Talk:Scientific consensus on climate change/Archive 13

Off Topic Tag

Per GC/CC/RfE, a tag may only be removed by consensus on the talkpage, and any removal of tags may be summarily reverted. I have reverted WMC's removal of the tag. If there is consensus to remove, I don't have a problem with it, but there must first be consensus. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 05:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The question of what is a "scientific" organization comes to mind; in many cases here, it seems to mean, an organization containing scientists which produces results agreeing with the editor's opinions. That being said, this organization is, at least nominally, scientific, so the tag is not appropriate. However, in any objective definition of "scientific organizations", some of the lobbying organizations (on all sides) qualify as "scientific", and their opinion should be mentioned, even if it differs from the mainstream scientific opinion. Hence, thinking it over, I must concur with the removal of that tag, even though I was one of the ones who added it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. In that case, this leaves only Jaymax wanting the tag, for somewhat unclear reasons - see section above William M. Connolley (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

[The question of "what is a scientific organization" needs addressing, but as that is not directly pertinent to this sub-topic of tagging, I suggest re-directing it to the section above. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)]

This notion that any tag can be added by any editor at will, but cannot be removed except upon consensus, is a tool for disruptive editing. While in most cases it is probably to the better that any error, omission, or other problem be flagged (with a tag) by anyone that finds it in order to bring it to the attention of a larger group of editors, in cases (such as this) where a possible problem has been raised it is not useful to keep tagging it – it is no longer a matter of bringing it to attention, but becomes disruptive editing. I suggest that initial use of a tag should be deemed in good faith, but let's leave off subsequent re-tagging until, and unless, at least some case has been made for it on the talk page. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy for the tag to be removed in the circumstances. I would like to see the debate continue. ‒ Jaymax✍ 07:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done ‒ Jaymax✍ 07:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

@J. Johnson. I don't disagree with you, but it is an enforceable sanction under CC probation to add or remove a tag, so it is not just the removal that requires consensus - you have to have consensus to add (or re-adding) the tag. I don't like the sanction, but it is what it is. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 16:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression tags could be added freely. Thanks for the clarification. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

FAQ re-write

There has been quite a bit of discussion on this question. It is addressed in this talk page's FAQ section. However, the FAQ should not reflect one editor's opinion, but an agreed-on consensus by the editors on the talk page. FAQ sections have been used successfully on various other pages, such as Talk:Evolution, Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, and others.

If the current FAQ here doesn't reflect the agreed-on consensus for how "scientific organization" is to be understood on Wikipedia (or at least for this article), I suggest we update it. --Airborne84 (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the FAQ has it right - I'd forgotten it was there. ‒ Jaymax✍ 07:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

What? There's an FAQ here? Sheepish grin – it was so inconsequential I had use my browser's search function to find it. Okay, how about if we "re-purpose" this discussion to "FAQ re-write"? And the FAQ does need re-writing. And placed in the talk page, not just linked from it. And perhaps we could cover some of these other recurring issues. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There are quite a few topics that merit inclusion in the FAQ here. The FAQ should reflect established consensus, and I think that no one has taken the time to sort through and extract the most relevant topics. Perhaps it would help if we listed here the most important topics to list in the FAQ—including the appropriate archive, if known—and then people can input them. Just thinking out loud. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

FAQ Expansion?

What are the most important topics that merit inclusion in the FAQ for this talk page?

Quick thoughts:

"What are the criteria for the synthesis reports list?" (even if I'm the only one asking, I do so frequently - lol)

"This article seems to present a POV?" (yes it does, but policy states ...)

"Why isn't it 'scientific opinions'?" (mass noun, cf 'public opinion')

‒ Jaymax✍ 02:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I took a stroll through the archives to extract the following persistent issues that might be addressed in the FAQ. (Curious to see the Same Old Issues keep resurfacing.) Please note: I suggest that the first round of comments not be on possible answers, but on 1) whether question should be included, 2) in what order, and 3) possible reformulation of the question. Questions first, then answers. Okay? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

At first glance, 2, 4, and 6 seem like good candidates. I like Jaymax's third also (the first might need more clarification through consensus before addition to an FAQ). Bravo on the work of digging some of these from the archives. I'd suggest that perhaps choosing the top 2–3 to add on top of the existing FAQs might be a good way to go. This could become very messy if we try to do too much at once. My recommendation? Choose the top 2–3 (I think the key criteria is choosing questions that get dredged up here on the talk page the most often—and/or lead to the most fruitless discussions), be bold and make the entries in the FAQ (based on established consensus), and let people edit/polish as needed. As long as the FAQs reflect established consensus, hopefully the devil will only be in the wording. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Bravo on the work of digging some of these from the archives. - echoing this! My 3 is kinda like 7 from below. And we only need one question dealing with POV & NPOV (my 2, 1,2,3 below) - I'm not to sure about 6 (IPCC) below. Other than addressing the wider POV/NPOV issue - nothing we can say in a FAQ is going to properly address that (actually, 6 below ties into my 1 - it comes down to defining what gets included as a synthesis report and why - and this is prob better left until we know what our answer is) ‒ Jaymax✍ 05:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

They don't have to all be done at once. Though I will reiterate that there are reasons why the order in which they appear in the FAQ can be important. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

And speaking of order: I put NPOV at the top of the list (below) as it seems to be the most contentious issue amongst editors. But I see that Talk:Global_warming/FAQ starts with "Is there really a scientific consensus on global warming?", which may be more suitable for naive readers. Any comments on which approach would be best? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Principal questions/issues (some elevated from below):

1. Why shouldn't I tag this article as NPOV?

Note the subtle basis of this question (and the distinction with the next question): given the obvious NPOV violation why shouldn't I tag the article? Should that be made explicit? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

2. Does this article violate NPOV?

3. Is this article slanted or biased?

4. Why doesn't this article include dissenting views?

5. Why does this article rely primarily on the conclusions of the IPCC?

6. Isn't the IPCC a biased source?

7. Shouldn't this article be renamed: (list various candidates; how?)

Additional questions

These were extracted from the archives indicated (in parentheses). For FAQ purposes they undoubtably should be arranged in better order (such as more general to more specific).

• (2) This article inadequately represents dissenting views on global warming.

• (3) Where is the Scientific Opinion against human caused Global Warming?

• (3) Neutrality: This atricle has no opinion from scientific organisations with varying opinions on climate change.

• (3) Why isn't the Oregon Petition included?

• (5) Is Scientific opinion on climate change neutral?

• (6) 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?

• (6) Shouldn't individual dissenters be listed?

• (7) How can any * group, no matter how large, ever have "The Scientific Opinion"?

• (7) Is it not misleading and POV "to say that a consensus of opinions can create one singular opinion"?

• (7) Should we "highlight dissent from the consensus by noted scientists and IPCC contributors"?

• (7) Opinion isn't science, so why isn't 'scientific opinion' an oxymoron?

• (7) Is it fair to assume that organizations not listed in support or undecided?

• (8) Is there a POV dispute here?

• (9) Should the word "opinion" be removed from the title, since the scientific process is about removing subjectivity and aiming for fact?

• (9) Should the title of this article be "Official positions of scientific societies on climate change"?

• (9) Why isn't this article merged with "Climate Change Consensus"?

• (10) What are the criteria for including organizations?

• (10) Should this article be renamed "Climate Change Opinions"?

• (10) Does this article exclude legitimate points of view concerning "the consensus"?

(Feel free to propose more questions. - JJ)

Revised list of questions

Three hours and two beers later: I have revised the proposed FAQ questions as follows. Also augmented with questions seen at related articles and pertinent here, and rearranged so there is more continuity with related questions. Numbering is discontinuous in anticipation of inserting additional questions. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Is there really a scientific consensus on global warming? (GW/FAQ)

2. How can you say there's a consensus when someone has compiled a long list of skeptical scientists? (GW/FAQ)

3. Why should scientific opinion count for more than public opinion?

4. Weren't scientists telling us in the 1970s that we were cooling instead of warming? (GW/FAQ)

5. Why should we trust scientists that work for the government?

10. Why does this article rely primarily on the conclusions of the IPCC?

11. How can any group, no matter how large, ever have "The Scientific Opinion"? (7)

12. Isn't the IPCC a biased source? (GW/FAQ)

13. Why should we trust reports prepared by biased UN scientists? (GW/FAQ)

14. Why doesn't the article include dissent from the consensus by noted scientists and IPCC contributors? (7)

15. Why doesn't this article include dissenting views?

16. Why doesn't this article mention the Oregon Petition or other lists of dissenting scientists? (3)

18. Where is the Scientific Opinion against Anthropomorphic (human caused) Global Warming? (2, 3)

19. Is this article slanted or biased because it presents only one side of the debate?

20 30. What exactly is a "scientific body of national or international standing"?

21 31. What are the criteria for including organizations? (10)

22 31. Is it fair to assume that organizations not listed as supporting are undecided? (7)

30 40. Given the obvious NPOV violation why shouldn't I tag this article as NPOV?

31 41. Does this article violate the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy?

