Talk:Scientific consensus on climate change/Archive 15

Proposal of name change

This article would be better titled "Scientific findings on climate change". Opinion is subjective and therefore by definition unscientific. Scientists make findings, lawyers and blokes down the pub give opinions.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 09:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose It isn't about the scientific findings. The article Global warming is about that. It is actually about the scientific opinion about global warming, whether it is happening or not and whether people are causing it. That's quite a notable subject because a lot of people say that scientists are very divided on the question. Various scientific bodies have given their considered opinion on the subject and surveys have been done of scientists in the field. Did you look at the opinion article? It has a small section about scientific opinion. Dmcq (talk) 11:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose For the same reasons as Dmcq comes with. Scientific opinion is an important aspect of science. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support We usually talk about scientists presenting their "findings" at conferences, not their "opinions". The wiki link the opponents cite lacks citations, and what is described in that article as "opinion" is actually the definition of what scientists present at conferences - "findings".NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  Lots of stuff at Global warming could be presented at a conference, but what in this article could be presented at a conference? The closest would be the survey results but then you'd be presenting the results of the surveys of scientists opinions rather than a finding about global warming. Dmcq (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  You aren't seeing these statements as conference material because you're looking at it in a 2011 context, when the forest is widely known and conference material tends to be about the individual trees. Turn the clock back far enough and these statements about the overall forest would be new and timely material to many people.NewsAndEventsGuy 14:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  Question. I know that the word "opinion" is probably most often heard in the phrase "that's just your opinion," where an "opinion" is degraded as something baseless and whimsical, but the distinction here really is more like a legal opinion, which is based on the facts in evidence. Isn't the difference between "findings" and "opinion" the difference between "data" and "interpretation"? So this would be a question of whether the article simply presents "findings" in a fairly discrete manner (as an assemblage of information about studies of CO₂ levels and such), or whether it seeks to present what various scientific bodies state in overview as a result of the findings of individual scientists. It seems to me that the article does the latter. Is this the correct impression? Cynwolfe (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  Yes I think the analogy is a good one. Scientific opinion can even be opposed to the latest and best results unfortunately and it may take some years for this to be rectified as in the theory of plate tectonics. Dmcq (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  The analogy fails for many of these statements because when you have a trial and then the court enters its "opinion", the first part of the the opinion is usually a section where the court lays out its "Findings of Fact". This is common legal knowledge, for example [here is New York's rule of civil procedure on point. Later sections in judicial opinions apply the law to those facts, make conclusions, and decide what to do about matters. At least some of these statements (most?) are more analogous to the court's "findings of fact". Where these bodies also make policy recommendations, that would be more like the later sections of a court opinion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  It does fail, as most analogies do, when pushed ad absurdum. The point was simply that "opinion" can have a respectable meaning as founded on evidence; the proposer of the move had mentioned both juridical opinion and barstool opinions, which need to be distinguished. I don't work on science articles, so I was leaving an, ahem, opinion as a totally lay person as to how a user might respond to these words. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  Another analogy could be 'medical opinion', which you might seek if you had a mysterious illness. You might even seek a 'second opinion' in that case. I don't think we'd seek 'scientific opinion' on Newton's Laws (maybe scientific education), but we may on some strange illness (of the body or the planet <- stretching my own analogy, so you don't have to!). --Nigelj (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per editors Dmcq & KDP. --Pete Tillman (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article isn't about findings, it's about the opinions of various scientific bodies as based on findings. "Opinion" in this sense is like a legal opinion, not the guy on a barstool. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

see my reply about legal opinions above

• Oppose. This is the right word, although there may be people trying to pervert the normal meaning, perhaps for rhetorical purposes. --Nigelj (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, for all the various reasons cited. In addition, it should be noted that the statement "Opinion is subjective and therefore by definition unscientific" is quite wrong, being based on a very naive view that "science" consists of "facts" that are provably true or false. In fact science is based on evidence, often ambiguous or even conflicting (as we have seen), which takes a fair amount of analysis and interpretation to properly weigh (just like in WP:WEIGHT) to form any useful or "true" conclusion. Here "opinion" is the overall assessment of whether the purported results are likely true. Done scientifically it is properly scientific opinion. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. "Opinion" implies that the subject lies purely within the realm of human thought. The sun rising in the morning is not an "opinion" from observers watching the phenomena, but a mathematically measurable fact that exists despite whatever "opinion" the observers have. The same is true for scientific conclusions. It does not fall into the same category as legal opinions or public opinions, and to assume it does indicates an underlying misunderstanding of science, as well as a lack of Scientific literacy. Scientific conclusions are based on mathematics, and not opinion (see Analysis of variance). Despite whatever opinions are held by individuals performing scientific tests, if the math indicates a positive conclusion, and that same positive conclusion is reached by others performing the same scientific test, then the conclusion is confirmed. Opinion has nothing to do with modern, discrete scientific conclusions based on mathematics. Sure, there may be opinions occurring in the process of obtaining scientific results (such as designing an experiment), but by the time a conclusion is formed and a consensus is reached, opinion is weeded out. And THAT'S my point: It is the purpose of science to winnow out opinion through the process of logical elimination via testing. By labeling this article as "scientific opinion", implies that science has not reached a conclusion, and that would be false (and I will not be drawn into a discussion of how others re-frame the "debate" of climate change through manufactured doubt). Naming this article "Scientific opinion on climate change" is a euphemism intended to water down science that has already been established. NO WHERE in Wikipedia do you find ANY OTHER ARTICLE about scientific findings that possess the title "Scientific opinion". There is no separate page about the "Scientific opinion on the Sun" or the "Scientific opinion on weather". Even with hot-button issues such as evolution, there is no page entitled "Scientific opinion on evolution". So why, then, does climate change deserve it's own "Scientific opinion" page? It is wrong, it is misleading, and it does not serve to better inform the users of Wikipedia. --Doc cromwell (talk) 03:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

A short answer to your question is because no where else (?) is there a well-funded, concerted, and effective campaign denying "the sun", wherefore scientific opinion needs to be distinguished from popular or political opinion. More generally, your understanding of "scientific opinion" is wrong, but as 1) WP is not a forum for discussing your personal opinions, and 2) you haven't bothered to inform yourself about prior discussions of this point in the archives, there really is no sense in debating this with you. More conclusively: the consensus here was against renaming the article, your opinion not withstanding. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Committee of Geological Sciences of the Polish Academy of Sciences

Attitude of the Committee of Geological Sciences of the Polish Academy of Sciences to the question of impending global warming, February 12, 2009

This is a committee of a national academy of sciences with national standing. The points being quoted are clearly at odd with the IPCC positions and so this is a dissenting opinion. Item 7 states that currently observed phenomena are due to natural causes. Item 8 states that attributing current warming to man has not been proven.

