Talk:Scientific consensus on climate change/Archive 5

POV Check again

I would like to as formaly as i can, request that someone that has nothing to do with editing the Global Warming articles, or the editors of said articles take a look at this for POV issues. This article is set up in a way to limit the addation of information, allbe it relivent, to enhance a spicific Point of View.--Zeeboid 16:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:RFC? I've removed the NPOV tag which you haven't justified. --Nethgirb 16:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, WP:RFC would be the next step in the dispute resolution process. Raymond Arritt 17:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Opinions of Individual Scientists

I added a section headline under which we can start adding information on the statements of individual scientists regarding the issue. I have read a lot of opinions from qualified scientists who disagree with the conclusions of the professional societies and whose opinions aren't necessarily reflected in the statements of the society as a whole. In the spirit of building the knowledgebase of Wikipedia, I believe it to be important to document these opinions. Zoomwsu 02:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming is just down the hall. Raymond Arritt 02:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That's fine and dandy, but explain to me why the opinions of scientists do not belong on a page about scientific opinion. Zoomwsu 02:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Read the introduction to the present article. The coverage of the article is specified in that way for a good reason -- it makes no sense to have two articles that contain the same information. Raymond Arritt 03:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I added a short article about Tim Patterson. There will be more to come as I continue my research! Zoomwsu 02:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed same - please read the intro and the explanation directly above your note. Vsmith 03:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If this is the case then the title of this article should change to reflect its content. "Opinion of Scientific Societies on Climate Change" would be more appropriate. There needs to be a place where individual opinions are documented, and I don't simply mean opinions of those who support the global warming orthodoxy. I would strongly encourage anyone to add individual opinions regardless of what those opinions may be. Wikipedia users come to this page to understand the views of scientists on the issue. Nowhere does this imply that those opinions must only be those of scientific societies. I simply want to document scientific opinions on the issue and don't you think it would make sense that these opinions be noted in an article about scientific opinion?? Explain to me how I'm wrong here, besides the faulty argument of "there's room for GW deniers in the corner"? I strongly insist that we change the headline to allow individual opinions to be noted. As research continues to build and more and more scientists are challenging the "consensus", it is important to document those opinions just as prominently as those of societies as a whole. Zoomwsu 03:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You're not in a position to insist. And if you get too shrill you'll be in no position to persuade either William M. Connolley 08:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Why am I not in a position to insist? Furthermore, why don't you address the substance of my argument rather than just decree I am somehow unqualified to contribute? I'm not trying to be shrill, but am just a little frustrated that this article's community seems unwilling to address my concerns. Zoomwsu 13:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Your argument has been addressed repeatedly. Pretending that your argument hasn't been addressed does not help your credibility. Raymond Arritt 14:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Why am I not in a position to insist - this is a very curious question. The answer is, because no-one is. Wiki is built by consensus. On this, the consensus is against you - there is no point adding individual opinions. The page is about... what it says its about. And if we were going to add individuals, we wouldn't be adding Patterson; and we'd be insisting on better sources William M. Connolley 15:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you haven't substantively addressed my argument. Please answer my question clearly: Why do the opinions of scientists not belong on a page titled "Scientific Opinion"?

As a corollary, why is this page named "Scientific Opinion on Climate Change" instead of "Opinion of Scientific Societies on Climate Change," if the rule is to only include societal opinions? Zoomwsu 19:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The goal is to present the "scientific opinion on climate change". The consensus of the editors here seems to be that the best way to do that is to present statements by scientific societies and surveys of scientists. Listing individuals would be impractical—there are simply too many. If we tried to catalog individuals' opinions—essentially conducting our own survey—it would be original research by way of synthesis at best, and more likely doomed to being so incomplete as to be statistically worthless. You will note that individuals are not listed on either side. You'll also note that organisations' statements are listed on both sides. This has been discussed before; please search the old talk topics. --Nethgirb 07:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

He does have a worthy concern, although addressing it could be impractical. Perhaps that the good way to go, though, would be to add a simple mention that the opinions of the orgs. shown in this article are not binding on these orgs' members and/or have been contradicted by a few of these orgs' members. --Childhood's End 13:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That should be obvious from the lead: "This page documents scientific opinion as given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. It does not document the views of individual scientists or self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions." --Kim D. Petersen 13:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that's a good mention already, yes. Only issue is that it is likely to be construed as if it only refers to individual scientists who are not members of the listed orgs. --Childhood's End 13:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the consensus agreed this was the best way to present the statements of societies, but I would like to challenge that consensus. There are a growing number of individual scientists who question the stance of GW proponents. More and more it's becoming clear that, despite broad institutional and political support of the theory of anthropogenic GW, there is little "consensus." The format of this article, therefore, has a selection bias because it only presents institutional views and there is nary a reference to the many scientists who are critical or disagree. Finding a way to present institutional and individual views is important to balance this article. Zoomwsu 14:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Zoomwsu, This articles premise is the scientific opinion - not scientists opinion. If you want the views of individual scientists that oppose - go to Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming. If you want an article about controversy - go to Global warming controversy. Picking specific scientists would under all circumstances be WP:Undue weight of these scientists individual opinion. --Kim D. Petersen 15:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Zoomwsu, if you would like to challenge the way things are presented in the article you will need to provide some evidence rather than your own speculation... e.g. we have multiple reliable sources saying that there is a strong consensus on GW... your personal opinion that there isn't a consensus on GW is not very useful unless you can back it up with sources of comparable reliability. Same goes for your assertion that the number of skeptics is growing. --Nethgirb 23:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Nethgirb, check out [1], which does a fantastic job of documenting over twenty highly-qualified scientists who disagree with the mainstream. Furthermore, please see Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming, which documents the opinions of many more scientists. Just because political institutions claim consensus, does not mean there is consensus. It reminds me of the king who "banned" bad weather. Examine the evidence and read the statements of these many scientists and it will be apparent to anyone with a level head that many questions remain and many highly-qualified scientists still have questions about the GW orthodoxy. If these links are insufficient to support my position, what will? Zoomwsu 01:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hellooooo.... you've just cited Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, which lists opposing scientists. Or are you arguing that we should reduplicate that material here? Then we'll need to duplicate the main global warming article here too, since it's essential for people get the larger context of the issue. And of course that'll require us to bring in the texts of physics, chemistry, and mathematics so folks understand the basics. Raymond Arritt 01:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Over twenty! Wow. But that doesn't support either of your assertions. Also I would like to note that the title of the article is not "Lawrence Solomon's opinion on climate change". Your single non-scientific external source who thinks there isn't a consensus does not approach the reliability of the sources already presented in the article. --Nethgirb 02:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The link is rubbish - many of the 20 aren't deniers at all. The firstone, Wegman, isn't. The polar one, Wingham-Smith, isn't. Its the std tissue of lies recycled to deceive the ignorant William M. Connolley 10:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You know, having recently read the study of the NREP and noticing that it was more recent than any other study on the Wikipedia page I was surfing, I thought I could make a contribution. I spent a few hours doing some more reading and writing the entry and was proud of myself. I just wrote my first real Wikipedia entry! I was part of the open source revolution! I had figured some well-intentioned proponent of anthropogenic climate change wrote the original page, and just had neglected to add much that might challenge that. No harm no foul. After all, most people wouldn't enjoy writing about something they find disagreeable and would tend to favor subjects that reflect their worldview. This is common to every human. Part of the great thing about Wikipedia is, that others can edit and add to (and as I found out, repeatedly delete) your content. I had presumed this to be a moderating thing, after all the aggregate of the contribution effort should tend to cancel out biases.

I guess I learned a little about herd mentality and the fundamental flaw of open-source knowledge. Get outnumbered by people who are committed to silencing you and you can kiss your hard work goodbye. When the herd's self-appointed "consensus" can't seem to comprehend legitimate points or their own biases, you get a situation like this. I pointed out that Wikipedia's method of cataloging meant this article was the catch-all for authoritative opinion on climate change, and thus the community shouldn't censor legitimate, authoritative, but not "scientific" in the narrowest sense of the word, opinion. I even compromised by placing the entry under an assumedly non-controversial headline, accepting the legitimate point regarding the scientist vs. professional distinction. Yet this compromise was also deleted.

Then this individual opinions controversy. I confess I didn't pay attention to the line mentioning that articles on this page were only for societies and political organizations when I first wrote the entry. Unlike my other entry, I decided not to try and replace the entry, as that would be disrespectful. I would rather discuss the issue of the headline and convince you of why it should be changed before I re-added my entry. I thought I made some pretty reasonable arguments as to why it should be changed. I read a ton on this issue and understand it very well, and know that there are many scientists whose (IMO more reasonable) theories are not being given the time of day. I know based on this research that, despite what politically-motivated organizations like the IPCC say, there is not a "consensus" in all but the loosest senses of the term. The NREP study I wrote about showed those results very clearly. When two-thirds of a population disagree with the other third, it is more like "majority opinion" than "consensus."

At least for the time being, I'm giving up this fight. I just don't care enough to waste the time on some silly internet war. Sooner or later people are going to figure out that others have hyped up this theory just like they did the next ice age (whoops, got that one wrong) and the ozone hole (wasn't this supposed to be a huge problem by now?). Too bad many of you seem oblivious to the strange coincidence that those who promote this theory the most have the most to gain from it (emissions traders, alternative energy companies, politicians, bureaucrats, etc.). I guess I learned a few things from this, and none of them reflect positively on the whole idea of Wikipedia or those who believe in this faulty theory. Thanks for turning my enthusiasm into disillusionment.