40 50. Shouldn't this article be renamed XXXX? (various)

I'm being bold. Hopefully not too fast for anyone. At any rate, I've added these questions (renumbered as indicated) to the FAQ. Some cleanup required. And answers, of course. Dive in. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

And having a ball coming up with answers — check 'em out. Presumably you all concur, or there would be comments. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

General comments

• Comment-- I think we're getting too detailed with these additional questions -- the list above this one I think is a good starting point and could probably even be condensed further (the last two items could be combined). To kick off discussion, I have a problem with the name of the article, as it implies that any other opinions are non-scientific or are anti-science or are not supported by science. Are w e ready for discussion on the listed questions? Minor4th 04:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I tried to to be broadly inclusive so that we could see the entire "forest" of what may need addressing. Regarding renaming the article, there is whole sub-category of proposals where your specific comment would be more specifically addressed. (The comments here seemed more general, which is why I pulled this into a separate section.) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Is all this worth the effort? The article should be pretty clear in itself and there's no point extending as FAQ to anything except frequently asked questions, that's what FAQ stands for. and only answers which are pretty definite should be in as well. Putting in less frequent questions is trying to put in concrete what may not be properly and fully thought through and is a magnet for confused discussions which aren't particularly important. The frequent ones are the important ones and they are the ones that have had more though applied to the answers, the less frequent ones can be handled afresh as they occur. Dmcq (talk) 11:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see the additional comments from Jaymax and me above. The biggest dangers here are (1) trying to do too much at once, and (2) trying to overdiscuss this. Overdiscussion is going to lead to a rehash of issues that have been beated like a dead horse—and is antithetical to what we're trying to accomplish. We simply want to record the established consensus on key topics in the FAQ. My recommendation? Pick about three of these topics, be bold, and input them as FAQ. --Airborne84 (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we want to record the established consensus – which largely has not been recorded, and perhaps not even that well established. But it is not a matter article clarity, or even important issues, but of dealing with all of the repeated objections. (Especially by the anonymous fly-by spitballers.) If we can get this worked out, then every time someone tries to ride in on a dead-horse we can just point them to the FAQ. That is certainly worth something. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Is everyone standing back waiting for everyone else to dive in? (It's a phenomena I have noticed before, that a lot of editors would rather criticise than do serious writing. Reminiscent of Alexander Pope's "Ten Censure wrong for one who Writes amiss".) Well, I might jump in and start reworking the questions. Should this be done in Talk space, or can some sort of 'sandbox' be setup? Or should I just link to my own sandbox? I am inclined to keep the work close to the talk page, so people can monitor how it's shaping up. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

(Chuckle) I saw that shaping up too. I just don't have time this week IRL to tackle it. I probably will next week. If there's no progress by then, I'll start. If you'd like to begin, I'd recommend just following WP:BRD and get started. --Airborne84 (talk) 02:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm reviewing the questions, will post a revised (and improved??) set in a couple of days. Still wondering about the best place to do the editing. Maybe go straight to the FAQ? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It's up to you. If you want to get some fully-thought out and considered FAQs in there before people start making changes that you might have made anyway, you can use a sandbox or just type drafts in a word processing program and insert the "final" version in an edit box when it's ready. If you want to make it available to other editors as you're working on it -- so that others may help improve as you go, just start editing the FAQ. There are plusses and minues either way. --Airborne84 (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I was reviewing/revising the questions last night, will soon post them here for comment. After that I'll put them in the FAQ, and we can start working on the answers. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Question: is there any particular reason the answers have to be numbered? I don't see that there is any ambiguity as to which question each answer goes to, and the number of the question seems adequate to specify the question/answer pair. Any objection to not numbering the answers? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

What happened to the original FAQ content? The answer about criteria for the organisations list was pretty good, and consensus based IIRC. It was the most asked question, and gave the objective criteria that would have been useful to explain why NIPCC don't belong in that list. ‒ Jaymax✍ 12:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The original content is still there, just moved down and renumbered. While the original Q1 (now Q30) is good, I think we probabably need something specific for NIPCC. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

FAQ POV/NPOV

This seems to be the key area for initial focus. There may be distinct but tightly related 'sub-questions' but my feeling is these might be best answered paragraphically. I'm fairly useless at starting writing from scratch (cop out:) so I'll leave it to someone else to kick off below with some suggested words :) ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

(Paragraphically?) I think each distinct claim of NPOV violation has to be dealt with individually. That's why I put the generic NPOV question towards the bottom, and boosted the numbering, so the claims can be grouped together. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Pointless edit

There are two recent edits by 109.76.173.43, of which the second is rather pointless. Presumably there are no objections (?) to reverting it. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Original research?

Dmcq, would you care to clarify what you mean (above) about not doing "original research on what organizations say"? Given the context, it sounds like you would not even let us quote an organization's own statements. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

We accept newspaper stories normally as reliable sources and an editor was trying to qualify a statement as not being a reliable source when it was from a much better source than that. We are not qualified to question reliable sources and should only do so when there is a discrepancy or problem pointed out. What was being done was original research into the organisation. We are perfectly well entitled to cite reliable sources. Dmcq (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

See WP:RSN. At least one of the commentors agreed that it was not reliable. Still, if consensus there is clear that it's reliable, I'll withdraw the objection, except as to the point-of-time problem. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Just because it was on the RS noticeboard doesn't mean their objection was about whether the cite was from a reliable source. It was about the possibility of synthesis because one of the sources was from 2006. No one that I could see supported you about them not being reliable sources. Dmcq (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

If it's true that we do accept newspaper reports, editorials and the like as reliable on climate science, that is our error. We should not, in general, do so, especially when the reports clearly misreport the primary sources they're reporting on. I don't think the "no scientific body" construct adds much to the article; it's plain that we know of no such body, but there's no need to gild this lily. --TS 18:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better these citations are not newspaper reports or editorials or the like. By the way what is being clearly misreported? Dmcq (talk) 21:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Royal Society

I just removed a sentence on the Royal Society report. It seems fairly unremarkable that the Royal Society would say climate changes were not anthropogenic millions of years ago (before there were people). Thoughts? --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I already answered him here, though this page is probably a more relevant venue. The fact is cherry picked - it's a caveat made in relation to a previous paragraph. Guettarda (talk) 05:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This is over-attribution of a well-established fact that nobody seriously disputes. It's a bit like saying, "According to the American Mathematical Society, Albert Einstein is known for having discovered the relativity theory." Wikipedia articles have a tendency to accumulate such random statements with no apparent connection to the gist of the article. Hans Adler 08:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not object to the deletion (it was from a newspaper). But for what ever it is worth, TeaDrinker mischaracterized the quote attributed to the Royal Society. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I would hope that everybody clicked on the link and read the diff. It's not exactly news that Europe was glaciated several times, and that at other times we had tigers living in England. More short-term events such as the Allerød oscillation are also quite well known, and a fluctuations on the decade scale need no more than a Markov chain as their explanation, i.e. pure mathematics with no physical insight. The part "human activity is a relatively recent addition to the list of potential causes of climate change" is even more obvious. Hans Adler 20:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It was certainly not my intention to misrepresent the source. It seemed like what the Royal Society was getting at, although I would probably have to do more extensive reading to be sure. I was admittedly puzzled as to what the authors of the news piece were suggesting had changed in that sentence, and presumed they simply didn't understand the RS report. --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

A momentary confusion, then. No harm done. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

William K. Stevens

With reference to this edit.

From the article cited:

It would be out of date in light of a potentially historic sea change that appears to have taken place in the state and the status of the global warming issue since I retired from The New York Times in 2000.

--TS 20:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I decided to restore the "retired" wording myself because Rendahl was later blocked as a sock. --TS 11:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

NIPCC

I took out the NIPCC. I don't think they qualify as "scientific opinion" within the rules used here William M. Connolley (talk) 07:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

In what way does it fail to qualify as "scientific opinion". Please state the rules that you are using here for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.220.219 (talk) 08:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not a scientific body of national or international standing. It's an ad-hoc assembly of the usual sceptics, organized and paid for by SEPP, also not a scientific body. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

How can an organizations become a scientific body? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.220.219 (talk) 08:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there are any formal rules, but a few obvious criteria should apply: it needs to have some solid professional standing, not be an ad-hoc assemblage with unclear criteria; it needs a decent track record; and clear evidence of respect rather than the opposite from peers or ogvernments or such William M. Connolley (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this is the main problem. All of your criteria are opinion based so without formal rules you are free to decided on your personal opinion if a group warrants addition. How can you quantify "solid professional standing?" How do you determine if a group is ad-hoc or not? What does a decent track record imply? How can respect be included on the list at all? I don't see the criteria you list as obvious at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.220.219 (talk) 11:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Just because there is gray does not mean we cannot distinguish white from black. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does. many optical illusions exist on that principal alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.220.219 (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Please check the archives. This has been brought up before, uncountable times. There is a current consensus of the editors here on this subject. Please familiarize yourself with the previous discussions and the current consensus. Consensus can change, so you could reignite the discussion, but please do so only with the archived discussions in mind as context. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 12:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

If or not the NIPPC qualifies (in the experts opinions) as a scientific body is irrelevant. The simple fact is they have a notable opinion and relevant opinion the science that would benefit this article. Their exclusion has long been a cause for disruption here. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It most certainly does not qualify. There may be a grey area about whether something is or is not a table but a horse is definitely not a table. It takes more to get a scientific organization of international standing than for somebody to just set up their own group to publish their views when other people don't accept them. Putting in a group like that with the others here would be undue weight to fringe views. Dmcq (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

