Talk:Scientific consensus on climate change/Archive 14

Undue weight in lede "For debate on scientific consensus, see Climate change consensus." ... misleading.

Undue weight in lede "For debate on scientific consensus, see Climate change consensus."; which begins: "Climate change consensus describes the public perception and controversy over whether there is a scientific consensus on recent global warming and on the extent of man's involvement, and the factors driving that perception and controversy"... misleading? The debate of wether there is a scientific consensus is first and foremost WITHIN the scientific community, peer-reviewed. The statement "For debate on scientific consensus ..." sound like the public, politicians, or vested-interest corporations have a say in wether the relevent scientific community has reached "scientific consensus" (or to avoid oversimplification: increasing towards unanimity). The Scientific community doesn't set national policy, law makers do, but the public and the politicians don't do any credible science, and don't determine "consensus". 06:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.54.139.178 (talk)

Slightly confused, are you objecting to the wording in the disamb header here, or the lede in the Climate change consensus article. There is little, if any debate within the scientific community on the existence on the consensus. I have updated the disamb here to reflect the change I made to the lede at CCC to more accurately reflect the topic of that article. ‒ Jaymax✍ 06:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Good change. Much clearer now. Hans Adler 08:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This article has had rather a lot of people coming along thinking it was about either the science or general opinion about the science. I'm aware that Climate change consensus is a bit of a mess and there are two other articles which overlap badly with it, but do we need all the questions that'll come here from people trying to change both the topic and the title because they couldn't find the appropriate article? An encyclopaedia should help people find the right place to answer their questions. Dmcq (talk) 10:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

systematic review is not a synthesis report

Courtesy header insert ‒ Jaymax✍ 06:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

systematic review is not a synthesis report 80.186.46.102 (talk) 06:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

but a synthesis report is a systematic review (mammal is not a dog, etc...) ‒ Jaymax✍ 06:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

How much anthropogenic?

Whatever happened to "A said B about C?" I wish we could just say that Oreskes contributed an editorial to Science opining that that there is no "substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change." [1]

Of course, she is stating the obvious, because "doubters" of AGW have always said that the human contribution is "significant". The debate is not about whether the human contribution to global warming is detectable at the p=.05 level but whether it is or is not dwarfed by the natural contribution. I'd like to see Wikipedia indicate the positions of various government-supported and/or independent science agencies (and individual scientists) about this question.

And if it's not asking too much, I'd like to see the reasons given in support of the various positions. It's nice to have "all the wise heads say so" as a reason, but causal mechanisms are very interesting to know about. For example, are there any reputable scientists who say that temperature drives carbon dioxide (in contradiction to the prevailing, mainstream view)? If so, I wonder if the article has enough room to describe this opposing view, and in particular the evidence and reasoning given to support it.

I also worry that we might not make a distinction between the following

1. the question whether Earth's climate is being affected in any measurable way by human activities
2. the question whether most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is ... due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations

Is it just me, or have these two ideas been confused? Better yet, is it "just me" or have reputable sources (whose statements qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia) said that these two questions are being (or should not be) conflated?

Note: If too many Wikipedians feel I am pushing any particular "POV", please let me know right away, so I can bow out. I don't know how to make it any more clear than this: I don't want to make the article reflect my own POV, but rather to describe all relevant viewpoints fairly. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

"doubters" of AGW have always said that the human contribution is "significant" - Ed, this is plain wrong. "Doubters" run the gamut from "there is no warming" and even "it's cooling" over "it's all natural" to "its a good thing". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Global warming controversy covers the major alternatives. This article does give some statistics from surveys showing percentages which think humans are the major effect or whatever but the actual science isn't really relevant to this topic. Dmcq (talk) 01:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ed, the essence of the opinion is that both (1) and (2) are true. Furthermore, (1) is true due to (2). It is not unreasonable in this article, which seeks to list 'top-level' statements of scientific opinion to combine the two aspects. Words like 'substantive' are troublesome - how much is substantial? ‒ Jaymax✍ 05:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

"A said B about C" is the way we cover political debates. I don't see that formulation in Special relativity, Quantum mechanics or Thermodynamics. In most of the world all the major contributors have moved on from "is it warming?", "is it caused by us?" and "does it matter?" to more relevant questions like "how fast?", "how bad?", "what can we do about it?" and "who pays?". It's only the US tea-party movement AFAIK who wants to pull us back into rehashing the first set of questions. I predict that it won't be too long before articles like this and the classic List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming will be gone, as there will be little interest left in making it seem that there is a grand debate about the basic high-school science going on. There really isn't among those of us not influenced by the US prime-time ad campaigns. --Nigelj (talk) 08:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope the articles remain, if only as historical documents. I'm not sure what the WP policy is towards archival and historical purposes? ‒ Jaymax✍ 08:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

People often get even more vehement when you show they're wrong. I very much doubt this will end anytime soon - and by that I mean decades. Dmcq (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It's obvious that this discussion is not relevant for this article, Ed. Be real. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

FAQ #16

Airborne84: I don't disagree with what you added to the FAQ #16, but I think that is really a different question. Would you be open to adding it as a separate question, perhaps as #33? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe we need a FAQ with more than half a dozen, comprehensively answered questions! ‒ Jaymax✍ 23:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was in the middle of reworking the FAQ when I was pulled away. I should have cancelled instead of posting it. No issue with what you propose. You can do it, or I'll get to it tomorrow. Perhaps it would be better to work this one into the top five. It's tough to say which are the most contentious FAQs, but I'd suggest that this one probably is among them.

I don't know what to say about the FAQ in general. It needs some work, yes. But I don't think it hurts to record consensuses, and it might do some good. Just thoughts. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Aside from where you happened to splash down you're doing fine. You've got a concept and momentum, so I'm okay with letting you run with it.

Jaymax: Just which half dozen questions do you think would be sufficient? The reason we need more than "half a dozen, comprehensively answered questions" is because people keep coming back with variations ("but this question is different!"). Or don't read or don't understand comprehensive answers, or don't see how they relate to their question, so we need to be very specific to get their attention. You might also notice how I re-arranged the FAQ, grouping similar questions, and leaving space for more. If there were a series of questions that had essentially the same answer it would be good to have them all link to one answer. But if people come at it in different ways (think of an index) then each question might need specific representation. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Relevance tag still needed?

Is the "relevance" tag on the "Statements by dissenting organizations" section still appropriate given the consensus of the editors in the straw poll thread above? --Airborne84 (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No longer appropriate, tag should be removed.--CurtisSwain (talk) 03:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it should go. I don't see the purpose (or the discussion) for the one at the head of the article either. --Nigelj (talk) 10:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Done.CurtisSwain (talk) 09:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Featured Article

Anyone interesting in helping to make this article into a Good Article or Featured Article? It would have to be rewritten in summary style and the lists of organizations would likely have to be split into sister articles. Some issues:

1. It would take some work, although FAs and GAs don't necessarily have to be lengthy.

2. It would take a while to get through FAC review(s) since this is a controversial topic.

3. It would bring more attention to the article, resulting in more people visiting the talk page and disagreeing with established consensus.

I don't think that #3 is an issue; this article gets plenty of attention and disagreement anyway. The only issue would be if the article became unstable due to prolonged edit warring. #2 isn't a show-stopper since there are other controversial FAs out there. Evolution is a good example and the article that I took through to FA, Sentence spacing, is another example. --Airborne84 (talk) 02:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Have to be rewritten? I think the article needs to be in a reasonable state in the first place before going for FA or whatever and you obviously don't think it is. How about just trying to put it in what you consider reasonable order first according to your vision? Dmcq (talk) 08:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Study from 2009

I don't think that this is used in the article, but it discusses this article's topic on pages 39-40. Perhaps it could be of use, although some of the data might be better in some of the related articles. [2] --Airborne84 (talk) 12:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes that's interesting and possibly could be fitted in. I think though Climate change consensus or Public opinion on climate change are probably more appropriate. In fact those two articles really should be merged it's silly having both. Dmcq (talk) 13:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Dissent

This is just one of many dissenting reports[3].These lists include former IPCC scientist and many other well respected climate scientist. And their numbers are growing. This article does not show even weighted balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Multiperspective (talk • contribs) 01:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This has been brought up before. Please check the FAQ section at the top of the talk page. I think it will address your concerns. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