I want to remind you of something Triple-Deuce said on the talk:Global warming page:

A perusal of the history would appear to show an unfortunate misunderstanding (at best) or perhaps even deliberate abuse (at worst) of the policy regarding revert/undo/rollback/what have you. The policy is clear: you are not to revert contributions, barring vandalism, except as a last resort. A revert should be seen as a revolting thing, to be avoided wherever possible. Prior consensus, sometimes years old and established long before recent editors came on board, does not mean permanent consensus. Every time a visitor loads an article in their browser, it is born anew and is fertile ground for editing. That you or I may not like those edits is not grounds for reverting them. It is grounds for further editing.

I don't think this is a misunderstanding in most cases; WP policy is thrown around quite freely here, which would seem to indicate that it is understood by most. Therefore, I won't insult anyone by providing links you have already bookmarked. I also don't think it is abuse in most cases, because I assume good faith. What I suspect is the most likely scenario is simple laziness; it is easier to revert than to spend several minutes pondering a newly contributed sentence or paragraph, trying to reformulate it in a way that will incorporate it while remaining factual. If new contributions are suspected to be factually wrong, every effort should be made -- by the editor who is considering a revert -- to determine the veracity of the content. In other words, just because a new editor adds a sentence but doesn't source it, you should not delete that sentence. It may be factual, but the unsophisticated editor doesn't understand the need to cite his or her facts. You, as a sophisticated editor and in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia, should seek ways to incorporate that fresh material, rather than reasons to revert it.

That last bit is key: your instinctive goal should be inclusion, not exclusion.

If, after attempting to verify a statement, you determine that it is indeed unsupported, you should bring it up in talk, so that others (including, hopefully, the original contributor) might have a chance to verify it. If this also fails, removal is of course justified. This process seems to rarely take place in the GW article; it would appear that a large percentage of regular editors of this article could use a refresher course on reverting, in particular how and when it is to be used. Maintaining prior consensus does not apply.

Thanks for your consideration. --Triple-Deuce 22:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't sound like his advice is being followed here.Zoomwsu 02:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Gallup poll

The Gallup Poll referred to in the article is ancient, and I haven't been able to find any first-hand account of its results at all. We have only second-hand contradictory interpretations from partisan sources. Given that the poll supposedly reflected "400 members of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society", it's more than a little strange that searches of the AMS website and the AMS publication database reveal no mention whatsoever of the poll. Likewise for the AGU website and AGU publication database. I'm inclined to delete this section unless we can establish what the poll actually says. Raymond Arritt 19:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right... A search on Gallup for "global warming" between 1989 and 1998, reveals only one survey [2] which is on public opinion. From my diggings this information seems to originate from here (NCPA BA#203 - "Myths of Global warming", H. Sterling Burnett, 1997) - but Burnett gives no reference - only a graph claiming to be from Gallup. --Kim D. Petersen 20:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The 1997 public survey is btw. mentioned in this from the AGU - and while that isn't strange. It is strange that it doesn't mention a previous survey made by Gallup on the AGU's own members.... --Kim D. Petersen 20:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well ignore the above - it seems that the survey is real - but unfortunatly i haven't found the survey itself. Only various very different accounts of what its conclusions or results were. --Kim D. Petersen 20:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks, and I found this too. Looks like the survey is real, but we still have no reliable info on what its results were. Raymond Arritt 21:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

And this, which is very interesting though it doesn't give much detail on the AMS-AGU survey. The survey was conducted by Gallup but was commissioned by a partisan institute, so it would be interesting to see how the questions were worded. Raymond Arritt 21:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting...i've only had a cursory look at it - but what surprised me about it, is that it actually indicates a stronger consensus in 1992, than i thought was the case. --Kim D. Petersen 21:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

American Association of State Climatologists

I read again their statement and I find that there's a bridge to cross between what they say and claiming that they concur with the IPCC. I dont think that they're dissenting either, though. But perhaps they should belong in a "Neutral statements" section. --Childhood's End 13:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It does appear they don't mention a primary cause of GW. It seems like they may be revising their statement as well, according to minutes from their meeting last year -- see [3], bottom of the next to last page --Nethgirb 22 June 2007

The tone of their views on climate change appears to vacillate depending on which individuals are or aren't present at the meeting. Raymond Arritt 05:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but for our purpose herein, would it be right to focus on their effective official statement and to file it in a neutral or middle ground section? --Childhood's End 12:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The more I read it, the vaguer it sounds. That's almost certainly intentional given the divergent perspectives that existed within that group at the time. Omitting it altogether seems like the best choice -- it contains only a single passing allusion to "global temperature trends", which is the principal metric used when discussing the problem. Raymond Arritt 14:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I dont see any good reason to accept that their opinion is any less worthwhile than that of the Federal Climate Change Science Program or of many others listed herein. They simply do not endorse as the others do. I hope you dont see this lack of endorsement, or their "divergent perspectives", as problematic. --Childhood's End 15:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think RA's point isn't a divergent opinion, but the lack of any concrete opinion in the statement. In my opinion though, there's some information there, and the statement is worth keeping. I think it would be appropriate, given the current article setup, to have a "Neutral statements" section and put it there; it will probably soon have the AAPG to keep it company.

But this is a good time to mention that I'm not sure I'm a fan of the current "concurring/dissenting" organization. It makes it seem like the issue of climate change is a single yes/no question, and makes the groups take sides like a 2-party political system. I'm happy to be convinced otherwise if people have arguments for it. --Nethgirb 08:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Overall, I share your views. Perhaps I could only add that a lack of any concrete opinion does not mean that there's no opinion there per se; these experts are likely telling us that given the current state of things, they cannot clear-cut support one side or another. So as you said, there is some information there. --Childhood's End 13:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You're projecting your own interpretation onto their silence. That was the basis for an excellent movie, but in the present context runs afoul of WP:NOR. Raymond Arritt 15:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Forget about my own interpretation then. The fact is that they remained neutral (bona fide note: remaining neutral can be an opinion). --Childhood's End 15:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

American Meteorological Society Statement

I think the AMS has updated the statement mention in the article: http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html Dr Denim 02:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

now that I look again the mentioned article was regarding climate change research...not entirely sure if the topic difference is significant or not (I haven't had the chance to read them recently) Dr Denim 02:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

American Geophysical Union

I was a member of the AGU at the time they made their statement. I do not remember a survey of their membership. Instead, a small editorial board presumed to speak for thousands of scientists. The AGU's statement does not reflect my opinion, nor can they possibly claim the unanimous support of people they never asked. I feel they stole my voice and used it against me. Rather than let them continue to claim to speak for me, I dropped my membership.

We must remember that science is government funded, so it will naturally develop a pro-bigger-government bias. This will not necessarily appear as flaws in the work done, but as an imbalance between types of work funded and types of work not funded. Statements from a few people holding political positions in a politically-funded organization should not be assumed to represent the summary of all the views of their membership. The only way to find that out is to poll the members individually and publish the results of the poll. And even then the questions could be stacked.

The global warming people might be right. I don't know. But for them to claim I agree with them is clearly wrong. And by extenstion, they have probably falsely claimed the support of many other scientists. 72.208.56.148 12:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

They appear to be obliged to tell you they are developing it [4]. As far as I can tell, neither they nor wiki claim (except perhaps implicitly) that the statement represents the members views William M. Connolley 13:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

American Quarternary Association

After reading the reference given for this org's stated opinion, it appears to me that the only relevant part is this : "Few credible scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise in global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution" (as shown in the article). But is this really saying anything or concurring with the IPCC's main conclusions? I mean, most skeptics accept that humans have influenced the rise in T. The remainder of the article is about criticizing State of Fear and the AAPG for giving a journalism award to Chrichton... --Childhood's End 14:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Many, if not most, of the skeptics on the skeptics page would agree with the statement that humans have influenced the temperature since the Industrial Revolution. FWIW, I would make the above statement, and I don't concur with the IPCC. The question of human influence is one of degree, and whereas the IPCC says that most of the warming is due to human activity, this statement does not make that claim. If a scientist made the statement that "there is no doubt that natural variables have influenced the rise in T since the IR" that wouldn't be enough to call them a skeptic (I'd assume WMC would agree with this), so why is acknowledging some human influence enough to concur with the IPCC? I agree with CE here, find a new statement or move to neutral. Oren0 17:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

But then there is of course the reference to the US CCSP report(s), as the (at the time) current best scientific assessment - and which concurs with the IPCC. Which kind of strikes your objections. --Kim D. Petersen 17:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, deletion must also be contemplated, since this statement was really about State of Fear and says little if not nothing about the AQA's position. --Childhood's End 17:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Kim, yes, there is a reference to the CCSP, but there is no stated endorsement. I dont think you would accept a similar quote in the List of scientists opposing the mainstream assessment. Or would you? --Childhood's End 18:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

As for deletion: it does contain useful information about climate change independent of the Chrichton issue, such as their reference to "...the growing body of evidence that warming of the atmosphere, especially over the past 50 years, is directly impacted by human activity". And the authors were the Council of the American Quaternary Association, so I think it is relevant to the article.

