyond reasonable limits. It might be a good idea to have one sentence on this: "Several notable scientific institutes and universities support the IPCC conclusions: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution [ref]...", but I don't know if we should even go there. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks for clearing that up for me.--CurtisSwain (talk) 03:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No red links here?

Fair is fair: Network of African Science Academies? Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology (Switzerland)? Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society? Are these orgs that aren't even important or notable enough to have WP pages important enough to be listed here? If so, maybe someone should create pages for these groups. Stubs would obviously be fine, but notability should be established. And no, before anyone asks, I'm not just trying to make a WP:POINT. Oren0 (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Please don't mix articles. There is a large difference between organizations and individuals.
That aside, it would be nice to have the redlinks turn into at least stubs. So that we can let the WP notability criteria determine it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
From WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS: When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because "other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc." ... Though a lot of Wikipedia's styles are codified in policy, to a large extent minor details are not. In cases such as these, an "Other Stuff Exists" -type of argument or rationale may provide the necessary precedent for style and phraseology." I'd say this is especially true in the relatively small scope of GW articles when we're talking about the same editors. Does the opinion of a scientific society that doesn't even have a WP page really important to the overall scientific opinion of GW? Oren0 (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think MeteoSwiss (Office of Meteorology and Climatology) should be included, not because there's anything wrong with MeteoSwiss but because we shouldn't include government agencies in general. NASAC and AMOS definitely merit inclusion. Note that the African Academy of Sciences (one of the members of NASAC) has its own article. Some of the other members might also, but I haven't checked those. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Government agencies

I've removed all the government agencies from the list. I think we would be best served by keeping the list to independent scientific bodies. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to remove http://www.climatescience.gov/ --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 20:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, that's in there as a notable synthesis report, not as a government agency. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The CCSP documents undergo extensive independent peer review -- there are even reviews of the reviews! It's more like an academy of science than a government agency. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I’m not sure it’s valid to restrict the inclusion of government agencies. The criteria for inclusion on this page is “scientific bodies of national or international standing.” Government agencies such as NOAA, the Met Office, MeteoSwiss, etc. certainly meet that criteria, and are certainly qualified to speak authoritatively on the subject. The introduction clearly states that the only scientific bodies excluded from this page are “individual universities or laboratories.” Therefore, I feel the government meteorological agencies that were recently removed should be put back.--CurtisSwain (talk) 06:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


Er...does no one else have an opinion on this?--CurtisSwain (talk) 10:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Earth

Hello i have recently proposed the Wikiproject Earth. This Wikiproject`s scope includes this article. This wikiproject will overview the continents, oceans, atsmophere and global warming Please Voice your opinion by clicking anywhere on this comment except for my name. --IwilledituTalk :)Contributions —Preceding comment was added at 15:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you're getting lots of comments.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 11:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What, are other global warming articles based on "unscientific" opinion?

I suggest this changed to scientific papers on global warming or something similar. This is wikipedia. All its scientific articles are supposed to be based on scientific opinion. --Leladax (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That name wouldn't reflect the content of this article. A more accurate title might be "Opinions of scientific academies on climate change" but that's cumbersome. It's fine as is. Oren0 (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd prefer it. --Leladax (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Oren0 above. It's fine as is.--CurtisSwain (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Mostly agree too but a mention should be added about the fact that organizational statements do not necessarily represent the opinions of all their individual members. --Childhood's End (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paleontological Research Institution

Would the Paleontological Research Institution qualify for inclusion on this page?--CurtisSwain (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say no; it would fall under the "individual universities or laboratories" exclusion. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statement order?

Is there any rhyme or reason to the current ordering of scientific organizations in this article? After the IPCC and the G8 ones, they seem to be in random order. Would anyone oppose alphabetizing them (after the IPCC and Joint academies statements, which can go first)? Oren0 (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. It was tolerable before when there weren't so many entries, but now they should be better organized. Maybe put them into categories like national academies (including joint declarations) and then professional societies. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you’re absolutely correct. The order of scientific bodies is a little haphazard. However, I don’t think alphabetizing is the way to go. I think the table of contents would be easier for readers to peruse, and the ordering would make more sense if we clustered the entries by type. The order should go from the large to the small, from the general to the specific. After the IPCC and Joint academies statements, it should continue with other science academies, then general science groups, followed by meteorological organizations, atmospheric organizations, the geo-sciences, then miscellaneous groups. So, the order would look something like this:


Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
Joint science academies’ statement 2007
Joint science academies’ statement 2005
Joint science academies’ statement 2001
InterAcademy Council
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
Network of African Science Academies
International Council for Science
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Federation of American Scientists
National Research Council (US)
World Meteorological Organization
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
American Meteorological Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
National Center for Atmospheric Research (US)
International Union of Geological Sciences
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
European Geosciences Union
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
Geological Society of America
American Geophysical Union
American Quaternary Association
American Astronomical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
American Chemical Society
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006

Then, as more organizations are added, they can be placed in the appropriate cluster. How’s does that sound?--CurtisSwain (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer categorization to sorting. I just don't want to quibble over which organization belongs first. I propose the following main headers: IPCC, National/International Academies, Meteorological/Climate societies, and Other scientific societies. We might also need a category for government bodies/reports. We could sort by size/importance or alphabetically within each group. Oren0 (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
That’ll work too. Either way, whoever wants to take the time to organize it in a way that isn’t objectionable to anyone should just go for it. I’d like to see gov’t agencies included. So…maybe if they were labeled they’d be acceptable. But, reports should be in a separate category if we’re going to go with categorization. The average reader needs to be able to easily discern the difference between a scientific body and a synthesis report. Wait, what exactly is a “synthesis report” anyway?--CurtisSwain (talk) 10:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of scientific opinion

The oldest reference in the article is 1990 whereas scientific opinion actually originates with Svante Arrhenius in 1896. Also the fact that Mikhail Budyko in 1972 hypothesized on a warming in close agreement the later development merits mention.1972 prediction of global warming Gabriel Kielland (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This article, at least so far, concentrates on the current scientific opinion on climate change, as described in the lead. I don't think adding historical material is appropriate here - if anything, we should have a separate article on e.g. History of global warming theory. I also have to say that a single gif on a website in Japan does not strike me as a WP:RS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
That’s a great idea! I’m surprised Wiki doesn’t have one already. Spencer R. Weart and his on-line book The Discovery of Global Warming [ISBN 0674016378] would be a good source to get that started. I might take that on myself, or at least help out if someone wants to get it going.--CurtisSwain (talk) 11:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conformity in the headings

Do we have to have “(The Institution of Engineers Australia)” in the heading? And does the Federal Climate Change Science Program have to have the year after it? They just look odd in the table of contents.--CurtisSwain (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Text on Scientific Consensus

Stephan Shulchz, last night I amended the text to show the following additional information.