In other words, discussing the growing dissent over the bogus "science" doesn't "improve" an article devoted to supporting the agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.189.245 (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no "growing dissent" in the scientific arena, no many how many unwilling and/or unaware scientists Morano misrepresents. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it seems the scientific community didn't the memo from the Heartland Institute about this "growing dissent". Which as far as I can see stems entirely from Morano's latest effort, and from the 2007 AMS survey of TV station weather forecasters. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Luckily that link doesn't work at all for me, due to MIME errors on their server I think. I was just citing the COP16 agreement elsewhere, in which the international community "Recognizes that warming of the climate system is unequivocal and that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid twentieth century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations, as assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its Fourth Assessment Report;" That was 11 December 2010, so this dissent must have grown awful quickly. --Nigelj (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course, there is no mechanism proposed for the preanthropic climate variations. Climate change is not the same thing as anthropomorphic climate change, a fact which this article glosses over with dubious positioning. Why is "does not represent the full range of statistical expertise available" considered a statement in favor? Treedel (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

This is the wrong article if you are going on about actual science, this is about their final considered opinions. Global warming controversy might be better. As to that bit about the statisticians, yes I couldn't see why anyone would think that quote was anything except them saying there were opportunities for their members I'll go and remove it and then perhaps someone might explain why it was thought to be a stance one way or the other. Dmcq (talk) 08:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The endorsement was the quote from them "The ASA endorses the IPCC conclusions." The rest you quoted was explaining that they thought there was more they could do. Dmcq (talk) 08:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I was pointing out that "Climate Change" "Global Warming" "Anthropomorphic Global Warming" and "The IPCC report" are all different things intentionally fudged together in bad faith on this page. I'm not starting an edit war, just putting reasonable dissensions from groupthink into the talk page so future historians will know that we weren't all as stupid as we will seem to be.Treedel (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

And the whole UN, and the leaders of the 138 countries who have signed the COP15 agreement... This is a huge worldwide conspiracy you are describing. And not a single reference to back any of it up? I don't think we're getting anywhere. Without references to anything credible to follow up, there's nothing here that can help improve the article per WP:TPG --Nigelj (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there any many verifiable sources of information on this "conspiracy", as you put it. Perhaps you've seen parts of The Great Global Warming Swindle on YouTube, or read about the UK court ruling on An Inconvenient Truth?

Note carefully, that I am not arguing that these sources are right - rather that they are (1) verifiable and (2) relevant to the article. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE compared to the peer reviewed articles used here. Dmcq (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

  Verifiable only to the extent that someone actually said something, not that what was said is supported by any substantial evidence. Which might be relevant in an article about whether their is such a conspiracy, but this article is about scientific opinion, for which there is overwhelming evidence. The argument that all that evidence has been contrived or rigged ("climategate") and should be ignored is akin to expecting a penny placed on a track to derail a locomotive. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

They are actually completely irrelevant. TGGWS is billed by the channel as a polemic. It's not part of the scientific discourse or the scientific opinion. In fact, according to Ofcom, its so irrelevant that it does not much matter how wrong it is. And no, while AIT is, in general, congruent with the scientific opinion, its not part of the scientific discourse, either, so the (fairly differentiated, BTW) court decision is irrelevant for this article as well. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Citing what the scientific method is not

The article states

Self-selected lists of individuals' opinions, such as petitions, are not normally considered to be part of the scientific process.

I removed the {cn} tag, saying "There is no need to cite a negative. Just follow the link to Scientific method - a long and well-cited article that does not mention lists, opinions or petitions." Isn't it completely obvious that the scientific process does not proceed by listing people's opinions or by petitions? --Nigelj (talk) 10:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree. I tried reverting to remove it but made a mess of it. There is a problem here though in that it is actually stated in the article when it is just a negative. What's here is a statement that the sky is not green which would normally be a really silly thing to stick in an article and removing the statement would not mean that the sky could suddenly be green. However something like that does need to be stated somewhere because of the number of people who are just ignorant of it. I don't believe a citation is 'needed' but it could save some hassle over this. Dmcq (talk) 11:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thinking about it again, perhaps we should just remove the statement? The FAQ on this talk page explains the reasoning well enough and there is a hatnote directing people to individual scientists with dissenting opinions. A petition can always be removed as not being a representative survey of opinion but just self-selected. Dmcq (talk) 11:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we should keep the statement, as a lot of people think that is a valid mode of determining scientific consensus. But perhaps we should also look around for support for it. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Lindzen quote

I added this to the lead:

Notable detractors include Richard Lindzen, who in 2011 wrote:

The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced to the chagrin of overrun villages. Since the beginning of the 19th Century these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don't fully understand either the advance or the retreat.

which was removed, but perhaps a place can be found for the quote (a good example of contemporary contrarian scientific opinion) somewhere else in the article? Jprw (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes this is totally the wrong article. Also one should normally summarize what people have said rather than quote large chunks of them. Wikipedia is not in the job of displaying bits of wonderful prose people have written, that's wikiquotes. It doesn't seem particularly wonderful to me though. I would summarize that as Lindzen says we should just ignore any potential problems with cars when crossing a road because we are not totally sure about the psychology of humans driving cars and we have seen them stop to let old ladies cross, but that's just my take. Dmcq (talk) 08:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Lindzen is a high-profile and eminent scientist and the quote represents a summary of his views on this subject. Such views may run counter to mainstream views, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't feature somewhere in an article that is entitled "Scientific opinion on climate change". Jprw (talk) 09:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

You need to read the bit just above where you wanted to add the quote: "opinions of individual dissenting scientists" are not covered here. --Nigelj (talk) 09:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

How about clarifying that there are individual scientists and groups who dissent, that are not listed on this page. I'll put up something to discuss. Treedel (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

To expand on that, if we included one scientist we'd have to include a representative sample and make sure the weight is right or else stick in the lot. And the weight can only be determined by doing surveys and suchlike. The article already lists a number of surveys and picking a sample to echo the numbers in the surveys would achieve... exactly what besides making the article far too big? Thank you for your suggestion for a single scientist to start the ball rolling as it were, but as I said before this is totally the wrong place. Dmcq (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. However, it seems to me that the Lindzen quote forms a useful summary of the current prevailing non-mainstream scientific view on global warming. Is this not the case? Jprw (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is a useful summary of the prevailing scientific global warming diversion, insofar as he seems to be insinuating that something might be wrong about the scientific consensus, while apparently not being sure about what the mistake might be and actually not even going so far as to say directly that he thinks it's wrong. This is how I would write if I were paid for agitating against a scientific theory that I believe to be correct. Hans Adler 16:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

To Jprw: No, I don't know of any reliable source that says the Lindzen quote forms a useful summary of the current prevailing non-mainstream scientific view on global warming. You will find a wide variety of ideas in the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. That's where people can go if they want to read the views of a tiny handful of marginal scientists, and it's presented right at the top of this article where it's very easy for anyone to find. Additionally, please see FAQ#11 and #12. --CurtisSwain (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

And it is not appropriate to give a minority view "equal time" in the article lead. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The whole point of neutrality is not to create an article with perfect "balance", but one which rather includes all significant points of view. If there were no controversy over what causes global warming, views of extreme minorities or lone holdouts would not be significant.

However, there are charges of fraud, and the h-word has been thrown about. It wouldn't be neutral to pretend that there is no controversy: that would be taking one of the sides!

We ought to be neutral on all aspects of this topic, especially on the dispute over what proportion of scientists in various fields have endorsed, questioned, or offered rebuttals to the "people cause most of it" viewpoint.

Wikipedia will never gain back the reputation it lost, until it returns to the "old NPOV" which never worried about whether we were teaching people the right thing. Back in the day, we figured that if we told both sides of the story honestly, that our readers could make up their own minds. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Lindzen is not "one side'. He is an individual, one of he very few with reasonable qualifications who disagrees (in part) with the mainstream. Of course, Lindzen also wrote "The full IPCC report, most of which is written by scientists about specific scientific topics in their areas of expertise, is an admirable description of research activities in climate science." Anyways, representing individual dissenters without also giving proportional space to the majority is a clear case of undue weight. Lindzen's view is fine in his own article, but not in one on the scientific opinion in general. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Uncle Ed really needs to study WP:WEIGHT. "Neutrality" is not about giving equal billing to the views of a very small minority. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how "equal billing" applies here. Are you saying that by including Lindzen's disagreement, we would somehow give the impression to our readers that his viewpoint is shared by more people than it really is? --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and to a very disproportionate degree. And it is just unnecessary when the surveys are in the article. Plus it really isn't on the topic of this article though one can infer what his opinion about climate change is from it. Plus it isn't a peer reviewed statement. Dmcq (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Per policy, the presentation of any view must not misrepresent its prominence. And in regard of the scientific opinion re climate change Lindzen is not prominent. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Lindzen is Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and his views on this subject are similar from what I can gather to other scientists who do not make up the mainstream view. It seems to me that what we should be doing is allowing his view to be aired (after all, the article is called Scientific opinion on climate change) and letting readers decide for themselves. Jprw (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It would be undue weight and is unnecessary as surveys of the different views are given in the article which give peer reviewed analyses of the weight of opinion. No views of individual scientists who agree with the IPCC are given in the article either. Please read the FAQ at the top of this discussion page about this. Dmcq (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem with "letting readers decide for themselves" is that (for the most part) they have no background, no expertise, no experience to assess what the true situation is. It is a rhetorical ploy to get people to make conclusions on inadequate information, when they don't even understand just how inadequate their information is. Speaking of which, some of you folks really ought to heed the statement at the top of this page that says: "Please ... look in the archives and review the FAQ before starting a discussion." - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