As for classification as "concurring" vs. "neutral": it's true that it doesn't specifically state whether or not the majority of the recent warming is anthropogenic. But calling it "neutral", without defining what we mean by "neutral", is misleading. This is one reason I think this classification into concurring/neutral/dissenting may not be a good idea. But if we're going to do that, we need to state in each of those sections exactly what we mean (like we have done in List of scientists opposing...) --Nethgirb 21:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding my deletion comment, it was meant to point out that the AQA paper is not a statement about climate change, while all the others referred to in the article have this purpose. The sentence you mention is merely an obiter dictum.

I also felt that "neutral" was not the exact right word that we should look for. Raymond Arritt provided what seemed to me a better description ("noncommittal"). Would you concur to put AQA in such a category? --Childhood's End 21:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You missed AAPG aligns itself with Crichton’s views, and stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming. which can only mean that the AQA accepts human-induced... But I agree with you that this isn't a statement on GW. Its about SoF. I don't think it should be listed William M. Connolley 21:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

WMC: But it doesn't explicitly say whether those effects are the cause of the majority of recent global warming. As such I would be OK with putting AQA under "noncommittal" as long as we define what that means. This could be done at the beginning of each section and also at the top of the article, saying something like "statements are categorized based on whether they endorse the proposition that most of the recent warming is likely anthropogenic." --Nethgirb 21:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

RE deletion: I see the argument that it is more about SoF than GW. On the other hand, the statement clearly addresses climate change, and I'd say it's more than paranthetical given that scientific opinion on climate change is critical to the criticism of SoF. --Nethgirb 21:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

For the moment, I've deleted it. I disagree that its non-commital. Whatever it says about cl ch is on the anthro side. But its not a statement William M. Connolley 08:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

American Chemical Society

It seems to me that this org should also be considered neutral. Some cherry-picking has been made with the statement provided in the article. Here are a few more lines from their text (my parenthesis and emphasis) :

• Current debates focus on the extent to which humans may be altering the pattern of natural change and appropriate policy responses. (no acknowledgement of a consensus)
• The American Chemical Society (ACS) reaffirms that a vigorous research effort is needed to better understand and predict climate change and its possible consequences. A strengthened federal research program to better characterize our climate on both the global and regional levels and to assess vulnerabilities to climate change is essential in order to achieve these goals. (sounds like R. Pielke...) Particular attention needs to be paid to the assessment of the complex phenomena that underlie our climate, including greenhouse gas emission sources and sinks, the chemical cycles of carbon and nitrogen, and the atmospheric chemistry of aerosols and ozone. With increased understanding, the computer models that project climate changes can be refined and estimates made more accurate and useful for decision makers.
  
• The greatest challenges facing the global community include understanding how the global climate system works and how our own activities may be influencing it (...)

Now, these are not dissenting statements either. It just seems to me that the ACS has taken a quite neutral position. There are some parts which acknowledge that climate is changing and that action must be taken, but I see no clear endorsement of the IPCC's main findings. --Childhood's End 15:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No clear endorsement of the IPCC's main findings? How about "There is now general agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real (and particularly strong within the past 20 years), that most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that climate change could have serious adverse effects by the end of this century." The only bit you could complain about is that they do not explicitly state that the greenhouse gas increase is anthropogenic. But I don't think there's much debate about that, and anyway they make the connection implicitly by spending 3 paragraphs plus some conclusion text talking about the need for humans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including "Policymakers are faced with difficult choices because the costs of policies to reduce, avoid, or sequester greenhouse gas emissions must be weighed carefully, along with the risks and costs of inaction. But these choices must be made because climate change is occurring. ... The ACS joins numerous other scientific societies and academies in calling for effective action now to minimize human impact on the global climate system and to increase society’s ability to adapt to changes that occur. The overwhelming balance of evidence indicates that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the prudent and responsible course of action at this time." --Nethgirb 00:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the anthropogenic part is kinda the heart of the problem isnt it? Look closely, they later on say that "particular attention needs to be paid to the assessment of the complex phenomena that underlie our climate, including greenhouse gas emission sources and sinks". Combined with the fact that they nowhere endorse that the warming is likely mostly attributable to humans, and I am forced to find that they do not clearly endorse the IPCC no? They do confirm, like most skeptics, that humans have some part in this, but they go no farther. And the need for humans to reduce their emmissions is also stated by various skeptics, either as "in case the IPCC is right since we do not know the cause" or as "reducing pollution cannot be a bad thing". --Childhood's End 01:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

(Did you mean "...but they go no farther"?)

But they do go farther. They say most recent warming is likely due to increased greehouse gas concentrations. This is consistent with the IPCC and inconsistent with most skeptics' positions, e.g. the ones that favor solar causes, or that greenhouse gas concentrations are the effect not the cause. So instead of saying "they do not clearly endorse the IPCC", it would be more accurate to say that they explicitly acknowledge one of the two important links in the chain. (And I think they implicitly acknowledge the other as well.) So calling them "noncommittal" is misleading. Your oversimplification ("they do not clearly endorse the IPCC") is similar to the classification in the article, which as I have said, I think is not helpful. --Nethgirb 04:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

(oh yes, that's what I meant, sorry - I corrected it above)

True they endorse the view that most of the recent warming is likely due to increased GHG. This is in agreement with the IPCC, but this is not what distinguishes the IPCC's position from many critics' position. Indeed, some skeptics believe the warming is attributable to solar variation or other causes, but many also simply say that we do not know the cause and that therefore, it is wrong for the IPCC to claim that the warming is likely mostly due to human activity. The anthropogenic question is the heart of the problem, and that is what this article is about per the intro : These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the IPCC position that "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities".

So, I think it is a misrepresentation to claim that the ACS endorsed this IPCC's position. --Childhood's End 13:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't get your point. You agree that the ACS links the warming to the rise in GHGs. So do you think they should have explicitely mentioned that this rise is anthropogenic? Sorry, but then you could just as well complain about the rest not explicitly mentioning this Earth and could be refering to some fictional Earth 50 timelines to the left. There is no scientific opposition on this point. --Stephan Schulz 14:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that the determination as to whether the observed warming is anthropogenic or not is no more relevant than wondering which Earth scientists are talking about? To answer your relevant question, though: yes, I think they should have explicitely mentioned that the rise is anthropogenic (or likely mostly due to human activity), and that failing this, we are perhaps misrepresenting their position. --Childhood's End 14:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

CE you are getting out on a limb here. There is (to my knowledge) no other scientific explanation for the CO2 rise ... none. You will even have to search very hard to find any sceptics who will argue this - as its simply to easy an argumentation to shoot down. --Kim D. Petersen 15:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, isotopic analysis confirms that the increased CO2 is from fossil fuel combustion. It's reasonable to assume that the American Chemical Society understands isotopic analysis. Raymond Arritt 15:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

So, increased CO2 cannot come from tectonics, heated oceans, changes in atmosphere patterns, or such? --Childhood's End 16:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The present rise can come from none of those things. It is anthropogenic. Why are you flogging this dead horse? William M. Connolley 16:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't beat me, I was just asking, either out of curiosity or to empty the question. If there is no other possible source of CO2 rise then yes, their statement is concurring with the IPCC I guess, although with more clear cautionnary qualifiers. The IPCC should consider using it as a source of inspiration as to how to communicate.

I think it was worth discussing, but to those who may feel this was a waste of time I'm sorry. -- Childhood's End 16:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I suspect many would find it prudent of you to actually get informed with the same energy and skill that you use to defend your often uninformed position. Also, the fact that the ACS mentions reduction of anthropogenic GHG emissions as desireable a number of times in this context should be a bit of a giveaway (e.g. "The overwhelming balance of evidence indicates that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the prudent and responsible course of action at this time. ").--Stephan Schulz 22:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the way you ignore all their qualifiers and focus on this specific aspect so that you can blast me. It's a concern shared by 'contrarians' anyway (e.g. Christy). But I do have this quality not so widely held throughout Wikipedia that I can admit when others are right, and I can easily live with your unpleasant comment. This being said, despite my presumably lack of information, I managed to raise two discrepancies with other statements on this list, and like it or not, it seems to me that this article is now slightly better. No need to thank me. --Childhood's End 03:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand that editors herein hold the legitimate view that there is no other explanation to the recent rise in CO2 outside human activities.
Despite this and after consideration, I am willing to look stubborn and maintain a minimal doubt regarding the interpretation that is made of the ACS statement.
If the ACS does support the IPCC's finding that most of the recent warming is likely due to human activity by saying that "There is now general agreement among scientific experts that (...) most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations", I find it odd they can say right after that "Current debates focus on the extent to which humans may be altering the pattern of natural change".
This last statement is in contradiction with the IPCC's stated extent of human influence (most) as it does not acknowledge any specific extent of influence - it rather acknowledges current debateS. I further find that they also say that we need to pay attention to GHG sources and sinks, and that we have yet to understand how our own activities are influencing the global climate system, which (perhaps it's just my foolishness) seems to leave some doubt regarding the attribution of the recent warming to human activities despite their opening statement, which was not describing their own view but only a description of how they see the current scientific general agreement. Finally, I also find that they specifically restrained their joining to other scientific societies to "calling for effective action now to minimize human impact on the global climate system and to increase society’s ability to adapt to changes".
I understand that as of now, I'm alone holding some doubt as to a possible mischaracterization of the ACS statement so I'll leave this for further discussion in the event anyone else would care looking further at this. --Childhood's End 14:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