"A question which frequently arises in conveying the scientific opinion to a broader audience is to what extent that opinion rises to the level of a consensus. The existence of a scientific consensus on the extent and causes of climate change is controversial. While several scientific organizations have used the term "consensus" in their statements (as indicated below), none of the currently documented surveys or polls of scientists, with knowledge of climate change, reflect an overwhelming consensus of opinion as to the extent and causes of climate change. "

You deleted it. Would you please explain why you think it does not belong there and/or which part of it you believe is not factually correct. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirwells (talk • contribs) 12:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not Stephan but I can say why I would have reverted. (1) Your text asserts that the existence of a consensus is controversial without any source; and I would emphasize that we would need a scientific source since this article is about scientific opinion not popular / media / political opinion. (2) Your phrasing might imply that individual scientists are the ones with knowledge of climate change, to the exclusion of scientific bodies. (3) As for the surveys, Oreskes' 2004 survey of abstracts does support an overwhelming consensus. Bray and von Storch's survey did not use rigorous methodology, and even so it mostly supports the mainstream view. The others are all quite old. So, while your text implies that the surveys contradict the scientific bodies' statements, all of the rigorous recent evidence that we have from surveys actually supports the statements. (4) You may be setting a subjective and misleading standard by requiring "an overwhelming consensus". The definition of (overwhelming) consensus might be hard to nail down precisely, so it is in my opinion a much better and less POV strategy to simply quote reliable sources that use the word "consensus" explicitly, which is what we have done. --Nethgirb (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


The question was for Stephan, since he is the one who reverted it. But I will address your reasons anyway: (1) There is an entire wikipedia page dedicated to showing how global warming is controversial. This page includes a large section on the existence of a scientific (not media/popular/political) consensus. At best, my phrasing may have needed to be updated to include a link to the wikipedia on page on global warming controversy. (2) Individual scientists ARE the ones with knowledge of climate change. "Scientific bodies" are just groups individual scientists (as well as non-scientists.) A survey of individual scientists is a better measure of scientific consensus, because a statement made by an organization might not reflect the opinion of every individual member of that group. Nevertheless, the whole argument is moot, since my phrasing does not even mention "scientific bodies". (3) The Oreskes study was not a survey of scientists, it was s survey of papers written about global warming. (4) The main page on global warming uses the phrase "overwhelming consensus". Are you willing to make the same argument there? Nevertheless, we can eliminate the word "overwhelming" if you wish. The phrasing is still factual and accurate without it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirwells (talk • contribs) 00:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Both Stephan's and Nethgirb's comments can be summarized with the wikipedia policies of WP:WEIGHT and WP:V. Scientific consensus doesn't ride with individuals, but the individuals as a group, and the published research. The global warming controversy page describes the non-scientific controversy (ie. political and other), that cannot be integrated into the main global warming articles, precisely because they are minority opinions (and thus out per undue weight). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed that scientific consensus does not ride with individuals, but with individuals as a group. Thus far, all of the references being used as proof of scientific consensus of AGW (on both this page and the Global Warming page) are statements written by individuals. The actual surveys of individual members of the group, which are the only way to truely measure the opinions of the entire group of all scientists with knowledge of climate change, do NOT indicate a consensus. The global warming controvesy page very specificly discusses scientific controversy. Please refer to the section labeled "existence of a scientific consensus". Nevertheless, the entire argument of whether or not this proves the existence of consensus is moot, becuase my phrasing remains neutral as to whether or a scientific consensus does or does not exist. It merely makes a factual statement that none of the actual surveys or polls taken of scientists with knowledge of climate change reflect a consensus. This statement is strictly limited to facts (not opinions) which are currently irrefutable--Sirwells (talk) 01:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The statements from the various academies and scientific organizations are not written in a void. They are supposed to represent the views of their members, and we have no indication or reason to suspect that they do not. As for the survey's they are as pointed out, very old and in many cases quite suspect. The Oreskes review is actually the most reasonable one, since it tries to examine the actual published opinion of the scientists who do the research. And i'm sorry to tell you that every survey published since 2000 also shows that a consensus exists, even though they aren't actually a valid way to examine a scientific consensus (as pointed out before). You seem to think that a scientific consensus is equivalent with a unanimous opinion. And that is not the case. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Which part of this is supposed to be a refutation of the fact that none of the actual surveys or polls of scientists knowledgable about climate change reflect a consensus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirwells (talk • contribs) 03:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Which part of all the survey's since 2000 actually do support a consensus did you miss? ;) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't play games with me. I don't argue about survey's I have not seen. If you know of a survey proving your point, give us a citation. (and it better meet the same standards you demand of others) --Sirwells (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Look at the article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
There is one survey of scientists on the article done since 2000. It's results did not show a consensus. To be blunt, your claim that all surveys of scientists with knowledge of climate change done since 200 show a consensus, is utter nonsense. That is, unless you are playing games with words and trying to twist this argument to include a survey of papers about global warming, which is not the same thing, not what I have been arguing and not part of the phrasing you so quickly reverted. Since you seem to have a tendency to change topics, let me restate. My phrasing specifically said:"...none of the currently documented surveys or polls of scientists, with knowledge of climate change, reflect an overwhelming consensus of opinion as to the extent and causes of climate change. " Thus far, none have refuted this statement. I would like to hear a logical and FAIR reason why KimDabelsteinPetersen, Stephan Schulz, and Dawn Bard are so aggressively reverting this phrase, which remains unchallenged (except of Kim's word manipulation games), factual, accurate, and non-opinionated. --Sirwells (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you call for a request for comment? If you need help with the process, let me know. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
What a second, did actually just say that a poll is not a valid way to determine consensus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirwells (talk • contribs) 03:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes i did. Surveys are a highly inaccurate tool. Too much depend on the way questions are asked, instead of the actual context and background for the question. For instance ask people if they want to raise taxes and they will answer No. Ask them instead if they would raise taxes, with the context of a specific issue, and the answer will be different. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
So all they have to do is write the survey to be specific, accurate and in the proper context. Am I to understand that you think it's more accurate to accept on blind faith, a statement written by an individual, and in mainy cases getting paid under the assumption that AGW is an issue, claiming there is a consensus of all. Now I see why the call it the Global Warming Religion. --Sirwells (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you learn how the IPCC reports are created and who pays the scientists. Very many of the contributors are tenured and have unlimited job security, especially with the aim of making them independent from political and other pressure. And most of the members of e.g. the Royal Society actively compete with climate scientists for research funding - can you explain their motivation for supporting the IPCC unless they think the science is sound? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't need to explain it. It reflects only the opinion of a small group of individuals, not a consensus of all scientists with knowledge of climate change.--Sirwells (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

♠ Save your energy Sirwells, you're dealing with fanatics. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 11:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You miss the point. Why would all the National Academies and other scientific bodies which primarily consist of scientists from competing fields support the IPCC for financial gain? It cuts into the funding for other fields. As for "very small numbers": The Royal Society has 1300 members. The IPCC has thousands. Very many reported surveys about the population in general work with a sample size of about 1000. In fact, the council of the Royal Society has 21 members - that alone is half of the total number of people on our List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

♠ Tenured means nothing, they can be just as agenda driven and corrupt as anyone else. Face it, you miss the point Stephan, you are the architect and high priest of "the consensus" religion on this page. It doesn't matter if your list reaches the moon, that doesn't make it right. We don't know everything there is to know, and rushing to judgment (which human caused global warming is) requires a helluava lot more evidence than there is. If you're that worried, then sell your home and move into a cave using only a knife to survive. I'll start my SUV and rev the engine real loud a few times in your honor. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 11:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I rent. I'm also continuously astonished by people who confuse science and politics. I don't like falling on my nose, but when I stumble, I don't argue with gravity. But if you want to argue from the effects and like your SUV, check the recent development of fuel prices and consider what that implies... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Stephan, I hear some are arguing about gravity too. Maybe global warming is having an affect. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 12:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. But regardless of whether dark energy or Modified Newtonian dynamics is a better refinement of general relativity, and even if we get a well-tested theory of quantum gravity, I will still fall in a manner that is quite adequately described by Newton's law of gravity. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Are there currently any documented polls or surveys of scientists with knowledge of climate change, which reflect a consensus as to the extent and cause of climate change?

