Talk:Scientific consensus on climate change/Archive 8

We need a FAQ

/discuss --Jaymax (talk) 09:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

i agree. there should definitely be an explanation of the rationale behind the very fist sentence. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 10:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea!

Here are some suggestions for the FAQ, in no particular order of frequency or importance:

• Why are no dissenting organizations included?
• What exactly is a "scientific body of national or international standing"?
• Why are there statements by organizations like the American Statistical Association or the Australian Coral Reef Society and others that don't have anything to do with climate science?
• Why doesn't this article include the views of individual scientists, universities, or laboratories, or any petitions or open letters from scientists? The criteria for inclusion seems arbitrary (or purposely designed to exclude descenting opinions)?

There's probably a few more, but that's all I can come up with right now. I look forward to reading how other editors think these questions should be answered, and I'll start drafting some responses myself.--CurtisSwain (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

In response to the second question, some time ago I wrote:

"...click on the internal links to science academies and scientific societies, and do a little reading. Whether a particular scientific body has "national or international standing" is a little harder to discern, and requires some familiarity with the scientific community. But, in general, I think it's safe to say an organization's standing has to do with how well regarded they are by other scientists, how broad their membership is, and how far afield their research goes."

That might be a good start, but I don't think that's going to be sufficient for the FAQ.--CurtisSwain (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Per discussion above:

• Why isn't such-and-such 'national-subcomittee's' opinion included. --Jaymax (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

FAQ 2

This is the best I could come up with for What exactly is a "scientific body of national or international standing"?''. I welcome any comments, edits, or alternatives.

An Academy of Sciences or a scientific society that maintains a national or international membership, and that is well-regarded within the scientific community could be said to be of "national or international standing." Discerning how well-regarded a particular scientific body is requires some familiarity with the scientific community. However, in general, this can be determined by the impact factor ratings of the body's journal as provided by Journal Citation Reports. The journals Science, from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and PNAS, from the US National Academy of Sciences, are considered amoung the world's most influential and prestigious.[1][2][3]

That's better, and it also answers the question about subcommittees with the phrase about maintaining a membership. I think that question has only come up once so, that should do. Anybody got anything better?--CurtisSwain (talk) 08:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I've also asked for feedback on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science.--CurtisSwain (talk) 10:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Taking into consideration some feedback I got here on the ref desk, I think the 3rd sentence should read:

However, for academies or societies that produce Scientific journals, some assessment of their standing can be derived from their journal's impact factor ratings as provided by Journal Citation Reports.

That's a little better. Not all reputable sci. orgs. produce journals.--CurtisSwain (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the FAQ box is up and running. I had to use the "quick edit" set up, because that's the only way I could get the ref box to show up on this page. Maybe after we get it fleshed out we can go to the "no quick edit" set up like the one on Talk:Global warming.--CurtisSwain (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Location of non-committal organisations

CurtisSwain has reverted my change to the lede in the area where it summarises the 'Noncommittal statements' section. If I were to summarise that section, one of the first things I'd note, other than that there are 'few' such statements, is that they all originate from North America. We have two American Associations, two American Institutes and one Canadian Federation. Listing them in that way is too much detail, but simply noting that they are all from the same continent is surely relevant - no Asian, European, African or South American organisations maintain such a stance, that we know of.

I could understand being reverted for adding too much detail to the lede, but it is not over long and CurtisSwain's reason for the revert was 'Most are international', which I think is just patently wrong, given the cited references in the main body of the article as above.

What do other editors think? --Nigelj (talk) 13:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

What I find more telling is that one is an organization of political appointees (and really out of date) and the other four are all geologist organizations. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I said most are international because as far as I can tell, the State Climatologists and the Canadian Federation are the only two who's membership is strictly limited to their home countries. While the other three may be based in North America, the AAPG is actually an international geological organization with members in over 116 countries around the world [4], the AGI is a federation of 46 geoscience societies including the Geological Society of London and the International Basement Tectonics Association [5], and the AIPG is an "international organization" with "more than 5,500 members in the U.S. and abroad" [6]. So, calling them "North American organisations" is a bit inaccurate, although, admittedly, not terribly egregious. --CurtisSwain (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Re-removed 'North American' as per membership info above. --Jaymax (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

So an American organisation, if some of its members work and live overseas, becomes an international organisation? I'm not going to argue with you guys about that. --Nigelj (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd spin it this way - an organisation that started in the US, and so has 'American' in it's name, but due to realgeopolitik and cultural dominance became the pre-eminent 'western' professional body in it's specific discipline is not fairly described as 'North American', even if the bulk of it's members are indeed, still American. --Jaymax (talk) 12:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Two questions

It seems the article doesn't distinguish clearly about what is the question:

Q1: is there a global warming? - the article statistics implies that the sources say: yes,

Q2: is the global warming anthropogenic? - the article isn't as clear on this as on Q1, but I think I can read that the citations used in the article implies this in about 50-70% of the cases.