In this case there is a problem with the title of the article being inaccurate. It should read "Majority scientific opinion on climate change" or something along those lines. Jprw (talk) 07:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no inaccuracy in the title, The article reports both sides with their due weight as per WP:WEIGHT. This article is not about the popular conception, see public opinion on climate change for that. Dmcq (talk) 09:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The title of the article is about "scientific opinion" (presumably by those who have a proven scientific background in the field of climatology). Climate change is accepted yes - the temperature and humidity change every day, and some seasons are more or less stormy, etc. But the article is about opinion on the meaning of this, and even a "majority vote" does not make it a fact or "consensus". As for public opinion on climate change, this is of little value in a article of scientific interest. This Lindzen quote is worthy of reporting. --74.107.74.39 (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a whole article on various individual dissenting scientists and their various different opinions. It is noted in the hat-note and later in this article. However putting in individual scientists into this article itself would make it extremely long indeed if you want to ensure there is no undue weight given to one side or the other. One would have to include the various scientists who agree with the general assessment as well. Individual opinions are covered quite adequately enough by the surveys of scientists rather than listing each individual person. Dmcq (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

ps. the latest survey in 2010 mentioned in the article was of 1,372 climate researchers. Dmcq (talk) 09:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. If we pick of quotes from random blogs, we quickly run into serious WP:SYN issued, not to mention server size limits on storage ;-). Also, due to the "man bytes dog" effect, it will be very hard to avoid systemic bias. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

A UC Berkeley team's preliminary findings in a review of temperature data confirm global warming studies

• Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on global warming, latimes.com.--87.148.236.161 (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a scientific study whereas this article is about opinions about the research. It is interesting to see an individual changing their mind but this article tries to avoid referring to individual scientists just aggregates as there are so many of them. Dmcq (talk) 09:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Paul Krugman did yesterday's column about this, starting: 'So the joke begins like this: An economist, a lawyer, and a professor of marketing walk into a room. What's the punch line? They were three of the "expert witnesses" Republicans called for last week's congressional hearing on climate science.'

He goes on to describe how one of the two actual scientists, a physicist (Richard Mulelr) heading the Koch funded Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project — that's where the "UC Berkeley" comes in — reported that their preliminary results are "very similar" to previous results. (Oops!)

This result might be significant in showing that even industry funded research can find AGW. It might also be useful to point out the skeptic crowd that we are not using this rumor of result that supports the majority opinion for the same reasons we reject other "skeptical" pronouncements: it is not "published" in the scientific sense, the source is possibly not reliable, and even if published would be just one report amongst thousands. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with J. Johnson -- fails to pass the WP:Weight test for notability at this point. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Opinion vs. determination

Is everyone overlooking an obvious misrepresentation? The title and introduction uses the term "opinion" 7 times, which strongly suggests that the scientific methods used to determine the reality of climate change is still a matter of a subjective judgment. Most every speaker of English I know defines the word "opinion" as meaning something often derived from emotional or political interpretations of data. In contrast to a fact, an opinion is more like an ideological, religious, or even a mythical belief. Therefore, the scientific method that supports the determination made that global warming is factual and not just an opinion is contradicted in both the title and introduction of this article. I don't know if this has been overly debated or just overlooked but I do know that climate change is not an opinion but a determination made by an overwhelming consensus of scientists. Might someone be so bold to change the title or, at least the introduction from "opinion" to "determination"?

Please notice the wiki article for "Opinion" and that it is also the redirect target for "Scientific opinion"; it reads:

Opinion An opinion is a subjective belief, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. An opinion may be supported by an argument, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts. Opinions rarely change without new arguments being presented. However, it can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another by analysing the supporting arguments. An opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. In casual use, the term opinion may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs 99.36.19.221 (talk) 06:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you read further down that opinion article where it says

A "scientific opinion" is any opinion formed via the scientific method, and so is necessarily evidence-backed. A scientific opinion which represents the formally-agreed consensus of a scientific body or establishment, often takes the form of a published position paper citing the research producing the scientific evidence upon which the opinion is based. "The scientific opinion" (or scientific consensus) can be compared to "the public opinion" and generally refers to the collection of the opinions of many different scientific organizations and entities and individual scientists in the relevant field.

I think that pretty accurately describes what this article is about. Determination doesn't sound like it would be better. Also it is more of an opinion because we haven't actually gone and performed the experiment of going and totally destroying the world yet. Dmcq (talk) 08:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Only one Earth, no "planet B". So, for the scientific method experimentation, we can not have a control and a variable, and we can not have repeatability. There are degrees to scientific proofs. The best climate scientists can do is study the one earth atmosphere we have (past and present to extrapolate the future), and do comparative analysis of other planets atmospheres. That said long-term predictions can have the advantage of using averages and trends in Climatology, as compared to short-term exacting day-to-day attempts of weather forecasting as seen on the nightly and morning news. For example the average of a decade being greater than the average temperature of the previous decade .... an example book The Weather of the Future accessible for non-climate scientists. 99.35.13.213 (talk) 02:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe also of interest, see discussion on Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Article_bias "The climate change extremists who have taken over Wikipedia's climate change pages", Talk:Political activities of the Koch family, Merchants of Doubt (Fear, uncertainty and doubt/Obscurantism), Climate change denial, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_opinion_on_climate_change&diff=424173846&oldid=424164539 Global warming controversy (Thank you, User:Squiddy), Requiem for a Species, The Age of Stupid, from Talk:Politics of global warming (United States) "The Climate War" 2010 book by Eric Pooley deputy editor of Bloomberg Businessweek ISBN 978-1-4013-2326-4, and many others ... may be give 350.org a look too. 99.35.13.213 (talk) 03:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't see anything there relevant to 'Opinion vs. determination' in this article. Dmcq (talk) 10:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Add Why Are Americans So Ill-Informed about Climate Change? from Scientific American for comparison?

Add Why Are Americans So Ill-Informed about Climate Change? from Scientific American for comparison? 99.181.145.228 (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Why? Dmcq (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it is relevant to the topic because of the following in the article:

it is a consensus among such organizations as the American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Chemical Society, American Meteorological Association and the National Research Council, along with the national academies of more than two dozen countries.

It provides a synthesis of the positions of multiple scientific agencies. That's relevant in this article. It could simply be added as a supporting reference to existing text, or to a few added words. At the least, it would be useful as an external link. --Airborne84 (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

We already list those organizations (other than the non-existent "American Meteorological Association"). The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand. But this is useful to some degree because Wikipedia prefers secondary sources to primary sources. In this case, a secondary source is providing an analysis of the primary sources. I believe that merits inclusion. It will all need to be sorted out better in the future, of course. --Airborne84 (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I can see the secondary-source argument. But it slightly bothers me that we would implicitly say that the National Academies need corroboration by Sci Am. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 05:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/10/why-republicans-become-worlds-only-major-political-party-denying-climate-change.php Count Iblis (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC) 99.190.81.6 (talk) 05:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Spirit, I understand your feelings. It's just the rules of the game here. Wikipedia prefers secondary source analysis of primary sources, as I'm sure you know.

In my opinion, this entire article needs a rewrite. Most of the lengthy lists of academies should be split into separate articles and summarized here with links to the sister articles. If someone takes on that task in the future, these secondary source analyses will be useful in writing the sections that summarize those articles. I think that when these secondary source analyses come along, we should capture them here—even if just through an external link—to provide the material to improve the article later. Just my thoughts. --Airborne84 (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd consider the reports by the societies as secondary sources rather than primary sources. They are giving their opinions on the primary sources work. I really don't see any point in having more articles based on subsections of this article. It's better to have one decent article even if a little long that a pile of crappy little articles which don't have much individual point. Dmcq (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. Wikipedia's guidelines suggest that an article over 100kb "almost certainly should be divided" though. This article is over 100kb now. There's no momentum yet to split this into sister articles and summarize them here (which would be a move toward meeting good article and featured article criteria). But, as this article expands in the future, its size will simply become more problematic. There are good reasons to split articles when they get too big. We want people to be able to access it (as least I do). But they will become frustrated as they try to open it on their pocket digital devices because it takes a very long time to load. Perhaps they'll just give up and cancel. --Airborne84 (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It's "readable prose size", though, of which this article has less than 80kb right now. It might be possible to split something off, but the bulk is the statements of the scientific societies, which, I think, should stay in place. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Dmcq's comments. I would also point out that primary sources are almost always extremely narrowly focused (like on one leaf on the forest floor, from which they might infer one tree), and the secondary sources, which look across multiple primary sources, are needed to provide overall context. Sort of parallel to the situation here if treatment of "scientific opinion.." was split up and dispersed — lack of a single, comprehensive treatment that provides overall context and balance would undercut the topic to a point of violating NPOV. If the article really needs slimming there may be ways of doing that, but simply fracturing this article doesn't seem good. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Splitting the article doesn't damage it. Done properly, it can improve it. As one example of many, I had to split the "Style and Language Guide" section from the Sentence spacing article before it would be accepted as a Featured Article. That section (and others) went from a long list of statements from style and language guides, to a summarized form contained in a few paragraphs. The main article, Sentence spacing, was able to be promoted to an FA, and the split article contains the long list of material. I was also hesitant to make the splits throughout the sentence spacing article. The point is, it's likely an improvement. It does take some work to summarize the contents in the main article adequately, but "Statements by concurring organizations, Non-committal statements, and "Surveys of scientists and scientific literature" could all be split to separate articles and summarized here.