That is my question. What will it take? If you never state what is required then you are free to disregard any groups opinion you disagree with. I am asking for what evidence you want to see so that when I find it you will accept it. I am not going to play the game of finding evidence and you finding fault with it and sending me out to find more until I quit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.220.219 (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Asking for hard-n-fast rules won't work. Similarly, there is no unambiguous defn of a scientist. But just as in that case, there are some examples which are clearly out, and others are clearly in. In this case, NIPCC is clearly out. "you are free to disregard any groups opinion you disagree with" is, I think, wrong. Plus, not terribly applicable - it isn't as if there is a long stream of groups applying that we have to make difficult judgements over each William M. Connolley (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Your statement is the key to my point. Since you have already made up your mind that the NIPCC is out and can never be in it does not matter who joins them in their work, what publication they make, what other groups say about them. To you the issue is settled for all time. That is why I am asking for what proof you want up front. This forces you to consider what they could do to be included. It is obvious that you do not wish to do this and so should remove yourself to be a bystander. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.220.219 (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well if you can tell me why a horse is not a table I'll spend some time on your question. If you are not able to do that I can't see that I would stand any chance with answering your question to your satisfaction. Dmcq (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from such useless and unproductive statements. We are not talking about horses and tables here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.220.219 (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems once again necessary to remind certain folks that this article is about scientific opinion, not just any allegedly "notable" opinion. That this "has long been a cause for disruption here" (and that the NIPCC is not a scientific body, and lacks any scientific credibility) is because certain editors do not WP:HEAR very well (a variety of WP:disruptive editing). - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

My question is how can a group that is not currently recognized as a scientific body become recognized as such. I do not see where this has been previously talked about and I have not made the claim that the NIPCC should be considered such at this time. However, I find it appalling that the opinions of the people here are not flexible enough to consider the possibility of a change of status over time for a group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.220.219 (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Answer, the original research being applied to constructed the standard must be recognized and the standards must have reasonable source authority. The disruptions can be sourced to the unreasonable standard being applied. It's obvious the NIPCC and others are considered as Scientific Opinion on Climate Change; however, the inclusion standard was constructed to exclude their POV. This article, has by design a NPOV issue. So much so that, even mentioning relevant groups in the article, that don't fit the standard is being excluded. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

@Anon: ah, I thought you were thinking about other groups: but you actually mean "how could the NIPCC improve". Well, you caould just look at what I wrote that currently disbarrs then: they could earn recognition as a credible group from governments or from other recognised experts; at the moment they totally lack this. They could establish a track record for producing valuable reports; they lack this. Etc etc William M. Connolley (talk) 21:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• At least one notable climatologist is willing to consider the NIPCC's arguments: see Frames and Narrative in Climate Science, by Judith Curry, in her interesting series of essays exploring the scientific consensus on climate change -- which appears to be discomfiting some editors here. Happy reading, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  • And that makes it a scientific body? I don't follow your logic here. Guettarda (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Curry has wandered well of the rails there. Falling for the Johnston nonsense loses her cred. But she has done similar before making unsupported arguements that she later retracts or quietly forgets William M. Connolley (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"Obvious"? Perhaps to you (ZP5), but what basis can you provide for that (other than "here's a bunch of non-scientifc folks that think so")? How about reading Q30 in the FAQ?

The "unreasonable standard" you allude to appears to be the inclusion of "scientific" in the topic title. So your position is that using science to examine matters of objective reality is NPOV? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

67.176.220.219, please use FAQ 30 (in the box at the top of this page) as a start point. The purpose of the FAQ is not to definitively define what xxx is or is not. The FAQ list is designed simply to capture the consensus of the editors here on various topics. Anyway, you can get an idea of what is required of the NIPPC to become recognized as a scientific body—at least within this article—according to the current consensus. You (and others) might disagree that the editors here should be able to determine what will be included and excluded. However, that is how Wikipedia works—through editors coming to a consensus on contentious issues. I hope this helps to explain, even if it does not give you satisfaction. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed formulation

Just to make things interesting, I propose the following formulation. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't the NIPCC included?

In brief, because the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) is, quite simply, not a credible scientific organization.

The NIPCC is the creation of noted climate change denier Fred Singer. Although it claims to be "an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars", this cannot be verified because it does not release that information. The NIPCC has none of the hallmarks typically associated with scientific organizations, such as: a governing board of persons distinguished in their field; affiliations with other scientific organizations; a substantial (or distinguished) membership of professionals in the field; presentation of congresses, conferences, or other events; funding of research resulting in peer-reviewed publication; or publication of a journal. The NIPCC's only basis for notability is Dr. Singer's critique of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, and a 2009 critique of the IPCC. Both were published by the The Heartland Institute, which is unabashedly politically partisan, favoring "market-based approaches to environmental protection"; it makes no claim to being a scientific organization of any kind.

In summary: the NIPCC has none of the characteristics of scientific organization, it has no credibility amongst scientists generally, its views are of a small minority (less than 3% of climate scientists), and its purpose, agenda, and point of view are not scientific, but political. Quite aside from what is says about climate science, it is not itself a scientific organization.

Unless you think you can get "denier" into hsi bio (good luck) it probably shouldn't be in the FAQ either, no matter how richly he deserves it. I think you've overdone the "in brief"s and "quite simplies"/ also I'd drop the last para: the entry isn't long enough to need a summary William M. Connolley (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The old "Standard Navy Lesson Plan": Tell them what you're going to tell them, TELL them, tell them what you told them. Or as my favorite Oxford writer said: "What I say three times is true."  :-) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope. You're practically foaming at the mouth here. Needs an NPOV treatment if it's to be used. Or are you just trolling? ;-] Pete Tillman (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You need to stop trying to defend the indefensible William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Where is the source for "NIPCC is, quite simply, not a credible scientific organization"? Sounds like original research to me. Try this, under the principles of maximize relevance and minimize redundancy, the NIPCC provide a refreshingly new researched view in to an overly redundant and degenerated article. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The source is stored in this object. Count Iblis (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for the link. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

There are reasonably well defined criteria for the list of Organisations. There are not well defined criteria for the list of Synthesis reports. The list of 'consensus' statements is a poor third. FWIW, I think the idea of a FAQ entry dealing with a particular organisation is absurd - the FAQ should clarify and explain and define the criteria (for each list independently) in a manner that can be understood and applied to any organisation or synthesis report or consensus quote as required and relevant. ‒ Jaymax✍ 16:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Where does this "should" come from? In that the question of including the NIPCC has come up repeatedly (do we need to apply some criterion of what constitutes "frequently"?), why not include it in the Frequently Asked Questions? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, the NIPCC has had at least 4 "conferences" where papers were presented and published a collection of those papers, both online and as a dead tree product. In addition, many of the presentations are available online. Q Science (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's correct. The meetings are directly organized by SEPP and/or the Heartland Institute - the NIPCC does not, as far as I know, even have a structure that could handle the organisational and financial obligations. NIPCC is simply a label or a brand. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems like ZP5 usually complains about a lack of criteria or standards. So here are some criteria – which the NIPCC does not meet. But he wants a sources for ... that which does not exist? In that the NIPCC's status as a scientific organization is questioned I'd say the onus is on those who would include the NIPCC to show specific instances. Of course, they are getting better at quacking like a duck, but their impact is limited to their own, very small pond. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct Steve Schulz, the NIPCC is a brand which is focused on producing "scientific opinion on climate change", which folks have constructed a standard to omit them here. To quote Mark Twain, "The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane" in Christian Science. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Brands are just labels, they produce nothing. People or organisations do. And the organisations behind this brand are, as pointed out before, not scientific. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Brands are significant for focusing the org mission into service from and by people. There is a science behind brands which you may not appreciate. The NIPCC intended their brand to be scientific. They are working with scientists. Unfortunately, the standard being applied is EXCLUDING them. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I fear I fail to understand your point. Yes, there sure is some science to be done about brands. Why is that relevant? There is also science being done about quasars. Branding only serves to change the perception, not the substance. The NIPCC, as we seem to agree, is a only a brand. As such, it has no consciousness or intention - it's simply used. The people behind the brand vert likely try to present the brand as scientific. They have, however, failed. Science is not something you can stamp on after the fact. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Re "folks have constructed a standard to omit them here". Wrong. The standard (see learned society, which seems as close as we have for "scientific organization") is pre-existing. The only reason the NIPCC is even being discussed here is because some folks start from a preconceived point of view that the NIPCC should be allowed, and that it is "unfortunate" that it is not. ZP5, what is it that you don't get about that? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, all in the spirt of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules to improve the meaningfulness of this article with the NIPCC view. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

So your point of view is that we should ignore all rules where the NIPCC is concerned, but should observe all rules where the IPCC is concerned? (I allude to your previous objections about synthesis of criteria, etc.) So sometimes ignore a rule, sometimes require it, depending who you want in, or out — that is certainly bias. All this being driven by your overriding goal: get the NIPCC's statements in, no matter how. That certainly looks like WP:POV. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what 'meaningfulness' you are looking for. It sounds to me like you want some completely different article but have alighted on this one. What would be the topic of the article you have in mind and why do you wish to remove this article and replace it with your own? Dmcq (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This article will always be controversial. Certain aspects of it will live or die based on the consensus of the editors here. Some editors will never agree with the consensus. That's just the way it is. The only way to change the consensus is to go about getting a new consensus.

That keeps things interesting though! --Airborne84 (talk) 00:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

In that the question of including the NIPCC has come up repeatedly (do we need to apply some criterion of what constitutes "frequently"?), why not include it in the Frequently Asked Questions? - Okay, I'll accept that - HOWEVER - the question of NIPCC in the organisation list, is DISTINCT from the question of the NIPCC report in the synthesis reports list. The answer for the first part is clear - they are not a learned society, and they don't have standing - the second part is NOT CLEAR, IPCC are also not a learned society. ‒ Jaymax✍ 05:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I may see what they are trying to get at. Why do we include International Arctic Science Committee but not NIPCC for a synthesis report? It seems obvious to me that one is a proper scientific body and the other is just one step away from the Tea Party movement they have in the US but is there a reasonable basis behind that intuition? Dmcq (talk) 09:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is a reasonable basis to believe the NIPCC is 1) only faux scientific, and 2) has a political agenda and POV associated with the right-wing ("Tea Party"). For the latter, just read their statements, and note that their only significant reports are published by Heartland (which, as I said above, is "unabashedly politically partisan"), and note the broad cross-linkage with organizations of similiar politcal views. For the former — again, it's like I said above, they do not meet the generally prevailing (and pre-existing!) standards of a scientific organization.