As has been discussed elsewhere "most" of the warming is somewhere between 50% and 100% (a quite wide range) - "most" of this is caused by greenhouse gases is between 25% and 100%. A wide margin for discussion on "the extent to which humans may be altering the pattern of natural change". Is it 50%? 75%? 80%? --Kim D. Petersen 21:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this follow-up Kim. If I can say, as you rightly point out, there's a wide margin for discussion on "the extent to which humans may be altering the pattern of natural change" and it seems to me that we should not presume that the ACS necessarily agrees with this IPCC finding without clear wording to this effect, especially with the several qualifiers they carefully added. Also, this exact point was discussed under a previous discussion about John Christy's statements, who is not known for his total and absolute support for the IPCC. --Childhood's End 23:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you are now reverting your own position and trying to use that as an argument - well done. --Kim D. Petersen 23:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Which of my positions have I reverted? I've been consistent on 1- The IPCC says that humans are responsible for most of the recent warming observed; 2- The ACS says that there is "general agreement among scientific experts" that most of the recent warming is due to increased GHG but fails to specifically mention that it is mostly attributable to humans; 3- It seems to editors here that the attribution to humans should be inferred from their statement, but I find that they put qualifiers notably on a) the extent to which humans may be altering the pattern of natural change (thus unsupportive of the IPCC's finding of "most") and b) GHG sources and sinks, and this tells me that by categorizing their statement as "Concuring with the IPCC", we are in the realm of presumption, even if prima facie it's a good looking one, and this is something you would never agree with in Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. --Childhood's End 13:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to pigeonhole a society's position conclusively as "concurring" or "noncommittal" because there are many intermediate positions. I would sum up the ACS position as "there is warming due to greenhouse gases; we need more research, but let's decrease greenhouse gas emissions now". It obviously does not match the IPCC statement exactly, but if I had to pick a category I would classify it as concurring. I don't agree that saying "Current debates focus on the extent to which humans may be altering the pattern of natural change and appropriate policy responses" disagrees with saying that most of the recent changes are due to humans, because this statement seems to be talking about present and future changes, which are not known with certainty. Finally, I don't follow how saying that we need to pay attention to "greenhouse gas emission sources and sinks" goes against the IPCC position. --Itub 14:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your view. Perhaps I could only specify that I did not suggest that the ACS was against the IPCC position, but rather suggested that it might not be committal enough to categorize it as supportive. Best. --Childhood's End 15:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so let me (as an ACS member, but not a representative) try to explain what I believe is behind their statement and its wording and say that I believe that the ACS's statement is supportive of the IPCC position - scientist English is NOT the same as non-scientist English (this is something I am willing to discuss with anyone who would like to). The ACS is made up of some 160,000 scientists from around the world. It has a republican governing structure, in the original sense of the word in that representatives are choosen to make policy and decisions. These representatives, known as Councilors, meet twice yearly (next week happens to be one of those times) at the ACS National Meeting. 1) Policy statements such as the one discussed (in addition to being required of the ACS through its Congressional Charter) often take a good deal of time to make it through the various "hoops" that they must go through. My educated guess (and I have seen first-hand how the ACS system works) is that this policy was initiated long before the IPCC report came out, and to change it would have delayed it on ACS's part. I can try to find out if this is true or not, but it doesn't matter based on 2) since the ACS has so many members, there are always internal, political considerations when the ACS does anything. This is not ideal for a scientific organization, but is completely understandable. For me, as a Ph.D. chemist, as far as the source of the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere, there is very little scientific doubt that it is from the burning of fossil fuels, much as there is little doubt that chlorofluorocarbons were destroying the earth's ozone layer. To me, that is an example of the kind of prudent choice we should make now - the ozone was being disapearing, and theories suggested that it was a direct result of what Humans were doing. Instead of prolonged bickering, "we" all just dealt with the problem. Better to deal constructively with a problem whose source is not 100% known than to allow the planet to be destroyed. Global climate change is real, and we have good theories on why it is happening. Should we try to fix it, or just wait until we're all dead to do something about it? Jtciszewski 17:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Brown et al survey

I added a section that reads:

Fergus Brown, James Annan and Roger Pielke, Sr. sought to establish a basis for whether there remains significant disagreement among scientists on the issue of climate change, concluding that "while there is strong agreement on the important role of anthropogenically-caused radiative forcing of CO2 in climate change...there is not a universal agreement among climate scientists about climate science as represented in the IPCC's WG1" Report. While the poll admittedly is "not statistically formal", it asserts that it uses a "valid approach" in its assessment of whether a significant number of scientists disagree with the IPCC perspective. The survey decisively concludes that "[c]laims that the human input of CO2 is not an important climate forcing, or that 'the science is more or less settled', are found to be false".

The survey targeted scientists who have been published in a variety of climate science publications, including Geophysical Research Letters, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Climate of the Past, the Journal of Atmospheric Science and the Journal of Climate. It also targeted the authors of presentations in the 2007 American Geophysical Union and 2007 European Geophysical Union General Assemblies. The results showed that approximately 45-50% of the scientists surveyed concur with the IPCC perspective, while significant minorities (15-20% for each) believe the IPCC overstates or understates the influence of anthropogenic CO2 forcing. No scientist admitted to holding a position that global warming is a fabrication and that humans have no significant influence on global climate.

The authors of the poll are interested in obtaining further input from scientists who undertake activities that are relevant to the issue of climate change in order to develop a larger, more accurate sample. The poll summary outlines the procedures by which such scientists may include their opinions in the poll's sample.

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

I am not at all convinced this poll belongs William M. Connolley 08:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The future revision certainly doesn't belong, at least not if it is based on their solicitation of participation. --Nethgirb 11:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Why? Care to justify your statements? Zoomwsu 14:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Because of the self-selection bias due to soliciting input, which Raymond has explained below. --Nethgirb 21:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Has the paper been accepted for publication? Where? If not, it obviously must be dismissed out of hand. Raymond Arritt 16:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me..."out of hand"? Can you cite anything that questions the veracity of this research? It has been posted on the Pielke Research Groups website under the heading "Reviewed Publications". Is this not good enough for you? Zoomwsu 16:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there any journal information as to where it was reviewed? I tried looking it up in Scirus and Google Scholar but found nothing. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure...the Research Group website includes it under "Reviewed Publications". I confess I'm not terribly resourceful when it comes to this issue...Zoomwsu 17:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried looking on their main page, but couldn't find the link to this article. Where is this "Reviewed Publications" heading found? I might be able to find some hints there. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[5]--Note the menu at left and the headline. Zoomwsu 17:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, so that says it has been submitted to EoS, but not yet accepted. Hence, it might or might not yet have been reviewed. (And, it might even have been reviewed and rejected, but that's less likely.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

(later addition). Oh dear. I just read the bit that invited other scientists to submit their views for inclusion. Self-selection bias, anyone? Raymond Arritt 16:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The paper is very clear about its methodology, and that has been conveyed in the presentation of its results. Partucularly since this is the most recent poll on the subject, why don't we keep the section and allow the reader to develop their own conclusions about its accuracy? Zoomwsu 16:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm confusing the "players" here, but it seems that people are arguing against their own perspectives but not in a "write for your enemies" deliberate way. This poll says that "there is strong agreement on the important role of anthropogenically-caused radiative forcing of CO2 in climate change" and that no scientist said "that global warming is a fabrication and that humans have no significant influence on global climate". Although it's possible that they're misrepresenting the number of scientists that think the IPCC is too conservative or not conservative enough, those numbers don't surprise me. I've heard several stories about what they left out because there wasn't enough information to make informed decisions on (e.g., ice streams). Most of those lead me to believe that the IPCC is probably too conservative (i.e., that things are worse than they are painted by the IPCC), although I fully understand that this is the way that science typically works. I agree that last paragraph could be omitted, and I do understand the self-selection problems inherent in it. Keep in mind, that the survey results being reported were from targeted solicitations and not necessarily (but possibly) subject to those self-selection problems. It's future results that would suffer from a selection bias. Finally, it seems no more or less reliable than most other poll results reported here. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

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

I agree with this, but feel that after it has been published it deserves to be here as much as the other surveys. (Again, I rather think it strengthens the "scientific consensus" argument, but it seems that I'm the only one.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No you aren't the only one :) - but the major issue is still its publication status. --Kim D. Petersen 20:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been placed on a public website for crying out loud! Zoomwsu 22:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Where was the CSE Foundation Survey published? Zoomwsu 22:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Bray and von Storch survey was rejected, yet is still included! Zoomwsu 22:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Even further, the "older surveys" include surveys that haven't been published in scientific journals! There is a HUGE double standard here! Zoomwsu 22:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems silly to me not to include it now. This isn't the same as research regarding a purely scientific issue (i.e. the bar shouldn't be set as high, since this isn't a scientific subject but a collection of opinions and survey results). The fact that the survey results have been placed for public consumption on the research group's website (under the heading "reviewed publications", no less) give it sufficient credibility to at least be included? Since when do poll results rise to the level of peer-reviewed academic research?

By the way, the Survey of US State Climatologists reference links directly to their website. Is this also "unpublished"?

