Talk:Scientific consensus on climate change/Archive 21

The John Cook Study Has Major Problems

To put it mildly. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.162.50 (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Blog sites by students don't count for anything on Wikipedia but when he gets around to writing a proper paper I'm sure there will be some interest. Dmcq (talk) 11:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Not the sort of thing likely to be formally published. I think it's gotten some (RS?) notice by 3rd parties -- I'll try to look later. Duarte's remarks are spot-on (imo), and the Cook et al. study is a bad joke. Amazing (and discouraging) that it got published in a respectable journal. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Andrew Montford has written an outline of the criticisms of the Cook et al. paper for the Global Warming Policy Foundation: FRAUD, BIAS AND PUBLIC RELATIONS: The 97% ‘consensus’ and its critics. It's a decent, short summary, suffering a bit by not discussing previous surveys that also gave the "97% consensus" result. Note that there's no doubt (imo) that most climate scientists think that most GW is anthropogenic, but the 97% business is (imo) pure PR.

I don't really have the energy to try to get this into the article, but someone else might. It is a secondary source for the Duarte crticisms. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Andrew Montford is not a reliable source. Nor are many of the people credited in his PDF document (Brandon Shollenberger, Pop Tech, Christopher Monckton, etc). A bunch of global warming denying profiteers should not be afforded undue weight. — TPX 21:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

"A bunch of global warming denying profiteers...." Do you have a RS for that? --Pete Tillman (talk) 00:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I can easily produce a source that identifies Montford (and Monckton) as holding fringe views, as well as the GWPF (who, if you don't know, pays Montford for his work). More to the point, we have a policy that prevent users from spamming minority groups like the GWPF across Wikipedia. — TPX 09:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The paper being peer reviewed and their's not means they have little weight comparatively. I don't think one could count the foundation as a reliable secondary source like a newspaper either. As to the question, the article on that foundation quotes the Independent describing the foundation as "the UK's most prominent source of climate-change denial" As to funding though they refuse to disclose any details so we can't tell about the profiteers bit. Montford though is I think fairly reasonable so perhaps there will be a way of getting his criticisms in if some secondary source says something about it, just because Moncton etc are up to their eyebrows in denial and twisting the facts doesn't mean that everyone they pay does the same. Dmcq (talk) 09:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thinking about it again we probably need a rebuttal as a note in a scientific journal at least even if not peer reviewed or else something by a practicing statistician to counter something like that with any weight. That student would probably be okay for instance if they had graduated. Dmcq (talk) 10:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The joseduarte entry is more of an rather angry blog entry than a real life study. I would even prefer more of psychology studies, marketing papers, and surveys of the general public as scientific endorsement of anthropogenic climate change - as by Reiner Grundmann or Mike Hulme. However Montfords assumptions about the shallow consensus, respectively the outline that the consensus referred to is trivial (carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas and human activities have warmed the planet to some unspecified extent. Nearly anybody including I agrees with that. So what? - The debate is still ongoing about the conclusions drawn from that) is completely correct. Montford is a moderate sceptic and, similarly as the GWPF has gained a certain push, the GWPF is much more mainstream than the German EIKE, which has had (and deserved) for a long time, in comparision, no political or scientific cloud at all. Serten (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC) PS.: Richard Tol is the right person to summarize the issues Tol in the guardian climate blog ;)

Public opinion on climate change is the place to go to for things like that, they don't belong here as they have no WP:weight here. Dmcq (talk) 22:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, Tol is not an scientist, has no weight here and public opinion on climate change / demcracy is not important, as real scientists knows whats best. Mr. Content Builder, I presume? Serten (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Eminent though he is, he does not have any background in any of the natural sciences nor is he a statistician either by training or recognition. He is a professor of economics. Dmcq (talk) 07:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. professor of economics, IPCC contributor of high standing. So that counts not as science in your eyes. Thats plain arrogance not based on any source or rational guideline. Pachauri is a railway scientist. Do we ignore him as well? Serten (talk) 09:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Pachauri has a PhD in industrial engineering and economics. Eminent though he is he is not a recognized statistician nor has he produced a peer reviewed article about this. The rational basis is at WP:Weight. Dmcq (talk) 11:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Goodness. If Joschka Fischer would be able to comment still, you probably would exclude him since he has no more than a taxi drivers licence. To come back to the article. I assume Tol being the best critical voice about John Cook, as Tol had actually been part of the consensus making and is a scholar with excellent credentials to comment on the topic. Economics is an important part of science and the IPCC process. Serten (talk) 11:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

As I said before he hasn't written a peer reviewed criticism or have a reputation in statistics. If Jesus Christ in all his glory came along I'd still say the same thing. No WP:weight by scientific standards and this article needs weight comparable to the other sources. We can't cherry pick citations with low weight to include just because we feel like it or have a dislike of what the ones with weight say. Dmcq (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Jessas. Better ask St. Peter, St. Albert, or Thor, as they have more influence on the weather. There wont be any rebuke, as the authors are not willing to provide basic source data, even if there are patterns in the data (Tols assumptions) )that suggest that raters may have fallen asleep with their nose on the keyboard. Tol was quoted in that study quite often, and wrongly as well, he tried to get the data, see Chronology of Tol’s Requests for Cook et al 2013 but was stonewalled as well. Thats said, if you deny Tols role in critisizing, youre Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling. Serten (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not up to us to analyse papers and come to our own conclusions and put our conclusions into Wikipedia. That is WP:OR. We have to edit according to WP:NPOV. In some rare circumstances Wikipedia editors will override stuff because it is easily and obviously shown to be patently wrong but you'd need an RfC to do that. I really can't see that in this case that there is a strong case for such an override. It isn't as though nobody has looked at it. You really need to find a peer reviewed rebuttal or one by a recognized and reputable statistician. Dmcq (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I am about the fact that Tol himself was wrongly mentioned among the 97% as an (former) IPCC author and Tol as a qualified scholar -statistics is mere auxiliary science for economics - has tried and critized the paper in the Guardian and comes to rather critical conclusions. No one could write a detailed rebuttal, as the controversy about the data access is ongoing. Youre stonewalling approach is trying to suggest that nobody has looked at it with a critical approach - thats not acceptable. Serten (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC) Try Mike Hulme 'The “97% consensus” article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue ... It seems to me that these people are still living (or wishing to live) in the pre-2009 world of climate change discourse. Haven’t they noticed that public understanding of the climate issue has moved on?' thats