Nonetheless, I think Jaymax has two good distinctions, worth considering. First, does the NIPCC report contain valid views or criticism that ought to be included in "the synthesis reports list"? Well, there may be a little confusion here. The "Synthesis Report" is that of the IPCC, and if they respond to the NIPCC in the Fifth Annual Review, fine, but that is their decision, not ours. And whether, in respect of scientific opionion, the NIPCC's views are a valid minority, I think not, per WP:WEIGHT. Sure, ZP5 will probably claim that thirty thousand "scientist" signatures on their petition gives them weight, but the literature does not bear this out. And all of the bonafide scientific organizations concur with the IPCC.

The second distinction is whether the IPCC is "learned society". (This would be off-topic, except for the context of equal application of standards to both IPCC and NIPCC.) In many ways, yes — they have a governing board of distinguished scientists, they have produced significant (and scientifically accepted) reports, etc. But I think it could also be argued that they do not have a general membership, and are more in the nature of a commission established for a special purpose (which they are) — just like the NIPCC. Here the argument could get a bit squishy. I would say that the IPCC has such stature, and their reports such significance, to deserve consideration. But I think it's time for me to take a breather and see what others have to say. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at the contents list on the page, we currently list THREE synthesis reports, of which the IPCC report is (of course) the main one. I may have lead you off track re IPCC being a learned society - The learned society criterion has NEVER been applied to the Synthesis reports section of the article. For my own opinion, I have struggled to come up with objective criteria for the Synthesis reports list section of the article that would exclude the NIPCC report and include the three others - I certainly don't want to give Heartland any favours, but I can't yet see an objective discriminator. AFAIK these people (PDF) are all scientists. (Note I didn't say good scientists.) ‒ Jaymax✍ 22:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The largest difference between the IPCC and the NIPCC is their mission and funding. The rest is in execution and the standards being applied to keep the NIPCC out. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

That is a completely nonsensical claim. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Concur. Even astoundingly nonsensical. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Stephan, you may want to rethink that - the 'mission' of the IPCC vs the NIPCC probably fully covers the distinction, providing an appropriate definition of 'mission' is used. ‒ Jaymax✍ 07:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I get your point, but I don't see how "mission" or "execution" can cover reception ("an admirable description of research activities in climate science" - Richard Lindzen vs. "fabricated nonsense" [1]), composition, longevity, and impact. You might get the difference in production (two think tank employees with "advice" from a hand-picked group of sceptics, few of them with significant scientific standing) vs. hundreds of top-tier scientists with input from a much larger community covered under "execution", but that it's that very execution that makes the IPCC "scientific opinion" and the NIPCC propaganda. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

And I agree with you. BUT: The 'reception' argument is problematic, perhaps unscientific (we all know of research that was poorly received, but ultimately revolutionary - indeed, I've just returned from a wonderful lecture by the guy who's team proved Neurogenesis in humans (oddly not cited in the article, despite getting the cover of Science Magazine, I'll have to look into that.)); I'm not sure that 'hand-picked' is useful either - IPCC authors are also 'hand-picked'; 'significant' is subjective, or arbitrary. If we can define objective criteria around 'execution' and demonstrate it with sources, then THAT would be a valid basis to discriminate. ‒ Jaymax✍ 08:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The mission of the IPCC is to evaluate the risk of climate change (there is no pre-ordained requirement that warming must be found) and the consequences thereof. The mission of the NIPCC (in practice) is consistent with controverting any finding of global warming, or that it is anthropogenic, or will have any adverse consequence. Sure, they don't actually come out and say that, but a good look at the actual science (which we have on good authority) shows them coming up short. And the most parsimonious explanation is the presence of a controlling point of view — a political point of view. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Steven, by the IPCC releases "propaganda" too. JJ, better check you sources on the IPCC and NIPCC missions. There is a point to be made that one has a better process then the other (the accreditation point, I'll call it); however, with equal budgets we must assume that could be equated too. The difference is in the mission and budget, these rest is scientific opinion. Scientific opinion is expensive. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

With "equal budget", I could be an atomic super power. I'm not. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, focussing on synthesis reports, the budget issue is irrelevant. A lone scientist could over a year review the science in a field and compose a synthesis report - when it comes to synthesis, all budget does is increase the breadth and depth of the analysis. ZP, even if were right that scientific opinion is expensive, something I personally feel is 99.9% utter nonsense - synthesis reports don't produce inputs. The question of 'mission' is however very important - if it could be shown, using reliable, non-opinion secondary sources, that the NIPCC (or the IPCC for that matter) had a mission that was primarily political, then that might be a solid basis to exclude the synthesis report. ‒ Jaymax✍ 10:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, for one it's not a synthesis report - it's at best a weak rebuttal to the IPCC. Has it been billed as a synthesis report somewhere? It claims to look at original climate data, i.e. it claims to be original research, not synthesis. Moreover, please check [2] (page 254): "However, conservative think tanks have stepped up their efforts to manufacture uncertainty by going all out to create the image of of wide-spread scientific disagreement over climate change. The Heartland Institute in particular has begun hosting an annual conference designed specifically to counter the IPCC, and it sponsors publications designed as alternatives to the IPCC assessments - issued by the cleverly named 'Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change' or NIPCC." (emphasis mine). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The bits I've seen have been synthesis report in nature. Also, from the preface: "We present support for this thesis in the body of this volume, where we describe and reference thousands of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that document scientific or historical facts...." - Are you sure they claim to look at original climate data, or do they claim to look at papers that used original climate data? If you're right about original data within the report proper, then it clearly can't be a synthesis report. NIPCC report front matter is worth a quick read if you havn't already - they pitch themselves as more '2nd opinion to IPCC' than 'counter to the IPCC'. However, I found something interesting when googling for NIPCC synthesis report, see below. ‒ Jaymax✍ 04:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

JJ, I agree with your POV. BUT that's not how we do things on WP (or at least we shouldn't) - to make the distinction as you set it out, you have to (1) define it objectively, and (2) produce sources that objectively stand up against contrary sources. It is inarguable that a significant segment of society believes somewhat the exact inverse of what you and I do, as you expressed above. I am cognisant of this being a Science article - so (eg) if anyone has done a scientific analysis of whether the NIPCC is politically motivated or science motivated (because there are clearly many believers on both sides) then we could shut this down - but to my knowledge, no-one has. We can't rely on what most of us subjectively regard as obvious (eg: political motivation, or comparison with IPCC conclusions), because that is OR. ‒ Jaymax✍ 10:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I doubt if there is scientific literature regarding the political nature of the NIPCC, because that is not a scientific matter. (Perhaps political science?) But given attributable statements from the organizations themselves (NIPCC: "we are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions"; its parent organization, the SEPP: "declarations/leipzig.html there does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide"; and the NIPCC's publisher, Heartland: "Heartland's mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems", and "we are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emission"), as well as the nature of the content on Heartland's website, is it not rather obvious — or at least a fair inference by reasonable persons — that the NIPCC is biased in a political way? Does WP:NOR require us to find documentation for the obvious inference of what the parties themselves say? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup it does - any inference requires sourcing, and because this is a science article, Our sourcing standards have to be high.

What I mean is this, because the inference is obvious, there are innumerable places we could go to find reliable sources stating just such a reasonable opinion. But it would still be reasonable opinion, not science - and it's not right for us to quote 3rd party non-scientific opinions, no matter how reasonable or obvious they might me, on this page. ‒ Jaymax✍ 04:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not entirely convinced here (I think there is some confusion), but perhaps this line of discussion is made moot by your following comment. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I found this from the EPA:

EPA has reviewed and considered the NIPCC report and found that it lacks the rigorous procedures and transparency required to serve as a foundation for the endangerment analysis. A review of the NIPCC Web site indicates that the NIPCC report was developed by “two co-authors” and “35 contributors and reviewers” from “14 countries” (http://www.nipccreport.org/index.html). The organization does not appear to have established any procedures for author selection and provides no evidence that a transparent and open public or expert review was conducted. Thus, the NIPCC’s approach stands in sharp contrast to the clear, transparent, and open procedures of the IPCC, CCSP, USGCRP, and NRC.