This information should be accounted for in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.135.45.17 (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

If one juror votes "guilty" and the other eleven vote "not guilty the answer is NOT GUILTY. At the (USA) National Academy of Science the sub-group working on the most recent "America's Climate Choices" published their sub-group's report saying that humans are causing global warming. However, the entire body of which the sub group was a part said something different (that's its >90% certain humans are doing it) thus mirroring IPCC. On that basis I changed the first two sentences of Global warming. The WHOLE group said something different than the sub-part. The same is true for the Polish Science Academy. Their entire body says something different (they agree with IPCC) than the sub-group you are pushing (which does not). Thank goodness USA states with capital punishment don't execute people when there is a minimum ratio of just 1-Guilty to 11-NotGuilty. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The application of capital punishment in the U.S. is not exactly a shining example of a fair, just, and inerrant system. Unless, perhaps, you were employing irony. Also, I'm not clear on the relevance of legal standards of criminal guilt to a scientific question. One could just as easily point to standard voting thresholds, which require a simple or two-thirds majority in most cases... but what point are you trying to make? MastCell ^Talk 17:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Read my edit summary again (access it [here]) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

PS well well well, I might have known. [Polish geologists wouldn't benefit from fracking Polish shale gas, would they?]NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The Committee of Geological Sciences of the Polish Academy of Sciences is organization of national standing. Yes? Why not include their position to? Both can be included. Current statement that no organization of national standing dissents is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.135.45.17 (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it is a subcommittee. The related organization of national standing is the body of the whole, i.e., the Polish Academy of Science. What does the ENTIRE academy have to say about global warming? (Last cite I know of is when they endorsed position of the IPCC) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Where it says that committees are not organizations? Committee of Geological Sciences represents the whole country for Geological Sciences. No other committee covers that. Other committees do not speak for them. What is the reason to leave them out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.135.45.17 (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

That would be WP:Weight and WP:relevance, since the entire Polish Academy of Science (apparently) rejects their position. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

What is weight? Article says organizations of national standing. This is committee that represents whole nation for Geological Sciences. Their opinions have same weight as other Geology organizations already in article. So it has weight like all others. What do you want in the article? Whole truth or only selected truth? --98.135.45.17 (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Except climate science is not limited to geology and the other scientists in the academy have, on behalf of the entire academy, adopted a different position. (I suppose those other scientists are not being hired as consultants by Exxon and the other shale gas companies trying to exploit the recent polish discovery of shale gas.) Its time to stop repeating your argument, they were a sub part and their opinion was rejected by the national academy as a whole, so deal with it.

However, you did make an oblique reference to other geo groups mentioned in the article. I don't know what that means. Certainly, if any of them meet the same criteria as the polish crowd, it is quite possible I'd agree the article needs tweaking for those groups. In case you missed it in my prior comments, those criteria are (1) the geological group is a subpart of a larger body, and (2) the geological subpart has a different position than that of the larger body. If you supply verifiable citations demonstrating that those criteria are met for any other group in this article, we should take a careful look to see if the article needs tweaking for that group. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

PS.... in reply to "what is weight?" did you click on the WP:Weight and WP:relevance links? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

What is weight means what is the standard set for inclusion in the article? Article says organizations of national standing. Committee of Geological Sciences is committee of national standing. You did not answer my questions. What do you want in the article? Whole truth or only selected truth? --98.135.45.17 (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll settle for WP:NPOV truth according to whatever the verifiable sources say, provided they pass wiki guideline muster, regardless whether my personal biases agrees or disagrees with the content. In this case our verifiable sources say that the Polish National Academy of Science endorses the findings of IPCC, and THEREFORE the dissenting opinion of their internal geology committee fails the wiki guidelines for WP:weight and WP:relevance, and that's the whole WP:NPOV truth. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The weight page says that significant minority views should be included. You are excluding them. Committee of Geological Sciences is a significant committee of a national organization. Yes? --98.135.45.17 (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I call bullshit. This specific point has been hashed out before (at Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change/Archive_7#Polish geologists, Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change/Archive_9#Dissenting opinion, and Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change/Archive_12#Polish Academy of Sciences). This has been just one time-wasitng bad blog session. WP:NOTBLOG. Everyone seems to be just milling around, so let's just give this up and close it off. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I did not know about the archives. At end of the second one there is a comment that says "This discussion seems like a fabulous waste of time by people who should have spent more time trying to find a dissenting opinion by a scientific body rather than arguing about the validity of the reference supporting the statement in the article. My non-scientific opinion? There's a reference listed. The burden of proof is on you now. Prove it wrong.Airborne84(talk) 05:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)"

It seems without knowing it I am trying to prove there are dissenting opinions. Does anyone dispute that this is a real opinion from a real committee? No. Does anyone dispute that it contradicts the statements of IPCC? No. If no then why this is not proof that dissenting opinion exists? Is Committee of Geological Sciences not a scientific body? If the reason to leave this out is to not let people know dissent exists then just say that and I will stop arguing. I don't think it is a waste of time to let people know the truth. --98.135.45.17 (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm "By embracing the findings of the IPCC, the Polish Academy of Science rejects the views of that branch of the academy that most stands to personally profit from shale gas development especially if there is no international cap and trade program designed to limit the emissions of greenhouse gas from fossil fuel combustion". I suppose we could tell people that truth. (That was a joke to illustrate my argument) Unless you can show us a verifiable citation that unambiguously demonstrates that the geological committee has authority to utter its own final statements of scientific findings, not subject to review and approval from the entire academy, please cease and desist. If you can show us they have that power, with an unambiguous citation, I may have to cave in. Blogger NAEG signing off until there's something new instead of repetition. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course they can issue their own statements. They have done so. I have provided the link to it. If they could not then the statement will be removed from the official website. It seems that the whole truth has no place here. Only selected truth. --98.135.45.17 (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

A comittee is not an entity/organization in itself, national or otherwise. And the comittee we're talking about is 1 out of 94 comittee's in PAN (polish academy of sciences). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe my english is not so good. I looked up the word organization at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/organization. Why a committee does not meet definition 4 or 5a. If these are not the proper definition for here then maybe this page should explain why. --98.135.45.17 (talk) 02:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Look at it this way.... is your hand a human body? Is the kindergarten class a school? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The IPCC isn't an "entity/organization in itself" since it is a subsection of the UN - and it is featured very prominently in the article. The argument that it is "only 1 committee out of 94" seems to be an invented criteria aimed at exclusion, which is quite surprising since this article quotes many organizations that have absolutely nothing to do with climate science like all the medical organizations.

But IPCC was created by the larger body to do this work, and given the authority to publish its reports. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

So I looked up this 94 committee thing at this website ( http://www.english.pan.pl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=72:scientific-committees-of-the-polish-academy-of-sciences&catid=31:main&Itemid=47 ) and it looks like the geological committee is one of the most suited, if not the most suited, to be commenting on the subject.

It is true that the committees on Physical Education, Metallurgy, Robotics, Acoustics, Art and Cultural Studies, among many more, did not comment on climate change, but that is as irrelevant as the "numbers" argument brought forward for exclusionism.

If a person talks about numbers without explaining what the numbers mean in real world terms then that is a dishonest argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.230.251 (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

98.135.45.17, your argument is not without merit, but there are obviously dissenters. When we reach impasses like this on Wikipedia (which has happened many times on this article), a consensus of the editors is what decides what is and isn't included. If you don't agree with the consensus, there are recourses—including requesting outside editors weigh in with an RfC, as well as checking back in at a later date because consensus can change. If you need help with that, ask me at my talk page or ask an administrator.

I will say that you've done more than many objectors to this article—you've done some research to try to bring new sources to bear instead of simply objecting. Those efforts will only make Wikipedia better. --Airborne84 (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. It seems that there are to many here that want to hide facts they do not like. I do not understand why they do this but I cannot change their mind. --98.135.45.17 (talk) 02:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You mean the committees for geophysics, maritime, chemistry, and math committees aren't qualified to have opinion, or that the shale gas discovery didn'give them a a motive to distance themselves from the position of the entire academy, or that the geo guys are themselves qualified to know everything there is to know about atmospheric chemistry, contemporary biological and oceanic responses to climate, and mathematical modelling (so who needs those other guys)? Barring an explicit instruction or authorization to declare what the science is on the complex multi-disciplinary subject of climate change (like the IPCC's marching orders), the geo commitee paper expresses the thoughts of a subunit of the organization of national standing, and their paper is their contribution to the conversation "internal" to that organization. No doubt if they can sway the geophysics, maritime, chemistry, and math committees to their view the entire academy will probably take back their endorsement of the IPCC's findings. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

We have to work by what's before us rather than doing our own original research about motives and going on them affecting scientists decisions. The other important thing about the statement is that it is not a dissenting statement. A dissenting statement would say they thought the assessment was wrong or that something else was responsible rather than saying forty years study wasn't enough and they thought more study was needed. The problem with it is that it is very woolly and ill defined what the statements are about. For instance when a geologist talks about a short timescale it can mean anything from a thousand to a million years. What they say in the statement is all quite true in a way but their statements about the future are all so badly phrased one can't really make out what they were thinking or even if there is any coherent thought there at all. Yes they do say there has been warming in the past and that may be causing it now but it is very vague. The ending about more research being needed is clear enough though. Dmcq (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The opposition is due to a faith that there is a bias from shale gas discoveries? The suggestion that their opinion isn't allowed until the math, maritime, chemistry and geophysics committees opine does not make sense.