I've explained the problem with what you are saying. I'll just ignore anything more you say here unless you get a usable citation. It is not Wikipedia editors' job to sell climate change to the public, just to summarize things well in accordance with reliable sources and weight. Dmcq (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I have the impression that you quite good at the job to sell POV to the public. There is no consensus here on what is a "reliable sources and weight" means, as well in my eyes, reliable sources on scientific topics are not always science paper itself. Remember the 2013 retracted Lewandowsky (and Cook) paper, where a FOI approach and a retraction went through the news. I assume Tol's - and others as Scafetta, and Shaviv - involvement, all were counted as pro activism, which is ridiculous, as a sign that the peer review process has not worked and its our task to cover that aspect. Serten (Serten)) 21:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

There's a reason we have separate Public opinion on climate change and Scientific opinion on climate change pages. Any of your insights on "public understanding (...) [having] moved on" belong on the former page. The title of the page that is the subject of this discussion very explicitly limits the topic to "Scientific opinion", and like it or not, the peer-reviewed literature is the standard on this matter. If you want to discuss your misgivings about present-day scientific practices, please do so on an appropriate forum. If you disagree with Wikipedia's policy of going primarily with peer-reviewed literature, please push for a Wikipedia policy change. If you specifically think there's a problem with present-day science when applied to climate change only, then launch another RfC on this page about the relevance of peer review (though if you want my opinion, it won't do you much good). Either way, the present discussion thread is without merit. 50.181.115.73 (talk) 19:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The reason is not based on WP guidelines but on the specific policy around climate articles. The misgivings are not mine but Tols and others, which actually see peer review is being misused in the case, to put it mildly - it doesnt work here properly. Serten (talk) 19:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear - what you said is what I meant with my second-last sentence. So, as I said, the only thing you can do is launch and RfC titled "hey, let's ignore peer-review for the purpose of discussing climate change" or so, and it won't get you anywhere because most of the people here don't share your or your friends' fringe views. I'm sorry, but I just don't see this discussion accomplish anything but to waste everyone's time. 50.181.115.73 (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Your claim is sort of contradictory. I am not about ignoring peer review but to actually describe the problems and limitations peer review underwent in the climate sector. And dont tell me thats not being discussed in scholarly or political circles important for the topic. I can provide peer reviewed studies respectively quotes from highly esteemed scholars, that state that peer review doesnt work in climate science (Take Cass Sunstein, Hans von Storch or Reiner Grundmann) respectively we all know since 2009 that in the specific field some try to "redefine what the peer-review literature" is :) With the regard to the specific case of the cook study, its rather contentious to assume that a Bachelor in astrophysics (Nuticelli), a solar physics guy (Cook) and a chemist and some students have any chance to provide a quality opinion surveys. The real world pays social science experts to work out professional opinion surveys, thats not a task for activist amateurs and half asleep students. That said, WP has to describe the complete picture, and e.g. Richard Tol, Judith Curry and Mike Hulme are the right persons to contribute to this completeness. Serten (talk) 02:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

"Describe the problems and limitations" sounds like an euphemism for FUD to me. Call it what you will, my argument stays the same. Though it sounds to me like it might be worth starting a "sociology of climate change" page (or perhaps a section by that name in the main climate change article) where the views of Reiner Grundmann and Kari Marie Norgaard can be contrasted, with Mike Hulme occupying a neutral ground. Such a page would be quite a challenge for the community to keep NPOV, though.

Oh yeah, as for Sunstein and von Storch, if you can produce such quotes / peer reviewed studies at all, you'll be greatly annoying the respective authors by you ripping their statements out of context or grossly misinterpreting them. And as for Cook, ignoring your silly ad hominems (news flash: most science is actually performed by students), they are far from the only ones who came to the 97% figure; it's a " common result of similar surveys and is generally accepted to be close to the mark. Or are you going to argue it's all a big conspiracy? 50.181.115.73 (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

With regard of Hulme being neutral, try that quote "Ben Pile is spot on. The “97% consensus” article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister should cite it." Rather neutral, right? To accuse me of annoying von Storch or Sunstein with quoting them is sort of imperial overstretch on your side, same for the claim of Mike Hulme working among sociologists (he's a geographer, similar background as Rahmstorf). Point is, even Roy Spencer has a point in claiming that his arguments fell within the 97% definition, that means the actual controversy happens elsewhere. PS.: Don't forget to log in next time. Serten (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Lead - compare to List of scientists opposing....

Please see the thread

Should summary of mainstream (whatever it says) mirror summary of mainstream at "Scientific opinion on climate change"?

which may impact the lead in this article NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. Consensus on one page cannot override the need for consensus on another... unless it is a policy page. And it isn't. --Kim D. Petersen 08:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

RFC Controversy about the policy section

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.

---

The article so far has a small section about "policy matters" which should be expanded based on secondary sources. The IPCC and other associations attempt to use various science consensus oriented synthesis reports to provide, among others, the IPCC Summary for Policymakers is the basic rationale for the credentials menioned at length in the article. There is dispute about the insertion of social science topics at the talk page however. Therefore the RFC. Serten (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Could you provide reliable sources for your claim that there is a dispute? prokaryotes (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Goodness, if you doubt there is a dipute, we can close it. Serten (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Decisions on the RfC

There is a general discussion section below at #Discussion

• Oppose: The policy section is there simply to show people who think that policy is part of the scientific consensus why the policy recommendations are not considered part of that. It also points to places where related topics people looking at policy might profitably look. I'll quote the relevant bit here from the US National Research Council:

  The question of whether there exists a "safe" level of concentration of greenhouse gases cannot be answered directly because it would require a value judgment of what constitutes an acceptable risk to human welfare and ecosystems in various parts of the world, as well as a more quantitative assessment of the risks and costs associated with the various impacts of global warming. In general, however, risk increases with increases in both the rate and the magnitude of climate change.