Useful? ‒ Jaymax✍ 04:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that does seem to be a clear statement to the point. (Good work.) Is that sufficient to settle the point? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Still need to define the criteria we will use - while it troubles me to start here at setting out criteria, I suspect that we can agree that for a Synthesis Report to be considered Scientific, it's authorship and review processes must be themselves be published and open to critique by the science community. Are there additional things we could add to that? ‒ Jaymax✍ 01:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the specific topic here is whether the NIPCC qualifies as a "scientific body of international standing". On one hand, we can define our own criteria, but then certain editors start objecting on the bases of lack of sources, synthesis, and original research. On the other hand, I think the EPA passes as a reliable source, so let's just cite them that the NIPCC is not credible. (The EPA report seems to have dealt with some of the identical issues we grapple with; further study seems in order.) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

--Airborne84 (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

"No scientific body"

(Was "No scientific consensus". Sorry.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I did look though the archives. Archive 11 reached the conclusion it was not (yet) adequately sourced, and neither of the present sources is clearly both reliable and supporting the conclusion. Archive 12 claimed it was clearly adequately sourced, but there has been no discussion in the talk archives covering it. Tagged. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm confused by your header. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm supporting Ed Poor's comment that the reliable sources do not support the statement that "No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion." The AQMUA editorial letter is not a clearly reliable source, and the book could only be a reliable source for the facts as of the publication of the book, even if it is reliable. If a reliable source reported that AAPG was the only such scientific body with a dissenting opinion, and a different reliable source reports that AAPG reversed its opinion, that would still not provide sufficient evidence that there is no scientific body with a dissenting opinion. But an editorial isn't reliable, and I have doubts that the book is reliable in this instance, except for the opinions of the authors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The second page reports it was subject to editing by the forum; however, it still resembles a letter rather than a "paper", and letters, even in clearly peer-reviewed journals, only represent the opinion of the authors. (It also doesn't appear to support the statement made in our article.)— Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I guessed so much. I'm still confused by your header. As for the substance, the AMQUA "editorial" is an official statement of the AMQUA council, no matter where published. It is of course a reliable source for "AAPG [...] stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming". You have a point in the time issue, of course - we should put in an "as of". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't a reliable source for that. It's a reliable source for "AMQUA states that AAPG [...] stands alone [...]". (As of that point in time, as we are then asserting that AAPG changed its statement.) It would only be a reliable source for the specified statement if it were properly peer-reviewed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

A formal statement by a learned society is certainly much more reliable than e.g. a newspaper article. It meets our standards for WP:RS. Sure, a peer-reviewed article would be even better. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree. A formal statement by a learned society is better than a newspaper editorial, but, if an interested organization, it's still their opinion. But perhaps this should be taken to WP:RSN? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:RSN is a good idea. But why would a non-interested organization ever issue a statement? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think they are disinterested? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think I think they are disinterested? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You might distinguish between interested/disinterested in the issue itself and in a particular result. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

And having made that distinction, are we seriously saying that the AMQUA might publish a lie in an official statement, (without ever issuing a correction), out of their own self-interest, and that we should take account of that in the wording of an article? I think that degree of doubt in their professional integrity would have to be sourced. --Nigelj (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, as it's clearly an editorial, they would have no reason to fact-check. If there were a learned society which had a contrary opinion, they could just say they weren't aware of it. Their reputation wouldn't be significantly tarnished; after all, they're a paleontological society, not a sociological one, and couldn't be expected to know of all scientific organizations, even all those expert in the climate change field. Only Michael Chrichton is slandered by the article, if anyone is. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Could we please not start up original research on what organizations say. The reference is there simply to show that it is something somebody thought interesting enough to say. It pretty evidently is true so there is no need to qualify it. If there was some evidence showing they were wrong or reasonable doubt then there might be some point but there isn't. Dmcq (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Unless the book says "no scientific body" (which is unlikely, as its publication year is the same year that AAPG withdrew its opposition), we have no references that support the statement that "no scientific body" .... Some appear to say "no scientific body except AAPG".
2. It's clear WP:SYNTHESIS to combine "no scientific body except AAPG" and "AAPG no longer ..." into "no scientific body", even if "evidently true".
3. It's not clear that we have reliable sources, even for "no scientfic body except AAPG"; AMQUA is not clearly reliable; it's an editorial position of the organization. I don't have a copy of the book, and it's not clear that the book is not POV-pushing; something that reliable sources may do, but only if it's clear there is editorial control. We cannot (in the editorial voice) present opinions, except that of experts under WP:SPS, and then only if there is no WP:BLP violation. (As an aside, the American Mathematical Society took a political position which I consider improper. My only recourse was to write a letter to the editor of the journal in which that opinion was published, and then to resign. If I recall correctly, the position was nominally about mathematical research funding, so the publication would have been considered a WP:RS under this interpretation, which I consider absurd, as they are not political experts.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying the American Maths Society put things which were factually incorrect in a position statement, that would be similar to here, or are you just saying you disagreed with their position? Dmcq (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as a matter of fact. They posted a statement as to the effects of funding on research, which was statistically flawed. It may depend on the meaning of "is" "funding", but it was actually wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

This topic has been discussed ad nauseam. I don't mind further discussion, but since the "letter" in question was accepted by a consensus of the editors here, it will require a further, changed consensus to change or remove the source. Because a new consensus has not been achieved, I have removed the tag.

On the other source, I have removed the "credibility" and "verifiability" taqs. I added the source, but that's irrelevant. Please see WP:OR which states: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." The MIT Press falls in category two, "books published by university presses." It is, therefore, a reliable source, and does not merit a "credibility?" tag.

Please see WP:V which states: "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." In other words, the fact that a Wikipedia editor does not have immediate access to a reliable source in an article, does not mean that the source merits a "verifiable?" tag.

Thus, I have removed these tags also. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

No, there isn't a discussion in the archives about the AMQUA source, and it doesn't meet any of the normal WP:RS criteria except possibly WP:SPS. And I just want to know that someone has verified both the credibility (not all University Press books are even non-fiction) and content of the MIT Press source, as the statement has been edited from "no [...] except AAGP" to "no [...]" without changing the references, making the details of the source suspicious. In archive 11, there's a section in which it is suggested that the statement is not sourced, with reasons; in archive 12, there's a section in which it is stated that it is obviously sourced, without reasons. There's nothing relevant in Archives 11 or 12 which supports the change. I think the tags should remain. But I'm not going to revert. I am going to put a {{content}} tag on the article, though, as both User:Ed Poor and I agree that it's not adequately sourced. (He seemed also to be saying it's false, which is not-at-all relevant.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The WP:SYN argument doesn't hold. Basic math of the type '1-1=0' is specifically allowed in the policy. The best sources we are able to find indicate that there are no such organisations. If you think these sources are insufficient, and cannot find better sources that support your position, then RSN is probably the route to go down, because we've had this debate multiple times before, with consensus always leading to retention. I think we once had 'no known organisations'; but that is inappropriate (known by who?) ‒ Jaymax✍ 01:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:SYN clearly applies, as we don't know that an organization does not now disagree.

As for consensus, in Archive 11 consensus was clearly opposed to inclusion of the sentence I'm questioning , and gave reasons; Archive 12 was in favor, but not give reasons, and no reasons for the change were given between the sections. I hadn't gone back further than Archive 9. I don't know what you mean about "consensus always leading to retention". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:SYN does NOT apply. Your backwards logic that we do not no something, contrary to the sources we do have, and for which there are no sources notwithstanding. The point you made earlier was that we could not do elementary math across sources, and you are explicitly wrong on that count. As to the issue of the quality of sources, consensus, reflected by the fact that the text has remained in the article despite multiple challenges, with various 3rd parties coming in at different times. Consensus on WP does NOT mean that every single voice agreed, and I would concur that (probably) in every case there was a lone voice or two practising WP:DEADHORSE. Given that context your best approach is to take the issue to RSN and advise us here when you do. ‒ Jaymax✍ 09:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see you are not disputing the statement even though you say you can spot errors in statistical statements from the American Mathematical Society. However you seem to be arguing now that we may not know the statement is true today because some society might have issued some statement last night. Are you therefore saying that the statement should be dated according to the sources? Or what exactly is it you are trying to say? Dmcq (talk) 09:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, the last reasoned argument on the talk page (in Archive 11) was against inclusion of this statement; the discussion in Archive 12 was not reasoned. I didn't go all the way back to see if there were

I don't know if the statement is correct. However, it clearly is WP:SYN to combine

• Source A: There are no scientific societies other than AAGP which disagree with the statement.
• Source B: AAGP no longer disagrees with the statement.

into

• There are no scientific societies which disagree with the statement,

unless Source A and Source B are the same.

What we can probably say is:

• In (year taken from reference), no scientific body of national or international standing, other than the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAGP), has maintained a dissenting opinion.^[1][2] In 2007, AAGP updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.^[3]

If both reference 2 and reference 3 are the MIT Press book, we could combine them as is presently done (although it should still be dated to 2007), but the earlier AMQUA reference is then unnecessary and confusing, whether or not reliable.

In regard specific sources.

1. I don't think that the AMQUA source is "reliable", and I see no discussion on point in the talk archives here. It's a statement of a professional society, which should be allowed under WP:SPS if it is in their field of expertise. However, the views of other professional societies are not really in their field of expertise.
2. In regard the MIT Press book, I'm asking someone to report exactly what the book says; both "sides" in these debates frequently misquote sources. For the sake of argument, I'm willing to accept that the book is likely reliable on this point; however, as an example, (hard-)scientific books speaking on political "reality" are often unreal.

Reported in WP:RSN#Scientific opinion on climate change: No scientific body

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.

I think what this sentence is really meant to convey is correct and is adequately sourced with the two sources. It is NPOV and there is no serious OR problem. That said, the formulation is defective. For conveying a general impression we are making a specific precise statement that we don't really know to be correct. Collectively we probably have a good overview over the positions of scientific bodies, but we are not technically allowed to turn this into explicit statements of that kind.

Apologies for sticking this in mid-comment, but the point directly relates. On WP, we never KNOW what the truth is, we simply restate what the sources tell us (or at least, that's true when we are doing it right) - In this case, the source A explicitly tell us there was only one, source B explicitly tells us that one went away. WP:MATH says we can combine sources to do simple math. Hence, zero, by the sources - nothing more, nothing less - just relaying what the sources state. ‒ Jaymax✍ 02:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the following has essentially the same gist, while avoiding the original research:

As of 2006, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists was the only scientific body of national or international standing that maintained a dissenting opinion. In 2007 it updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.