I'm not saying this needs to be done now, especially since I don't have time to do it now. But as the article grows, we shouldn't protest or hesitate to embrace the change for fear of "damaging" the article. --Airborne84 (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Although I like the idea of a stand-alone annotated list of organizations and their positions, I would be strongly opposed to splitting "Statements by concurring organizations" and "Non-committal statements" into two separate articles. Having all the statements in one place gives the reader a more coherent view. Separate articles mean we would have to move organizations from one article to the other as positions shifted, and splitting articles according to the position held also seems just slightly WP:POVFORK-ish. Splitting off the "surveys" bit would be fine. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 06:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Surveys summarize opinions better than what organizations say. Without surveys we cannot say the article covers individual scientists to a reasonable degree and it would degenerate to sticking in any old body's latest pronouncements found in a newspaper somewhere. I'd be much less loath to lose all those quotes from organizations and just summarize them. Dmcq (talk) 08:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

We seem to have a difference of opinion. I think the official statements are valuable and view the surveys with a very skeptical eye indeed, because surveys depend so much on how the survey is carried out and exactly how the questions are asked. I do think that the list should be more discriminating in the organizations it includes. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 09:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It would be important to avoid a POV fork. But the most important parts of each section—including quotes—should be kept when summarizing. The summarized sections could be 5-7 lengthy paragraphs to accomodate it all, but would still reduce the size of the article significantly. It won't happen though, until someone puts the time and effort into doing it. I may not be able to for quite some time. I'm just trying to allay any fears that it will degrade the article—if done carefully. Edits that reduce the article size and contribute to meeting the Good and Featured Article Criteria will likely be improvements. --Airborne84 (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

(Moved anonymous comment that was cleverly hidden at the top. -JJ)

Please don't, we don't need another pompous ivory tower liberal "scientist" talking down to millions of real american scientists that are skeptical of global climate warming change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.41.248.125 (talk) 02:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

"Millions" of skeptical scientists? That's a laugh. I don't see that there are even "millions" of "american" scientists to start with, showing this anonymous person to be innumerate among his other failings. Sigh. The comment is soapboxing, properly ignored. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This Ivory Tower and this List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming? 99.181.137.98 (talk) 02:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

What? "This X and this Y" (where X and Y are links to WP articles) isn't even a proper sentence; adding a question mark does not make it a sensible question. Perhaps you think that List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming documents your claim of "millions" of skeptical scientists? Not even close. Perhaps your comment is most charitably ignored. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This discussion doesn't seem to be doing anything but gathering dustballs; I suggest it be closed. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk)

Add LA Times resources

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

LA Times:

• March 31, 2011 Berkeley scientists' climate data review puts them at center of national debate: The head of the study, a longtime critic of the global warming consensus, will testify before a House panel. Leading climate scientists worry that the project, funded in part by an oil billionaire's foundation, has an agenda.; note, see Political activities of the Koch family for oil billionaires Koch family.
• April 4, 2011 Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on global warming: A UC Berkeley team's preliminary findings in a review of temperature data confirm global warming studies, see related Talk:Tea Party movement and fossil fuel industry financers 99.190.80.200 (talk) 05:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS? Listing a scientific study which was expected^{[by whom?]} to produce contrary analysis, and the initial preliminary analysis agreed with the "scientific consensus", is not really that notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

See also the section above, where the first reference was suggested. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Some prior discussion here. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Certainly the "Koch-funded study that bit its master's hand" is not (yet?) notable in regards of the science. It. and the response to it, does seem notable in the broader aspects of the issue (which, as I have said before, is not scientific, but political), and even in showing that the contrarian mindset is "result oriented". But I think those are issues for elsewhere. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You lost me User:J. Johnson, might you rephrase? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The notability of this study not that it concurred with the overwhelming scientific consensus, but that it did so despite having the deck stacked to support the contrarian view. This warrants discussion somewhere, but not in this article. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The notability is He said his study would be "more precise," analyzing data from 39,000 stations more than any other study and offering "transparent," rather than "homogenized" data. from http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/04/local/la-me-climate-berkeley-20110404/3 on page 3 of 3. It is the 1.6 billion measurements. The bolding is mine. 108.73.113.166 (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears you misunderstand the precise nature of WP:notability here at Wikipedia (as distinct from casual use of the term). That someone has new results, or simply re-examines prior results in a new way, may have possible significance, even to suggesting a radical upset of accepted thinking. But, per the general notability guideline, something is not "notable" here until it has "received significant coverage in reliable sources". And as this article is about scientific opinion, the reliable sources are the scientific journals and such. So while the study referred to is becoming politically notable (as attested by the L.A. Times articles and others), because it contradicts some folks' ideological opinions of the science, it is not scientifically notable, because there has been no scientific coverage. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Or more to the point the study has little to do with the topic. The study was about climate change not scientific opinion about climate change. As far as scientific opinion is concerned it is just some peoples personal opinion, it doesn't say anything about scientific opinion in general. Dmcq (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The topic is the science (which is what the LA Times is talking about, not only that I grant you, but analysis is science) and in this case supports the scientific consensus on global warming ... From this article:

Scientific opinion on climate change is given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys. Self-selected lists of individuals' opinions, such as petitions, are not normally considered to be part of the scientific process.

99.181.150.243 (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The topic is not about the science, it is about the scientific opinion about whether climate change is happening and is to a large extent caused by people. The article in the paper is about a single scientific study, not of the scientific opinion on climate change. There's no way a group like this can be considered as having any particular weight for overall opinion compared to surveys of climate scientists or what societies like the American Meteorological Society say. Articles like Global warming and Global warming controversy deal with the actual science. Dmcq (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you're going a little wide here; scientific opinion about the science is still, in the end, about the science, just one step removed. (E.g., like a secondary source.) But same result: this one study has not (yet) changed either the science or scientific opinion about the science, is not scientifically notable, and so has no grounds for being cited here. This anonymous user seems have a fixation on getting this result in, and perhaps needs a more resounding no. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Editor has been forum shopping. I suggest that Talk:Global warming controversy is most appropriate, and am closing this.~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There are some updates to this issue at Talk:Richard A. Muller. 99.56.123.78 (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is meaningless