Is the following acceptable?

"A question which frequently arises in conveying the scientific opinion to a broader audience is to what extent that opinion rises to the level of a consensus. The existence of a scientific consensus on the extent and causes of climate change is controversial. While several scientific organizations have used the term "consensus" in their statements (as indicated below), none of currently documented surveys or polls of scientists, with knowledge of climate change, reflect an overwhelming consensus of opinion as to the extent and causes of climate change. "

  • "While many scientific organizations claim that AIDs is caused by HIV, there are no currently documented surveys or polls of scientists that support this notion."
  • "While scientists generally consider the Earth to be roughly spherical, this opinion is not supported by any published survey among scientists."
...
Not to mention the fact that the von-Bray/Storch survey, generally criticized as likely compromised by denial ballot stuffing, still has only 20% disagreeing with the explicit statement that the IPCC reports represents the consensus opinion. We have a large number of extremely reliable sources for the consensus. We have no single reliable source claiming a lack of surveys is a problem for gauging consensus. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
There is plenty indication that there is a scientific consensus and it does not appear to be controversial. The proposal above would be directly misleading in my opinion.
— Apis (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Stephen, you did not answer the question. It has a "yes" or "no" answer. Your response is basically subterfuge. Apis, there is an ENTIRE wikipedia page documenting why it is very controversial. But if it makes you happy, we can take the sentence about it being controversial out. --Sirwells (talk) 03:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Are there currently any documented polls or surveys of scientists with knowledge of geophysics, which relfect an a consensus as to whether the shape of the earth is approximately spherical? Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
No, nor is there any need for one since the shape of the earth not controversial. That is an inane argument. (But I suspect you knew that.)--Sirwells (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Please assume good faith and remain civil in discussions with other editors. It was a serious question that is relevant to the issue at hand. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
That's good advice. So why will no one give a direct answer to my question. It looks pretty straight forward to me.--Sirwells (talk) 04:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Alright Sirwells, asuming you are seriously interested in this, take a look at this essay by Naomi Oreskes, published 3 dec 2004 in the academic journal Science. It shows the lack of dissenting opinions in a sample of 928 peer reviewed articles on "global climate change". [19]
Look theres even a section on it in this article.
— Apis (talk) 01:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I've read that essay before. First of all, it does not address my question, which was "Are there currently any documented polls or surveys of scientists with knowledge of climate change, which reflect a consensus as to the extent and cause of climate change?". The essay references a survey of papers about global climate change, not a poll of scientists, therefore it is irrelevant to my question. That being said, Oreskes survey does not even prove there is a consensus. Only that most papers written about anthropogenic caused global climate change assume anthropogenic climate change exists. I could just as easily look at a sample of 928 article with the key-word "golf" and conclude that most articles written about golf assume a love of golf. This would not mean there is a consensus of all sports fans who love golf, only that the most people who wrote articles about it do. As a skeptic, if I were I scientist, I would have no interest whatsoever in doing research on one of the many facets of AGW theory. (nice try though.)--Sirwells (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Well you asked for a survey and it's a survey of papers on the subject, which reflect a consensus. She didn't search for "anthropogenic caused global climate change" she searched for "global climate change". I don't agree with your assumption that only proponents would publish papers on the subject. Maybe you wouldn't, but If I where a scientist (in the relevant field) and highly skeptical of anthropogenic climate change, then I'd do some good science to prove that everyone else was wrong and I was right, then I'd get famous, get lots of funding for other research and have my career secured for the future. Not only that, I could also feel tremendously satisfied that I saved billions of people a lot of unnecessary effort to reduce ghg emissions. If you're only going to accept a poll in which all scientists on the earth in the relevant fields express their opinion on human caused climate change then I suspect you are going to die still wondering.
Raymonds question is also valid I think. Consensus on climate change isn't controversial either, or rather it's not controversial within the scientific community.
— Apis (talk) 03:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Where do I begin? First off, I didn't just 'ask for a survey'. I very specifically asked if there were any polls or surveys of scientists with knowledge of climate change showing a consensus. Since I've yet to receive a direct answer to this question. Let me answer it myself. There are none. Secondly, any search of papers written about 'global climate change' essentially is the same thing as a search of 'anthropogenic climate change'. Of course, you are welcome to try and prove me wrong on this point. Just go to Nature's website and try to find any paper on 'climate change' where the paper is not specifically about man's theoretical influence on it. So yes, the Oreskes person is essentially looking at only papers written about AGW to try and prove there is a consensus about AGW's existence. Third, if you were a skeptic interested in doing research, you would not be able to write a paper unless you had your own alternate funding source because government does not give grants for research projects aimed at proving AGW wrong. Fourth, a poll is the only way of proving a consensus, whether you like or not. And yes I absolutely do question an authority figure such as the IPCC if they say there is a consensus of all scientists with knowledge of climate change since they have not taken a poll of all scientists with knowledge of climate change nor do they have any valid basis of claiming so. Skeptism is healthy. Fifth, you and the others here seem to be the ones in serious denial when you say it's 'not controversial'. I understand the OISM petition is now up to 32,000 names of scientists who are skeptic. How many scientists are in you 'elite' group of IPCC authors? --Sirwells (talk) 06:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Where do you end? About the existence of surveys, I'm aware about at least two polls, one of which I cited above (the von-Bray/Storch survey). Your second point is simply bizarre, not to mention weirdly limited. I just typed "global climate change" into Google Scholar, and it came back with e.g. [20], [21] (which is in Nature), [22], [23], [24]. What terms would sceptics use? There are also tons of papers on climate change that acknowledge the current anthropogenic model although the paper would be perfectly able to stand without this, as e.g. [25] (in Nature). As for third, you should be aware of the fact that very many scientists are employed as professors at universities, and that, by design, many of these have tenure especially to be free to research whatever they want without outside interference. And very many of them produce high-quality published science without any additional funding. Fourth is plain wrong. Argument by "because I say so" may work in your usual surroundings, but it does not convince me or many other people here. And fifth, that you bring up the Oregon Petition shows your desperation. It does not say what you claim it does, it's been running for nearly ten years, its been described as fraudulent and denounced by the National Academy of Sciences, and it apparently lists spice girls and comic book characters. Independent attempts to verify it gloriously failed. -Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The von-Bray/Storch survey does not reflect a consensus as to the extent and cause of climate change. No offense, but the rest of your reply is just more subterfuge. --Sirwells (talk) 02:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that your case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU has become worse again. I'm willing to let this subthread stand and let the reader decide on the value of either position. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Stephan, Please assume good faith and remain civil in discussions with other editors. Also, please try not to be judgemental of others simply because you do not agree with thier opinion. I am listening, and in my opinion all of your arguments are subterfuge to the main point, which is that there are no documented polls or surveys of scientists with knowledge of climate change, which reflect a consensus as to the extent and cause of climate change . The von-Bray/Storch survey, which you imply above is a survey reflecting a consensus, in fact shows a result more or less of an evenly divided opinion on the subject. [[26]]. I am not sure how this makes me be the one who is not listening as the facts are quite plain. Also, with all due respect, you seem to be the one who accepts the argument of "because I said so" as you place far more weight on the word of a handful of scientists who claim there is a consensus, but have no proof, while apparently choosing to ignore the results all of the actual polls. As for the Oregon Petition being a fraud, again you are relying on a 'because I said so argument' to try and undermine the entire list, which is not surprising considering the controversial nature of the debate. The Oregan Petition is quite transparent, if you believe some of the names on it are fraudulent, please point them out to us with links. Then I will gladly reduce my above comment from 32,000 scientists by whatever number you find. EDIT: Here's a list of all the 'S' signers. [27] Sorry, Spice Girls aren't on it, no comic book characters either. (I prefer to to right to the source and verify the facts for myself, not rely on 'because I said so' arguements...)--Sirwells (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what kind of country you live in, but where I live the government certainly do not give grants only to those who support their opinion on GW. And if they did, it would only be to skeptics, since the government would benefit a lot more if the anthropogenic greenhouse effect was negligible. (Not saying that governments have no influence over research though, but at least thats what most people are striving for). If what you say is true about political influences then other countries scientific organizations wouldn't agree with the view of scientists in your country. But it looks like the majority of the worlds scientist agree on this (e.g. as reflected by the UN IPCC (which you conveniently don't trust of course)). I presume you think there is some global conspiracy involved? And if you want a poll made by climate scientists then you are going to be very disappointed, because climate scientists don't make polls, they do climate research.
— Apis (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
More subterfuge. The question was "Are there currently any documented polls or surveys of scientists with knowledge of climate change, which reflect a consensus as to the extent and cause of climate change?" The obvious answer of 'NO, there are not." remains unchallenged.--Sirwells (talk) 02:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I thought the question was "Is the following acceptable?" – No, its not. There have been surveys, although personally, I'm not aware of any that meets your specific requirements other than whats already mentioned (that doesn't mean there isn't any of course). Is that the only way to know if there is a consensus? – No, of course not. One can never be entirely sure about anything, an exhaustive poll might be better (I'm not saying it is, I don't really have an opinion on that, I guess it would depend on the nature of the poll), but it's certainly not a requirement.
— Apis (talk) 03:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Seems extremely logical to me that an exhaustive poll should be considered a much better measurement of whether there is or is not a consensus than blindly accepting the word of the IPCC and a few other organizations. I would personally like to see a poll taken by an equal number of skeptics and believers, to help establish reliability. --Sirwells (talk) 21:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Surely such a poll would just produce a 50-50 split? 195.27.12.230 (talk) 10:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I meant a poll administered by both skeptics and believers. (sorry for the confusing wording.) Of course it's obvious to to me that any poll which fails to support the so called 'consensus' argument (as is the case with every poll taken to date) is going to be critisized by the alarmists as not 'credible', one way or another. --Sirwells (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ....take a breath....okay, Part 2