In this version we are not saying that there is no other such body, but we are still implying it. That's OK because we can be reasonably sure that what we are implying is true, and we know that it is morally true. The claim that we are not stating but implying has been explicitly in the article for over a year, and if it were false we would know that by now. Per WP:SYN creating novel associations can be fishy. But here the implicit conclusion from the association is essentially (and for the US, where the contention over climate change has its origin, explicitly) stated in the second source.

By the way, the second sentence doesn't have a source in the lead. That's OK because it's covered in detail in the article. Hans Adler 20:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, it doesn't matter if you think or don't think that the AMQUA source is reliable. Wikipedia's policies say that it is. If you disagree that Wikipedia's policies say that, I can cut and paste the relevant sentences for you. You have only to ask.

Likewise, it is irrelevant if you are not sure of the reliability of the MIT Press source. You're entitled to your opinion, but your and my opinions carry no weight here in Wikipedia articles. The only thing that matters is reliable and verifiable sources. I illustrated above that the reference is both—according to Wikipedia's policies. If you would like to research exactly what the book says, I included the ISBN number of the book when I added it as a reference. You should be able to obtain the book with ease.

Finally, this discussion is moot, for the most part. The last consensus was to keep the AMQUA reference. In that light, whether or not the reference can be argued unreliable at this point is simply irrelevant. If you would like to continue to pursue this topic, your best course of action is to try to establish a new consensus, or follow Jaymax's advice above. This may not be what you want to hear, but I hope it's helpful to you. --Airborne84 (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hans Adler, your second formulation does seems reasonable. I'm not sure, however, that even that will avoid POV claims for this section (and the article). Perhaps Jaymax could point to the relevant Wikipedia policy that allows the "simple math" avoiding the WP:SYN issue. I have seen it before (as we've been through all this before), but it may help the editors here to have it laid out clearly. --Airborne84 (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Apols, I should have done it earlier - I'll confess that this being about the 4th time over the last couple of years making the same point lead to me feeling a bit bloody-minded. My bad. WP:SYN is a section within WP:NOR, which also includes WP:CALC "This policy allows routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources." My emphasis.

Thanks. I suspect that would be a useful addition to the FAQ, given that it reflects an acheived consensus by the editors here. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but it doesn't yet reflect consensus. As for the point above, we do have some matters which appear to fall under WP:CALC which are clearly not allowed. For example:

1. Poll 1 finds 50% support for position X.
2. Poll 2 (later) finds 70% support for position X.

Hence, support for position X is increasing.

The conclusion does not follow if the questions are phrased differently, the definition of "support" is different in the two polls (Poll 1 is on a 5-point scale, with the top 2 being considered support, while Poll 2 is on a 4-point scale), etc. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It does reflect a past consensus. Because you weren't here when it was achieved doesn't change that. I understand that you don't agree with it. Again, your recourse is to try to obtain a new consensus. That is generally how contentious issues are resolved for this article. --Airborne84 (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I note that there seemed to be some consent with my rephrasal as proposed above and so far nobody seemed to think it makes things worse. To me it looks as if everybody agrees it's an improvement, and the only disagreement is whether it's sufficient. I am currently puzzled by Arthur Rubin's reaction (see WP:RS/N), but I am going to implement it now as a step – possibly the last one, possibly not – towards consensus. Hans Adler 18:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be a pity to loose the "Climate Change" reference - maybe add this in addition to your suggestion? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I meant to leave the sources exactly as they are. The second one (Oreskes) is needed to confirm we are not producing a novel conclusion by implying there are no contrarian bodies left. Hans Adler 22:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I find the second formulation less satisfactory. The section is about dissenting organizations (notably, the lack of), and the existing formulation gets right to the point. The second formulation puts the focus on one organization (which, for sure, was the significant hold out), and entirely avoids, and weakens, the key point that currently no organizations are known to dissent. (Also, there is a weak and possibly confusing reference in that "rejecting ..." could be taken as the update. Simple enough to fix, but perhaps the matter of focus should be addressed first.) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Concur. I prefer the explicit 'No' (as in zero). ‒ Jaymax✍ 21:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree too. I'm also unhappy with the ambiguity of "statement rejecting", which could too easily be misread (although I see it's been like that for a long time). It's not clear how to read it until you get to the with. - --Nigelj (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Now that it has been pointed out, the problem with "rejecting" jumps out at me as well. It's mitigated by the word "current" at the end, though. Nevertheless, I still think we should avoid an explicit statement that says categorically that nowhere in the world is there a scientific body "of national or international standing" blabla. Even after removing "national", which almost certainly makes it false (how about the National Academy of Science of, say, Belarus? Burkina Faso? Myanmar? Swaziland?), we simply can't verify it because it's not even clear what it means. I am looking for better alternatives with no sourcing problems, but so far I haven't found anything. Most accounts of the situation don't provide such convenient little snippets for re-use by Wikipedia. Meanwhile I am proposing a new version with the "rejecting" problem fixed. It would also make the lead shorter without loss of important information:

As of 2006, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists was the only scientific body of national or international standing that maintained a dissenting opinion, but in 2007 it adopted a non-committal position.

Hans Adler 23:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand your trepidation about the possibility that the current statement might be "false." However, even if it were false (and I'm not saying that it is), it doesn't matter. Wikipedia represents verifiability, not truth. Now, I'll agree that your admirable tries at reformulating the current statement could lessen POV claims against the article. Yet, it has drawbacks too, in that it tempers a statement that makes the article stronger, IMO—and possibly easier for the average "passer by" reader to understand. One thing I've learned in bringing an article to FA status and reviewing GA and FA candidates is that trying to be hyperaccurate is usually "less good" on Wikipedia. I found that out the hard way. Articles are better when they feature plain and understandable language for the average reader. Aiming for hyperaccuracy for a few expert editors can lead to trouble for average readers.

Having said that, I'm not saying your suggestion isn't a viable option. I don't know which is more preferable, although I personally lean toward retaining the current verbiage. Yet, both choices have merits. Since a couple of editors have chimed in against the change, I'd suggest that the only way to atempt a resolution at this point is to try to achieve a new consensus. --Airborne84 (talk) 02:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not about adding hyperaccuracy, it is about removing inaccurate hyperaccuracy that is in no way implied by the source. This is what the first reference (AMQUA statement from Eos) really says:

On its Web site, AAPG aligns itself with Crichton’s views, and stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming.

This is what the second reference (Oreske paper) really says:

In the past several years, all of the major scientific bodies in the United States whose membership’s expertise bears directly on the matter have issued reports or statements that confirm the IPCC conclusion.

The current hyperaccurate verbosity has nothing to do with what the sources say. It is pseudo-objective hyperbole. "National", in the context of an international encyclopedia, means in all applicable contexts. In the hypothetical (and unlikely but illuminating) case that the major scientific body of national standing in Belarus is entirely controlled by Gazprom, readers from that country have a right not to be misled by our making up the "information" that the National Academy of Science of Belarus (or whatever it's called) is not upholding a GW-denying statement.

Moreover, to a sensible reader this bogus accuracy is instantly recognisable as such and therefore undermines the present article by giving it the appearance of a hack piece. Given that this is a key article for understanding the facts around global warming, and that most readers coming here will be influenced by the systematic doubt campaign, that is very bad indeed. Hans Adler 09:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

AEB (AMQUA)

Could someone point to a past reasoned consensus that either the statement should remain or that AMQUA is a reliable source? I do not agree that it is clearly a reliable source under WP:RS; WP:SPS might apply, but that would require not only that they are expert scientists, but they are experts in what other scientific societies say.

Furthermore, DiMento et al. (or perhaps Oreske) doesn't support the statement as written. Even if all the sources named are reliable, Hans's statement is really the strongest for which we have sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

A couple of comments:

1. Wikipedia represents verifiability, not truth. I know you know that. It's worth saying again though.

2. You're laboring under a mistaken impression that the letter itself must be viewed as a reliable source (which editors here have agreed by consensus that it is anyway—a number of times before you raised the issue again.) Please see WP:NOR "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books" and WP:V "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available." You'll note that a peer-reviewed journal is the litmus test in this case, not a peer-reviewed article or letter. Your arguments should point to the journal itself, not the writers of the letter, to argue against its reliability. You might not like that, but that's how Wikipedia's policies are framed.

3. I could have pointed this out earlier. Truthfully, it's not necessary. A new consensus is required to change this controversial passage. Well-reasoned arguments (and many not so well-reasoned) have been offered many times.

4. You have argued against WP:CALC. The relevant passage is here: "This policy allows routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources." The last part of the passage is most relevant: "provided editors agree." See above discussions regarding the past consensus.