This is going nowhere but round in circles, and is veering dangerously close to violating the general sanctions placed on the topic.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm about to put my edit back in. I meet all necessary requirements of Wikipedia policy, namely: it's verifiable, independent, from a reliable source, and is not original research. That my entry has been removed twice for no reason other than who authored it is insufficient reason to remove it. If it's removed again, I will refer this this to arbitration and seek the parties removing the entry be banned. The fact that Crichton wrote these things is not grounds of itself to remove them (namely because it commits the genetic fallacy). Further, his point isn't so much about about the science as it is a criticism on the reliance of some on "scientific consensus", which Crichton argues is meaningless. It's a valid criticism. Lastly, claiming this is mentioned in the lede (and it's not, I checked) is not an excuse to exclude an expansion on the idea later in the paragraph. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC) This article is about "scientific opinion" based on synthesis reports, statements by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of scientists. Crichton wasn't any of those things. QED. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC) This article has a section on "CONSENSUS" at the end of it, and Crichton's criticism is relevant to that. Also, he was an MD from Harvard. I'm willing to bet you aren't. Further, in the realm of critical thinking and scientific history, nothing Crichton said is untrue. His point is that scientific consensus in terms of the greater debate is a useless point made by those who aren't up to either admitting they could be wrong or that the data doesn't actually support their conclusions, and in turn, doesn't support their policy goals. Keep trying, though. If you have a independent, verifiable cite that specifically addresses what Crichton had to say and shows that he's wrong, then pony up. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC) I fail to see how having an MD degree qualifies one to comment on climate change, but maybe that's just me. The Spirit of Neutrality and Truth (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC) It makes sense that you would fail to see that because Crichton is not making a specific point on climate change itself. He's making a point against the claim that "there is scientific consensus for X, therefore X is true." He then argues that such a claim is worthless and false, and provides historical examples and pretty damned good rationale why that's the case. It's clear that you are opposing my contribution because you don't understand what it's really getting at. So, how about instead of just having a knee-jerk reaction to his claim from how I summarized it (and feel free to see if you can summarize it better than I have attempted), you go and read his essays for yourself, hmm? -- Foofighter20x (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC) Actually, doctoral level degrees from prestigious institutions are not really rare among the editors here, although most are in the sciences proper, not in medicine. Crichton's point is cherry-picked nonsense. They also laughed at Bozo the Clown. - Carl Sagan --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC) How about you actually address the merits of Crichton's criticism, instead of just making empty assertions about your own opinion of what it's worth? -- Foofighter20x (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC) You started with an appeal to authority which really fell flat, since Crichton's qualification is irrelevant and his degree easily matched by people you are discussing right now. If you figure out the full Sagan quote, you should note that I did address Crichton's quote. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC) Hardly. My appeal to Crichton's authority is that his medical training is more than sufficient to show he's knowledgeable about the scientific method and what it's capable of proving (or, more correctly, capable of falsifying). Appeals to "scientific consensus" are not a part of the scientific method, and furthermore, are not part of science. Such appeals prove nothing, and shouldn't be used when pursuing policy aims, which is Crichton's point. I'll bet you'd have been one of the type that kept Galileo locked up for having the audacity to criticize scientific consensus that the Sun orbited the Earth... I'd ask what your own educational qualifications are, but since this is Wikipedia, there's no way to verify whatever you might make up. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC) I fail to see how " I'm willing to bet you aren't." is in anyway relevant to establish Crichton's presumed qualification, but maybe I'm quaint that way. And I'm sure you have something better to offer than scientific consensus when we decide wether to inoculate or not, how to build a bridge, or how to compute the trajectory of a bullet. However, going with scientific consensus has served the rest of us better than the other methods tried. No, science never offers absolute guarantees, not can it ever prove anything true in the mathematical sense. But overall it is nearly always less wrong than nearly all of the alternative opinions freely provided by cranks, cooks, and the average Joe. That's why we do science. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC) I agree with Dr. Stephan Schulz. (No, this is not a joke.) Dr. Hans Adler 23:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC) I wonder how many philosophy/ethics classes you two took. I'll bet neither of you can hold a candle to Crichton there. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC) Nobody is saying the consensus is true. The article simply points out that it is the consensus. Saying a consensus may be wrong is not saying anything relevant to this article. The article on scientific opinion might be more relevant but this is just his opinion without any secondary commentary, where is there any weight in that? Dmcq (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC) Just had a look at Michael Crichton's article to try and see the relevance of the bit about philosophy and ethics but found nothing. I can hardly believe it though, 'At Harvard he developed the belief that all diseases, including heart attacks, are direct effects of a patient's state of mind. He later wrote: "We cause our diseases. We are directly responsible for any illness that happens to us."[16] Eventually he came to believe in auras, spoon bending, and clairvoyance.' When I wrote that surely someone better could be found I didn't know he was quite so wacky. The main thing though as I said above is it is all just irrelevant to this article. Dmcq (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC) The fact the dude had some crazy ideas about irrelevant topics doesn't remove the fact that you are committing both the genetic fallacy and a fallacy of irrelevance toward his point regarding how people shouldn't rely on an assertion solely on the basis that it has scientific consensus. And to your point about how why we inoculate, build bridges, et al.: we do those things those ways not based upon the assertion of any specific or collective group of specialists among us, but because they are methods or procedures that have been proven to work again and again. Consensus didn't give us these things. A small few with an idea showed that it actually worked is what gave us those things. Which is exactly Crichton's point. Consensus is meaningless. Independently verifiable results are what matter. And that seems to be the point which you just aren't getting. Whether you are a Ph.D. in whatever, it's becoming clear your schooling didn't include even an undergraduate course in critical thinking. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Reversions?

I see that User:Funkysurfdude has made a series of changes which, in some cases, weakens what has been said. I was thinking of reverting them, but got to wondering about the specific text of 3RR: does it mean (in 24 hours) only two reversions per edit? Or two reversions total? Perhaps I'll just leave this to more experienced editors. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Three total I believe, see WP:3RR though I'd go slow with climate change articles so things don't hot up. I didn't see anything wrong happening, what's the problem? Dmcq (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

  I was having a little trouble following the rearrangements, but if you think its okay I'm satisfied. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not encouraging blind reversions, but note that WP:3RR disallows more than 3 reversions per 24 hours, but also that consecutive edits count as one. The aim is not to restrict what can be done, but to discourage back-and-forth edit wars. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I thought. Subsequently realized my question was ambiguous (sorry). Essentially a hypothetical question; I am in no hurry to test those waters. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

POV

4 Lines about dissenting opinions??? In an article this large defending the "scientific concensus". Even if you are a "true believer" in global warming, you have to see this violates Wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.116.205.162 (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

See WP:DUE about due weight. This is not a newspaper trying to make out there is a controversy amongst scientists where there isn't one. Dmcq (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Are you saying there is no controversy amongst scientists about how much global warming is due to human activity? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"How much" is a detail. Is it 50,60,70,80,90? But the opinion isn't detailed - it is that it is somewhere >50%, and that is all that is stated. Focusing on detail would be a whole other article. And yes, the controverse is small minority->fringe for this level of detail. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The four lines refers to the bit about dissenting scientific organisations. The level of dissent amongst scientists is best judged by the results of the various surveys listed in the article. Dmcq (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

National Research Council

The reference under the National Research Council refers to their 2001 report. There is a more up-to-date (2010) report called Advancing the Science of Climate Change: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12782

It includes this quote: "there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations."

I think this would more accurately reflect the current NRC position. I was going to edit this entry myself, but I couldn't navigate the html properly with the footnotes and all. If someone else with better skills wanted to do so, that would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjoffutt (talk • contribs) 16:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed table to clarify what the consensus is on

It would be nice for our readers, if we made a table of positions. Each row could state the name of the organization (or scientist), what percent of warming they regard as anthropogenic, and the period for which they make this assertion. For example,

Year	Source	Probability	How much	Since when
2007	IPCC	very likely	the main driver	since 1950
2009	U.S. Global Change Research Program		primarily	past 50 years
2004	Arctic Climate Impact Assessment		most	last 50 years
2001	National Research Council	likely	mostly	last 50 years
2003	American Meteorological Society		a major source	last 200 years

This will help our readers to know what statements were made, and when. More importantly, it let our readers know how likely the human factor is, and how much of the warming is due to the human factor. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this would be mixing unlike things in a synthesis. We'd be putting different organizations with different remits and different sizes with their different ideas of what likely means and mostly means and a year range which could depend on what significant means. And we'd have people who felt they had to fill in gaps when there really isn't anything to fill the gaps with and putting their own interpretations saying that what an organization said meant mostly. Sounds like a recipe for trouble to me. Better to just let them say things in their different ways and let the reader make of it what they can rather than have us getting involved. Dmcq (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, but I was just copying the tabular information from the article. Why would putting the article information in tabular form cause trouble? --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The information is from many different sources and there is no way of saying it is comparable. Making a table out of it would violate WP:SYNTH as it would imply something which is not stated or even implied in the sources. As it is at the moment the information is separate and attributed to the individuals properly and much of it is within quote marks. Dmcq (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, this is basic SYNTH. We would need a reliably published comparison for something like this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Lawrence Bodenstein

Seems relevant to note who this Lawrence Bodenstein is, as we don't have an article 'bout him. Therefor restored the pediatric surgeon bit w/ ref. Vsmith (talk) 11:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The professions of everybody else are not listed, why this one and why the bio? There is nothing about this which says they are particularly relevant. He seems like a reasonable enough person to analyse a survey for statistical problems to me. Are you thinking that only climate scientists are qualified to analyse the statistics of a survey of climate scientists? You don't get an involved person to do such a job. Dmcq (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes ... lots of name dropping in headers around. It would be nice to be able to see who all those names are ... though mebe not very relevant to the article. Vsmith (talk) 12:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I wondered if he was the MD Google turned up.... He does seem to know his statistics. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I've just run a copy edit through the new material.