I'm beginning to question how effective this RFC thing is. I'd love to hear from someone who is NOT already a "regular" on the global warming articles. Anyone?--Sirwells (talk) 04:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Fully accept that there is a scientific consensus on climate change and the impact of humans on climate, as supported by the various scientific bodies. Not a regular editor.--205.200.179.72 (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Also fully accept that there is a scientific consensus, as defined on the page of the same name. A scientific consensus does not need a majority vote or poll to prove it's existance, nor does it's existance prohibit dissenting viewpoints. In my opinion, the scientific consensus is what would be written on the topic in a school science textbook, and you can be sure that school textbooks the world over back AGW. The consensus doesnt mean AGW is definitely true, it doesnt mean no scientists disagree, and it certainly doesnt mean noone is doing research into alternative theories. What it means is that it is currently the theory which best fits the evidence, in the opinion of major scientific organisations and journals worldwide. 195.27.12.230 (talk) 10:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
An obvious case of distorting the definition of consensus to your advantage. Sorry, but you don't get to redefine the meanings of words to best suite your arguments. Here is the Webster definition of consensus: 'general agreement; the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned' I think it's safe to say that 'most of those concerned' in this case would be all scientists, which I specified above as 'with knowledge of climate change'. The only way of establishing this would be via a poll of scientists with knowledge of climate change. --Sirwells (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, I realise this specific debate has been raging for many years now, so I dont expect to change anyone's mind. I mainly posted as an example of someone who wasnt a regular but beleived there was a consensus, as requested.
That said, I was using the Wikipedia definition of 'scientific consensus', as mentioned in my post. It's an example of the scientific use of a word being different to the common usage. For instance, in most articles the word 'similar' would mean 'having characteristics in common', whereas in a mathematical article 'similar' would mean identical to (in shape). Additionally, there has been no poll on evolution, no poll on gravity, no poll on any subject to statistically prove that a numerical majority of scientists agree. If it's possible to have a scientific consensus, it must be possible without a poll.
The school textbook example, I admit, was a manipulation of the definition and is entirely my viewpoint. However, in my opinion the broad contents of nationally-available curriculum-sanctioned textbooks provides some indication of that nation's scientific standpoint on those subjects.195.27.12.230 (talk) 09:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
EDIT - just noticed that you weren't asking for people who beleived there was a consensus, but for people who knew of a survey. Well you can have my two cents anyway! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.27.12.230 (talk) 09:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


Sirwells you are encountering a concerted effort to bend the truth by the usual suspects of global warming alarmists. This mythical "consensus" is continually referenced, although no other legitimate areas of science proceed in this way. Other fields of science are content to publish facts and let them speak for themselves. However, the alarmists rally around the "IPCC" as if it were some deity. Welcome to the alternative universe of climate "science." Climate modeling is not on par with band theory, thermodynamics or any other legitimate line of inquiry. Climate modeling is really more akin to Vegas slots than science.209.59.62.112 (talk) 05:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. What amazes my is how simple facts such as the one above must be blocked from being displayed on the article at all costs. Anything to prevent folks from getting the 'wrong impression'....--Sirwells (talk) 06:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
So you think we should give readers the wrong impression then?
— Apis (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Obviously you don't know what the quotation marks mean.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 15:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying hes insinuating that anyone is deliberately trying to sabotage the article? I prefer to assume good faith.
— Apis (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a scientist. But statements about the absence of something look like attempts to push a particular point of view, unless the something missing is something that could reasonably be expected (not, surely, the case here). N p holmes (talk) 09:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