Q3: is IPCC an evil cult ... no forget it, just kidding!!

... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 11:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

A real third question: sources in "Biology and life sciences" doesn't add own arguments to Q1/Q2, instead they warn:

global warming seems to occur, but then this evil will happen!

so they don't present causes or arguments, they warn for consequences. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 11:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Your Q2 is unclear. There is near unanimous agreement that humans cause most of global warming. There is no organisation denying that. Does your 50-70% refer to the amount of warming (50-70% of the warming is anthropogenic) or to the support (50-70% of organizations support AGW). The first depends very much on the time frame. The second would be simply wrong. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

1. my question Q2 is quite clear if we reformulate it "do the humankind cause the global warming?",

2. the question regarded what the article explains, not whether I believe the global warming is anthropogenic (which I happenstance do, but now I'm a Wikipedia editor acting Mr Neutral). The article should clearly state the questions, especially Q2, and illuminate by citations. About 70% of the citations happenstance tells us very clearly that humans cause the global warming, but the rest mumbles, so that it is not unambiguously clear that they state whether anthropogenic or not. F.ex., the Geological Society of Australia:

Of particular concern are the well-documented loading of carbon dioxide (CO₂) to the atmosphere, which has been linked unequivocally to burning of fossil fuels, and the corresponding increase in average global temperature

Yes, "concern" yes! But is the human burning of fossil fuels the major contributor to global warming? Some of the citations must be reviewed as regards to sources. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 14:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This article documents the opinions of qualified scientific bodies in regards to the subject matter. Readers are free to interpret those expressed opinions any way they choose, pedantically or otherwise. However, it stands to reason that the GSA would not bother to issue a position statement, nor recommend "strong action be taken...to substantially reduce the current levels of greenhouse gas emissions" if they didn't view humanity's impact as significant. As for the Bio and life sciences orgs., you're right, they don't add their own arguments as to the causes of recent climate change. Although they are respected scientific bodies that can be expected to be informed about recent developments in science, their main contribution is in confirming the observed and predicted effects of global warming. And, yes, the IPCC is an evil cult.--CurtisSwain (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Would this count?

A statement released by the heads of these organization released a letter last month on the consensus scientific view: American Association for the Advancement of Science American Chemical Society American Geophysical Union American Institute of Biological Sciences American Meteorological Society American Society of Agronomy American Society of Plant Biologists American Statistical Association Association of Ecosystem Research Centers Botanical Society of America Crop Science Society of America Ecological Society of America Natural Science Collections Alliance Organization of Biological Field Stations Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics Society of Systematic Biologists Soil Science Society of America University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

http://www.agu.org/outreach/science_policy/pdf/Climate_Letter.pdf

Should this be worked into the article?

MutantChair (talk) 06:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. Some of the orgs. are already in the article. For the others, you'd need to check to see if the org. has some sort of formal position statement, or if the statement is only the opinion of the President/CEO. I believe American Institute of Biological Sciences concurs as a body. So, you can slap them in. Good find, MC.--CurtisSwain (talk) 09:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It belongs here Climate_change_consensus --Jaymax (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Survey of American Meteorologists

I guess this cant go in the article because it was not peer-reviewed by the CRU or some other reason, but in any event : [7]. --Childhood's End (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. It would indeed be worth reporting on how TV weathercasters are so poorly informed about the state of the science (which was the whole point of the AMS article, in case you missed it). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I so much agree with every word you said. They are simply not in line with climate science. --Childhood's End (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting study. And, yes, it actually was peer-reviewed, having been published in BAMS. But, no, it's not relevant to this article which deals with scientific opinion. People who give weather reports on TV can hardly be considered scientists. Half of the survey respondents don't even have CBM Certification.--CurtisSwain (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Censorship

I have inserted reference to the recent controversy on temperature data, since this concerns the integrity of the scientific issues involved. Deletion is surely censorship of a very live problem. Peterlewis (talk) 11:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't belong on this article. There is a nice description on top of it saying:

This article documents current scientific opinion on climate change 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.