Look, the purpose of this page is to provide references to scientific opinions on climate change. The Brown et al survey provides the most recent polling on this subject. The survey has been published on the research group's website, indicating it is intended for public consumption. There have been no points raised which question the veracity of the poll's results. Considering all this, why are we keeping it from being cited here? On balance, these points weighed against the desire to wait for publication in a journal clearly favor inclusion, particularly when viewed in light of Wikipedia's clear guidelines to bias towards inclusion of content. It is unfair to keep this out. Zoomwsu 22:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point about double-standards, and see why you would think that. However, I'm not sure what would drive that double-standard, as those arguing against including this survey right now the most are those whose POV is supported by it and not by the CSE study. A common complaint here, and in fact on a lot of Wikipedia articles (e.g., see the discussion on Gonzales' resignation) is that Wikipedia is not a news source and it's OK if we take our time in adding new sources. (Although this argument at times seems quite weak to me considering the number of articles that warn you about it being a current event.) At this time, the status of that source is still quite variable. I think you will see that this survey will get added, in time. As for me, I don't really care if it gets added now or later, but I do think it should be added eventually. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

My point is why not now? I've already done the research adn writing to include it, now it awaits some arbitrary qualification for inclusion that is not applied to other polls already on this page. Zoomwsu 22:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

In thinking about it some more (especially in light of your points about other surveys), I wouldn't really be bothered by including it now — as long as it's accompanied by an in-line disclaimer that it is a submitted work that has not yet been published. That should supply the appropriate context that this survey hasn't really had a chance to be critiqued yet. (For example, in scientific papers, I cite work that I've submitted but that hasn't been published yet — it's common practice.) A {{Current|date=August 2007}} tag wouldn't be unreasonable for the subsection, either. As for waiting, it could very well be more than 6 months before this survey gets published. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your approach and when it is finally published, we can remove said reference. I think it's a good idea to get this info in, as it makes the article more up-to-date. Zoomwsu 03:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If the survey has been published by a reliable source, it should be included in the article, provided it is also notable (it seems notable with regard to this article's subject, although this also has to be considered). If it hasnt, it has to wait until. But there is no rationale for requiring a peer-reviewed scientific publication here. --Childhood's End 22:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

One problem (just to contradict my earlier point about it being OK) is that it (currently) fails the self-published sources guideline. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, but I must contradict myself yet again:

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

It seems I just looked at the title and didn't actually read the policy. Point being is that it doesn't violate that guideline, but caution should be exercised. I'm back to thinking including it now makes sense, although I don't feel strong enough to engage in any edit-warring over it. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me this is a perfect example of the exception cited in the policy. Pielke is an established expert and has previously published in this field. Combine this with the fact that this is the most up-to-date survey in the article by 3 years and it's pretty much uncontestable that it deserves to be included. KDP and WMC, I'm waiting for your objections...Zoomwsu 03:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

A few comments.

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

Yes, I'm especially concerned that the language and interpretation will change when it is published (as I have little doubt that it will be). We can wait until the paper is in final form before citing it. "Accepted" would be fine; we don't need to delay until it appears in Eos. Raymond Arritt 07:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone told me that Eos is more a scientific "newspaper" than "journal" and, as such, we shouldn't have to wait as long for publication as I previously assumed. I think waiting until it is actually published is not unreasonable. (I find it highly unlikely that it won't be published, so it's not worth discussing right now the possible "double-standard" that we already have a survey that was rejected from being published.) As Jdannan has pointed out, papers often change subtly (or in rare cases, not so subtly) between submission and publication. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Citing unpublished manuscripts just isn't on. There are good reasons why WP:V emphasizes that sources should be independently vetted through review and fact checking. No convincing argument has been given for premature inclusion other than WP:ILIKEIT. Raymond Arritt 15:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel compelled to make up my arguments from thin air. The justification for inclusion is to provide up-to-date information. The most recent poll listed is from 2004, a full three years ago. A lot has changed in three years and it would be of benefit to readers to include the most recent data. There's your "convincing argument". Zoomwsu 18:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the concerns about self-published material (which is part of the WP:V article you cite) have been discussed and resolved. As I mention earlier, this is a pretty good example of the exception in the policy. Zoomwsu 18:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Dead Links

Can anyone verify if the following are not working: [6] [7] Thanks, Brusegadi 20:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

neither works for me --Nethgirb 21:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried finding the articles but to see what I got I needed a subscription and I do not have one. Does anyone have a subscription? I will see what I can do. Brusegadi 22:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The following are also dead: [8] and [9]. I will try to find replacements. Anyone familiar with the the Institute for Coastal Research may be able to find a replacement for the first, since it seems that it was just a server change. Brusegadi 02:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The second one (heartland) works fine for me. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The first one can be found here: [10] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Guess i need to look at the dates instead of noticing the area of a diff ;-) - Oh well it corrected another broken link. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Schulte Study

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

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

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

E&E is not a WP:RS. And the report on the study you is unclear - neutral papers seem to be papers that take no position - probably because it is not relevant for the topic at hand. That would leave a 45 to 6 majority for the consensus view - and I would very much like to see those 6% before I believe in them. --Stephan Schulz 18:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

For purposes of this talk page only, read what one blogger has to say about the study. Basically, it repeats what Stephan just said, and expands on it (perhaps a little less politely, though). Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

What did you expect? 1) The study is unpublished. 2) The Moreno citation is not a WP:RS (its a WP:SPS). 3) Moreno hasn't read the thing (second hand information). 4) When the study comes out, it will be printed in a non-WP:RS publication (with a history for selecting by political agenda rather than scientific accuracy [11]). --Kim D. Petersen 21:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

See-also http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/08/classifying_abstracts_on_globa.php - it looks like at least some of the papers have been misclassified a-la Peiser William M. Connolley 21:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and while we're on it, you wrote "Only thirty two (6%) rejected the consensus outright" - this appears to be wrong, based on http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/consensus.pdf, which says only 7 papers explicitly reject (the 32 include implicit rej, whatever that is). Are you sure your sources are reliable? William M. Connolley 21:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Just compare the impact factors of the two journals. We should not use articles in journals that are not considered reliable by the climate science community for this wiki page. Articles that get lots of citations are more relevant than articles that are not cited. Count Iblis 21:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually you can't compare the impact factors, because E&E isn't even covered by the Science Citation Index. 'Nuff said. Raymond Arritt 21:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. See Energy and Environment and Science (journal) for more on the two publications. E&E is not included in any serious science citation index. Science is one of the most prestigeous scientific journals. If you think the two are of equal weight and reliability, you don't know what you are talking about. --Stephan Schulz 21:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I see! That's even worse than I thought. Count Iblis 22:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec) First, your "EPW" source [12] is really the blog of Senator James Inhofe. Don't try to get your science from a politician. :-) Second, it's not enough to just say "the study happened" and presume that the methodology used was really as described and done correctly, etc.—this is what peer review tries to validate. Science is one of the most respected scientific journals in any field. Energy and Environment, on the other hand, is a social science journal which isn't even listed in the ISI database of scientific publications. Here is a news article published by the American Chemical Society discussing E&E in which E&E's editor essentially admits that the journal has a bias towards climate skeptics' papers, and which also discusses the journal's lack of prestige [13]. --Nethgirb 21:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

These are at least more of legitimate arguments then what I’ve been getting. The problem with them is that I don't think it's right to justify the relevance of a source based on how many times it's cited and by how other sources view said source. Especially by the climate science community. People make the argument that any dissenters to the human caused global warming theory are paid off by energy companies and special interest groups. This same argument can be made for the global warming consensus crowd. What I mean is that the argument can be made that global warming consensus crowd has been bought off by these carbon credit companies, environmental cleanup companies, and schools trying to receive funding for themselves. There is just as much profit in trying to "prove" human caused global warming exists as there is in trying to "disprove" it. Pretty much any study that is done that disagrees with the "consensus" is pretty much ignored and not cited anywhere except a few places that make those same claims about special interest groups and energy companies paying for them. Now personally I don't believe that both of these arguments are completely true. I'm sure there is legitimate research that is pointing to human caused global warming and I'm sure there is legitimate research pointing away from it. I'm also sure that there are studies that have been bought and paid for by companies and special interest groups on both sides of the aisle. My point is that Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV and fairly represent both sides of an issue completely without regard to how "fringe" a side might be. And it is supposed to do this objectively and without bias. There is obviously another side to the Scientific Opinion on Climate Change. If you read through this article though you'll find that the other side is not really represented at all. And any time someone tries to present the other side of the argument in any of the climate change related articles it's usually reverted quickly and wikilawyered out of existence. All I'm trying to do here is get legitimate information pertaining to the other side of the argument into the article. I'll wait until the study is published before I make any changes. The study will be published in a scientific journal. Someone's judgment about said scientific journals political stance and accuracy does not apply hear. It's still a scientific journal just like all the other ones that are used as sources for the other studies listed here and it fairly and accurately describes the other side of the human caused global warming argument. Once the study is published I will add it to the list of other studies. I'm sure it will get reverted again. I guess then we move onto an RfC or something... Elhector 22:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The topic of this article is Scientific opinion on climate science and therefore we must present that scientific opinion in a NPOV way. As others have pointed out above (I initially didn't realize that), E&E can hardly be considered a scientific journal. There are journals like E&E on creation science, there are physics journals like Physics essays, Infinite energy, etc. where people publish their pseudoscientific theories on cold fusion, etc. But these ideas are not considered to be valid arguments by the scientific community. Such ideas can be mentioned in wikipedia, but not on a page that is specifically about the scientific opinion or a page that discusses the science. Count Iblis 23:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so there is no scientific opinion against human caused global warming? What it sounds like your saying here is that any scientist who disagrees with the scientific theory on human caused global warming are not part of the scientific community. That may not be what you're trying to get accross here but that's how it reads. That doesn't sound right to me. Because a person's study gets published in a journal that is considered less then scientific by certain members of the scientific community has no bearing here. I'd even be ok with stating in the blurb about the study that certain people consider the journal to be psuedoscientific. That portion would just have to be cited. That is how this situation is handled in most other articles. They include opinions even from the fringe side of science, they just include the info that the opinion is considered fringe by the mainstream scientific community and cite the source that considers it fringe. My point is the title of the article is Scientific opinion on climate change and I find it really hard to believe that 100% of the scientific community supports this view. Maybe 99.9% support the view, but the .1% that don't support the theory are still part of the scientific community and I believe there point of view should be in this article as well. Like I said, I have no problem if someone wants to add the information about that particular journal being viewed as less than scientific by parts of the scientific community. There are members of the scientific community that do utilize this journal though, or else it wouldn't exist in the first place. Elhector 23:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:WEIGHT, as a small minority opinion, the skeptical side should get less attention than the consensus. The way that has been implemented is that the skeptical side is given equal opportunity, i.e., it's subject to the same inclusion requirements. Until very recently, the AAPG's statement was skeptical and was included. Now it is noncommittal, mentioning specifically that some members are skeptical, and it is still included. Nowhere does the article say that 100% of the sci community supports AGW theory, and the skeptical side does appear. As for this particular article that you wish to include, as a criticism of Oreskes I doubt it should belong since Science is widely considered much more reliable than E&E. You haven't given any evidence that E&E is considered reliable by any significant fraction of the sci community (and others have given evidence that it isn't). --Nethgirb 05:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Individual skeptics are given attention at Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming --Nethgirb 05:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