The article topic as expressed in the lead is whether scientists have a consensus opinion about global warming. The title is no excuse to stick in everything and anything related to how the IPCC tried to get a consensus or why some sociologist thinks it is a bad idea or that the problem of the ozone hole was handled better. That is more suited to the IPCC or politics of global warming articles. Dmcq (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I have now read the latest #Draft_for_policy_section and gone through the references I could get at easily. Many of them did not mention scientific or science or consensus or opinion or climate. The most important for the proposer seems to be Environmental Politics Climate Change and Knowledge Politics Reiner Grundmann Vol. 16, No. 3, 414–432, June 2007 so I resd through this most carefully. There are four mentions of the scientific consensus in it which didn't seem to have much to say about except as part of what he called the IPCC consensus. Now I agree if this article was about the IPCC consensus something which went on about whether its consensus was useful etc was useful might be okay as the IPCC consensus is about its various assessments including both the scientific opinion and the policy it proposed. I have no problems with Grundmann's paper, he seems to understand what he is talking about, but it is being badly misunderstood in its use here. Therefore I reiterate my opposition. Dmcq (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support Why to expand the already existing entry of policy aspects here? It already contains some deliberations about social science contributions and studies on it, but they are neither sufficient nor based on real studies

The rationale of assessing "the scientific opinion" is to provide the IPCC Summary for Policymakers and to get governments to act. That applies to the other synthesis reports mentioned. Policy is the base of the opinion finding, policy is base of the IPCC, policy has layed out the architecture of the process. In so far the policy section should be the core of this article.

The statement "The policy section is there simply to show people who think that policy is part of the scientific consensus why the policy recommendations are not considered part of that" is a rather funny misunderstanding what WP is about and uses an articles section to play WP internal politics. An article section is not to be part of an WP internal policy to deny improvements. Compare the article on the IPCC Summary for Policymakers, where all the credentials listed in this article are being repeated (in a summarized statement) to make clear that the policy statement suddenly has all the blessings. You cannot eat the cake here and have it there.

The sources I have provided assess wether an ""the more we know bout basic (natural) science of the topic, the better the policy will be" model is helpful at all. It is not. They compare the (different) approach of other human-nature-regulation topics (e.g. ozone, one might use acid rain as well). Either with ozone and acid rain regulation was introduced long before scientists had a unified opinion. Regional cost/benefit calculations seem to be better than global, rather generic assumptions. They sources in question conclude as well that its better to understand science uncertainities and the interaction between science and policy making than to provide one streamlined opinion in a clumsy process. That said, the people behind the studies are far from the sceptical cloud. Cass Sunstein study tried to have Bush staying in Kyoto, Michael Oppenheimer is the core person of the IPCC AR 5 process, Mike Hulme a former CRU geographer, Reiner Grundmann one of the sociology experts in the field and so on, even Judith Curry may have a say. I think therefore I might do a favour, by providing real sources for the entry and question and get out of the old fashioned septical-oil-shills-against-saints-of science debate, that make the discussion here so difficult and made arbitration /sanctions being imposed.Serten (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose with caveats. As a side note, if the article were titled "Scientific consensus on climate change" (which I think it was at one time), the material noted on the draft page would be off topic as it doesn't point to a scientific consensus on what policy positions should be assumed. However, since the article is called "Scientific opinion on climate change" it is arguable about wheether there needs to be agreement between scientists on this and I don't see why there can't be a short discussion about scientific opinions on policy here. My opposition to expansion in the manner suggested is based primarily on the fact that this is already a long article. My measurement of size (which could be off) is about 61kb. WP:Splitting says that articles over 60kb "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)." It also notes that "Articles that cover particularly technical subjects should, in general, be shorter than articles on less technical subjects," which may be applicable to this article. To me, the material suggested in the draft is better in a separate article. There are some that exist, but another could be created for this material, as it seems notable at first glance. In short, the material may well be of use for some readers, but this is not the best place for it. Airborne84 (talk) 06:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Airborne84, with regard to the name, I have suggested a move as well, with no success. Scientific consensus on climate change or Scientific opinion on climate change are much to generic. It would have to involve much more than just the tekkie stuff, as science means "all science", including sociology or STS. There is a difference between the mainstream of (climate modeling) science covered by the IPCC and science as in history or Science, technology and society STS science, the latter describes the broader picture. Its much more of importance to know, why nothing happened, since its years ago that 34 national science academies and and and ... have made formal declarations confirming the science and urging nations to reduce greenhouse gases than to state and repeat them inn a hall of fame style. That said, the length could easily be cut down, as the whole entry with "Statements by scientific organizations of national or international standing" can be reduced to three sentences. Serten (talk) 06:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The reason it is called scientific opinion rather than consensus is because it is about the scientific opinion. There is a scientific consensus but sticking that into the title would exclude ones that disagree and we'd have to know what the consensus if any was in the first place. As the current policy section shows policy is not generally considered part of scientific opinion because it includes value judgments. Also individuals and their papers have far too little weight to be included in this article compared to national institutions and surveys of scientists and the literature. Dmcq (talk) 07:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

First: The orchestrating of the Consensus(es) in question is a major endeavour but not at all being described here. Tbd Second: Statements of the parties involved (National institutions etc) are not Wikipedia:Third-party sources and neither neutral. a) You have to ask for the interpretation respectively the reason for the surveys, not the result as such. The surveys given here are as ridiculous as not neutral, We dont publish political surveys of political partioes, we should provide assessments of survveys by third party social scientists. b) If someone started to use the original treaty of the high parties committments wording to describe the common military policy process in NATO, he would be kicked out soon due to primary sourcing. That said, I ask to split the content, as the whole academy statements are something Wikisource might use or just a separate list will do, they support the consensus, the do not describe it. Third: The concept of a scientific consensus has shown its limitations, especially with regard to the IPCC, the article has to cover that via secondary sources, in the case here STS studies. Serten (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose After reams of discussion, above and below, it appears that even Serten and Dmcq cannot agree exactly what changes are proposed to this article (or others) if this is approved. The only summary in the RfC question is, "There is dispute about the insertion of social science topics," but I cannot agree to their insertion here without seeing proposed draft text, or at least a clear indication of which topics, based on what sources, and to what end. Reading around here, I am suspicious that there may be an attempt going on to try to drive a wedge between the IPCC and climate science, and/or between the UN and national freedom. Alternatively there may be an agenda to bring up some state-of-the-art social science or post-modernist gobbledegook that attempts to prove that there is no such thing as science, or scientific opinion, or scientific agreement, or something like that. In any of these cases I would not agree to re-writing any WP articles to give prominence to any of these points of view. I may be wrong, but with all the direct-question-avoidance I see here, and with no specific text or sources proposed in the RfC question, I have to oppose it. --Nigelj (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