For one, none of the wikipedia articles in those disciplines mentions climate change, multiple times, in their lead, but geology does. Another point is that the vast majority of the committees have nothing to do with climate change at all which is proven by your own counterexamples which are very weak.

Your view that the geology committee should sway those other committees, like the math committee, is another invented criteria; likewise ridiculous is the belief that persuading a few of them will alter the statement of their entire organization, which the provided link shows consists of sub-organizations that are unqualified for making such determinations.

Their statement was quite clear and I will summarize some of their main points:

1. The sun is the main drive of climate
2. The current warm period is temporary and part of a natural cycle
3. We are at the peak of a natural warming cycle
4. The climate is always changing
5. Water vapor is the predominant greenhouse gas
6. The earth has gone through many phases, without mankind's influence, of much higher greenhouse gas levels
7. Exclusive or predominant anthropogenic warming has not been demonstrated
8. And I'll partially quote their final point, "Research experience in the Earth sciences suggests that simple explanation of natural phenomena, based on partial observations only and without consideration of numerous factors important for individual processes in a geosystem, leads generally to unreasonable simplification and misleading conclusions. Such opinions, embellished with political correctness, could be presumably inspired by lobbying circles that are interested in selling the particularly expensive so-called ecological energetic techniques..."

It is clear that they believe the case for anthropogenic global warming is overstated. I believe you know this as well due to your vociferous opposition against including their true opinion, which is interesting since if the science is so strong then it could withstand differing opinions rather than both suppressing them and persuading others to suppress them on their behalf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.230.251 (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The only two advocates of the geo committee's statement are resorting to personal attacks, so I guess this whole exercise is a forum to put in text that we are somehow suppressing truth. But its really about WP:weight and WP:relevance.

The geo committee is a subunit of an organization of national standing, not such a thing themselves. If you read this thread in order from top to bottom, you will find this was the basis for my opposition BEFORE I learned that the full academy spoke in 2007, shale gas (a fossil fuel) was discovered in late 2008, and the committee spoke in April 2009. Although that timing is a fact it is not the basis of my opposition. What do geologists know about complex mathematical modelling? What do they know about atmospheric chemistry? Are paleontologists the best folks to think about how carbon uptake will be effected by agricultural crops? On its face, the position paper is that of a subunit of the larger body, and is therefore part of the larger bodies internal chatter. My opposition to including any part of their statement was, is, and continues to be a belief that internal chatter of an organization of national standing by a subunit within that organization fails [[WP:Weight] and WP:Relevance. I reserve any arguments I might later make regarding the content of the document.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You complain about personal attacks and then you say this "IPs appear to be socking to get around 1RR"? I have dynamic IP. It changes every day. I have no control over it. My edit was made only after more than 24 hours. I think you owe me apology. I only made the edit to try a compromise. It no longer says dissenting. It makes clear the statement is from committee of larger body. It makes clear the larger body has not issued a new statement. This is all true. Yes? Weight says that minority opinions should be included. Why not show true state of opinions? --98.135.59.138 (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Since you just admitted you gamed the system by edit warring just outside the 1RR window I don't plan to apologize. Instead if you feel this discussion has reached a consensus and you feel you are skilled enough to represent that consensus with a WP:NPOV then please post proposed text here for confirmation before going live on the article page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Now you say "gamed the system by edit warring just outside the 1RR window"? I followed the rule. Yes? How is following the rule "gamed the system"? I think you only make your attack worse. Where I have attacked you? And where I have edit warred? My edit was compromise not revert. Article was protected after you revert my compromise. So who is edit warring? --98.135.59.138 (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Instead of changing the subject, suppose we stick to the pro/con arguments whether a national organization's internal chatter by a subunit of that organization passes WP:Weight and WP:Relevance? Meanwhile, if you wish to complain about my characterization of your 26hr pause under a 24hr 1RR rule, then please don't do that here but instead use some method from WP:DISPUTE. But you may wish to read WP:WAR first.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I propose compromise here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&diff=450847318&oldid=450665305. What do other people think of compromise? Is it OK? --98.135.59.138 (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Negative. If you want to "follow a rule", take a closer look at WP:Neutral point of view -- and specifically the section on "Due and undue weight" (where WP:WEIGHT links to) -- because you have that wrong. "Weight" does not say that "minority opinions should be included". It means that minority views should be represented in proportion to their prominence (= "weight"). Which this committee does not have. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

My compromise was 631 bytes. Whole article was 110,084 bytes. So compromise was 0.57% of total. Why you think 0.57% is too much? --98.135.59.138 (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Also no. The purpose of the article is not to collect soundbites from national organizations' internal chatter as they formulate their position statements. That would crash wiki's servers. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Committee statement came after the full Academy statement by about 2 years. Why you claim it is "internal chatter as they formulate their position statements"? Committee statement came later. --98.135.59.138 (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

These arguments might have merit if this article didn't go out of its way to include "concurring" statements by a plethora of ridiculous organizations that have absolutely nothing to do with global warming or global warming research.

Currently the arguments are without merit and already covered in my lengthy rebuttal. Personally I'm not willing to go on a back and forth crusade when you've provided no compelling and unrebutted arguments and are simply relying on invented criteria as a way of justifying that you do not like their opinion.

If you are unwilling to be reasonable then it looks like you will in the future add this conversation to the list of manufactured consensus when it was actually a demonstration of obstinance and anti-intellectualism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.230.251 (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

If there are arguments to take out some organization from this list, please start a new subsection to discuss the pro/con arguments. Vague handwaving about other ones is not an argument in favor of this one. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not vague handwaving. It is a demonstration, apparently of some internal culture here, that Australian Medical Associations belong in an article about the scientific opinion on climate change, but not a group of scientists devoted to the study of the earth and its past climate. 71.220.230.251 (talk)

I disagree with NewsAndEventsGuy. Looking at the criteria for inclusion of other organization provides way to judge inclusion of this one. Is the weight of Australian Medical Association more than the weight of Committee of Geological Sciences for Polish Academy of Sciences? No. Clearly Academy of Sciences organization and its committees are more respected overall for physical sciences. So what is the real reason to exclude Committee? You have provided no reason why Committee has not enough weight. You only claim this with no proof. Being only a committee is not sufficient reason to say they have less weight than medical association or other geology associations already in this page. --98.135.59.138 (talk) 01:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

None of what they say is too far off the mark, so which of their statements of the eight above do you actually think is a dissenting statement rather than a non-committal one? Dmcq (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

This shows up my main problem with what they have written. It is written very loosely in some ways and yet carefully so they can cover themselves by just saying half truths. Yes for example the sun is the main driver of climate, but so what? Same with climate changing in geological times, it is useful input to studying the problem but they stick it here as something important in the context. Yes water vapour is the main greenhouse gas - but it is almost certainly acts as an amplifier for warming from anything else, e.g. carbon dioxide etc. Yes anthropogenic climate change has not been scientifically demonstrated to the standards in particle physics for instance and we'll have to wait for the main test. Yes the simplest explanation is usually the best. But then they put in a snide remark implying they think climate change scientists are getting carried away by their theories because of money from industry. That one bit does sort of chime with a very common thing I have seen. For instance one terrorist organization says another sells drugs and doesn't mention extortion and bank robberies, whereas that organization itself sells drugs and the other one goes in for extortion and bank robberies and doesn't do drugs. I don't know why it happens quite so often but when people say something bad about others it seems to very often be something about themselves rather than the others. In this case they don't actually sayy it is happening, as I said it is all deniable, but it seems very wrong to me. Dmcq (talk) 22:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You look at the entirety of their statement and their reading is clear. Point number seven, which you dispute by saying that it doesn't mean the scientific criteria for particle physics is quite clearly more mental gymnastics on your part.