1. You 'draw' conclusions, not 'result in' them, so I altered the original wording there.
2. This is a challenge to the paper, but a rebuttal is a much stronger term. When you rebut something, you "drive back or beat [it] back; to repulse."[4] The conclusions of this paper are not driven back unless every word of Bodenstein's have been proven true, which is scientifically unlikely to happen.
3. I chose some more informative quotes from the abstract. Instead of giving the author's opinion on the political atmosphere or environmant, or his suspicions, I tried to focus on the actual body of his argument - that citations are largely given due to "an upward spiral of self-affirmation", rather than due to the expertise of the cited author in scientific discourse.
4. I removed the description of four people as 'scientists', partly because if we don't bio one author, we shouldn't bio others in the same breath, but mainly because it is such a naff description of anyone here. We all know from published lists of 'scientists', that these can include anyone who simply enjoyed their science classes in high school. This whole article is about scientific opinion - being called a 'scientist' here is really damning them with faint praise. Unlike Bodenstein, they are all linked if people want to know their biographies. --Nigelj (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Nigel: thanks for making this more specific, and pulling better quotes. I meant to come back & look for a full, free text, but got busy. Better now. Quite a controversial paper! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

A "manufactured consensus"?

There's an interesting draft, The authority of the IPCC and the manufacture of consensus by Jean Goodwin of Iowa State University [5], currently being discussed at Judith Curry's blog, here. Curry concludes her comments by remarking:

Goodwin makes a strong argument that the IPCC is a manufactured consensus that has been reached by intent. As such, Lehrer argued in 1975 that such a consensus is conspiratorial and irrelevant to our intellectual concern.

The IPCC needs to lose the emphasis on consensus and pay far more attention to understanding uncertainty and to actual reasoning. I’ll close with this statement by Oppenheimer et al. (2007):

"The establishment of consensus by the IPCC is no longer as important to governments as a full exploration of uncertainty."

Premature for here, but very interesting. Happy reading, -- Pete Tillman (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It seems a bit pejorative to call it a manufactured consensus, I wonder why they phrase it that way? Yes the IPCC knew its target would be policymakers more than scientists and so talked about consensus. We all know it isn't a purely scientific body but one which gives an assessment to governments. That's its job. If you don't phrase what you have to say in the language of the person you are talking to then you're just wasting your breath. Dmcq (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Infograph - is it relevant?

The infograph accompanying this article is more polemical. Scientific theories are not proved by the number of scientists, or politicians, or sociologists, believing them. If 996 out of 1000 scientists believe in God, will it be a conclusive proof of God's existence? This picture needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.251.2 (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like soapboxing by a possibly clueless anonymous user, with no relevant comments. I suggest we not waste any time on this. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought his comments were relevant. He made some good points. There is no need to resort to name calling. Must I.P users wouldn't even be willing to discuss changes a talk page. Cut the guy some slack. Just my two cents. --Andy0093 (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The trouble is that the graphic itself has been hacked around since it first appeared. It no longer matches the Anderegg paper's results. --Nigelj (talk) 23:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't like it myself. There's far more than 75 or 77 or 79 or whatever climate scientists who have been polled. Even if it was okay it should be with the result if anything, it doesn't illustrate the overall topic. Dmcq (talk) 23:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The article could use some more images. If it reflected the results of the study it's supposed to represent, I'd support moving it next to that study in the article.--Airborne84 (talk) 01:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This is being discussed in more detail at Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 08:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Picture

I removed the silly picture from the article. Maybe some better images relevant to the article could spruce it up a bit! If any disagrees feel free to revert. Have a great weekend!

All the best,

--Andy0093 (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't add anything and emphasises a particular bit unnecessarily. I don't see the point of it and think it detracts from the article. Dmcq (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I see that the infographic is being deleted from the article with the justification "Removed as per discussion on talk page." Where is that discussion? Is this it? The graphic illustrates the central point made by the article: Scientific opinion has reached a consensus, if not quite 100% unanimity, on this issue. The counterarguments for the image given here are pretty thin. Perhaps people should see WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and then suggest a better lead illustration for this article if this one can be improved. --Nigelj (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Not much of a discussion, but it's not much of a graphic. Why do we need a (mis)lead(ing) illustration at all? Since the range was 97-98% (except in the smaller samples), perhaps 1/40 rather than 3/100 would be more appropriate. Even then, the latest caption also mentions 90%. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Why was this image removed?

97–98% of the most published climate researchers think humans are causing global warming. Another study found just under 90% of active scientists think significant man made global warming is occurring. Of those who didn't, most were unsure.

97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Stopped this being a new section as it is exactly the same topic as the previous section. It was removed because it's not very good, emphasises one survey unnecessarily and doesn't add to the article. Dmcq (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Why not put the image next to the related survey(s) lower down in the article? It doesn't have to go in the lede. Just an idea. --Airborne84 (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Fine with me, as long as the image actually reflects that survey. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Never underestimate the communicative power of a good image. And this is a good image for this article. Consider: the central message of this article is the weight of scientific opinion pro and con AGW. It is not a matter that this image "emphasizes one survey unnecessarily" -- it's more that the key datum from this survey (supported by similar surveys) epitomizes the key issue: the "unsure" (skeptic??) scientists are clearly a small minority. To the extent that this (or a similar) image is a fair representation of the situation I think it should go in the lede. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

That's the thing though is it is not a good image. It looks rather silly. It's not the facts of the image anyone is disputing. It just makes the article look a little more like a blog pushing one point of view, true or not, than a NPOV article that is simply trying to convene the facts to an uninformed viewer base. We know the first thing someone looking at this article is going to do is look at the picture before reading the article. Therefore, before ever reading the facts, before ever getting a chance to look at the article and make an assessment of their own, the reader is getting this controversial image thrown in their face. Now you may not think the image is controversial, and the image may be stating the facts as thought by the scientific community, but just by this discussion alone, someone should be able to draw to the conclusion that this image is controversial and lowers the quality of the article itself, which is very well written and detailed.

--Andy0093 (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah! So your objection is that "the reader is getting this controversial image thrown in their face" before they can read all the confusing details and make up their own mind. And on your allegation that this image is controversial you removed it, the removal and subsequent discussion being your proof of controversy. My, my. Perhaps your real motivation is that the image really is not silly, and does do a good of summarizing a point of view that you do not fully agree with? On this basis, yes, I disagree with you, and, as suggested, am reverting your deletion. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Would a pie chart or graphic in a different form be more acceptable to those who object? Is the objection simply about the form of the picture? Or is it the content?

If we can come to an agreement about what a lede image should represent, then it might be easier to come to a consensus on what a reasonable and quality graphic representation of that should consist of. --Airborne84 (talk) 21:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec) A pie chart would be much more representative of the actual data than an "infographic", even if the caption [90%] disputes the chart. Perhaps even 3 pie charts; one for climate scientists (as defined by some objective standard), one for scientists, and one for the general public. The first two would be required for a genuine lede image, even though scientific consensus is not determined by counting noses. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It just about is okay I think beside the actual survey rather than in the lead. There is a problem there though in why has that one got itself displayed and the others not, and I certainly don't want them beside each and every figure. As to the lead I don't think putting in a result is right, it should say what the topic is about if anything, scientists discussing the climate. They did this much better in the past when they personalized things so they could have justice with a scales for instance. Dmcq (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on the image's inclusion, but as a point of curiosity I have to ask: what is it that makes a pie chart of the data "serious" but the one under consideration "silly"? Presumably both would convey the same information. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 10:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to be a dick. Don't be mad because the image that was uploaded is creating such controversy in the Wiki community. I'm sorry that YOU have an agenda when editing and could less about what makes a good article and promoting your POV. A pie chart would be better than a quite frankly stupid image of 100 little people. I'm sorry that you would rather have Wikipedia look like a blog than an encyclopedia, and to your accusation that I have an agenda. Yeah I do, it's to make Wikipedia great and not stupid looking. I believe in the scientists when it comes to global warming. Just because someone doesn't think the image is good doesn't make them a global warming denier. I'm sorry the fact that someone would disagree with the stupid image and still believe in Global Warming blows your ignorant narrow mind.