* Nigelj Taking your point, I have made a draft. Serten (talk) 12:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Current Draft, Comment if this proceeds. The main article, proposal, and sources are a lot to absorb all at once. I'm skeptical that this fits well into the article but I'm hesitant to flat out reject general development. In any case, the current draft has some issues. For example the other sources appear to support changing "Orchestrating" consensus into "Reflecting" consensus. The draft called the report "highly politicized", and as far as I'm aware, every concrete example of politicization involves politicians demanding results be toned down and having sections eliminated. Based on the percentages and statistics in the rest of the article, trying to put a spotlight on "minority positions" would be Undue unless it is clearly labeled as Fringe. If this is developed I'm not sure if it's going where the draft author seems to want to take it. Alsee (talk) 09:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I see that there has been significant discussion above, but I don't have time to sort through it. And the outline above doesn't clearly identify why this section should be expanded. If the requesting editor could explain (concisely), that would be helpful. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

See #New draft for the sort of stuff they want in. An earlier version is at #Social science section. Dmcq (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

+ see the first Support above for the justification by the proposer. Dmcq (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment My goodness, this discussion is as old as science itself. The title reads "Scientific opinion...", if someone wants to limit the opinions to those of specific sciences, then please change the title to reflect which sciences are being included. Social sciences are science and STS is not JUST secondary sources (see, for example, Bruno Latour's Science in Action and others who study how scientists conduct science). Stop squabbling among yourselves while the planet burns. Regards, Meclee (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Their input has been taken account in the assessment of things like the places where the economic impact would be greatest. That isn't what the RfC is about. The proposer seems to think that social studies of the consensus process is what the main topic should be and that scientific opinion about the effect of climate change as assessed by national scientific bodies should be split off as subsidiary or even just moved to WikiQuotes. Dmcq (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

First I am about having a policy section that points out that the linear model of using a science consensus by means of "the more knowledge we have, the better the political response will be" is a sort of Phlogiston theory - it has been dominant once but is debunked. The IPCC hall of fame has some historical value as a list but didnt get Kyoto alive. So what? If someone has a problem with the length of the article, a split is the answer.

That said, awith regard to the linear model, the credentials of the IPCC might still apply, that debunking is relatively young, but the apparing paradox of the credential list being not able to get governments to act on the Big Consensus is being explained easily by that. Second I strongly disagree about the notion that "their input" does assessment of economic impact only and social science stuff is not a part of the consensus effort. No one would bother to do the giant unified opinion building effort of the IPCC for global climate research as Art for art's sake. Possible negative effects for society are the main reason behind the mandate of the IPCC to provide the assessment. The IPCC assessments go deep into that, based on social science e and policy aspects. Second, as being mentioned already, the whole (imho Coattrack) argumentation to keep policy out here is not applied at the article of the IPCC policy summary - that article suddenly keeps policy in, including the credentials.Serten (talk) 23:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Grundmanns deliberations about social science role on climate change quotes Godin, Benoit (2006) ‘The Linear Model of Innovation’, Science, Technology and Human Values 31(6): 639–67. on that.

I admit I keep getting lost among the indefinite pronouns they & their and the respective referents. If I understand the argument, perhaps it might be solved by changing the title to "Scientific recommendations on climate change policy". One can then talk about scientific opinions which in turn are adopted (or not) and recommended by scientific organizations to policy-making bodies like IPCC. There seem to be components of both in the article as it stands. Policy studies of this opinion-adoption-recommendation process would then be a separate article. I think this addresses the problem... Regards, Meclee (talk) 01:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I use they to refer to other editors to avoid referring to a gender as people can get annoyed about that. A better word would be nice but I don't know of one. Dmcq (talk) 08:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

This article isn't about recommendations or policy. Recommendations and policy involve value judgments. That's what the current policy section explains and is practically its whole point. What people should do with the scientific opinion is their business. The IPCC's main job is to make policy recommendations to governments, its assessment of the scientific opinion feeds into that. The scientific opinion on smoking is that it is a major cause of lung cancer. Whether people should give up smoking or the governments should put out warnings is not part of that particular question.

This article is not about the IPCC or its processes or policies. It simply answers the question of is there a scientific opinion on climate change and what is it. It does not deal with climate change mitigation or suchlike. What is the point of hijacking this article to deal with something quite different? Dmcq (talk) 08:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Coffee break

The article claims to be about (global) scientific opinion on climate change" and parades the IPCC credentials. If its not about the IPCC as Dmcq says, then split the hall of fame and change the contradicting outlook on the IPCC summary for policy maker article. Either eat the cake or have it. As Meclee said, the court is out wether a (global) streamlined scientific opinion on any topic does exist and so far not taken into account cy the article. Bruno Latour's Science in Action was mentzoned by Meclee, but Benoit Godin (2006) ‘The Linear Model of Innovation’ is more specific as refered to Grundmann. The IPCC assessments work predomantly on "global climate change", there is no approach at all (and no mandate) to assess regional climate change. So the article is a coattrack to claim a unified opinion on all aspect of climate but leaves out the actual limitations of the IPCC process on global issues. Thats the reason for the RFC. Serten (talk) 11:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

You've lost me there. What does your "contradicting outloook on the IPCC summary for policy makers" refer to? Are you saying that because the IPCC's primary purpose is to give policy recommendations then its assessment of scientific opinion is a policy recommendation? Or are you trying to make out that its policy recommendation is a scientific opinion even if it includes value judgments e.g. that recommending that one doesn't smoke is a scientific opinion rather than a value judgment? Dmcq (talk) 13:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to confuse you. Look on the article IPCC Summary for Policymakers. It uses all those credentials listed here to underline the IPCC policy outlook. Therefore one cannot claim that the IPCC opinion finding isnt't about policy or restrict the credentials here to natural science. Better split the credentials in a separate list. The rest of the article should have a short section saying a) that the science assessments are being used to word the IPCC summaries for poliymakers b) that they are confined to global (not regional) )climate change (but trying to take all aspects, including economic and social ones into account) and c) that this approach got a lot of laurels but have some limitations, see the failure of Kyoto and the points from Oppermann, Grundmann and others. Serten (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I really wish you could answer something simply. So as far as I can understand it you are saying that because the IPCC presented the scientific opinion along with the policy recommendations then the policy recommendation is a scientific opinion? Basically that when a scientific advisor for the government is asked about their recommendation about smoking and they say scientific opinion is that 'smoking causes cancer', the recommendation of the panel is that 'therefore we should have big warnings on the pack' that the 'we should have big warnings on the packs' is part of the scientific opinion rather than a value judgment given the government tends towards protecting citizens aka the nanny state as opposed to laissez-faire aka unbridled capitalism. Is that right? A yes or no would be quite sufficient. Dmcq (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Mu (negative)#In_popular_culture. The policy recommodations are the reason why the opinion is being collected. To use your example, if a UN body would be asked to come up with a assessment of the medical risks of smoking and told to the UN, that smoking is not very healthy and the behavior should be cut down. OK. Now there is a rather big difference wether the UN or the local governments or other organizations areor should play nanny and if, how. A social scientist may refer to the Bootleggers and Baptists challenge and (the Ozone case of smoking) the failure of US abolition or the war on soft drugs. He might as well point out that reasonable taxes on tobacco and banning smoking inside buildings are more helpful than putting the death penalty on smoking, as Murad IV did, since we all die anyway for natural causes. He might compare smoking with other bad habits, which do shorten peoples life but still allow them to have kids and fun and rocknroll. Therefore he might mock medical experts (the James Hanses) which, based on all their heap of unreadable tekkiemedical stuff, in the meanwhile started soapboxing "smoking is bad, based on science stop it for once and now". Serten (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