They said nothing about scientific criteria from the point of view of particle physics. If we are to assume anything then we can safely assume they were speaking from the point of view of their own field of geology and not particle physics.

Their conclusion also made it quite clear that the simplistic conclusions of the manmade global warming theory may very well be influenced by political correctness.

It amazes me that the size of this article is so huge if every section requires such intense discussion, dissection and interpretation of proposed passages, but I think we all know that not every proposed change has to meet the same criteria.

Australian doctors, my lord...71.220.230.251 (talk)

"Some organizations" was vague. Asking whether the opinion of the Australian Medical Associations meets WP:Weight and WP:Relevance is not. If you wish to do the latter, my lord! Start a new subsection, stop trying to defend this group's inclusion by attacking that one's. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

"Some organizations" was used since I didn't want to go through and list the huge number that do not and obviously do not belong in this article. Why would I start a new thread when this one hasn't even been resolved?

The point is that the criteria for inclusion is ridiculously low when the group being included provides support for manmade global warming. If your suggestion is to alter the rules for inclusion just to keep out this organization then perhaps you need to do a bit of introspection.71.220.230.251 (talk)

So are you saying that none of the eight statements on its own constitutes dissent but they constitute dissent when taken together? Or are you saying statement that anthropogenic warming has not been demonstrated means they are saying it is untrue? And what standards do you think a geologist would mean when they say something has not been demonstrated? And why do they say that more study is needed? Dmcq (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

No. I'm saying as a whole the message is clear and the specific point I mentioned, number seven I believe, is also quite clear on its own.

They say it has not been demonstrated. If it has not been demonstrated then it is illogical to believe in it. To use the Invisible Pink Unicorn example, one can postulate that it exists, and I can say that there is no proof of its existence, but that lack of proof does not mean my unstated default position is that it does indeed exist.

You are assuming that they believe it exists when their statement is that it has not been demonstrated to exist.

collapsing uncivil personal attacks that do not add to the substantive argument
Do you understand how you are being illogical here? Do you even care?

71.220.230.251 (talk)

Dear 71.220.230.251, this is WP:NOTAFORUM; If you can't stick to the substantive issue without being uncivil then you're not honoring our only purpose here, which is to improve the encyclopedia. You may have a very good point about the inclusion of other groups. I'd be interested in that discussion. Assuming you are correct and some group should not be listed here, the fact remains that two wrongs never make a right, and in this case, the full academy is the organization of national standing. If they are structured to allow their committees to make formal position statements on issues that disagree with the formal position of the full group, then please show us that citation. Otherwise, its all been said, except for arguments about content, but arguments about content are premature because we have no consensus here that any content from a subunit of a national organization passes WP:Weight and WP:relevance.

Dmcq, I'd like to suggest that we not feed this particular debate over the committee's content until the preliminary matter is resolved. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I can agree with that. Even though they are just a subcommittee they are quite notable enough I think to be mentioned somewhere if they really did issue a dissenting opinion. However their statement is no more dissenting in actual substance than any of the other non-committal statements issued by other organizations that are in the article. It is the general tone and bias in the choice of what they said that makes it seem to me to be carefully worded to be useful to the denial crowd rather than being a scientific opinion. This article is only concerned about scientific opinion rather than hack jobs and on that basis it is nothing special to note as a non-committal statement. Dmcq (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Dmcq: this discussion is not making any progress on issues. Quite aside from the merit of any position, or hope of resolving any issues, this discussion is getting tendentious, and sucking up a lot of time and bandwidth better used elsewhere. It is time to cut off the fuel to this fire. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

discussion about images in the article

But what about the silly graph? --Andy0093 (talk) 03:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

If you mean those green and red people it is down beside the survey it illustrates. Dmcq (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering if anyone thinks perhaps we need a picture for the article lede? I'm glad the graph stayed in albeit near relevant information regarding it in the article, but perhaps we now address the issue of the articles picture. i have few ideas. Andy0093 (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bray and von Storch 2003 section

The [Bray and von Storch 2003 section] has no reliable citations]. As such, reliable sources need to be be found and in the meantime it should be removed. See WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. Mystylplx (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

If the problem is lack of citations and you don't have any special insight on the issue, the preferred approach is to tag the statements with the citation needed template, NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, we could remove the blogs, Internet forum, and self published source, then put a citation needed tag, wait a while with no citations forthcoming, and then delete the section. Or we could just delete it now. But it's up to consensus. Mystylplx (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Undo sarcasm alert... I didn't looked at the article and made no comment, express or implied, except what I wrote. Since I don't know you I thought it possible you might be a newbie and simply didn't know about {CN}, end of story. I have no opinion about the section of the article, but if you're sure some sources violate RS I wouldn't hesitate to waste 'em. Lots of folk watch this page and will put 'em back if you err. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. I apologize for the undue sarcasm--it's been one of those days. Mystylplx (talk) 01:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be stuck into the older surveys section at least, it has been superceded and its lack of citations won't matter there so much and people can nibble away at the unreferenced bits there as far as I'm concerned. Dmcq (talk) 09:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

"The 2003 survey was not without controversy. Comments concerning response rate, sampling bias were made. ... It is claimed that the 2003 survey was posted on a sceptics mailing list and concern was raised that the sample for the 2003 survey might not be representative and as such the results invalid. Bray and von Storch, 2007 Does this help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePowerofX (talk • contribs) 12:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Nature of the article

As it stands this list appears to be a list of scientific opinion with very large quotes. Is there no better way to present the information? IRWolfie- (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I brought this up once before. IMO, much of the important material, key quotes, etc. could be captured in summary style while fuller lists are split off into main articles where feasible, aiming toward the featured article criteria. I just don't have the time to do it. I'd be willing to pitch in if others are interested, but there wasn't much interest before. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

By its very nature, something about the opinions of entities is best done by quoting those entities. Perhaps you'd like to have all the discussion of List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming and its various AFDs all over again? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

One alternative is to put all the quotes in collapsible boxes. That way, a reader could scroll through and basically just see a long list of organizations, etc., and then simply "show" any quote they wish to read. It may make navigating the article a little easier. I assume most readers only read a couple of the quotes (they get redundant pretty quickly), and all they really want to see is which organizations concur and which ones don't. I started converting the article to that format here in my sandbox if anyone wants to see what that would look like.--CurtisSwain (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

That could be a way to go. I agree re the repetition, which the boxes avoid to some extent William M. Connolley (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Splitting off surveys?

Why are surveys being split off? The article is not too long and they form a basic part of the article. Also I see the seuveys were put in year order in the other place for no good reason that I can see. What is the advantage of that? There's no sense to it for a web encyclopaedia where people click on the contents and expect to see something straight away. There might be if they were appendices or something but they're not. There's no point having much more summary than there is. Dmcq (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

One also needs to be careful with climate change about any summary statements like "they have concluded" for a number of surveys without having some citation. I'll try leaving it in for the moment but I can see people coming along and demanding it be removed on WP:SYNTH grounds. I think I'll revert the removal of the surveys though as it doesn't seem justified in any way I can see. Dmcq (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I see it as an improvement. It takes a long time for a page this long to load for some people, and summarizing the surveys makes it easier to digest for the casual reader. This is part of the natural progression of the article. It's not technically "too long" now, but it will get there. This will have to be done sooner or later. If someone wants to take the time to do it now, I say let them. That's just my opinion, of course. --Airborne84 (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The obvious improvement one could do to this article as has been said before is to not have so many quotes from organizations but to summarize all but the largest or most important ones or ones with something different to say. That was done before to the surveys section by having a historical section where the older ones can be retired to. The editor doing this has big thing at Global_warming_conspiracy_theory where one of their points is:

Global warming controversy. Carries the explanation of where scientific objections differ from the mainstream, which doesn’t sit well with the discussions of the roles of IPCC, Kyoto, etc. Move the sections that explain the scientific topics to Scientific opinion on climate change and start to turn that into an article rather than a misnamed list. This article then becomes the head article for all articles relating to the controversy.