My answer would have to be a double “No”. No, I am not aware of any poll or survey of scientists that reflect a consensus on AGW. No, I do not believe the suggested paragraph should be included on this page, because the it’s based on a faulty premise. In the world of science, consensus, or prevailing opinion, is not determined through polls or surveys. Please see Scientific consensus.--CurtisSwain (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for (finally) an answer which address the question directly. Although I do not agree with you as to how consesnus is determined. I followed your link to Scientific consensus. Now please click on the following link to this very interesting bit of edit-history. [[28]]. Notice what it used to say on the bottom, that in cases where there is significant controversy, other methods 'such as polling are used to establish consensus.' Then it got changed (with no citation) by someone who is well known to be a 'gatekeeper' who edit-wars on the global warming sites, and from there, it appears that many of the same names I see around here have also inserted themselves on the 'scientific consensus' article edit-wars. (How convenient.) Looks to me like the whole network of articles are rigged. I prefer to use common sense. A polls is better for controversial issues because it's the only way of getting to the bottom of the raw numbers,and numbers don't lie.--Sirwells (talk) 00:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
If polling is accepted as a useful tool for gauging scientific consensus, then it would be helpful to have examples of polls in other scientific fields for context. Anybody care to give some examples from physics, geology, or other fields? Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
How is that helpful or relevant? There are no other areas in science where the existence of a 'consensus' is being debated. Unless you want to include topics which overlap with religion, such as evolution (as an example) in which case, yes polls 'are accepted' as ways to establish consesnus for controversial issues. [29]--Sirwells (talk) 00:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Did you even read the link that you yourself provided? It discusses polls as only one of several ways to show consensus. Notably, it mentions statements by scientific bodies, including the National Academy of Sciences -- which is on record as accepting the scientific consensus on global warming. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Raymond, Please assume good faith and remain civil in discussions with other editors. Yes, I read the link. It was provided as an example in response to your question about whether polls are accepted as a useful tool in other areas of science. The link gave the specific results of a poll. It used these results as direct evidence as to whether or not there exists a consenus of scientists who support evolution vs creation. The article did not reject polls as a useful tool, nor does it place more weight on scientific organizations over polls. With all due respect, Raymond, you asked a question and I gave a simple answer. I do not see why it is necessary for you now to twist the argument into something else. (We already know you think the NAS and IPCC should be regarding as the codex of knowledge on global warming). Please stop with the filibustering. I would really like this debate to move forward.--Sirwells (talk) 02:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Then move it forward. What's next? Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I move that we agree on the fact that there is no poll of scientists showing a consensus view and move on with debating why simply saying so on the article is being aggressively blocked from appearing. The argument has been made here that counting up papers is a better indicator of whether there is a consensus of scientists than counting up scientists. I believe that 1) such an argument is nonsense. and 2) it's not our job to judge what is better. My understanding is that wikipedia is supposed to have neutral POV. 3) The text in question is merely a statement of fact. --Sirwells (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I had taken it that the appropriateness of the statement was the question. Obviously it is inappropriate. I looked around on the policy pages of Wikipedia to see if they included a request not to add statements along the lines of "The queen has not denied Icke's accusation" but couldn't find it. There ought to be one. One can always make up some desideratum, and then point out that it is missing. With a little skill one could even find a plausible one. It doesn't say anything. The positive statements in the article make perfectly clear what the evidence is for consensus. Readers can see for themselves. N p holmes (talk) 06:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ....take a breath....okay, Part 3

As an outsider, I have to admit that I too don't see the relevance of an opinion poll of scientists. Typically, the statements by national academies of sciences are trustworthy indicators of the current consensus. If not, then scientific consensus can be gauged by assessing the stated or implied positions of papers that have been published in the top venues of the relevant academic discipline. What gets easily published is more in tune with the opinion of the programme committee or journal editors, which is the most significant indicator of what the community is currently thinking.

Sirwells said above that if you were a skeptic interested in doing research, you would not be able to write a paper unless you had your own alternate funding source because government does not give grants for research projects aimed at proving AGW wrong. Well, that settles the matter, if you can't get funding, you are fringe and irrelevant. If you can't get your papers published, you are not a scientist! Doing science means getting paper published. It is therefore quite clear that there is scientific consensus for AGW. Merzul (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"The relevance of an opinion poll of scientists", is a very interesting notion. Merzul, I'm kind of glad you brought that up. It's akin to the MSM making allegations in news articles prior to the outcome of events, in order to make news or sway opinion. Many sheople a swayed by poll results, as all pollsters know, because they feel that there must be validity to a premise if many or most people believe or support it. Therefore a poll can be used to give the impression that a certain premise is valid.

All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach. --Adolf Hitler
By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise. --Adolf Hitler
If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed. --Adolf Hitler
The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force. --Adolf Hitler


--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 16:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

And another example of Self-Godwinization. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Very good, but this article would serve you better. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 17:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


TFI, if it is the case that scientific bodies are abusing the term consensus, and engaging in propaganda, then for us to point this out we need reliable sources with some authority. Even if you convince me that you are right, the only way a statement disputing the NAS is getting on this page would be if you provided us some independent sources, e.g., maybe a science magazine giving an overview of the debate saying that this notion of consensus is controversial. Could someone point me to such independent reliable sources, so I could have a look? Merzul (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem, just follow the money. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 11:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Spoken like a true authoritarian. --Sirwells (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Strawman? 195.27.12.230 (talk) 09:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm an outsider, here via RfC. I've read a good portion of the RfC responses. The proposed paragraph is inappropriate: scientific consensus is not determined by polling, and it's fatuous to suggest in any way that "surveys or polls" are a common, accurate, or adequate metric of the merits of a scientific paradigm. Science is decidedly not democratic; that there's a demostrable consensus is readily apparent without the help of a Gallup poll.
The anti-AGW opinion that the consensus is unreliable/nonexistent may be important to convey, but (per WP:FRINGE/WP:UNDUE) needs to be done carefully and intellectually honest. Alleging that "none of currently documented surveys or polls of scientists...reflect an overwhelming consensus..." is not intellectually honest, in my opinion, as it equates polls & surveys with scientific consensus, which is highly inaccurate. — Scientizzle 16:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but in my view the fact that this article exists on Wikipedia is inappropriate, because it is the basis for a political agenda. An article on the scientific opinion (consensus) on climate change and then listing science organizations is in itself a poll that is presented as a bonafide article. It's a sham, a disgrace and a stain on Wikipedia; and that goes for every other article like this, related or not! Those on high in Wikipedia should come down here and pluck this tick off the hindside of Wikipedia. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 16:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Then propose it for deletion. WP:AFD is → thattaway. — Scientizzle 18:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
This article doesn't deserve deletion! How in any way does this have a political agenda? It is an article on scientific opinion, not political opinion for starters, never mind that it has sections that are for, neutral and against the concepts existence. It is not the article's fault if there are no scientists against the consensus (technically there are but their opinions have been shown to be not without bias). This article alos deserves it's existence because it's a topis of note that a lot of people like to have information on that there is scientific consensus or not, and as the article says, "A question which frequently arises in popular discussion of climate change is whether there is a scientific consensus." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.13.81 (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The mere fact that you want to delete the opposing article, speaks for itself. It proves my point that these articles are agenda driven, period!!--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 23:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Let me say that I admire the flexibility of your concept of "prove/proof". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Look either quit your WP:OWN policy and allow other points of view, or delete the article. The fact that other views have to go in another article is ridiculous and you know it. It is open bias to not allow alternative opinions in this article.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 01:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The irony is unbelievable... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with The Founders Intent. The fanatacism shown here by some who seek to control the article has become absurd. I made a simple addition yesterday quoting the opinion of the Nongovernmental Panel of Climate change. It was reverted with the reason give that the NPCC "doesn't exist"?!?!? I support removal of this article. Honest viewpoints which don't match those of the fanatics who seek to control it are systematically blocked. This article has become a tool for some to use to control information. It needs to be removed. --Sirwells (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
It's great when you have a student of mathematical and marine ecology to swoop in and save your "Man is the cause of global warming" article from deletion. I love the NPOV aspect of that. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 01:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ....take a breath....okay, Part 4