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

I always assumed that since E&E prints the bad ones, they must reject the good ones. This will require what strategists call "an agonizing reappraisal." Raymond Arritt 00:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It never crossed my mind that good papers were even submit to E&E :-P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.31.203.28 (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Heat

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

I doubt it should be included here, because as an idea its so uncommon. Its wrong, of course. See http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/04/global-warming-is-not-from-waste-heat.html This was discussed somewhere else recently William M. Connolley 08:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

And even for the rather insignificant effect of waste heat: Fully renewable energy sources (like biomass, wind, water...) only redistribute heat, they do not add heat to the system. Biogas will be burned into water and CO2, the same endproducts as a ordinary decomposition. The same amount of heat is released either way (or we are in trouble with the first law of thermodynamics ;-). There may be second-order effects, of cource (biomass use captures Carbon in the form of methane that would normaly be released into the atmosphere and decay more slowly into CO2, acting as a greenhouse gas on the way). Nuclear power plants, on the other hand, really release energy into the system that would normally remain bound. But, concurring with William, the effect is minimal compared to Greenhouse gas forcing. --Stephan Schulz 10:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Entropy

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

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

Archive

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

I stopped at 'what about Mars?' because there was some discussion there less than one month old. Brusegadi 06:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Did a little more of this today. I got no objections before. Brusegadi 01:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

NRC 2001 report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[my addition follows]

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

The page sez It does not document the views of individual scientists - I don't see why L should be an exception. If we included his views on every report, the page would be full of him William M. Connolley 19:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for not having taken that in. Perhaps I could suggest an alternative revision:

'In 2001 the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions [8]. The report said:

The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability... Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century... Because there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude of future warming are tentative and subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward)... The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue.' Enescot 20:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you're suggesting adding the bit in italics (my addition). Its fair an balanced; I have no objection from that point. But does it add much to the discussion? Is it worth the words? William M. Connolley 20:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Open Letter to UN Secretary General

How should we include the following info?

[14]

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

Interesting. Some of these self-styled "promenent scientists" have poorer publication records than our better graduate students. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

So what is the publication standard for being considered a scientist? How many IPCC authors meet that standard? My point is, we need to be careful about setting our own standards for who qualifies (OR anyone?). Zoomwsu (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Several are not scientists at all. It's an interesting list of signatories, though. Neither Christy nor either Pielke is on the list. We get only one of the M&Ms. I'm a bit surprised about Lindzen, Gray and Spencer - I would have expected better of them. Wegman, the "neutral" reviewer of the Hockey stick is there. When did Nigel Lawson become a scientist? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, on of them is Louis Hissink. Standards for prominence are clearly slipping. But to answer the question, I suggest we "include" the info by throwing it into the bin William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Mercy. Hissink's views sound like a cross between Tim Ball and Immanuel Velikovsky. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, in a certain weird and somewhat sad way, that makes sense. According to Usenet Velikovskyans, Venus heat has nothing to do with CO2, either. She just has not have had time to cool down after her recent expulsion fro Jupiter... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Geological Society of America

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

Thanks for pointing out the broken link. I've fixed it. What makes you think it is "obviously non-committal"? Is it that they're saying that it might be only "partly" due to human causes? I'm not aware of anyone who thinks it is definitely due to only human causes. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes but to be committal, they would have to say that it is mostly due to human causes, something they avoided to say. Without this opinion or other clear pointers to the main IPCC conclusions, we must categorize it as noncommittal. --Childhood's End (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I just read the full statement. It's really dry and empty. The only indication of support is that they say that they support the statements of other organizations, but aside from this, they themselves produce nothing relelvant towards a commitment for one side or the other. --Childhood's End (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the whole thing? It seems we're looking at two different statements! It was almost a point-by-point agreement with the IPCC. There is global warming. Man is at least partly responsible. It's a bad thing. We have to do something about it. By the standards you're now suggesting be applied, Lindzen would also be noncommittal, rather than "opposed". Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Depends on how we read it I guess. From what I know, you can believe that man plays some part in climate change, but that's not where the IPCC needs support. It needs support as to the finding that man is responsible for most of it. Otherwise, saying that man plays some part may mean 0.1% responsibility and just be an escape-door-wording for the day the IPCC will crumble down. And no scientist denies that the climate changes all the time and that we have to adapt. --Childhood's End (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Compare your wording of "no scientist denies that the climate changes all the time and that we have to adapt" with "[f]urthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning." Doesn't the latter one seem just a tad bit more alarming than the former one to you? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

As you say, just a bit. That's likely the wording I would have used if I also had to be politically correct without taking sides in my public statement. --Childhood's End (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I've got to say, you've opened my eyes. I don't believe your POV, but I never before believed that an intelligent person could have such a POV. (That might sound like an insult, but it's not intended to be. I'm convinced you're intelligent, although misguided. Presumably, you feel the same about me. At least I hope you believe I'm intelligent.) Anyways, if you were trying not to take "sides", you don't think you'd omit the words "active" and "effective" and references to "the time scale" of the changes? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh dont worry, I've learned since long that point of views are less a matter of intelligence than of information. And even for well-informed persons, it's hard to escape our respective cognitive bias. Now as to what you say, frankly, with all my honesty and as hard as I try, I fail to see all the alarmism that you see in their statement. The whole sentence that includes the references to "time scales", "active" and "effective" lead to one thing : a recommendation for long-term planning. That's even less demanding than adaptation. With statements like this, I'll sleep very well tonight again. --Childhood's End (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Prehistoric Carbondioxide Levels

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

Yes, that's precisely the accepted explanation. Atmospheric CO2 was fixed by photosynthesis tens to hundreds of millions of years ago. Eventually it turned into coal and petroleum. Now we're burning the fixed carbon and putting it back in the air. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The other point I was trying to make was that the CO2 seems to have gone up and down by large amounts in the past, would that have been from volcanoes or animals eating the plants, and whatever it was how are we sure that that is not happening right now? Mason L. (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The changes in the past took place over very long periods of time. The current changes are much, much faster than anything in the historical record. And we know from isotopic analysis that the current rise in CO2 is from fossil fuels, not from volcanoes or other sources (see e.g., Suess effect). Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Incorrect statements and citation improvements

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

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

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

Read the AAPG statement. It doesn't say anything one way or the other about human influence. Thus the Wikipedia text is correct as written: the AAPG no longer denies the possibility of human influence. You seem to think that somehow this implies the AAPG accepts human influence, but the article doesn't say that. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No, editors are fighting to kill any questioning of neutrality in this article. I read the citation you suggested, above are the words. I will watch this page closely, because I see that the agenda is to show that there is zero dissent on this subject matter. If that were true, there would be no international debate on the matter, but there is.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 20:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with RA. Please note that AAPG's shift from it's previous dissenting position was notable in sentences 1-2 and in bullet number two of the new statement. It was widely reported that AAPG had abandoned it's previous position which explicitly denied human influence, while the new statement is now correctly interpreted as "non-committal". Please read here, and also check those citations.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Sorry, but you are confused. The footnote you refer to is to the AMQUA statement in EOS. You cite from a letter to the editor in reply to it. The AMQUA statement is not used to criticize the AAPG statement, but to positively source the claim that no scientific associations except for the AAPG opposes the IPCC consensus. Note that this sentence refers to the old AAPG statement. This has since been changed to the current non-committal version linked in the article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Bingo. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"If that were true, there would be no international debate on the matter, but there is." I think that we can all agree that nuclear proliferation is dangerous, yet, politically, there is much international debate on the matter. So, there can be agreement about the detrimental effects of something but no agreement (or willingness) in what to do about it. Brusegadi (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there certainly can be a continuing debate on the matter irrespective of whether or not "no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate". The continued existence of debate does not logically nullify the foregoing statement, which is both true and reliably sourced. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No, there's a rule about "weasel wording", and I think the threshold has been met. Besides, anyone with their eyes open can see there is an agenda at work in this article. Good luck.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 03:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What, specifically, do you think is in violation of (has "met the threshold" for violating) WP guidelines on weasle words? riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 04:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

EPA

I cut this section added by Nursebhayes:

Scientists know with virtual certainty that:

- Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the :atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.