Plus they see there are too many articles and it needs to be cut down to ensure quality - so why make more here rather than try to improve the quality? They are engaged with a load of others from that noticeboard in trying to expunge fringe theories from articles about climate change by deleting them. Notability doesn't seem to come into it as far as I can see, they just say to merge any of that to Global warming controversy. Now while I would be happy if there weren't any nutcases around expunging it fro Wikipedia most certainly does not make it non notable, I view their behaviour as quite destructive of Wikipedia and its basis like all these people with a mission. Dmcq (talk) 10:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Chop down on the quotes

I'm pretty certain not all the quotes add much to the article, I'd like to cut out about three quarters of them and just summarize the rest of the responses.

Keep the current Synthesis reports

• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
• U.S. Global Change Research Program
• Arctic Climate Impact Assessment

Keep the current Academies of Science statements

• Joint science academies' statements
• InterAcademy Counci
• Network of African Science Academies
• Royal Society of New Zealand
• Royal Society of the United Kingdom
• Polish Academy of Sciences
• National Research Council (US)

Cut down the 'General science' section, summarize at top of section and list with citations

• American Association for the Advancement of Science
• American Chemical Society
• American Institute of Physics
• American Physical Society
• Australian Institute of Physics
• European Physical Society
• Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies

Cut down the 'Earth science' sections the same (unsure about this but I was keeping the Paleoclimatology ones)

• American Geophysical Union
• American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America
• European Federation of Geologists
• European Geosciences Union
• Geological Society of America
• Geological Society of London
• International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
• National Association of Geoscience Teachers

Keep the 'Meteorology and oceanography' ones

• American Meteorological Society
• Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
• Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
• Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
• Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
• World Meteorological Organization

Keep the 'Paleoclimatology' ones

• American Quaternary Association
• International Union for Quaternary Research

Cut down the 'Biology and life sciences' ones

• American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
• American Institute of Biological Sciences
• American Society for Microbiology
• Australian Coral Reef Society
• Institute of Biology (UK)
• Society of American Foresters
• The Wildlife Society (international)

Cut down the 'Human health' ones

• American Academy of Pediatrics
• American College of Preventive Medicine
• American Medical Association
• American Public Health Association
• Australian Medical Association
• World Federation of Public Health Associations
• World Health Organization

Cut down the 'Miscellaneous' ones

• American Astronomical Society
• American Statistical Association
• Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
• International Association for Great Lakes Research
• Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand

Keep the Non-committal statements

• American Association of Petroleum Geologists
• American Association of State Climatologists
• American Geological Institute
• Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
• Geological Society of Australia
• Statements by dissenting organizations (well nothing there much anyway)

I'd try and put in a small summary at the top of the sections about each sections where the individual statements were cut out, but the organizations would just be reduced to the name and a reference to a citation.

Any objection or any in the list above you think should particularly be kept or are not worth keeping as quotes? You could just add a one liner comment below the name in the list above ore say more below. I seem to have put keep against more than I hoped above! Dmcq (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The article is little more than quotes, which is correct. So it seems a shame to get rid of them, now they have been found. I wouldn't object to some of them disappearing into ref tags, though William M. Connolley (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Deleting/cutting out a bunch of the quotes would only make it harder for readers to find out exactly what the various organizations say about AGW. They'd have to go through a couple of steps to get to each position statement, and then they'd have to peruse them (most position statements are pretty lengthy) to find the most salient points. That's a lot of work. This article, in its current state, saves the reader time and trouble by providing the most salient points of each statement in each organization's own words. I do agree, however, that the quotes are fairly redundant, and they make the article rather lengthy and a bit cumbersome to navigate through.

But, if we delete some quotes and keep others, aren't we then showing favoritism? Maybe even giving undue weight to some organizations? Hmm...what to do?...maybe we should just box up all the quotes like I proposed above under "Nature of the article". Mr. Connelly was open to that idea. Dmcq, did you look at the model I created to see how the article would look with boxed up quotes?

I think boxing is our best option as it would streamline the article, yet it would still be easy for readers to read the most salient points of each position statement in the issuing organization's own words. We'd also avoid endless debates about which quotes to keep and which to remove. And...most of the work is already done, the model would just have to be updated. I'd be happy to do the tedious grunt work, or somebody else could, either way. What do you think?--CurtisSwain (talk) 02:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I think a number of people are not keen on boxing as it requires Javascript and Javascript equals viruses as far as they are concerned. Also what happens about printing. However putting them with the citations sounds good. I don't think we need be quite so worried about the 100k size as far as speed is concerned, things have sped up considerably, but the unwieldiness for reading is a concern as always so I think perhaps sticking them with the citation as said above might work okay, and I'd have far less qualms about removing them from the main line if they were still available. Dmcq (talk) 11:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean: keep the quotes, just have them as explanatory footnotes at the bottom. Yes, that works too. Go for it.--CurtisSwain (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The body of scientific publications behind the consensus is nothing but a snowball

This is WP:NOTAFORUM and this thread lacks specific suggestions for improving the article