Sigh Count Iblis (talk) 02:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest closing this RfC. There is no point asking for community input, when those asking are not interesting in hearing anything other than their own opinion. My impression is that the "ownership issues" here is nothing more than some editors preventing the inclusion of speculation from the article.
Also, I suggest asking on WP:AN/I for uninvolved admins to do something about the disruption caused by editors who don't respect Wikipedia's sourcing policy. It doesn't matter, who is right or wrong, but for an open encyclopaedia to function, we need people to respect the consensus process and our content policies. Thanks, Merzul (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Rfc tag removed (replaced with a more appropriate rfc below), but I would like to suggest Merzul stop with the juvenile taddletale style of behavior. This is a controversial article and thus we can expect heated debates. Everyone is entitled to thier opinion, whether you agree with it or not. No one is being disruptive except for you, by the incivility and personal attacks being made in your previous post.--Sirwells (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I asked for sources, and was called authoritarian; how do you expect me to react? Merzul (talk) 07:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for calling you an "authoritarion". --Sirwells (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I thank you for your apology. Let's see if I can be more mature in the discussion below. At least I promise I will try my best to fully understand your position. Merzul (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Older Surveys

I added a reference for FAIR and changed the numbers to what I read there. They gave the date of the survey as 1992 (as does the Heartland Institute further down), but it seems clear it must be the same one. Which date is right? N p holmes (talk) 07:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Good question. Several people here have tried without success to find first-hand reports of the survey. Raymond Arritt (talk) 07:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
The San Francisco Chronicle story (at second hand in the FAIR article) is supposed to be reporting a press release from Gallup, which should be close enough, I'd hope. Sadly the paper's web archives only go back to 1995, and if I understand the ref., the article is on 27 September, 1992. If someone in America (I'm not) could visit a library sometime, that would answer the question (and allow Wikipedia to more briefly and directly dismiss any conflicting reports). N p holmes (talk) 07:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, looking through the links that were already there, I've found what looks like the answer to the date question (commissioned 1991, published 1992). I'm curious about the commissioning organisation, particularly when they chose the Center for Media and Public Affairs to do their research. But they hardly show up on Google except for this report. The paper by Stewart et al. (already referenced in the article) gives a title for the report, but I can't find it in any library catalogue. The survey apparently had 18 questions, which perhaps allow the discrepancies (picking figures favourable to a particular opinion). N p holmes (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heartland Institute dead link

For the Heartland Institute's claims about the Gallup poll, the current link is dead (for me at least): this link [30] from an early stage of the Wikipedia article seems to work (the quotation is on p. 55). The work is dated 1994 there, not 1993. N p holmes (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is the existence of a properly run poll or survey relevant for determining whether or not a "consensus" of qualified scientists exist over controversial scientific issues?

A user has requested comment on science or mathematics for this section.
This tag will automatically place the page on the {{RFCsci list}}.

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list.

In a previous RFC, it was asked whether or not a poll exists showing a consensus of scientists with knowledge of climate change. Very few of the responses actually addressed the question, but none were able to identify any poll establishing a consensus of scientists. At this point, it occurs to me it is safe to consider the matter of whether or not there exists any such poll of scientists showing a consensus as settled. There are none.

However, the main argument coming from the editors who actually stayed on point and addressed the question has been that whether or not such a poll exists is "irrelevant", and that the only "true" way of measuring scientific consensus is to look at whether a 'reliable source' says there is.

I believe this premise is flawed and contrary to Wikipedia's core content policies for the following reasons:

  • Per wikipedia policy on verifiability, a citation should "directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made". None of sources being used as evidence of a scientific consensus as to the causes and extent of global warming makes any attempt at doing this. (except for the Oreskes survey, which I discuss below) Instead, these sources convey one or more individual opinions and do not directly supported these opinions with any evidence, nor have they undergone any level of scrutiny by third parties. (the sources are typcially self-published documents such as web pamphlets) Wikipedia's policy on verifiablity makes it quite clear that "the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is."
  • It has been argued that the so-called Oreskes survey is a peer-reviewed document proving that a consensus exists. This is very misleading. The Oreskes paper, BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER Essay written by Naomi Oreskes, was published as an essay, not a scientific paper. As such it also must be considered as commentary (in fact, it is included in ScienceMag's "commentary" section), and therefore the opinions being presented in the essay have not undergone any scrutiny in the form of fact checking of the evidence and arguments being made. Furthermore, the Oreskes survey is not a poll of scientists, rather it is a survey of scientific papers. Therefore it does not take into account the majority of scientists who have not written papers related to climate change.
  • Notwithstanding the above, logic and common sense dictates that if one were trying to establish whether or not a consensus exists, the most logical method of doing so would be to look at the results of a poll. And the least logical way of doing so would be to listen to the opinion coming from individuals, who offer no evidence to support thier opinions.

--Sirwells (talk) (updated 12:07pm MST, 1 June 2008)

  • You can rephrase this as often as you want (although the people on the RfC pages may eventually get annoyed), and you can keep misreading policy (hint: A citation is something different from the cited source), but that does not change the fact that we do have a large number of extremely reliable sources directly supporting the existence of a consensus on current climate change. Polls are extremely rarely used to gauge scientific consensus, as they are very bad tools for interpreting complex situations. When they are used, its usually by the fringe trying to give a misleading impression about an issue, as e.g. in A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This page is not about "hints". If you have a point to make about citations vs source, please just spit it out. (You might want to go look how wikipedia defines 'source' first.) I just did, and I'll say again with confidence, other then Oreskes' commentary, none of your sources regarding scientific consensus are published in third-party journals, they are all self-published and they have undergone no scutiny for verification of facts and evidence. And none of them make any attempt to support any claims being made of the so-called consensus. Both of these are core content policies accepted by a consensus of wikipedia authors. Regarding your opinion about how polls are "usually by the fringe trying to give a misleading impression...", please give us a better example, the Darwinism link does not even mention polls. Thanks--Sirwells (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Polls in science may be rare, but settled scientific principles such as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics will not lead to major changes in national policy. 99.999% of scientists agree about the 2nd law, not all scientists agree about GW. Global warming discussion is about a prediction about what may happen in the future, and policy makers are basing decisions about issues such as carbon taxes, cap and trade, etc. on these predictions. It is humourous how the the POV pushing GW alarmists have made it seem like a simple poll on such a controversial issue is such a crazy idea. Sirwells is correct.Medallion of Phat (talk) 07:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sirwells, you write: "In a previous RFC, it was asked whether or not a poll exists showing a consensus of scientists with knowledge of climate change. Very few of the responses actually addressed the question." The actual question at the head of the RFC section was "Is the following acceptable?" and most people were addressing that. On the subject of wording, shorter titles would leave room for an edit summary. N p holmes (talk) 07:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources, please