You are basically saying 'the behaviour should be cut down' is scientific opinion. The policy section here cites a science institution of international importance as saying that is not so. That is why your RfC is based on a basic misunderstanding on what scientific opinion is. Dmcq (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The more I read the more it sounds as if Dmcq wants an article about scientific opinion that makes no mention of policy while Serten wants the article to include information on the interaction between such opinions and the policy bodies who receive them. As an aside, I must note to Dmcq that there is no such thing as scientific opinion that is 100% pure and devoid of value judgements. If that is the crux of the difference here, I recommend separate articles: one that makes no mention of policy and one that examines the interaction between scientific recommendations (which themselves are policy statements of the scientific community) and public policy. If I still haven't grasped the argument I will continue to read but may not comment again. Regards, Meclee (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

To Dmcq. I used cut down, since the IPCC suggest CO2emmission to be cut down so less than 2 warming results. "The IPCC is about scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation." So its not about climatology per se, its about impact from and towards human societies. Serten (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

To Meclee - just have a look on Why We Disagree About Climate Change. I think thats shows my point better. Serten (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I think what Meclee says is pretty close to the issue. Dmcq (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I encourage Dmcq and Serten to let the RfC run its course, let editors leave their judgments/opinions, and refrain from additional explanation here unless absolutely necessary. If the initial explanation needs to be adjusted, please do so. I suspect that the length of the discussion within the RfC and the lack of clarity in the initial explanation will be a deterrent for editors commenting here. I almost avoided it myself for these reasons; it's just a lot to wade into. That said, the current comments from editors seem to suggest that there should be two articles from the material at hand and the proposed material: (1) the current article focused on the climate science directly addressing the IPCC's statement in the lede, and (2) a separate article focused on policy. However, other editors may feel differently; so, again, please let the RfC run its course. Thanks! Airborne84 (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I've put in some extra headers to split off most of the text into a discussion section and unindented Serten (talk · contribs)'s support section so hopefully it should be just a little better, but yep I agree. If you want to refactor any my contributions to make it all a bit less of a wall of text be my guest. Dmcq (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your headers. I however do not believe that the article may deal with "scientific opinion on climate change and what is it" without mentioning how such a unified worldwide opinion is being streamlined, processesd and what it is being used for. Do any other topics have a comparable, unified and consensus oriented single global scienitific opinion"? I strongly doubt it. Serten (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2014 (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.

Role of uncertainities and challenges to the consensus approach

Leading IPCC figures (see Yohe and Oppenheimer) acknowledge important "known unknowns" as uncertainities about climate sensitivity and long-term ice-sheet stability and the rather unpredictable role of scocio-political developments. The academies endorsement was never on a fire and forget base, the IPCC underwent e.g. 2010 a major IAC review; governments, the most important customers of the IPCC have asked for a better assessement of risk management and the role of communication of the "opinion" to a larger audience is being deemed as a partial failure but being of crucial importance. That said, the article focus was on certainities (which are somewhat trivial or even being deemed useless by major IPCC players) but left out the IPCCs attempts to deal better with major uncertainities and actual weaknesses. Insofar I have tagged the lede as not refering to important aspects and then changed it based on a major "internal" paper. Serten (talk) 03:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

WMC was so friendly to revert without a valid reason. If one has issues with the wording, state them or do your own edits to improve the article. But ignoring important issues raised by high impact papers of IPCC core people is not the way to go. Its an either cake of have it issue again - claiming the endorsement of the academies but ignoring the major changes required by the IAC review uand other IPCC "clients" is not at all based on sources nor on science. Yohe and Oppenheimers forword is a valid source with regard to the general and current picture, and not at all fringy.Serten (talk) 07:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC) I ask to restore the improved version. PPS.: A revert comment like "not on topic the views wanted" sounds like a freudian slip. Rather amusing state of denial. It may be that you dont want those views to be noted. The real world does and the IPCC cares about the scientific opinion of its main project manager - or should do so. Serten (talk) 07:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

You are off topic. If you want to discuss the IPCC do that in an article about the IPCC. If you want to talkabout the public reception do that in the article about the public reception. This article is not about the IPCC. It mentions the IPCC because the IPCC made a summary of the science. If you will note the title is 'scientific opinion' not consensus though it does document that there is a consensus. Whether the IPCC wanted a consensus is off-topic. Dmcq (talk) 08:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

How shall the article describe the relationship between main 'scientific opinion' and the IPCC consensus? Any valid sources? What is your intention? Either they are 1:1 related or have important differences, you cannnot claim both. Yohe and Oppenheimers volume and the IAC joint review of the IPCC point out the differences and uncertainities, beat them if you can.