Usually when there is a body of science you get scientific studies referring to other studies, and those referring to other studies, but at the end of the line you tend to get towards empirical data, double blind experiments, empirical facts, physical discoveries, in-field studies or other type of grunt-work. This is not the case with this consensus, which is nothing but a snowball of reports cross-referring to each other with nothing else at the end as more reports quoting other reports. Very little if not any direct, hard evidence if you want. Shouldn't this be noted, that the consensus is mainly opinion based and by no means if should be mistaken for settled science? Mik1984 (talk) 13:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Since it is only your own personal opinion, no. In particular, "double-blind" experiments aren't needed, obviously. The rest is wrong, as you'd find out if you actually read the IPCC reports William M. Connolley (talk) 13:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Factoids, opinions, hypothetic extrapolations and simulations, you call that "evidence"? You can't ask me to read the whole damn thing, if this is what the summary looks like. Which page of which edition points to a piece of something that can be considered as evidence? Mik1984 (talk) 14:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC) "I want to take out an appendix now. What do you mean, I have to get a pre-med degree, than an MD, and then get a license? Just point me to the scalpel and give me a diagram of the inner organs!" In other words, if you want to come close to verify the summary of a large, diverse field of study to the degree you apparently require, you need to put in the time to become an expert. That's about 5 years full-time study for the basics, and then you can start on specialized topics. Reading just the IPCC report is the minimum we can ask... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC) The global warming article is the one about actual evidence. Dmcq (talk) 14:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Sure, it doesn't change the fact that first fully documented appendectomies were performed by people who did not have anything close to a modern medical education. "If you can't explain it to a 6 year old, you don't understand it"- A. Einstein. But let's say he was too radical. Let's have a softer version replacing the "6 year old" with a "well read person with a fair level of general education" and you have the threshold. Mik1984 (talk) 14:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC) I'll note that the number of 6 year olds and the number of "well read person with a fair level of general education" who understand general relativity in any but the most general terms is approximately very very small. In most general terms, on the other hand, take a look at greenhouse effect, global warming, instrumental temperature record, and general circulation model. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC) There is no evidence Einstein said anything of the sort, that story seems to be apocryphal and based on a similar remark by Rutherford about explaining things to a barmaid. Einstein did say 'Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler'. Dmcq (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC) None of those materials provide anything but black box computer simulations to cover the leap of faith in the area of weather the rise in human CO2 emissions is significant for this process. Furthermore in the wake of Climatic Research Unit email controversy there are reasons to doubt not only in the accuracy of those computer simulations, but also in the integrity and good will of those who developped them. Mik1984 (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC) No. That's plain wrong. The article on greenhouse effect, e.g. does not even contain the word "computer" or "simulation". It does mention "model", but then all physics deals with models. It also mentions the work of Arrhenius, who managed to compute the effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere about 50 years before the first modern computer (and is in good agreement with our modern, more precise approaches). He also did this before email, so an involvement in the Climatic Research Unit email controversy is unlikely. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC) The article greenhouse effect shows merely evidence that CO2 has significant influence on earth's climate. This is not the controversy. The question is about the quantifiable degree of significance of anthropogenic emissions on global CO2 concentrations. Mere ice core records of fluctuations do not prove humans did it, and if, how much. The issue thus remains a judgment call and not an evidence based notion. Mik1984 (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC) So you agree with the CO2 -> Temperature link, but you don't believe that humans are responsible for changes in atmospheric CO2? Please see Talk:Global warming/FAQQ5, and the sources linked there. We know very very well that the cause for the long-term increase in the Keeling Curve is anthropogenic. Indeed, unless you assume that anthropogenic CO2 is somehow completely magicked away, no deep arguments are necessary - we release significantly more CO2 than shows up in the atmospheric increase (with much of the rest currently being taken up by the ocean). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC) If A5 is correct, then there could be some evidence allowing us to quantify the anthropogenic increase in CO2 concentration. A very big step forward. There's still a lot to be done in extrapolating those increases into forecasts of climate effects. Sadly, those responsible for it, as demonstrated in the Climatic Research Unit email controversy have shown to be results-oriented and not research-oriented. Simulations were warped to deliver desired outcomes. Even a longer shot in extrapolating the weather effects into economic effects, since there is no consensus among economists weather global warming would be bad. Mik1984 (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, here are my specific suggestions: The phrasing "The predominant scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth is in an ongoing phase of global warming primarily caused by an enhanced greenhouse effect due to the anthropogenic release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases" is not neutral. Either change "primarily caused" into "significantly contributed", or change "scientific opinion" into "opinion of scientists". Reason: The answer provided in the quote of Q5A5 goes only as far as to provide unambiguous evidence for the "significantly contributed" statement, "primarily caused" remains still a judgment call. What exist is either a "scientific opinion" on "significantly contributed" or "opinion of scientists" on "primarily caused".Mik1984 (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

What does Q5A5 mean? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Global warming/FAQQ5 Mik1984 (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. In reply (A) the references cited in THIS article support what is said in this article. (B) Since you appear to have a problem with Talk:Global warming/FAQQ5 please take it up at the talk page associated with that text. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll play the noob card, where is exactly the specific reference specifically to the issue I raised? Link, please. ;) Mik1984 (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

That statement is a summary of this article. In particular that the scientific opinion agrees with the IPCC report about it. This article is not about scientific evidence, it is about the scientific opinion from that evidence. It is a judgement call like you say and the evidence that it is the predominant judgement call is given by the statements of scientific institutions and by the surveys of scientists involved in the area. Dmcq (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You might find the section Scientific opinion on climate change#Scientific consensus illuminating about all that as it is what the article is about. Dmcq (talk)

Mik1984-This article accurately reports the stated opinions of scientific organizations from around the world in regards to the current global warming. If you disagree with what the vast majority of scientists say on the subject, then your quarrel is with them, not with this article.--CurtisSwain (talk) 06:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Mik raises a good question. Although IPCC AR4 says warming is "unequivocal" it also says it is "very likely" caused by humans, where very likely is defined as being >90% certain. But our lead in this article does not qualify the human cause in this manner. We just say scientists say it is primarily caused by humans, period. I certainly think we are doing it. But I too would like to finger the sources on which we raise the scientific certainty reported in the article from IPCC's > 90% to 100%. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing what you're seeing. The first words are 'The predominant scientific...". That does not seem like 100% certainty to me. The article also reports on individual scientists opinions in surveys. Dmcq (talk) 07:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC) Dmcq (talk) 07:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's go back to grammar school. Are you saying an adjective in the sentence subject (predominant) can modify the sentence's object clause (starting with "that") or words in that clause? Where I come from, "predominant" modifies the phrase "scientific view" and thus carves out a very large subset from the group of all scientists. Please see opening paragraph of Global warming, which does use IPCC's "very likely" definition of >90%. In this article we implicitly say it is 100% certain ("...is primarily due to..."). So what we have here could be called "is versus is-very-likely". If we have the sources for "is" then Global warming needs updating. If not, then this article needs a small revision so it mirrors the language in Global warming lead paragraph 1. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The article global warming just talks about scientists without qualification. This article is about that side of the qualification rather than the other side. The other side is a reflection in many ways of the scientific opinion but putting in booths sides is squaring it which is to produce something that does not reflect reality and makes the language extremely awkward. Yes the predominany qualifies both sides. Dmcq (talk) 12:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

What about "proof beyond reasonable doubt" distinction? I.e. a statement "we are over 90% certain" sounds pretty like, "we are strongly convinced, however we are aware we might be wrong, because some reasonable doubts remain". Mik1984 (talk) 13:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I think one would need to put together a complete sentence and see how it works out. Personally I think the statement is good enough without trying to quantify too exactly. We can't justify overstating what the IPCC says. Dmcq (talk) 19:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Nor should we understate what the IPCC says. Which is: unequivocal. (May even be bolded somewhere, but I don't have a source right at hand.) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

E.g. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?Cr1=change&Cr=climate&NewsID=21429 --Nigelj (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Admittedly, IPCC AR4 WG1 is a primary source. However, if you actually read the pinpoint cites in lead paragraph 1 at Global warming, it is easy to see that IPCC said two different things....

(A) fact of warming = "unequivocal",

(B) Cause is us = "very likely" = ">90% likely"

The article Nigel found is internally contradictory. Compare paragraph 1 (where article inaccurately says IPCC said we are unequivocally to blame) and paragraph 5 (where article correctly reports IPCC only said it is "very likely" humans). I hesitate to bring this up because my own POV wants to say it us with conviction. Nonetheless, the NPOV part of me wants to sort out these cites and make this articles lead mirror that of Global warming, depending on the outcome. The only question is whether we will study the references objectively to sort this out. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, need to be accurate about what is being described. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The complaint seems to have veered over the place as far as I can see. It seemed to started off with the starting statement being too strict and when 'predominant' was pointed out it seems 'unequivocal' is being asked for. What am I missing here? If people have a better suggestion could they try out a sentence and we could see it thanks. Dmcq (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

See new sentence in lead paragraph 1 here. Note All that stuff shown on the left of this diff as being subtracted was NOT substracted. I only tweaked the first sentence and left the rest undisturbed. If we have sources we feel are better than IPCC AR4 WG1 to say humans ARE the cause (as opposed to "are very likely") I would love to be reverted. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

That's readable which is good and it is more accurate. Where did the bit 'such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels' come from by the way thanks? Dmcq (talk) 09:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