- The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.

- An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans.

- The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore :virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.

- Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.

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

I don't think government agencies should be considered scientific bodies. Usually, a scientific body's policies and leadership are decided upon by their members. Government agencies don't do that. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a very good question. And it's true that govt agencies tend to be policy or acquisition bodies rather than scientific bodies. However, that's not a certainty and agencies such as the CDC, NIH, NASA, and DoD RDT&E directorates do have scientific experts in certain fields. So the EPA may very well employ experts in certain area of environmental science; for how else can they monitor govt policies? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 17:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

BAS

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

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

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

I should probably leave this one to William ;-). Anyways, this is a nice example of cherry picking, quoting out of context, and misinterpretation. First, the BAS talks about antarctic climate only, not about global climate. Secondly, the discussion continues: "[...]This suggests that recent warm temperatures are exceptional within the context of the last 10000 years, making it unlikely that they can be explained by natural variability alone. Many of the theories that seek to explain the circumpolar warming of the ACC also have the strengthening of the westerly winds as their root cause. Whilst there is not yet a clear consensus on which are the mechanisms that are most important, there is increasing evidence that a significant part of this change is ultimately driven by human activities" (my emphasis). Unsurprisingly, the BAS has an official statement on the AR4: "British Antarctic Survey (BAS) welcomes the carefully considered and rigorous set of statements in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: The Physical Science Basis fourth report published today 2 February 2007."[15]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is a nice example of dishonesty, besides cherry-picking. The quote in the anon comment does not appear in the BAS statement. Below I've modified the fake quote to show what does appear, with changes in strike and italics:

As part of the work undertaken for the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC13, about 20 different climate models were run with historical changes to natural and anthropogenic forcing factors to simulate the climate of the 20th century, with specified changes to natural and anthropogenic forcing factors. The simulated changes in Antarctic surface temperatures over the second half of the 20th century vary greatly from model to model (and even between experiments run with the same model but with slightly different starting conditions), with no single model reproducing exactly the observed pattern of change. However, when results from all models are averaged, the resulting pattern of change bears some resemblance to that observed, with greatest warming in the Peninsula region and little change elsewhere. This result suggests that some of the observed change may have an anthropogenic origin, but the This lack of a clear and consistent model response to changed imposed forcing between models also suggests that much of the observed change in temperatures may be due to natural variability rather than changes in natural or anthropogenic forcing. The IPCC model experiments fail to reproduce some of the observed features, notably the rapid warming of the lower atmosphere. These differences between modelled and observed changes could be used to argue against attributing change to anthropogenic forcing, but However, some caution is called for as the models used may not adequately represent all of the complex processes that determine temperatures in the polar regions.

--Nethgirb (talk) 11:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. It felt a bit fishy, but I did not compare it word for word! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Cosmic rays

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

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

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

Political Classification

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

Well, they are conservative, as described in reliable sources, e.g. [16][17]. The scientific groups do not have a political affiliation per se, unless you agree that reality has a well-known liberal bias. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

1) They don't apply the label to themselves, others do; they describe their mission as "to fight for less government, lower taxes, and less regulation." [18] Yes, it sounds conservative, but it could also be libertarian; 2) Journalists are more liberal [19] than the general public, but that doesn't mean that an individual journalist cannot put aside his liberalism to report the facts; simply being a liberal is not evidence of biased journalism. Along the same lines, simply being a conservative is not evidence of biased science; 3) University professors are more liberal [20] than the general public, but that is not evidence of biased science, so there's no need to label the scientists as "liberal"; 4) Most importantly, the label is non-NPOV because it is applied to discredit the study based on political affiliation rather than presenting criticism of the methodology or analysis. Johnskrb2 (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

1-3 are all irrelevant. We don't go by self-description, for obvious reasons. No reliable source has described the Royal Society or the United States National Academy of Sciences as politically partisan. "Scientists" and "Journalists" are not acting in an organized fashion, unlike a pressure group like Citizens for a Sound Economy. As for point 4, to quote you: "simply being a conservative is not evidence of biased science". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Source problems

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

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

Concurring statements?

AMS

Here's the statement currently in the article:

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

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

You are cutting the statement rather short - try reading a bit further. The AMS statement refers directly to both the NRC and IPCC conclusions which both conclude that the rise in temp is mostly from humans and GHG's in particular.

But there isn't really any reason to discuss that particular statement since its been updated 2007 [21], and now contains the very strong:

Direct human impact is through changes in the concentration of certain trace gases such as carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor, known collectively as greenhouse gases. Enhanced greenhouse gases have little effect on the incoming energy of the sun, but they act as a blanket to reduce the outgoing infrared radiation emitted by Earth and its atmosphere; the surface and atmosphere therefore warm so as to increase the outgoing energy until the outgoing and incoming flows of energy are equal. Carbon dioxide accounts for about half of the human-induced greenhouse gas contribution to warming since the late 1800s, with increases in the other greenhouse gases accounting for the rest; changes in solar output may have provided an augmentation to warming in the first half of the 20th century.

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't cut anything off, I copied/pasted from the article. Either way, you read that quote as explicitly agreeing that most of the warming is anthropogenic? That's my point though: it's OR to label any statement that doesn't explicitly agree with the IPCC (maybe they all do, I haven't clicked through and read them all) as "concurring" just because that's how an editor interprets it. And not to nitpick, but (in the intro at least, I didn't read the whole thing) the AMS mentions and quotes the IPCC and NRC but it goes out of its way not to endorse them or claim that they agree with their conclusions. Oren0 (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

GSA

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

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

This one is also rather moot since the statement directly refers and concurs with the statement from the joint academies. Which introduces with:

It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001). This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate.

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR in making the call?

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

It seems rather moot, since your "arbitrary" apparently comes from the old AMS statement, which references and cites both the NRC and the IPCC conclusions (including the most warming: human, most: GHG). Or are you of a differing opinion? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, it quotes these conclusions and then says more research is needed in these areas, it doesn't say it agrees with these conclusions. I think that in order to label a statement as concurring, it either needs to explicitly endorse the IPCC conclusions, specifically say that warming is mostly anthropogenic, or endorse another group's statement that does one of those two things. I think you're going to start getting into judgment calls and that's why it's better to let the statements/excerpts speak for themselves. Oren0 (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Reading the 2007 report (which should be linked and quoted in the article instead of the current one), I agree that the AMS explicitly endorses the IPCC. But that endorsement should be explicit in the quote used in the article. And it doesn't change my position on classification as a whole. If I need to find another organization to prove this point, I'm sure I can. I'm sure that some of the groups listed don't explicitly fit the criteria I mentioned above. Oren0 (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I must agree. Even if it may seem in clear agreement in some cases, unless we have a source qualifying the statements as in agreement with the IPCC, it is OR to qualify them as such. There's a few blurred cases imo. I would have expected KDP to agree here. --Childhood's End (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Woods Hole

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

The piece goes on to outline how anthropomorphic global warming works, the effect it’s having on the planet, the role the oceans play, etc. [22]

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

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

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

RfC: Is Scientific opinion on climate change neutral

Is overwhelming agreement reasonable and supported by all available evidence

• I'd be glad to hear opinions, but the article does not claim "overwhelming agreement", it lists (with extensive quotes) the official position of recognized scientific organizations and of notable surveys of scientists and the scientific literature. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• I only have a few little issues with this article, which perhaps I could submit here for thoughts :

i- There should at least be a mention that the statements provided by the various scientific orgs do not necessarily reflect the opinions of all their members.

ii- Focus on the main scientific bodies should be maintained, and the less relevant ones sould be cut.

iii- Perhaps the section about surveys of scientists and litterature could benefit from more openness towards the less notable but still relevant information in the likes of Inhofe's list, despite the fact that it is not 100% accurate. --Childhood's End (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Nothing is 100% accurate. If nothing else, science in the last 200 years has shown us how much we don't know. We should hold current science to a higher standard than the prior 1000 years. Part of that standard should be a healthy skepticism about what we "know today". Facts are a great thing, but let's be careful in chosing those that we label unquestionable. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 18:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• I agree in general with User:Childhoodsend's assessment, with the added qualm that petitions and surveys of scientists (Oregon Petition, "Sixty Scientists", etc) should be moved from global warming controversy to here. If we want to discuss the opinions of scientists, then the opinions of individuals, groups, and societies/organizations are all relevant to that. I think there should be a section labeled "scientific dissent" (or "scientific skepticism" or similar) which should say that some individual scientists do not accept the GW consensus (with a main pipe to List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming and perhaps global warming controversy), list some notable dissenting scientists, and mention the petitions. I don't see why the opinions of individual scientists shouldn't be mentioned here. Oren0 (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oh well, I guess the obvious needs to be said: there is no way Inhofes bunch of gardeners is going to be on this page. But feel free to talk amongst yourselves William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