--Andy0093 (talk) 00:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

J.Johnson. Your comments show you have little respect for those who disagree with you. Instead of engaging in a discussion to reach a consensus and compromise you continuously name call and throw a temper tantrum. I really feel sorry for you. It is users like you who give Wikipedia a bad name. I am sorry you finding willingness to engage in a thoughtful discussion on this matter so difficult. Your "I'm right and everyone else is wrong attitude will only get you so far. --Andy0093 (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPA which is part of the fourth pillar of WP:5P. Dmcq (talk) 10:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not aware of having called you any names even once (let alone continuously), nor have you cited any specifics. (Please enlighten me if I have missed anything.) Indeed, the name calling and the temper tantrum seem to be entirely on your side. As to any diminuation of respect, well, temper tantrums will cause that. Also fallacious reasoning, such as arbitrarily removing an image on the basis of being controversial, and then claiming the subsequent discussion about its removal as proof of controversy. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Getting back to the original issue: the article is diminished by not having an image that conveys the essence of what the article is about. I have no objections to replacing the previous image with a better one, but could we leave it in until a better one is found? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I see it as being diminished by having a bad illustration. The article is not about a number from one investigation's results. That is not the topic. The topic is scientific opinion on climate change. Dmcq (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as how the image is about scientific consensus, and seeing as how I got shot down earlier this year for trying to put up cited material that criticized "consensus" and "scientific opinion," but later had the material removed on grounds of such cited criticisms not being germane to the article, I'll have to side with the people that say to keep it out. Only fair. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 05:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Fairness is not a policy of Wikipedia, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. The encyclopaedia is what matters. WP:CIVILITY helps in producing the encyclopaedia but fairness to people as a reason to include what they say is not part of that. Dmcq (talk) 08:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

This is more my idea of what the lead image if any should be like. Or perhaps a picture of some scientists talking with a section of the world with smokestacks and cars in the background and a thermometer besides it.. Dmcq (talk) 09:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that their should be a "picture" as a headline to the article whereas this is a graph. If we are going to keep this graph in the article, maybe put it a little farther down in pie chart form. I think Dmcq has made some quality points concerning the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy0093 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there some rule that lede images must be photographs? Is the "hockey stick" figure invalid because it is a graph? The heart of the matter is the visual -- even graphical -- display of information or concept or idea. As to the picture just above, it is (sorry, Dmcq) lame. Like, what does it communicate? It can be made out to be a series of spheres (but poorly, because of all the distraction on the right side), which one might surmise to have something to do with the globe, but what it has to do with scientific opinion is a mystery.

On the other hand, the original image, to which some of you have sucn an aversion, gets right down to a key issue of scientific opinion on climate change: it visually shows the WEIGHT of the consensus opinion versus the skeptical view in a simple, direct manner that is readily apprehended. It is not "silly" (whatever that is supposed to mean) at all. I challenge all of you to find a better image. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, the original image, although contradicted by the caption, just looks silly. A pie chart might be appropriate, but it should include "climate scientists", "scientists", and possibly the general public. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Whyever should it do that? The article is called 'Scientific opinion on climate change', and scientific opinion on a subject is defined by the scientists actively practicing in the area. That's why the 'contradiction' that someone snuck into the caption should also be removed - asking scientists who don't work in climate science what they think is not how you gauge scientific opinion on a matter. If this isn't clear, think about 'medical opinion' on a serious illness: do you ask (a) doctor(s) who specialise in the relevant area and who have examined you (b) doctors who work in a different area who have not looked at you or your records (c) nurses from a different ward or (d) people in the waiting room? --Nigelj (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That the picture I proposed was photographic was just accidental and I suggested another that could be a montage or drawing. The picture conveys that scientists have an opinion and wish to convey it to the public and the building on the right suggests the authority of the source. You seem to just think the article reduces to some figure but you forget about the authority behind it. There are tons of figures and graphs, the essence of this article is the authority of the scientists behind the figures. Dmcq (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not Public opinion on climate change or Media coverage of climate change. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That is an interesting interpretation. But that image does a poor job of conveying it. E.g., the building in the background is so understated that I thought it was incidental. It certainly did not suggest (to me) a source of authority. To the extent it does, the impression I get is that it is about to be hit by a series of oversize cannonballs. (Hmmm, would that tiny edifice possibly be titled "Heartland"? :-) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd be willing to compromise on this graph, maybe in pie chart form, being included a in the article if it was put a little farther down. It does convene the facts on scientific consensus, but it is not appropriate as the title picture.

--Andy0093 (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that your only basis for removing the original image is that it is "silly" (where "silly" is undefined), or WP:I just don't like it (which is not an acceptable basis of argument). With your mere three months or so of Wikipedia experience I can understand that you don't understand these things, but I do not accept your lack of understanding as a valid basis for diminishing this article. Nor have you shown any experience or particular basis for judging what is appropriate for a title picture. Given your strong (but largley unsupported) feelings on this and your self-identification (e.g., libertarian, and fiscal conservative) , it seems quite plausible that your POV is not neutral, but rather colored. For all of this, I disagree with you. I say that, for the reasons I have previously cited, this image is very appropriate for the lede; its removal diminishes the article. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I have also given my reason's for not wanting it in the lead. And please do not refer to the length people have been on Wikipedia. And I'm not the only other person to complain about it. WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to include it in the lead. Dmcq (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Please note that I do not say the image should stay because "I like it" (which, I agree, would be an invalid reason). Rather, I have explained (here and here) why I think this image is appropriate. (Just as you have also stated the basis of your view.) What I controvert here is Andy's basis for removing the image ("silly"), and his unsupported opinion that it is "not appropriate". - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:LEDE, the lede should be a summary of the article. A lead image ideally will contribute to that end.

Since there seems to be objections to the "figure" graphic, but some consensus for a pie chart, perhaps we can just go with the latter? If we can agree on that, we have only one more step: to agree on what information the graphic will represent. --Airborne84 (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

First JJ- Maybe you should call a whambulance. Second - Sorry everyone thinks your picture sucks, being picked last for kickball sucks doesn't it. Third - If you look at my edits list, my first edit was actually in March 2007, which means I've actually been on Wikipedia about a year longer than you, which is completely irrelevant to the graph being stupid looking and silly, but it's okay I understand you may have missed it, with your limited editing experience and all. Forth - Cherry picking information from my user page to cast me as a right winger is funny. Do you really think the people in this convo are that stupid. Fifth - Again, you don't need to be a dick.

If your going to cherry pick information from my userpage. At least mention I am a lover of cats. Best,

--Andy0093 (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

And I, too, love cats, but that hardly seems relevant here. Whereas I have noticed so-called "climate skepticism" does seem to correlate strongly with self-description as libertarian. Which would not matter one whit if you would share with us why you think -- as distinct from merely feeling -- the image is "stupid looking and silly".

As to editing experience: Sure, your first edit was in 2007. As well as your second through eighth edits. Then nothing for the rest of 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010; nothing till June of this year. Which I mention because as a newbie you might be excused for a few initial missteps, and for unwareness of basic Wikipedia principles and etiquette. But if you want to come across as a veteran editor, then we shouldn't have to remind you of such basic concepts as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:TPG (e.g., indentation!), and the GW general sanctions. And there is certainly no excuse for this name calling and personal attacks you have repeatedly engaged in, and the disruption of this discussion. Please cease and desist. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

About replacing this pic with a pie chart, that is being discussed on [this other article's talk page] and I have made my comments in that thread. In sum, I am opposed to making a decision either way until a proposed pie chart with title and caption is available for our talk page discussion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

J end your condescending tone and I will stop my "personal attacks." I'm again sorry the community doesn't like your picture as mentioned, I am not the only one voicing concern. Its not my fault you are just kinda a dick. Again, you cherry picked data in my profile to give off right wing views and again, do you really think everyone here is that stupid? The picture is silly looking.

--Andy0093 (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

HEY! I'm the guy to blame! Why is JJ getting all the derogatory remarks about it being "his" picture? I posted the original, so I should get those particular insults! JJ, please forward what was erroneously addressed to you to my karma account.

PS In case my point was lost in my attempt at humor, my point is: KEEP IT WP:CIVIL. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Not your fault. He's acting out because I exposed his circular reasoning. I wonder how he would respond if I called him "a dick". But that would be lowering my self to his level, right? So I could graciously ignore it -- whoops, another definition of "condescend" is to be "gracious and affable to inferiors"! Guess I'm stuck, one way or the other. :-o J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Oops.. posting anything about it is not ignoring it.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Like I said. Your attempts to validate the picture have failed, so now you are trying to convene me as having an agenda by cherry picking views off my user boxes. I said I would be willing to compromise with the information relied in the picture being levied in the article, possible in pie chart form. It does not belong as the header. It is a "stat"not a article headline.

--Andy0093 (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

--Andy0093 (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Why should I even discuss this with someone whose main mode of argumentation is to call me "a dick"? If you want to participate with adults you need to act like an adult. For starters I direct you to WP:CIVIL. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I accused you of being a dick because your acting like kinda a dick. Comments above could be described as condescending. If you don't want to engage in an adult conversation on the image in question that is fine. I am sorry if I have offended you, but I don't like being accused of having an agenda (which I don't), nor do I like being talked down to. I have portrayed myself as willing to compromise on said image. I also wasn't directing my comments above at you but at the community discussing the imagine, which includes more than just you.

--Andy0093 (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

If you don't want to be talked down to (such as the explict suggestions to read about basic WP practices and principles?), you really need to raise the level of your discourse. And if you are truly sorry about anything you have said, then standard practice here is to go back and strike-out the offending passages, as has been demonstrated on your talk page. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I think one apology is sufficient. I'm not in the mood for a lecture. I still think you are a dick and again, I'm sorry if it offends you. Deal with it. Instead of continuously crying about it do everyone a favor and get over it.