In general, from the GW article. In detail, the sentence was (A) first imported from the 1st paragraph of the lead to Global warming and (B) then adapted to fit as closely as possible to the form/feel of the prior sentence in this article. The text you ask about was part of that imported sentence from the GW article, and it was part of the lead in the GW article prior to my earliest edits back in May 2011. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm definitely in favor of this tweak, however I would simply leave out the 90% thing, and simply say very likely. The "over 90% likely" is not a statistical estimation nor a result of any form of quantitative calculation, it is only a descriptive metaphor of how strongly they are convinced about their statement. "very likely" sounds better, is more accurate, and more comprehensible to anybody who reads the statement without the context. Mik1984 (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that. I'd like to point out though that there is the problem I was talking about that the IPCC has a consensus opinion where the 90% has been influenced by having some scientists who think humans are not responsible. Now there's nothing wrong with that as far as they are concerned but our 'predominant' is also because of such scientists so we are in effect squaring to get a lower figure by having both predominantly and very likely in the same sentence. The article is about the scientists and the evidence from surveys is that they predominantly think humans are responsible - without any of the 90% business here and we haven't any indication how strongly they feel it. This is a different viewpoint and the article is getting a bit mixed up between the two. Perhaps we should just say that they predominantly agree with the IPCC consensus and in a separate sentence use the second half to summarize the IPCC view? Dmcq (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Not really, since there are no surveys about endorsement with "burden of proof", "beyond reasonable doubt" or "unequivocal evidence" claim, only about the direction of opinion, it cannot be implied that the opinion of over 90% scientists is that they claim the evidence to be unequivocal. Thus "predominant" and "very likely" are required in the same sentence or else the degree of consensus is severely overplayed. I would simply make the sentence sound better by replacing "more than 90% certain" with "very likely". Mik1984 (talk) 14:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

No, the IPCC take the opinions of the scientists into account in calculating the 90% so any further qualification is repeating the qualification. Dmcq (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

D, Several of the sources use "very likely", and some that do provide support their statement by citing the IPCC. I take that as an implicity adoption of the IPCC definition of "very likely". So I would argue that unless another definition is given, any source that says "very likely" is using it within the IPCC meaning, and the words are synonymous - and interchangeable with - "greater than 90% certain".

Mik1984, I object to propagating ambiguity by saying "very likely" for the reason that we know the meaning given this phrase by the source. So we should use the source's meaning to avoid any given reader being led astray by ambiguity. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I was not saying very likely was wrong. I was saying that predominant and very likely in the same sentence was multiplying the qualifications. Dmcq (talk) 14:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

If most scientists agree with IPCC saying it is more than 90% certain, then that is the scientific opinion on the issue, and saying both is inescapable. Take either "most" or "more than 90%" out of the sentence and the meaning changes. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The scientists have opinions which are measured by the surveys and the distribution of feeling there is pretty much bimodal. The IPCC took the varied feelings into account so what it has produced is a consensus saying 90%. Saying most scientists when referring to that would be wrong, the 90% already expresses the feelings. However I'll stop going on as 'predominant scientific opinion on climate change' is probably acceptable enough as the predominant refers mainly to all those other societies and suchlike. Dmcq (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

+1 for NewsAndEventsGuy, That's the meaning we like to keep, -1 for Dmcq, this is NOT double qualifying of the same, since certitude is NOT the predominant opinion. To the issue, the IPCC report uses both "very likely" and "more than 90% certain" a solution might be to write the sentence [...]very likely("more than 90% certain", IPPC 4.AR summary)[...]. On top of that the sentence isn't entirely clear about what the "and" stands for, so I would replace "and" with ",furthermore that". So the sentence would go as follows: "The predominant scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, furthermore that it is very likely("more than 90% certain", IPPC 4.AR summary) that humans are causing it through[...]", or I would at VERY LEAST propose to change "and" to ",furthermore that". Mik1984 (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

IMO, using the word "and" in the current sentence is the best way to present the two elements (warming and cause). In the version of English I speak, the word "and" does not "stand for" anything else because the word "and" is merely a conjunction. Examples of things that "stand for" something else include pronouns, acronyms, and nicknames. The word "and" is not such a word so I disagree with your suggestion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

"And" is a conjunction, but it easy to mistake what it stands for if it stands between two adjectives, i.e."wood is brown and yellow flowers grow around". If you read the text fast, you can easily mistake the wood, as well as flowers of being "brown and yellow". In this case "and" stands for separating two sentences, but since it happens to be positioned between "unequivocally warming" and "more that 90% certain" it is quite muddy and easy to mistake what does it exactly separate. ", furthermore that" seems to mean exactly the same, but makes the reading much easier. Mik1984 (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Life is much easier if people on Wikipedia do not refer to themselves as 'we' nor try assigning points to other editors thank you. Dmcq (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Poor little Dmcq is jealous he didn't get a point... somebody give him a teddy bear and a big hug... :P Mik1984 (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIVILITY. Developing Wikipedia is supposed to be a cooperative venture. Going against that is the quickest way of getting blocked. I am advising you as new contributors should be helped to work constructively with others. Dmcq (talk) 19:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Putting uninteresting and old surveys first

The surveys have been put into date order and a whole lot of old surveys have been stick at the top. Do people believe this is a good idea?

• Oppose I believe the latest survey should be first and be detailed better and old surveys that have little current relevance should be put in a section at the end for those who want to see the history. The changes to put in date order should be reverted as they make the article less useful or interesting without any particular gain. Dmcq (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons D stated.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I did this, as you see. Readers will find chronological order more natural and easier to follow than reverse order. Chronological presentation is also closer to the style of an academic literature review. I would be interested to read a rationale for reverse chronological presentation. Do you have examples of it being used to good effect in any comparable articles? Itsmejudith (talk) 12:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The article is not about the evolution of scientific opinion, it is about current opinion. More recent are more relevant.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, good point. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Journalism 101: the inverted pyramid characterizes news stories. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Yopienso (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, its not really an inverted pyramid, since all details are the same, reversed or not (ie. no pyramid). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You're correct that this isn't exactly an inverted pyramid. (All details are the same, though, whether reversed or not--I don't follow that bit.) I'm applying it in the sense that an encyclopedia would follow the timeline while a newspaper would put the most interesting/pertinent info first. The section appropriately begins with a conclusion; it seems that to then begin at the beginning and follow through chronologically to the end would be more encyclopedic than inverting the timeline. Yopienso (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no policy or guideline saying that things have to be written in the manner you say. And as Kim D. Petersen says the article is about the scientific opinion on climate change, not the history of the surveys. I do not see that what you say would improve the article. I'm all for general principles but why would sticking the recent surveys at the end help? Dmcq (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a bit moot now. I took out all about pre 2004 surveys as they are in the daughter article. Now we start with Oreskes 2004 which I think is one that most readers will want to see there. I will take out some more detail of the recent surveys, as it impedes readability, but the detail will still be there in the daughter article. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

What point is there in that separate article? I think it should just be redirected here. It is a list without an overall topic, this article has the overall topic. I don't get why you want to set up articles on non-topics and delete articles on notable topics. Dmcq (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your good work, Itsmejudith! Yopienso (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I've been told one should to be specific with praise so such as? Dmcq (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, Yopienso. Thanks to everyone for their voluntary efforts to improve the encyclopedia. Happy New Year Dmcq! Itsmejudith (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

{E/c}Thank, you Itsmejudith, for putting the surveys in order, for maintaining a civil and unflappable attitude, for keeping WP encyclopedic, for pruning out the less immediate info from this article so it's loadable and readable, and for preserving the removed info in an easily accessible daughter article. Yopienso (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Well putting you as supporting the date ordering. I think that makes it three against and two for doing that at the moment so could we not have it done yet please as there is no consensus for all the 'good work' thanks? Dmcq (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted the edits done against consensus. Editing against WP:consensus constitutes WP:disruptive editing. Dmcq (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Nothing was done against consensus. There was no disruptive editing. You, Dmcq, are of course welcome to your own opinions and editorial preferences, but you're not being collaborative. Yopienso (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It is my considered opinion of what Itsmejudith has been up to. Complain about me if you wish and we can clear it up. Dmcq (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