And this is because? You will fight to the death to keep them off? There's no way, because you're the page owner, right? I don't understand, you want a nice clean page of 100% support for the so called "consensus"? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 12:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• I see, just because Inhofe's numbers are inflated means no scientists dispute global warming? Punting the skeptics to other pages is one thing, but they at least deserve a mention here. Oren0 (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If Inhofe produced an honest list with no blatant non-scientists, perhaps we might take him seriously. Until he does, hist list belongs in politics-land. This is all good knockabout fun, isn't it? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't ask for Inhofe's list to be included, and I'm not sure it should be. But what's the problem with, for example, the sixty scientists? Or mentioning/linking the skeptic list? Oren0 (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Because they aren't William M. Connolley (talk) 08:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Imo, Inhofe's list has still more scientific credentials than Oreskes' flawed survey. And yes, Inhofe's list includes names that should not belong, but a similar observation could be made about the statements from scientific orgs which necessarily speak for dissenters in their ranks. I dont see why it could not be mentioned in the Oreskes section, which really is the weak point of this article. --Childhood's End (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you seriously put more more trust into a list published by a politician than into an article published by Nature? On a scientific topic? Anyways, this is a question of proper attribution vs. original research. Oreskes, the Royal Society, the IPCC, the AMS, and all these other organizations have formed an informed position. We just quote them. Going from individual dissenters to a general claim of significant dissent is, on the other hand, an example of WP:SYN. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Nature also published the hockey stick and other fuzzy/dubious stuff over the years, so my trust goes to neither. But yes, you can fall back on attribution rules to dismiss Inhofe while keeping Oreskes if you want. --Childhood's End (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Lets not get too caught up with Oreskes. Only less than 2% explicitly agreed with the IPCC statement. ~ UBeR (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

So cobbling together the statements of various scientific organizations (which don't even claim to represent the beliefs of their memberships) and using them to draw conclusions about the opinion of science as a whole isn't synthesis but it would be if we included individuals or petitions? Care to elaborate? Oren0 (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

We haven't got any evidence (even circumstantial) that the statements from the scientific organizations aren't representative of their members opinion - if you have evidence that indicates otherwise then present it. On the other hand we have ample evidence that the petitions aren't representative of even the signers, evidence that the lists do not represent what they claim. And while the individual opinions of some scientists are interesting.. It doesn't tell us anything about the general scientific opinion - and thus doesn't belong. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you pretend that the statement of the American Institue of Physics fairly represents the views of Freeman Dyson, for instance? And no, you dont have "ample evidence" that the petitions arent representative of its signatories - what you have is 2-3 such occurences. You certainly do no want to make such weak hasty generalizations, do you? --Childhood's End (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes i do want to make such a statement - because its amply backed by reliable sources. And i have no idea whether the AIP statement represents the views of a single scientist - but then i haven't seen any scientist claim that it doesn't. And frankly i couldn't care less - since i have no indications as to Dysons official stand on the statement (have you? or are you guessing?), and since the AIP has thousands of members, i can't see why Dyson would be relevant - unless you have any indication that he represents more than his own personal opinon. And why would Dyson's opinion be worth more than Wearts? (just to take an example?) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That was long for a non sequitur. I did not say that Dyson's opinion was worth more than whoeveryouwant's. I pointed to Dyson "for instance". And the fact that your 2-3 occurences are backed by reliable sources does not save your claim from being a hasty generalization. --Childhood's End (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If you had no point in mind about Dyson - then why mention him at all. Either you have evidence to support that the members do not support the statements or you haven't - now which is it? As for your strawman about "2-3 occurances" - its quite a few more than that - in fact we have very little indication that anyone is supportive of the petitions, except for the usual political pundits (who are very much irrelevant in a science context - sorry). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I will only highlight that per what you say, you are not ready to accept that Freeman Dyson does not agree with the AIP statement. Not surprising though. After all, you also think that Yuri Izrael's comments about climate change were only about Antartica. --Childhood's End (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Very nice. You didn't read (or understand) a bit of what i said. Let me spell it out: I have no idea whether or not Freeman Dyson has an opinion on the AIP statement - i haven't seen either for or against (and i doubt if you have either. Have you? (3rd time i'm asking). And 3rd time again: Why would a single scientists opinion matter - the AIP represents >50,000 scientists with relevant expertises (and Dyson hasn't). And finally - please try to address the issue rather than the editor - something which i notice that you repeatedly forget. Thank you. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It's you who's not reading! Per what you just said, what I said is true, i.e. that you dont accept that Dyson disagrees with the AIP statement (you say you dont know). And per what I said, it is clear that I believe he does. Now, as I also said, I pointed to Dyson as an example, and I did not intend to discuss his position here. Point is that statements such as those cannot be presumed to represent the opinions of the whole memberships. Everyone accepts it, and you should too. --Childhood's End (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

CE are you simply trolling here? You "believe" that Dyson disagrees? What exactly has your "belief" to do here on Wikipedia? While the statements from the academies may not represent each individual scientists opinion , we have no indication, no evidence to believe that it doesn't. Belief is simply not a factor here. You are hitting A) missing reliable sources to substantiate your "belief" - and B) Failing to understand undue weight. What exactly is your point? That single scientists may disagree? Fine - but that has to be backed by reliable sources that show that its not a fringe opinion, and that mentioning it isn't undue weight. You have shown exactly nothing of this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

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

No. Sorry. As far as we know these statements are representative of their members views. Thats the reason given for the statements. And so far we have no indications that this isn't correct. The statements are reliable sources and we present them as what they are. If you are going to contest them, then find equally reliable sources (ie. weight) to substantiate your claims. Ie. you can guess from here on to eternity, but your guesses (or hunches) have no place on WP. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but that just sounds too much like a union leader speach. The follow-up to your answer above is OrenO's comment, and your answer to his is incorrect. Statements made on behalf of other people, especially in the case of large memberships, cannot be presumed to represent everyone concerned like you try to push here. Unfortunately, what you would like to be established and taken for granted simply cannot be proved, unless a vote has been taken on the statement and the result was 100% support. It is fallacious presumptions that have no place on WP. --Childhood's End (talk) 07:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

CE, please stop. Noone is saying that there aren't individuals within the organizations who can disagree. The question is: Is there a significant enough minority that disagree, so that a mention of this is merited. So far nothing indicates that this is the case. Unless you can point us to reliable sources that give us reason to suspect this - its out. Simple as that. Speculation, hunches, beliefs and so on, are something that you can use at home - but not here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You can stop your lecture on speculation right there. To put a mention that organization statements do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the whole memberships would simply be factual accuracy, not speculation. Ignoring it because you presume, on the absence of hard evidence, that the number of members who do not support the statements is not significant (on what criterion?) makes you the only person speculating here. You do not need to reply; but a simple "ok perhaps I erred" would be perfect. --Childhood's End (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"factual accuracy" - not so simple. Either its obvious, in which case stating it is superfluous and adding it is pure spin, or it is not, in which case we would have to attribute it to a reliable source. I go with obvious. The statements reflect the overall opinion of the members, not the exact opinion of each individual member. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Who says? How many of these statements claim to represent the opinion of even a majority of their memberships, much less back up that claim? They represent the opinion of the society as a whole, but barring any evidence it is incorrect to assume that the membership agrees as well; as far as I know the membership isn't asked their opinions, but rather executive committees decide. Many of these societies have thousands of members and no effort that I'm aware of has been made to poll them. Therefore, claiming that these societies represent their membership is speculative. Oren0 (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Afaik, most of these statements are done by drafted and discussed internally (amongst members) before getting released. That at least is the case for the AGU and AMS statements (as well as the AAPG one). I find it interesting that you think that its done in a void - but also rather irrelevant. In all cases though, if the statements weren't representative, it would have created waves - do you have any indication that it has? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"In all cases though, if the statements weren't representative, it would have created waves" This is just more speculation. The part with which I could agree is that the statements probably reflect the opinion of a majority of members, as I do suppose (or so I hope) that there is a minimal internal consultation process. But a note indicating that such statements do not necessarily reflect the range of possible opinions of the whole memberships would be a good and fair addition. --Childhood's End (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Fact is, we don't claim anything about the statements except that the societies in question have made them. That's fine with me. I have a somewhat strong and somewhat informed opinion about the issue (and in fact, the AAPG example shows how irate members can directly influence such statements). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• This article references assessments of scientific opinion on global warming. If we begin to list individuals and self-selected lists like petitions, we get into what is essentially original research in determining the broad scientific opinion. To the extent that skepticism appears in the assessments, it already appears in the article (e.g., noncommittal statements, surveys, and until recently the AAPG's dissenting statement). Regarding User:Childhoodsend's suggestions: (i): I'm not necessarily opposed. (ii): opposed; I think everything on the list is reasonably relevant, and I'm a fan of completeness. I would also point out that the American Association of Petroleum Geologists is probably one of the less relevant ones. (iii): definitely not, for the reasons above. --Nethgirb (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

No red links here?

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

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Please don't mix articles. There is a large difference between organizations and individuals.

That aside, it would be nice to have the redlinks turn into at least stubs. So that we can let the WP notability criteria determine it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

From WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS: When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because "other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc." ... Though a lot of Wikipedia's styles are codified in policy, to a large extent minor details are not. In cases such as these, an "Other Stuff Exists" -type of argument or rationale may provide the necessary precedent for style and phraseology." I'd say this is especially true in the relatively small scope of GW articles when we're talking about the same editors. Does the opinion of a scientific society that doesn't even have a WP page really important to the overall scientific opinion of GW? Oren0 (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think MeteoSwiss (Office of Meteorology and Climatology) should be included, not because there's anything wrong with MeteoSwiss but because we shouldn't include government agencies in general. NASAC and AMOS definitely merit inclusion. Note that the African Academy of Sciences (one of the members of NASAC) has its own article. Some of the other members might also, but I haven't checked those. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)