--Andy0093 (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see even one apology (for the name calling, the accusation of name calling, various offensive remarks). And certainly no change in behavior, as you are still calling me names. Your obduracy is demonstrated; any further comment will be on your talk page. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

As far as the real issue' goes,

(A) There's no debate about the data but only the presentation of the date, (B) as for WHERE the data is presented in this article, the pic has already been moved out of the lead to the survey section, (C) So the ONLY remaining issue is what the picture should look like. Answer: what is best for wiki? Anyone's adamant opinion notwithstanding, this is an encylopedia in the business of effective communication of whatever information merits inclusion. The question should not be which form (pie chart or little people) anyone happens to like on a personal level, the issue should be "which one enables wiki to communicate qualified information the best?". I'll happily look at a proposed pie chart with title and caption when someone offers one, and only THEN will I make up my mind, and I'll make up my mind by asking a bunch of people which one communicates the best to THEM. ______Our_______ opinions should not be what we are concerned about.... if the info qualifies for coverage, from that point on the ONLY issue is how to best inform readers. All other concerns are either POV or mere opinion as to style. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, there could be a debate about the information the lede graphic displays. For example, if it depicts only the results of one study, it might be contentious. If that study is representative of "scientific opinion" in general, it might be acceptable. Whether it is representative might be subjective though.

Do you have a proposal for what information the graphic should represent? --Airborne84 (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't imagine the "infographic" being informative to anyone, except possibly in referencing the real 77 of 79 source. However, what should be represented here is the opinion of scientists, not of climate change scientists, however defined. What else could "scientific opinion" be? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I apparently don't have the necessary software to generate unlabeled pie charts, which is what would be needed here. My concept for this article (not necessarily for the "List of scientists..." article) would be to have two pie charts, one reflected the 97/98 of 100 with Blue yes, yellow "maybe", red "no", and one reflecting the 90/100 survey, with respective pie captions "climate scientists" and "all scientists", and a Blue (or Green) / Yellow / Red at the side. The existing picture caption referring to the two surveys, with two different references, seems adequate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The issue is more nuanced than suggested. E.g., Dmcq's perspective is (?) more on the source or basis of scientific authority, whereas my focus is on overwhelming strength of the consensus opinion relative to the skeptical views. I think the latter is more important in the current context, but the former is also valid; and in either case the appropriateness of the message should not be confused with any lack in presentation (i.e,. in the image itself).

There is also a distinct sub-issue in whether the original image was so terribly bad that the article is better without any image. I strongly contest that. And while I am open to any better image (even a different message), I still say that the original image should remain until a better one is found. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm with JJ on keeping the image until a better one is found. As to what it should show, this is a repeat of a thoroughly hashed conversation at Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming (all threads). In particular we battled over ALL scientists vs CLIMATE scientists. My main argument was this: If there is a reason to draw a line of demarcation between cake decorator opinion and scientific opinion, simple extension of that logic is to draw a line of demarcation between CLIMATE scientists' opinion and that of virologists and the like. Note that one of the scientists queried by Doran replied (this is in the appendix to the masters thesis underlying the Doran study) that althtough they were a scientist, they were in a different field and therefore NOT QUALIFIED to express an opinion about the climate system. As an expression of expert opinion, I personally don't place any more value on the opinion of a pulsar-studying astrophysicist, working 80 hrs to teach, research, get grants, etc, any more than those of my plumber. Similarly, I asked my professor/researcher wife (fyi, she's not a climate researcher) about this, and she said when she sends in a manuscript or grant app, she expects it to be reviewed by colleagues in her field who know the nuance and can judge her work accurately. Further, the studies we debated in the other thread all show that as comprehension of the climate system goes up, so does certainty in AGW. So no, I do not agree it should be ALL scientists. Does anyone really think a political scientist has any business expressing expert opinion as to the mechanics of global warming? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm with not having an image until a reasonable one is found. Plus if one does want to push an agenda that sort of thing will simply turn off people reading the article, it becomes a shibboleth to pass and will polarize rather than an invite to explore the topic. My feeling is this should be an encyclopaedia not a forum to fight over agendas. As to scientists I'm afraid we really do have to take note of geologists for instance even though they are the most likely to start saying stupid things about it despite the ample evidence they have in their own field. Then again I'm nonplussed by those geologists who support the flood in the Bible despite all their training. Dmcq (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I already said in response to the last time Authur brought this up (7 Sept, just above) (he didn't respond last time, and maybe he or someone else will now): "... think about 'medical opinion' on a serious illness: do you ask (a) doctor(s) who specialise in the relevant area and who have examined you (b) doctors who work in a different area who have not looked at you or your records (c) nurses from a different ward or (d) people in the waiting room?" Of course this article should be illustrated with the clearest graphic we have showing the strength of scientific opinion on this issue. And no, that doesn't mean the opinions of everyone who ever did a bit of 'science' at some point in their lives. --Nigelj (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

In response to Dmcq here, the graphic based on Anderegg does take account of everybody, including geologists, provided they have published well-cited papers on climate change in the peer reviewed press. What it doesn't, obviously, show is any of those whose opinions and ideas they have not bothered, or have not been able, to publish under peer review, and the opinions of those that have published but whose publications have been largely ignored or debunked by the majority of other scientists publishing in the field. I.e. it shows the opinions of those with a good publication record in this field, whatever field they trained or worked or currently work in. Which is exactly what we want here, which is why the Anderegg paper itself is now a well-cited paper after publication under peer review. --Nigelj (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

My argument (that all scientists' opinions should be covered in the graphic) wasn't countered last time; why should I need to reply this time. I would suggest 3 pies, actually; those who consider themselves climate scientists and are active in the field, those who have published in the field (current chart, perhaps?), and all scientists. Differences between those would also be interesting in determining answering the question: "what is the opinion of scientists about global warming?" (not "climate change", as this article is currently titled.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You want not to reply to questions, and rename the article? --Nigelj (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, none of the survey questions is about climate change, or even anthropogenic climate change; they're all about global warming. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Potatoh, Potahto... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Refusal to get the point Art? Global warming results in the current climate change. Global warming is the result of the greenhouse effect, which continues to be anthropogenically enhanced by humans increasing greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere. 141.218.36.44 (talk) 23:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Well I could bring up Hitler at this point or could we just continue discussing the topic instead of each other thanks. Dmcq (talk) 23:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It would be best if the article explained why the surveys are relevant, as they don't usually ask questions which are discussed in this article. Having looked through the different questions in the different surveys, it would be misleading to have charts for more than one. (I'm withdrawing my two-three pie chart assertion; unless it's the same survey, with different populations, the results are not comparable.) I still think a single pie chart would be better than the infographic, but we still need to decide which survey. That one is in the "most active climate scientists", which, as the criticism notes, self-selects for the prevailing view among funding organizations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

We don't want the most striking graphic, we want the most accurate or representative graphic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Basically my point but in a different way. You don't just baldly give a figure out without explaining what it is about. I would like a graphic that explained what the figures given in the article are about, in fact what the article is about. And since the article includes statements by organizations as well as surveys a pie chart doesn't include them. That's why I'd like something that illustrates scientists making a decision about the climate science orof scientists advising on what they think will happen. Dmcq (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

As Ian and I have said 2-3 times now, there is a l-o-n-g debate about all this and the identical image, including title and caption, at Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Anderegg had their methodology. Doran used another. Both arrived at virtually the same number for climate scientists, (95% and 97% or maybe vice versa) and though I don't know this for certain I suspect when you use the likely range based on margin of error, there is a healthy overlap. Different methodologies getting the same number leaves me without methodology qualms. The other thing to note is this Yale-Georgetown study, showing that a very small % of American's know the fact that over 90% of climate scientists agree with AGW. From where I sit, we have two good studies showing essentially the same number, its supported by verifiable citations and therefore qualified for inclusion in wiki, and we have a public who is ignorant of this absolutely vital fact. Two studies - verifiable wiki citations - important issue US public is confused about - er go, this merits coverage, in the most effective means possible. Suppose we stop all this endless endless endless talk until someone actually produces a substitute image to discuss? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Us repeating ourselves does as you say lead to a long discussion. I don't have the same objections to the graphic at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming even though I can see the graphic is on a different topic. However I do object here. I would also object at Climate change denial and at Climate change alarmism and at Global warming controversy and at the various articles of the different scientists and at politics of global warming and at Merchants of Doubt and a host of others. One might as well just illustrate cities with a circle for their size, which maps do but one would want more at the top of an article about them. Dmcq (talk) 07:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

This Merchants of Doubt? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

This Climate change denial? 99.35.13.81 (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)