No, not complaining about you. We have to take this away from editor behaviour and back to content. I am going to revert your changes, not because I feel desperately strongly about chronological or reverse chronological ordering but because you reinstated bullet pointing when we prefer prose and you also took out edits that aimed to improve style and flow. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yet again you edit the article against wp:consensus. How about getting consensus first? That is why I say you are a disruptive editor. Dmcq (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, everyone cool it. Judith, I think you may be swinging a bit wide, so perhaps you could hold off a bit till the dust settles and we can see what we have? And Dcmq: for all that Judith may have disrupted things a bit, she's not one of those yahoos (or Scibaby socks) that deliberately tries to mess with us. She's one of us, and I'm certain amenable to sorting this out, so let's not raise the temperature any more than needed. AGF! ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't count myself as us with anybody as I think that way leads to canvassing etc but I'm happy to try and edit with halfway constructive editors. Dmcq (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

And I don't count myself as us with anybody either. Which puts me and Dmcq together! Hootenanny! Hi JJ and Happy 2012 to everyone. (And yes I will ease off a bit.) Itsmejudith (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support. The older surveys have been properly vetted. Newer surveys need time to be vetted for accuracy. TouchPoints (talk) 08:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

What are you supporting and why has vetting got anything to do with it? Dmcq (talk) 09:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

My guess is, TP is supporting older-first, and so is in the wrong section. So I'm moving this and refomatting the header level William M. Connolley (talk) 09:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Any vetting is normally done in a peer review before publication and there may be some discussion in the following year but hardly anything happens after that. This is hardly a reason to prefer to see a 2008 survey before a 2010 one. Dmcq (talk) 10:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• unsure I wouldn't have re-ordered them. I'd be inclined to have newest-first unless there is a good reason to do otherwise William M. Connolley (talk) 09:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I too was unsure, but am now very happy with the present arrangement where older surveys and unnecessary details have been moved to a sub-article, and the most important and most current surveys are now now in a much better prose style here. There are two further steps that I would like to consider: (a) WP:CALCulating our own percentages in the few cases where they are not given - e.g. '76 out of 79 climatologists (96%)' and 'Seventy-five of 77 (97%)' for ease of comparison, and (b) creating a summary table of all mentioned surveys with the date, survey size, percent agreement etc as columns. I realise that the questions asked or answered were different in each case, but this can easily be shown in the first column. An extended version of the same table may be instructive in the lede of Surveys of scientists' views on climate change too. I don't want anyone to put the effort into creating this if others are only going to summarily delete it, so I am raising it here first. --Nigelj (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Well if other editors really wish to set up a separate article I can't stop it. I really wish people would keep to the policies. This business of doing own calculations too.It just looks a waste of my time trying to do anything against this tide of silliness so I will now remove any climate change/global warming article from my watch list. Dmcq (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Calculating the percentages is permitted and I think would be an improvement. The table also would be a possibility. We would have to be sure that we had the most relevant fields. In particular the wording of the actual question for which we are giving percentages of answers. It might be an idea to draw it up and then look at it critically to be sure that it doesn't stray into original synthesis. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Perhaps support in the long-term, but for now I think we should back off a bit, let the sediments settle. Then perhaps take a fresh look. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Sub article

Putting the surveys of opinion into a sub-article seems like a good idea to me. But if we're doing that, it would be a good idea to agree (err, rather than claiming that huge reverts are non-contentious) and probably to cut more material into the sub-article William M. Connolley (talk) 22:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome, William (or Dr Connolley, if you prefer)! We can use another editor here more experienced and knowledgeable than I; please stay. Yopienso (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think it is a good idea? As far as I know there is nothing which just discusses that topic rather than the subject of this article so it is not notable in itself. Basically it would be a list or history of climate change opinion surveys. Is the content of this article quite so notable? Itsmejudith said about this article 'Move the sections that explain the scientific topics to Scientific opinion on climate change and start to turn that into an article rather than a misnamed list', so I'm surprised they then start creating more articles with bits of this article. I'd have thought the better path would be to chop some of the content down in size and remove some of the quotes (though there was an objection to that with a request they be placed at the end instead when I removed some from of the quotes of the societies). Or is it something besides the size of the article that worries you? Dmcq (talk) 23:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

p.s. and do you also agree with giving the oldest surveys first as has just been done? Dmcq (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like to know the reasons for a separate article too. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Reason for a separate article. It is more or less coherent as a topic and a definitely non POV way of forking. There is also some commentary about surveys of scientific opinion, alongside the survey reports themselves. Still, there are a number of ways the content can be divided up and I wouldn't see this one as set in stone. It can always be merged back in. Itsmejudith (talk) 01:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your editorial efforts recently. With respect, in this particular instance that was a non-answer. Here's your reply broken down into numbered bullets: "Reason for a separate article....

(A) It is more or less coherent as a topic and

(B) a definitely non POV way of forking.

(C) There is also some commentary about surveys of scientific opinion, alongside the survey reports themselves.

(D) Still, there are a number of ways the content can be divided up and I wouldn't see this one as set in stone.

(E) It can always be merged back in.

To which I answer:

(Re A) IMO, it is an element of the main article and can not be significantly distinguished from the main article topic. I'd be glad to change my mind if there is something I'm not seeing.

(Re B) Fact that there is no obstacle due to POV-forking is not a reason to do it

(Re C) Why does this matter?

(Re D) You say there are other ways to split up the info, but have not articulated a problem with the current way

(Re E) There is plenty to do so let's not create busy work

I appreciate the effort you have been making at cleaning up articles. I've looked at a lot of your diffs lately and generally approve or at least can abide by them, so thank you very much. However, I am still mystified why we are talking about a separate article for surveys of scientific opinion on this issue. Care to try again? William, what was your reason? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Just because the article is already quite long, and the sci-surveys stuff does make a coherent separate topic. Also because, well, none of them are really good, and it becomes clear by now that this is intrinsically not a very good way to go about things; surveys just don't work, and don't reflect how science is done William M. Connolley (talk) 09:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

We should be cutting out some of the quotes in the references if size is the problem and then the problem would go away. As far as I can see from that it is really your feeling that surveys do not indicate scientific opinion the way statements from organizations do. Is that correct? Or what else do you mean by they are not a very good way to go about things? Personally I find the surveys far more convincing than the pronouncements of the organizations. I feel they really are a better way of judging scientific opinion. The evidence from the science is fairly clear anyway I think but evidence is not the same as consensus of opinion and that's what this article is about. Or what do you think scientific opinion is about? Dmcq (talk) 10:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

To expand about organizations the reasons I consider them less convincing are: Firstly they tend to be dominated by people who made their reputation years ago and can be out of touch. Secondly many of them are not very connected with the science here and would be depending on reports of others and surveys of their members at best anyway. Thirdly for the conspiracy theorists it is easy to argue that organizations have been nobbled but it is harder to argue that a big mass of individual scientists are all conspiring together and it is harder to say 'they' about individuals than organizations. And fourthly I just consider surveys a very good way of finding opinion as people don't have so much peer pressure when they can reply in private. Dmcq (talk) 10:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

With the surveys, there are two internal problems: selection, and the questions asked; the Bray and von S ones suffer particularly from this. The Oreskes work doesn't suffer from those problems, though, because it isn't a survey of people but the literature. I think that is good; what matters in science isn't what people think - that isn't, so to speak science - but what gets into the literature. Or rather, what is the conversation between scientists; that used to be the literature, arguably nowadays blogs and preprints and stuff count for more; but still, opinion is over rated. Inverted, that is why I'd rate statements by organisations higher than you do. But, that is only my opinion; I'm not arguing for the section to be deleted William M. Connolley (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The problems about that are no worse than the organizations suffer and this article is about scientific opinion, not science. The global warming and global warming controversy articles are about the science. This article is explicitly about what people think. Anyway why should your opinion on this be any better than mine, and in particular why should there be such a preponderance of opinions by organizations and a pruning of surveys? Dmcq (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

why should your opinion on this be any better than mine: I didn't say it was. Why should you imagine I did? This article is explicitly about what people think: no, it is about "scientific opinion" not "scientists opinion" (and indeed, as you say, not about the science). Those aren't the same thing, as I tried to explain above.