5. I haven't dug through the archives to find past consensuses. Typically I view that as a task that can be given to new folks that come here raising the same issues that have been discussed ad nauseam. However, I'll allow that this should be in the FAQ and it is not. If you have truly searched for the discussions and cannot find them (some go back years), then I may be persuaded to look through sometime this week. --Airborne84 (talk) 10:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is has been discussed at length in the past. Secondly, is it not obvious that if the National Academy of Science of even the most obscure country were to issue a formal statement denying the veracity of the IPCC reports, there are more than enough keen bloggers, political and economic journalists, and a whole US tea-party movement, that would have picked it up and given it wide publicity? Saying that these statements of national intent on GW are of so little importance, and receive so little publicity, that many may exist that no one has found any mention of on the Web is unlikely in the extreme. It is central to the campaign of every denialist group that uncertainty, doubt and scientific discord is given as much publicity as possible. To try to allow for that possibility in our wording is to deal with a vanishingly unlikely case. That just leaves us with the maths, 1 - 1 = 0, which clearly allowable. --Nigelj (talk) 11:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that we would know about it. If the National Academy of Science of Belarus issued a GW-denying statement, at most a tiny section of the mostly US-based denial scene would ever hear about it. Since publication of the fact would have the potential of backfiring considerably ("The Nationatl Academy of Belarus is currently the only major scientific body to deny global warming"), I can easily see it not spreading. Hans Adler 11:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Please pardon me if I disagree. It only takes one person with access to the Internet to post such a statment on a conservative website. It then goes "viral" and spreads like Wildfire. Twenty years ago, I would have agreed. In today's world, I don't see it. Besides, this argument is besides the point—although an interesting sidebar, to be sure. --Airborne84 (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I found the consensus as to the reliability of AQMUA; although the argument in Archive 11 is objectively wrong (a letter to a scientific peer-reviewed journal will likely be published if it is notable (in the editors' opinion), and is civil and not libelous), and I misread the consensus against inclusion of this sentence. Still, the sentence is in violation of WP:NOR, for the following reasons:

1. AQMUA says "AAGP ... stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming." Our weakening of that hyperbole to the plausible "scientific society of national or international standing" is clearly inappropriate.
2. At least, according to Hans, the other reference supports "In the past several years, all of the major scientific bodies in the United States whose membership’s expertise bears directly on the matter have issued reports or statements that confirm the IPCC conclusion." Our strengthening of that to support the statement as written is clearly WP:OR.

Do I need to bring this up at the WP:OR/N noticeboard, or can we have a rational discussion of the issues here? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Re AQMUA: I must apologise for some earlier comments. I had missed the notice saying that the paper was presented by them. I still think it's technically a reliable source for such things, but this makes it sufficiently weak to not rely on it for a critical lead sentence under circumstances such as these. Hans Adler 17:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I have looked in a large number of books that describe the global warming consensus as such (i.e. not "sceptically"), but have not found anything further about all ... scientific bodies agreeing. To me this suggests that perhaps we shouldn't be saying it in the first place. If we want to say it, then it's better to avoid the hyperbole of the first reference and stick to what the second says. Certainly Naomi Oreskes is more competent to speak about that. Also note that her statement isn't actually weaker: It speaks about a smaller number of organisations, but it's also fresher (2007) and says that they all confirm the consensus. We currently say only that none dissents. Hans Adler 17:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

A couple more comments.

• There is a lot of discussion about the AQMUA quote. You're ignoring that the quote is supported by two references. Please determine if both references are arguable before asserting that a change must be made.
• Arthur Rubin, we can certainly discuss it rationally. Why waste time though? It is apparent that we have reached an impasse, as we have numerous times in the past few years. Your arguments are not new. Continued back and forth arguments are, if you'll pardon my bold wording, a waste of time. My recommendation stands. Do what is necessary on this article to make a contentious change. Attempt to achieve a new consensus. --Airborne84 (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

We currently say 'none dissents' because that is a direct, verifiable reflection of what the best sources we have available state, per a permitted WP:MATH synthesis. As for Belarus, when a sub-council of a Polish institute released a dissenting statement, it got mentioned here 'instantly', before there was even an English translation available. I believe it is naive to think in the current climate (ha) that a Belarusian, Kurdistani, (or other) dissenting statement would not be well documented in short order. ‒ Jaymax✍ 19:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not a reflection of the sources, if Hans is correct as to the Oreskes quote. . If you would read the AQMUA quote and Hans's report of Oreskes quote, you would see that neither reflects what we've written, even if we accept that AAGP no longer "dissents". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the problem. There may have been some confusion because the Oreskes paper was cited incorrectly. The citation only consisted of the editors' names, book title and page number. The title of the contribution (The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: How Do We Know We’re Not Wrong?) and the author's name (Naomi Oreskes) were missing (now corrected in the article) , so perhaps some editors thought that there was still another reference that has not been addressed yet. That is not the case. You can check the text for yourself here. Hans Adler 21:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a reflection of the number of reliable (and current) sources stating that there are dissenting organizations. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring Oreskes, Hans' objection is that AMQUA is "sufficiently weak to not rely on it for a critical lead sentence under [the] circumstances". Arthur, your suggestion that it doesn't reflect what we've written (when taken in conjunction with AAGP) is false, and Hans appears to accept that multiple times above - you have a lone voice in this regard. What concern Hans, if I read correctly, is the strength of the source as a statement that AAGP was the only scientific body of national or international standing at the time of publishing. The historical consensus here has been that it is. It appears that Hans is yet to convince anyone here, but I appreciate and am thinking about what he has said. Rather than suggesting I read the sources (again), perhaps you should read the arguments above. ‒ Jaymax✍ 23:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hans, perhaps *I* should also have read the more recent comments thoroughly. Above you agree with Arthur that the AMQUA quote, taken with the AAGP statement, does not reflect what is written, no matter how much accuracy/reliability we accede to the sources. Could you please clarify that. Thanks. ‒ Jaymax✍ 23:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it's way past bedtime for me, and I can no longer think clearly enough to reply to this question tonight. Hans Adler 00:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll point out that there is another supporting reference—the MIT Press work. I'll hold off on any further discussion regarding the AMQUA source until there is a call for a new consensus. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

That's the confusion I talked about above: MIT Press work = Oreskes, unless you mean another one than the second reference after the passage (currently footnote 3). Oreskes wrote the chapter in question but was not mentioned in the citation until a few hours ago. Hans Adler 00:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one. It doesn't matter who the statement is attributed to in the book. A book published by a university press is considered a reliable work. Again, more asides since a new consensus is the only thing that will change anything. I just thought it strange that all the discussion centered around only one of the sources, ignoring this one. --Airborne84 (talk) 04:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't pay it much attention after I saw it included "... in the United States" - not so useful. ‒ Jaymax✍ 04:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It's true that the statement is limited to the United States. No argument there. It still adds an interesting dimension to the discussion. Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that the editors here decided that the AMQUA journal was not a reliable journal and therefore not a reliable reference on Wikipedia. Then, the only relevant statement in the "Dissenting organizations" section would be something like, "as of 2007, no dissenting scientific organizations exist in the United States." ...and nothing else. That would be even more abrupt than what is there now.

The overall effect would be to make Wikipedia worse, IMHO.

Anyway, even this discussion is irrelevant without a new consensus. I'll abstain from further commenting until a call for a new consensus is made. Cheers! --Airborne84 (talk) 13:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Trying to refocus

Arthur Rubin seems to be under the impression that there is some stonewalling going on (my interpretation of his edits, not his words), and I can't blame him for that. I think this happens in part because editors comment in this thread without being fully aware of the problem: The lead currently says something and gives two sources for the statement. The sources support only part of the statement, and so far nobody has located any similar claims in other reliable sources. (I optimistically looked for it in many books but had no success.)

(1) On its Web site, AAPG aligns itself with Crichton’s views, and stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming.

— Julie Brigham-Grette; et al. (2006). "Petroleum Geologists' Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate" (PDF). Eos. 87 (36). {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) (letter to the editor, presented by the Council of the American Quaternary Association)

+

(2) In the past several years, all of the major scientific bodies in the United States whose membership's expertise bears directly on the matter have issued reports or statements that confirm the IPCC conclusion.

— Oreskes, Naomi (2007). "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: How Do We Know We're Not Wrong?". In DiMento, Joseph F. C.; Doughman, Pamela M. (eds.). Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren (PDF). The MIT Press. p. 68. ISBN 9780262541930.

=

(3) No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.

— Wikipedia

?

The problem: A vague "scientific societies" that was written by an American scientific society complaining about another American scientific society, and not peer reviewed, plus a more precise "major scientific bodies in the United States" magically become a hyperprecise and much more sweeping "scientific bod[ies] of national or international standing". If we can't agree on new wording this text will have to go. This is our chance to find something better before that happens. Thank you for concentrating on the issue. Hans Adler 16:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

And who entitled you to cast aspersions on the editorial standards of EOS or to say the Quaternary society is wrong? The issue is synthesis if anything and if you can phrase it better please do. Dmcq (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you stopped beating your wife? I have no reason to believe there is anything wrong with the standards of EOS or anything wrong with the letter. But texts can only be understood when we know their context. I say a lot of things in Wikipedia discussion that I would not say in an email to a colleague without thinking them through much longer. I write a lot in such emails that I would never write in a preprint without thinking them through even longer. I write a lot of stuff in my first drafts that I would never submit before thinking it through much longer. As the sloppy scope of the statement indicates, (1) is not an absolute, scholarly claim but an argument offered in a dispute. The opposite side can then either accept that argument or offer a counterexample. If the counterexample is too pithy, they will be ashamed to do that and you have scored even though the argument was not technically true. It's problematic to lift this from its original context into an encyclopedia, because it automatically gets stronger in the process.

Also, the original context is ambiguous, but there are good reasons to assume that it is American. Thus it's not safe to assume that the scope of (1) goes beyond the US. Hans Adler 22:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF. It would be unusual for a professional journal to peer-review "letters". None of the ones I have submitted papers to have peer-reviewed "letters" (although some have no letters at all). It would be casting aspersions on EOS to claim that they have peer-reviewed letters.