The lede cites the academies statements on the IPCC founding and work. The lede claims a central role of academy statements endorsing IPCC work and an important role of consensus. The article is widely based on the IPCC assessments. If, as you claim, the IPCC is not dealt with in the article, lets avoid parroting redundant aspects and reduce them to links to the IPCC entry. OK? Serten (talk) 09:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

What it says is 'These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized:...' It is not about the IPCC. It is about the assessments by the various science bodies. Dmcq (talk) 11:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Move into IPCC tag

Serten since you added the tag please state which part(s) you'd like to see moved into IPCC. Also you've made three reversals today alone, see WP:3RR and WP:EDITWAR. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 11:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I've remove their latest tagging as disruptive. They have continually argued in this talk page about pushing in their point of view and their RfC was rejected. I can't see how the closer could close as 'no-consensus' when there were four opposes and the only support was the proposer. Dmcq (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I filed 3RR complaintNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Title options

This article was formerly titled Scientific consensus on climate change. It's currently a mix of generally accepted facts (the climate is warming) with IPCC opinions (extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it). The latter is hotly debated, although the majority opinion is as presented. But the current title is, regrettably, political. --Pete Tillman (talk) 02:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

False. "Scientific consensus on climate change" was created in 2006 as redirect to point here, and despite efforts like this one, has always pointed here. Did you check the version history before posting? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You're right about the history. Still a bad title, for the reasons noted above. --Pete Tillman (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Pete, your political opinions are noted, but if anything opinion gives more room for fringe coverage than the consensus title you seem to favour. So, if you want to move this article, please give more specific reasoning, and evidence that "hotly debated" is genuine scientific debate, not the contrarianism prominent in the press and blogosphere. . dave souza, talk 14:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The latter is hotly debated - you're looking for Climate change denial or some such William M. Connolley (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Revised graphic for Scientific opinion on climate change

New header, new caption, corrected error in Bray and von Storch. See note at 18:22, 3 December 2014 at linked page.

Here's a proposed revision of this graphic, used in this article. If you would like to comment, please do so at this talk page. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 15:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Basis of 97%

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&oldid=647420670--"not an improvement and not what the sources say."

Actually it is EXACTLY what the source says and there is a VERY big difference between published authors on the topic of Climate, (the incorrect info. that you guys keep re-inserting).....and authors who have published articles on "climate change"-----("change"-the CORRECT word FROM THE SOURCE, that you guys keep reverting.) I'm changing it back again-just go ahead and ban me.

From the description page of the graphic in question: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:97%25_of_Climate_Scientists_Confirm_Anthroprogenic_Global_Warming.svg 96.4% of "climatologists who are active publishers on climate "CHANGE" agree that mean global temperatures have risen "compared with pre-1800s levels" (compared with before the 1550-1850 A.D. Little Ice Age ended). In the second question, 97.4% (75 of 77) agree that human activity "is a significant contributing factor" in temperature change. The study concludes the distribution of answers to its survey questions implies that debate on the "role played by human activity is largely nonexistent" amongst climate experts.(BOLD,ITALICS, ALL-CAPS to highlight word CHANGE-mine.) 2601:C:6783:8416:BD19:9DFE:2A64:FBE3 (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Doran and Zimmerman has "Climatologists". Anderegg et al has "climate researchers" (with "climate-specific expertise and a metric of overall scientific prominence" to measure expert credibility). The fact that D&Z use climate change publications as a means to measure expertise does not put the researchers into the narrower category - for that you would need to look at their overall work (and that would be WP:OR). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Really you are doing the OR here. The detail page description for the graphic says that "climate CHANGE" published authors were surveyed. That is a vast difference between authors on the topic of "climate" or "climatologists". Climate change is a more narrow topic, and if the authors were researching that particular topic of climatology there is reason to distinguish that fact on the graphic.2601:C:6783:8416:BD19:9DFE:2A64:FBE3 (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You do understand that the graphic is based on two different studies? Note that the Commons description page is not a RS (although it is good), the original research articles are. But even on the Commons page, the word "climate change scientist" is nowhere mentioned. Instead, it summarises the D&Z article (one of the main sources) and speaks of "climatologists who are active publishers on climate change". Not "climate change scientists" (whatever that would be). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a discussion getting nowhere. Even if it was, there's no way that it shows a consensus for whatever argument it is that the IPv6 editor is trying to make. In the light of that, there is no way that they should be making edits, let alone reverts, to the article on this basis. --Nigelj (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

"Climate change (author) scientists"-----are clearly defined in the supporting figures and correctly labeled on the detail page for the graphic. Yes--the sentence pertains to Dornan et al copied directly from the article""listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change"". Yes I understand that the text under the graphic speaks to two studies, but the sentence about (paraphrased) authors of scientific papers about climate change, which the disputed formerly read (paraphrased) authors of scientific papers about climate......It is just one word, it clarifies and corrects in my opinion a misunderstanding, does not HURT anything as far as I can see-so what exactly is the problem? Sorry but I really don't understand?2601:C:6783:8416:BD19:9DFE:2A64:FBE3 (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

And here is where I think that the extra word was needed, to avoid misunderstanding and miscommunication of facts-Scientific authors of peer-reviewed papers who have published more than 50% of their work on specifically "climate change", are a sub-set of Scientific authors of peer-reviewed papers in the larger body of climate related topics.................to make an analogy, lets say that you have the topic of cardiology, and you survey authors of peer-reviewed works in that category, but then you drill-it-down a bit, and out of that category- survey authors of peer-reviewed papers who have published more than 50% of their work on a sub-set topic, such-as cardiac surgery.............what I am basically saying is that you are deleting a hierarchy that has been established by the facts of the study, and I cannot understand why.2601:C:6783:8416:BD19:9DFE:2A64:FBE3 (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You don't need to make analogies, you need to read the sources. There is no such profession as "climate change researchers," and no sources describe these (WP:BLP) people as such. I think you also need to read Wikipedia:Consensus and stop edit warring on this page,[2] [3] [4] [5] which falls under WP:ARBCC General Sanctions. --Nigelj (talk) 11:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Please see below. I have to agree that my edit was not the improvement that I had hoped it would be. It was an attempt to fix an awkward and incorrect bit of text while also trying to make the least amount of fuss. That was a mistake. Here is the objectionable line of text, at the very minimum, it needs to be aligned with what the sources say as it is it is incorrect: "Just over 97% of published climate researchers say humans are causing most global warming."2601:C:6783:8416:BD19:9DFE:2A64:FBE3 (talk) 14:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The source says "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities" here are the sources: W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

Sorry, you are just plain wrong and you've offered nothing to substantiate your claims. Please make a better effort if you want to contribute to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.180.114 (talk) 02:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The 97% graph-a bold edit with reasons

After having a little time to think about it, and no current consensus for my rev. edit, I have bigger problems with the graph being included as-is in the article. My 1st bold-edit attempt, was not really what I would consider a bold-edit at all--it was what I thought was a small, helpful change of incorrect information to correct information. That was AFTER my initial impression which was that there was "something wrong" with the picture. So I "attacked"-the text. Because that was the major problem, although I was uneasy with the graphic, I was TRYING not to upset things. The text remains awkward and incorrect imo. Having my one-word change repeatedly rejected, I'd like to propose a re-wording at the very least.