Responding to Medallion of Phat... Well, I think it is an outrageous idea, but you think it isn't; so what we need are reliable source that have suggested a poll is relevant. Why do we have to fight about this, I asked to be pointed to background information about this issue. Some coverage in independent reliable sources would settle the dispute. Why not just point to some sources? Merzul (talk) 07:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

We agree. For a controversial issue, the need for a poll is a default position when claiming a consensus. So, where are the sources showing the polling data for climate scientists showing it is "an overwhelming majority" that agree with the GW alarmist position?Medallion of Phat (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
For a controversial issue, the need for a poll is a default position when claiming a consensus.[citation needed]. Can you point to any field of science where polls are used to show a consensus among scientists?--Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and that's putting it very mildly. When just about every scientific body is saying there is evidence for AGW, and some even use the word "consensus", if we want to dispute the Scientific Academies, which normal people accept as the authority on scientific consensus, we surely need some reliable sources. Merzul (talk) 08:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't need to provide a citation. You need to provide one. By definition, "consensus" means >50%. There is no reliable source that proves >50% of all climate scientists agree with the global warming prediction. I am not the one claiming a consensus, you are. So provide a citation the proves a consensus, as defined (i.e., >50% of climate scientists), exists. Apart from a poll, there is no way to do this. If YOU say "just about every scientific body is saying there is evidence for AGW" = consensus, that is original research/synthesis. Medallion of Phat (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
"By definition, "consensus" means >50%" — Really? Is it 50%, or maybe 70%? or 85%? Does this have to be documented using polls of climate scientists or with surveys of statements in the research papers that they wrote? My point is that one can't take the definition so lightly. I made that mistake myself when we had surprisingly long discussions somewhere in the old archives over here trying to agree on what "consensus" means. The solution is just Wikipedia's standard policy: we don't try to prove a consensus ourselves. That would be nontrivial original research, requiring determining the "right" percentage of support, determining where this support needs to be stated (in abstracts or surveys), finding surveys that support it, etc. Instead of all that mess, we cite reliable sources which state that there is a consensus. Done.
(But by the way, we do have reliable sources, though not polls, stating >50% support. Check the article for the statements by the US National Academy of Science ("In the judgment of most climate scientists...") and the European Geosciences Union ("the vast majority of science researchers and investigators". Maybe others...) --Nethgirb (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

(←) We are obviously not making progress, so let's try to restart this discussion. I'm requesting a source for the change suggested above. Now, I apologize, if I was quick to argue without listening carefully first. What do you request a source to back up? Can you patiently explain what exactly on the article page you find offensive and what claims are made, which you think requires sources to back it up? Merzul (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm open leaving the specific change "up in the air" for now. The part I have problems with (at least for this discussion.) Is the undue weight being placed on the word "consensus" being used in web-pamphlets, self-published documents, etc written by members of certain scientific organizations. None of these sources (currently being used in the "consensus" section) meet any of the criteria I mention above. (no supporting evidence offered, not published in third-party publications, etc.) Some of them are even being quoted out of context. In order for them to meet wikipedia criteria for credible sources, at the very least the sources need to include some sort of supporting evidence showing that there exists a consensus of scientists. (and how else to do this other than by showing the results of a poll.) --Sirwells (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
"In order for them to meet wikipedia criteria for credible sources, at the very least the sources need to include some sort of supporting evidence showing that there exists a consensus of scientists." — I think a lot of people will disagree with you on this. Can you be more specific about the wikipedia criteria you're referring to? (But BTW, supporting evidence does exist, just possibly not the very specific type of evidence you're demanding) --Nethgirb (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
It would also help to be a bit more specific about where the term "consensus" is given undue weight. Is it a matter of wording, section title, or do you object to something deeper, like the underlying premise of this article? As far as I see, no source is used to allege that there actually is consensus, rather this page just compiles official statements. I'm not sure I can see the problem with that. As Nethgirb anticipated, I'm not aware of policy demanding that the source should demonstrate the truth of the statement in question. Merzul (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
"Consensus" is defined as "the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned." Check out Webster's and you will see. The minimum threshold for "most" is >50%. Therefore, simply provide a source which quantifies the number of climate scientists out of all climate scientists who agree with the GW alarmist position to support the term "consensus" and you will be fine. Simply having a source that says "there is a consensus" is not sufficient without facts. Otherwise, it would not meet WP:RS.Medallion of Phat (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
You have your logic mixed up. If a reliable source explicitly states "consensus" (and several do), that is enough to support "consensus". Indeed, arriving at this from poll data or similar would arguably get us into hot water with respect to WP:OR. Simply repeating reliable sources is entirely uncontroversial. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is there so much debate here about whether or not a consensus exists? The title of this article is “Scientific opinion on climate change.” It is NOT “Scientific consensus on climate change,” and at no point does the article assert that a consensus exists. The statements asserting that a consensus exists are made by scientific bodies of national or international standing, not by the editors of this article. The purpose of the article is to document the expressed opinions of scientists regarding AGW, and that’s exactly what it does. If you disagree with statements made by the various scientific bodies, your argument is with them, not with the editors of this article.--CurtisSwain (talk) 07:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

To anyone in may concern, I sent this question by email to the NAS. I'll post the reply (if there is one) on this board:

Dear Sirs,

I have read over the booklet, "Understanding and Responding to Climate Change." On page 2, it says "Most scientists agree that the warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." I have read statements such as this used alot by scientific organizations. However, I have not been able to find any survey, poll, or other such study showing that "most scientists agree..." Would you mind explaining where this statement comes from? Is it based on a poll or survey? Or is it more from anecdotal evidence? Or is it simply based on the current body of "peer-reviewed" papers? I understand the "peer-review" process is typically used to further scientific knowledge. However, I also understand the peer-review process does not necessarily gage the opinion of all scientists, just the ones who are involved with scientific publications. I ask this because I am interesting in knowing whether a consensus exists of scientists with (qualifying background) as to the causes and extent of climate change. Thank you in advance for your time.--Sirwells (talk) 04:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The ones who are publishing are the ones who matter most. As for the others, it's hard to define whether they're scientists or not, and to find them and survey them. --Nethgirb (talk) 04:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Nethgirb, please don't take this personally, but I sincerelly hope that when (if) the NAS replies to my email, they do not display the same intellectual snobbery you just did in your post. What you and the wiki-AGW company continue to not get, is that organizations, groups and individuals are not 'sources' that you can simply bestow elitist status on and assume every word ever written by them be considered 'credible' and 'reliable'. A source is a document, not a person or group. And credibility is measured by verfification, especially by how many independent third parties have scrutinized it for facts. Please read WP:V and you will find this is precisely how wikipedia decides what to include in articles. I would argue that at least half of the sources being used by wiki AGW-company do not measure up as credible sources since they have not been peer-reviewed, do not support the statements being made with evidence, and have not been scrutinized by 3rd parties. (certainly not all are guilty of this, but a great many are.) I've started a conversation about this over on WP:RS/N. There are varying responses, but it's interesting that the only ones who try and claim that an organization's "authoritiveness" get's them essentially a free-pass to not have to meet wikipedia's other content policies are the ones who followed me over there from this talk site.--Sirwells (talk) 05:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm having a hard time seeing how what you said is related to what I said. I'm not talking about wikipedia RS issues, I'm talking about hypothetical surveys of scientists which is what your email was about. You said "peer-review process does not necessarily gage the opinion of all scientists, just the ones who are involved with scientific publications" which is true, but the standard measure of whether someone is a scientist is whether they are doing scientific research, and the standard way of determining whether someone is doing scientific research is if they are publishing it. You can call that elitist if you want, and yes it excludes the intelligent and knowledgeable people who do novel research in their basement and write it up only in their private diary, as well as the ones who got every one of their papers rejected from publication, but it's the practical reality. And BTW, putting scare quotes around "peer-reviewed" is not likely to increase your chances of a response from the NAS :-) --Nethgirb (talk) 06:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remove "Scientific consensus" section?

The section in this article headed “Scientific Consensus” seems rather redundant to me. Yes, several of the scientific bodies explicitly use the word “consensus”, and others use such wording as “…accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community” (NRC), “…the vast majority of science researchers and investigators” (EGU), and “few credible Scientists now doubt…” (AMQUA). However, one can read that in the main section of the article, and I see no value in reiterating the statements under another heading. Let us simply document the official statements of scientific bodies, and let readers draw their own conclusions. Additionally, the presence of the “Scientific Consensus” section may give some readers the impression that we are pushing a particular POV. I believe the article would be viewed with more credibility if we removed the entire “Scientific Consensus” section. There’s no point beating them over the head with it.--CurtisSwain (talk) 07:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It was about time someone addressed the consensus issue! I'm amazed noone has ever expressed an opinion on it before...195.27.12.230 (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I find it useful. This is a frequent claim that is also frequently questioned, so it deserves to be discussed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Curtis, I can understand your points. I haven't decided yet on your main suggestion, but I'll say that I do think there is value to the section in terms of organization: it lists statements about the extent of agreement with the science, rather than mostly statements about the scientific conclusions themselves. I'd also note that there doesn't appear to be too much overlap in content between the first and second sections.
One option would be to broaden the Consensus section to list not just mentions of "consensus" but statements on the extent of agreement more generally. (Maybe this would address some of your POV concerns?) Actually, I see the Consensus section as being topically similar to the Surveys section in that both attempt to document the extent of agreement. --Nethgirb (talk) 09:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The section in question worried me slightly. For the question "What is the consensus on climate change?", statements of (for instance) the Royal Society about climate change tell us the line they take on the issue and are by definition good evidence for the Royal Society's "opinion" (if you'll allow a Society to have an opinion). Statements about "the consensus" are not of the same kind. "The Royal Society thinks that man-made global warming is taking place" would be a piece of evidence for consensus. "The R. S. thinks that everyone else also thinks that man-made global warming is taking place" would also be evidence, but less valuable (the informed opinion of whoever wrote the statement). A more reserved intro to the section would help, if it's to be kept. N p holmes (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
There's an Original Research issue here. We could go through each scientific society looking for statements like "Society X thinks GW is happening" and somehow aggregate all these into a conclusion about the extent of agreement in the scientific community. I agree this is a good thing to do if you are a pollster but it is not reasonable for a Wikipedia editor. Instead we have to cite a reliable external source that has done the aggregation for us. That's what I see as the purpose of this section. --Nethgirb (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Good points. Actually, I think I agree with everyone in this discussion. I can't yet form my own opinion; but thanks, Curtis, for bringing this up as I find this discussion quite valuable. I will maybe make a more informed comment after some thinking, but I wanted to say that I'm following this with interest, Merzul (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Stephan Schulz. As long as the section is well sourced (and to me, it looks like it is) I think it should stay in the article. It seems like this is of interest for many, and having the readers do more work and read more statements/sources is counter productive isn't it? The information is there if they want to more carefully inspect the basis for this claim and form their own opinion.
—Apis (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Add 2008 U.S. Scientific Assessment?

The Scientific Assessment of the Effects of Global Change on the United States was released May 29, 2008. It is a report required by the Global Change Research Act of 1990, and it has been released four years late. I would think it would be a significant report as it is deemed the official stance of the United States Government.--Diafygi (talk) 02:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The US Climate Change Science Program already appears to have a listing on here under Federal Climate Change Science Program (US), which is where such a report should be listed. However, I'm actually going to remove what is already listed. I wouldn't consider a federal program to be a scientific academy or professional society. If my assessment is wrong, please rv and let's discuss. Jason Patton (talk) 05:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it could stay. It's not a scientific academy or professional society but that text was not the definition of all that is in the article. It probably fits under either "synthesis reports" or "scientific bodies of national or international standing", to quote the intro. To me, the important criteria for inclusion in this article are (1) giving the opinion of a significant group of scientists and (2) the group is not selected because they support one side or the other. --Nethgirb (talk) 06:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
My particular problem with the program's inclusion is that it's not a collective voice of (climate related) scientists. The scientists that contribute to the program are selected, though not to support any "side" as you mentioned. The program is exclusive rather than inclusive like the other societies listed on the page, so I don't see how it can count as a scientific body or a significant group of scientists. In other words, I don't see how the program is any different from a think-tank other than that is sponsored by the government. If I'm mistaken, please let me know. While I'm glad the report concurs with the IPCC (though I don't see how it could not being that the IPCC is cited so often), I'm not sure it belongs here. Jason Patton (talk) 07:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The comparison to a think-tank doesn't seem right. I can't say I know exactly how the authors of the FCCSP report were selected and I'm only assuming, without verifying it myself right now, that they were (almost?) all scientists. But a think tank is not composed of mostly scientists, and its goal is a political agenda, rather than finding the factual answer to a question using science. Actually the comparison with the IPCC seems more apt: both are scientific bodies (it seems) created by governmental organizations. It seems FCCSP sponsors research too [31]. Anyway, it is all a question of where you draw the line: yes, it's smaller than the IPCC, but does that matter and where is the threshold? Yes, it's probably more politically-associated than many other groups on the list, but what's the criteria for exclusion? I'm happy to learn more about the FCCSP but it seems to me that based on what I know, and based on the criteria stated in the article, it fits as a "synthesis report" and likely as a "scientific body of national standing" and as a "significant group of scientists" (the latter being my phrasing above which is not in the article). Note that "significant" and "scientific body of national standing" do not necessarily require "large and inclusive". --Nethgirb (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)