As for the Quaternary society, their statement is objectively false. There are clearly "scientific societies" which dispute the statements. (I can't find it at the moment, but it was on one of the "global warming" talk pages as recently as last week.) We cannot include the Quaternary society's statement as "fact" without including the contrary "fact". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but in that case I remember there was a perfect source for exactly our statement on some talk page somewhere. I can't find it at the moment, though...  ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears that the phrase first appeared in this edit by Jaymax. The date (01:46, 9 May 2009) may help track down the discussion. --Nigelj (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm genuinely surprised it was me. Hans point that the scope of the AMQUA statement may have also been America is interesting, and I'm going to ponder that. I don't accept that the AMQUA statement is hyperbole (no evidence whatsoever for that allegation) and I don't accept that interpreting 'stands alone' to be equivalent to '1' is unreasonable, undue hyper-precision. ‒ Jaymax✍ 05:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The most thorough discussion of this matter seems to have been at Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change/Archive 9#Dissenting opinion. It makes interesting reading as to rehashing the same points here, but the agreement at the time seems to be that the sentence (per WP:LEDE although they don't explicitly mention that) is a summary of the content in the rest of the article, rather than being based on a definitive external reference. --Nigelj (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Extraordinary proof is only required for extraordinary assertions. The assertions were fairly obvious. A bunch of people who were putting their neck on the line if they were wrong said it. The magazine would have been very grateful for any opportunity for someone to take a slice out of either party by printing out an letter pointing out errors. Loads of people would have been happy to write about such and error and would have taken steps to try and do so. Now instead of this over the top attack on reliable sources with weak arguments about that they were arguing and therefore not thinking or whatever can we go back to following Wikipedia policy and not second-guess reliable sources without having some good reason like a dissenting source? Dmcq (talk) 01:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. Their neck(s) were not on the line, as you call it, and, although most of the article is intended to be taken seriously, the statement we are using is obviously hyperbole. The statement that there are no (other) scientific societies which (deny) "human-induced effects on global warming" is not plausible. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You may be confusing hyperbole, with the absence of scope. We do not know exactly what was meant by 'scientific societies' - did this mean American national societies perhaps? There is no basis for saying the statement is hyperbole (ie: deliberate exaggeration). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaymax (talk • contribs)

There's no basis for saying the statement is not hyperbole. It's a letter or editorial from the society, making it their opinion, and there is no evidence of research there (or in the rest of the letter, as there are no "references".) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

My interpretation is as valid as yours. They would not have said it in such terms if there was an obvious way they were wrong. And nobody wrote in saying what they said was wrong. As to hyperbole it is 'any rhetorical device or figure of speech that employs exaggeration'. What has been exaggerated? Could we please stop this original research. The point of the citations is to show the statement about the extent of the consensus amongst learned socieies is of interest in the outside world, the actual facts of the matter haven't been disputed and aren't in doubt. Dmcq (talk) 11:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a summary of part of our article per WP:LEDE

I'd like to re-focus the discussion onto this point if possible. I found it in Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change/Archive 9#Dissenting opinion (see 22:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC) above). It's more than this, of course, as there are two (some may say partial) external refs as well. Nonetheless, we have every right to summarise our article in the lede. The summary has stood the test of time too - since May 2009. The onus is on those who want it not to be true to find an example that contradicts our summary, and insert it under Scientific opinion on climate change#Statements by dissenting organizations. There's nothing there. What else can we say to summarise that lack? --Nigelj (talk) 09:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It summarizes the article, but the sources presented have nothing to do with it. The statement may stand in the lede without sources, but the repeat in the body is not appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

In the later section it says, "no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change." What would you suggest we put there? We can't just put a heading and leave it blank. What's there seems to me to be little more than an invitation to add something, if 'known'. And do we now agree that the statement in the lede is non-controversial, just the question of whether to add our known citations? --Nigelj (talk) 10:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I would argue that the statement in the lede is controversial, but is a legitimate summary of the body, which is not particularly controversial, although some would argue the selection of organizations omits those which may not fully agree. Neither the lede nor "no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change" is supported by either AQUMA or Orestes, however. If it weren't a summary, "known" should be tagged with ^{[by whom?]} leading to the conclusion that it's "by Wikipedia editors" rather than by reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually I'd go for practically the exact opposite. I'm a strong advocate of having the lead summarize the article instead of being directly dependent on citations and it is something I hope to propose a guideline about, however I can't see how it could say all directly, only that the ones in the article did so. And even for that much one would have to know that was something interesting to say which is a problem with summarizing. To do more it would have to be based on a part of the article which had citations. Dmcq (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

But it's not supported by those sources. There may be other reliable sources which actually support the statement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Straw Poll

I saw User:Viriditas article edit summary. In light of what he suggests, I think it is appropriate to take a sampling to understand the weight of opinion here... I have tweaked the equivalent bit in the Dissenting Organisations sub-section to reflect the lede, in order to remove the issue (for the moment) of sourcing in the lede. The body statement now reads: "no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on global warming." Please indicate below whether you agree or disagree that this statement is supported by the sources, in combination with WP:CALC. ‒ Jaymax✍ 09:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• agree ‒ Jaymax✍ 09:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• disagree Hans Adler 10:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• agree as per WP:common sense from the citations even if shading into synthesis according to the policy which I believe is what WP:CALC means. I believe you meant that instead of WP:MATH. Dmcq (talk) 10:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

  Doh! Edited accordingly above. ‒ Jaymax✍ 13:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Agree. This (1) meets a common-sense-test, and (2) reflects Wikipedia's policies, as noted. --Airborne84 (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• Agree. It is mostly supported by the lack of sources. It is a summary placeholder for a now-empty section, as well as an open invitation for anyone to fill the gap. This invitation has been explicitly open since at least May 2009, and nothing has shown up yet. That explains the precise wording, rather than a different wording that would come exactly from the cited sources. These sources partially support it, and the remaining support is the empty section below it. --Nigelj (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• Disagree. It's not supported by the sources given. If Hans is correct as to the content, neither source says anything like our statement. The statement is probably correct, but neither source is relevant, even if WP:CALC allows "only X" and "X no longer" to be combined into "no such organization". [2] says (essentially) "no scientific organization other than AAGP" and [3] says "no nationally recognized scientific society in the US"; deriving "no scientific organization of national or international standing" from that would be WP:SYN, if it were at all derived from those sources. I believe it might stand as WP:COMMONSENSE without a source given, but the two "sources" do not support the statement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

  The sourced AAPG statements are also part of the equation. ‒ Jaymax✍ 15:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

  Agreed. It doesn't effect my statement. Changing "On its Web site, AAPG aligns itself with Crichton’s views, and stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming." and " In the past several years, all of the major scientific bodies in the United States whose membership's expertise bears directly on the matter have issued reports or statements that confirm the IPCC conclusion." into "No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; ", is absurd, both for the types of organizations, and for the conclusion. Our definition of "dissenting opinion" is more extensive than that in the references, and our types of organizations are different than both. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Agree. Supported does not mean we have to have an exact quotation, which seems to be what Arthur expects. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

  No. It requires we have something with the same meaning, which we do not have here. Even if the sources were reliable, we could derive "No [...] scientific society denies human-induced effects on global warming." Our definition of dissenting includes disputes as to whether human-induced effects have a significant effect on global warming, and, in some cases, whether global warming is good. The link in our statement is unsupported by sources, as well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Arthur, it appears that the consensus is to retain the statement at the present time. That doesn't mean that the consensus can't change in the future, as you well know. My recommendation would be to bow out gracefully and try again in the future. Another possibility would be to try to find some more sources for or against the current statement to improve the article. Best, --Airborne84 (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

A poll doesn't seem to be the right place for debate. If you want to explore this particular start another subsection. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Agree. I think Jaymax and Nigelj made the strongest arguments, but I also agree with Arthur Rubin in that the Oreskes ref is worthless for this issue. I say keep the statement but drop the Oreskes ref.--CurtisSwain (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the Oreskes reference could reasonably stay. I added Oreskes, so perhaps I'm not the right person to argue for its retention. However, I asked if it was worthwhile on the talk page before adding it some months ago. There were no objections. My intent on adding it was not to support the statement in its entirety, nor to provide another leg for an agreed-upon "simple math" synthesis. The intent was simply to provide a supporting reference. The reference provides a reliable secondary-source synthesis of the opinions of multiple scientific societies—even if only in part. However, I'm not wedded to the reference. If the editors here agree that it should go, then it should go. Thoughts? --Airborne84 (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I say keep it. Quite aside from any contention of whether it is a sufficient basis for the point, it gives the interested reader a link to an informed discussion of the point. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should add a third <ref> that contains a self-written note, based on something like my agree point above? --Nigelj (talk) 12:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I might support if an RS can provided that so states--in the absence of that, it seems like we'd have to consider it WP:OR. --DGaw (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Q: Assuming there were an RS for the statement, what "might" keep you from supporting it? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It would depend on what the source said. Is the RS provided an opinion pieces that states the above as an opinion, or is does it provide evidence to support it? (Either could be fine, but in the former case, the statement would have to be tweaked to attribute it as an opinion.) How does the source define which organizations qualify? And because disagreement on at least minor points is normal and to be expected in scientific circles, it seems unlikely that no organization that disputes ANY finding that has to do with the human effects of global warming--which raises the question of which findings we're talking about. As written, the statement is very broad, which makes it hard for a source to back up. Something more specific, like (just as a made-up example), "No public university in the ten largest countries rejects the finding that human beings contribute to global warming." would be easier. --DGaw (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)