Having said that, there are other problems with the use of the graph, and I'd appreciate any help that can be offered in directing efforts to the right place of discussion, as I'm not interested in having the graph deleted from the Commons, but I am interested in examining it's use on WP overall as there have been discussions/objections about the graph on other article TPs. EX: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change

But getting back to my complaints with use of the graphic in THIS article, 1-awkward wording, incorrect representation of facts. 2- As has been admitted here and elsewhere, the graph is clearly WP:Syn, a synthesis of different material.(edit note I stand corrected the synthesis was done at the source)2601:C:6783:8416:BD19:9DFE:2A64:FBE3 (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC) 3- it is WP:OR, and has been discussed as such. 4- sexist and racist undertones. Yes I am going there just to get everything that I find objectionable about the particular graphic out in the open. The figures depicted as the "97%" majority opinion represent white men imo. While the "shady"-dark characters, the "unpopular opinion", are represented in black. If the graphic were to be utilized and improved, I'd like to see other colors used, and either something entirely gender-neutral, or better representative of the (presumed) female scientists who are among the "97%".

I'm going to go ahead and make the bold edit of deleting the image from the article for now for the above reasons, feel free to rev.2601:C:6783:8416:BD19:9DFE:2A64:FBE3 (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The original authors used green and red, but those colors were objected to for other reasons, and in the ensuing discussion we realized that this is a global wiki and somebody who is somewhere will read something unintended into the color choice no matter what colors we use. The discussion is somewhere in the archives, but I'm not sure it was on this article. Might be at archives for List of Scientist opposing..blah blah. Regardless, color choice is hardly a reason to delete the image, but it might appeal to some POV's as an excuse. Ordinarily I would not say that, but here you've resumed an attack on the graphic and caption immediately after your block for edit warring over the same general material expired. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you, I will look for that discussion it may help. I am looking for ideas not to just yank the graphic and the meaning, but to improve or replace it. I wonder why orange and blue were not picked? (for hot and cold). I'm not having any luck finding female stick-figure scientists, and that would make the image messy anyways, and it may be impossible to know which portion of represented scientists were women, and undesirable to do so, or segregate by sex, but the cartoon scientists in the graph just all look like men, and I have a big prob. with that. I'm thinking that a gender-neutral cartoon scientist would work better and I could make one but I don't have an idea of how it would be done. This is the closest I could find so far-a scientist stick-figure contest winner that used shapes for heads.http://www.flascience.org/art/03x.jpg2601:C:6783:8416:BD19:9DFE:2A64:FBE3 (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

As I recall, the image that is being removed and added back and forth is the result of a lengthy discussion from some time ago. It represents the current consensus. If there is one or two editors here who disagree with it, please (1) consider this edit my support for the current image, and (2) work to establish a new consensus before deleting or modifying the image again. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@IP, if you're concerned about racism and sexism, there's always this imagery with 3 white people and 97 interracial mixed gender scientists. The video starts at 2:54, but the whole thing is fun to watch.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you Airborne84. Any links to that specific discussion would help. This 97% thing just seems like a target for problems to me and I would like to try and catch-up with all of the past points made about it. Maybe at this point-97% of scientists even deserves it's own page? And thank-you for that youtube NewsAndEventsGuy. Notice how they had women in lab-coats there? The end-quote, "an overwhelming majority", I honestly don't have any problem with that and it is less objectionable than 97% for me at this point..and no I would not consider it a weasel-word either, using the current references. I'm really starting to think that 97% is more of an inside-joke/taunt, and some editors here seem to be married to it for some reason that i don't get. I also think that the site that the graph was derived-from, (again TY for that too)----is by design biased, and that is a slippery slope to use obviously biased blogs to illustrate something where (with a very good reason and I support)----very obvious blogs and opinions of climate change/global warming denial is frowned-on to say the least. I don't even think they should be considered as sources except to ref. that they exist. But I am withdrawing my claim that the image itself is WP:Syn, except where the specific text is concerned, since the synthesis was not done by WP editors which I was mistaken about.2601:C:6783:8416:BD19:9DFE:2A64:FBE3 (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't serious about using the vid, and its probably copyrighted anyway. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok but the conclusion of the video ("an overwhelming majority") makes more sense to me than keeping something that seems to be a honeypot or trap for editors like myself who are not familiar with all of the struggles that have occurred with this topic.2601:C:6783:8416:BD19:9DFE:2A64:FBE3 (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

(general question-am i supposed to indent under each reply, or stick-with my original "spot" in indenting? Sorry for any error w/that)---After reviewing the general sanctions re;this subject, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#Climate_change:_discretionary_sanctions)--i am convinced that continued use of the 97% scientist image does not conform with section 4.2.1 of general remedies. "Use of blogs and self-published sources". Again-please excuse if a consensus has been reached elsewhere about this, and if-so a link to where it has been discussed would be helpful. This is in addition to my previous objections to use of the img. in this article.2601:C:6783:8416:44F5:571F:5EA2:DC5C (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

To answer your first question, I intented your paragraphs above and am using an outdent template here. Just intent or outdent differently than the previous comment so people can see where your new comment starts. Typically people outdent when the indents have pushed the text too far to the right. Your later edits can be at a different indent location than your previous ones.

To answer your other question, discussion of the image resides in the archive. You can search the archive. However, some of the discussion appears to reside in this page of archived comments. Consensus can also be reached by editing, so when the dust settled on the image (which took a while as I recall), the final version had consensus. Consensus can change, so please pursue a different consensus if you feel it is warranted, but that is what is required now to remove the image. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 06:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you. I don't know where I got the idea that I was supposed to stay in my lane where indenting is concerned. Sorry about that. I'm still trying to figure-out where a discussion of the image should go, if not here. (user previously known as Ip 2601:C:6783:8416:44F5:571F:5EA2:DC5C and others) now logged-in as ChangalangaIP (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

You can discuss it here or start a new comment thread. I was simply responding to your request: "Any links to that specific discussion would help." Reading through the discourse that occurred before that eventually established the current consensus may help prevent us from covering ground that has been covered before in future discussions. Best, Airborne84 (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

---

• Speaking as one who was intimately involved in creating the graph in question, I will say that we put a lot of time & work into it. It's an honest effort, reflects reliable sources, and is about as good as can be made from the better surveys (which don't include the controversial Cook et al. one).

Also please note that these are surveys of opinions, and don't (necessarily) reflect the underlying science. Which has yet to be worked out (imo) in many areas. It's a shame climatology has become such a political football.... Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the image input Pete. I disagree with your second half though. All the regulars here agree that there is a lot to "work out" as reported mainly in Global warming controversy, but these two images are about Attribution of recent climate change, for which the science is sufficient that the US National Sci Academy to describe it as a "settled fact", Pete's opinion notwithstanding (that ref is or at least used to be footnote 9 at Global warming). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Unequivocal-meaning cannot be questioned?

Should "unequivocal" be changed to a different word or words? for example to: "there is no doubt" A fine point in wording here.

Reason:The American Physical Society changed its wording from "incontrovertible' to "critical issue" for the reason "incontrovertible" has a meaning "not able to be questioned", which irritated the scientists, so they revised the wording.

"Unequivocal" has a similar meaning "cannot be questioned". http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unequivocal http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-battle-over-the-meaning-of-incontrovertible-in-global-warming-fight Jcardazzi (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

"Unequivocal" comes from the IPCC reports, the most comprehensive and widely accepted consensus documents. They chose this word with care and after several cycles of review. It refers to the measurable increase in temperature, which is indeed beyond reasonable questioning. Also note that the new leading sentence of the APS statement is not about the reality of warming, but about the importance of the issue. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz- Thank you for the information!Jcardazzi (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

You're welcome. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Atmosphere of Earth

@Vsmith:: Hi, I saw this diff: [6]. I admit I haven't been paying close attention to the article or its talk page. Is there any reason other than a blocked IP making it that its undone? Seems like it might be an improvement to the lead anyways. I didn't see anything already on the talk page nor it being linked elsewhere in the article, though I admit, I didn't look too thoroughly. Thanks. ― Padenton|✉   11:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

My revert there was only for the block evasion, that sock made many rapid fire mostly trivial edits. You are welcome to make that edit your own with an appropriate edit summary. Vsmith (talk) 12:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature

This section is waay too long for something that says "Main article: Surveys of scientists' views on climate change". It ought to be chopped down William M. Connolley (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. That's what links are for. --Nigelj (talk) 09:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

It came up before with the same consensus, just no one took time to execute it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

daily mail

Stephan_Schulz, what makes you think the Daily Mail is unreliable? Just asking. Scaravich105nj (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

For your information and delight, User:John/Is the Daily Mail a reliable source? . . dave souza, talk 20:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

(ec)It's a tabloid newspaper, well known for getting things wrong. See e.g. Daily Mail#Libel_lawsuits. For scientific topic, there are much better sources available - for climate science in particular the IPCC reports, which integrate all relevant research into their reports. You can see the unreliability of the Daily Mail the article you linked to - the "topsy turvy" box consists of careful cherry-picking, and half way down the article, the "eminent scientists" miraculously morphed into "some scientists", which tell a very different (and more sensationalistic) story. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

 Administrator noteScaravich 105nj was blocked for personal attacks, and it has now come out that he was but one part fo avery large sock farm, so you can safely ignore their comments and edits. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Splitting out opinions of scientific orgs.

Hi, I read the section above on splitting out the opinions of scientists, and somehow thought it applied to scientific orgs as well. I then started splitting and was promptly reverted. First of all, this was NOT a test or an attempt at vandalism. Splitting is a LOT of work, and I wouldn't do that just to screw something up. Furthermore, the previous section said that splitting had been the consensus, and what was needed was someone to actually do it. So I was starting on that. But now I don't know whether to continue or not; if I don't, my work will rapidly become wasted as the article naturally changes.

That said, the opinions of scientific orgs. is waaay long and frankly very boring, and I really think it should be split out as it makes the article awfully hard to read. Just try to scroll to the bottom of that section, I dare you :)MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The thread discussing splitting out text from surveys of individual scienists is silent about scientific organizations. I'm not necessarily opposed to splitting out scientific organizations. Honestly I have not yet considered it. Now that you have started a thread pon that topic, I'd like to hear what others think. Give it a bit of time to perc? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the confusion was mine, but easy to make due to the split template on that section and the discussion on the similarly-named section. Don't worry, I'm not going to edit war it, thank you for contributing; hope you can form an opinion. My strong opinion is that that section gets in the way when trying to read the rest of the article; when perusing the article, I found that scrolling past it is pretty much impossible without the patience of a saint. But I'm certainly not going to edit war over it, was trying to be helpful on something that appears needed; this is entirely separate from my other concern above.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

1) There seems to be no past discussion on the proposed split notice from 2014 (thus there wasn't any consensus, unless i missed this discussion) 2) Moving the statements from institutions to a new article, leaving the synthesis reports here - makes this article considerably smaller. I rather have the article updated per IPCC AR5, maybe some tweakings here and there, but i do not see the point to start splitting it up. Thus, i opt against a split. Unless there is a sound reason for a split - so far not provided, remove the split notice and focus on improving this article. Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

e/c

FYI, from where I sit, big picture maintenance on this article got stuck when we bogged down over updating the lead bullet points from IPCC AR4 (2007) to IPCC AR5 (2014), as documented in the archives. Of course, that's off point from the question of splitting these sections. Just providing some background to newcomers to the talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

For what its worth, if we DO split, I would put in a summary section saying that organizations A through Z all agree and organizations alpha and beta disagree. So the article would still very much retain the informatino that a lot of people agree that AGW is real. I simply hadn't gotten that far when I was reverted.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the article has got very lopsided by splitting off the surveys and keeping the organisations so perhaps something along the same lines is in order. Dmcq (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Nature about the IPCC Process

David Victor Nature 520, 27–29 (02 April 2015) doi:10.1038/520027a Climate change: Embed the social sciences in climate policy:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is becoming irrelevant to climate policy. By seeking consensus and avoiding controversy, the organization is suffering from the streetlight effect — focusing ever more attention on a well-lit pool of the brightest climate science. But the insights that matter are out in the darkness, far from the places that the natural sciences alone can illuminate. That said, this article is part of the problem, not the solution. Serten Talk 03:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM That is not relevant to this article. Also articles should be written with a WP:neutral point of view rather than with the aim of curing the world's ills. Dmcq (talk) 09:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. This article ignores important research. Nature confirmes the "ill". You tell me its not important. Shall we rely on scientific opinion or your private POV? Serten Talk 23:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)