Perhaps you should have read the edit-comments for the removals? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent addition by SanAntonioPete

Several editors have already reverted this addition, which reads as follows:

In November of 2009, the integrity of the IPCC (as well as its definitive and seminal research on global warming) came into question after hundreds of private e-mail messages, illegally hacked from computers at Britain's University of East Anglia, were posted on the internet. Even staunch supporters of the global warming community were dismayed at what appeared to be the IPCC's efforts to prevent publication of work by global-warming skeptics. George Monbiot, one of the most astute ecological cartographers of his time and a strong advocate for global warming theory, commented on the hacked emails in the Guardian.co.uk: {{quote|It's no use pretending this isn't a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them. Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request. Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate skeptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/23/global-warming-leaked-email-climate-scientists] Monbiot, George for The Guardian.co.uk, November 23, 2009</ref>}}

Professor Mike Hulme of the University of East Anglia, named by ScienceWatch as “the 10th most cited author in the world in the field of climate change between 1999 and 2009” was particularly distressed by the involvement of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He was quoted in the New York Times as saying:{{quote|It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the I.P.C.C. has run its course. Yes, there will be an AR5 but for what purpose? The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production - just at a time when a globalizing and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive.<ref>[http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/a-climate-scientist-on-climate-skeptics/#more-11377] Revkin, Andrew C. for The New York Times, November 27, 2009</ref>}}

This seems to place an extraordinary degree of weight on statements made by a single scientist and a single environmental campaigner. --TS 23:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur with TS's assessment of the reverted paragraphs. Additionally, it's not a synthesis report, position statement of a scientific body, nor a survey of climate scientists. Therefore, it doesn't belong in this article, which clearly does not document the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories. --CurtisSwain (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The incident seems relevant and notable to me. Seems like the passages should be paired down to a NPOV and included here. Unless someone has a recommendation or a better place to include. Where do individual scientist views get mention in this issue? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Where are individual scientists mentioned? Where their particular opinion is relevant to the article. An article on Mike Hulme, for instance, might carry information about his opinion of the affair. My concern here was mainly that just one scientist's opinion was being used to support the notion that the IPCC reports have been called into question. --TS 03:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hear you ... reviewed the talk, the Article Title mislead me. This article has a POV issue, becasue it doesn't adequately represent individual scientists views or where to go to read them. This article, by design, gives undue weight to organizational views. The title is misleading, becasue it doesn't help the reader see that the "Scientific opinion" comes from the organization not an individual. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Science is inherently collaborative. Scientists share data, review methodology and conclusions, and a consensus view emerges. In such a scenario, the opinion of any one scientists is worth little. The important question is what conclusions qualified experts have reached on reviewing the available published data. --TS 04:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point ... so is wiki, which has qualification standards too. It's a false premise to assume any one scientist has an dissenting opinion. My experiences are that learning occurs where there is dissension and organizations have the Principal-agent problem. American democracy and jurist prudence values the dissenting opinion, with appeal, greater than you do. Dictators and tyrants are most commonly accused of suppressing the reasonable individual. This article has an organizational bias. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This article needs a controversies section.

As a starting point, I offer up the following: [8]. While it is in the opinion section of the WSJ, it is NOT the opinion of an individual writer but rather appears to be the opinion of the paper itself since no author is listed.

I invite others to find related material to be included as well. I see that there is some additional material listed above as well. --GoRight (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It's the opinion of an as-yet anonymous opinion writer in a newspaper. What do you expect us to do with it that bears relation to this article, which is not about the opinion of anonymous journalists and editorial writers but of scientists? --TS 04:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's a better link: [9].

"It's the opinion of an as-yet anonymous opinion writer in a newspaper." - Since the piece is not attributed to a specific author that means that it is a piece written by the editorial staff of the paper and represents the official opinion of the paper in question, namely the Wall Street Journal ... a publication of some note.

"What do you expect us to do with it that bears relation to this article ..." - Well for starters, I expect us to include a controversies section which is intended to document controversies related to the subject of this article, i.e. the scientific consensus on global warming. This is a notable piece directed at those ends. The fact that this is the opinion of the journal, not some individual, is significant and makes it noteworthy here. In general, the whole ClimateGate incident points directly to the fact that the purported scientific consensus may be contrived ... or at a minimum was artificially influenced by key individuals such as Jones and Mann. --GoRight (talk) 04:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As GR notes (and as I saw in my paper copy), this was the lead editorial in that day's paper. These are customarily unsigned in all (English language) newspapers (ime), and are meant to express the editorial opinion of the paper. As the WSJ is one of the two major national newspapers in the USA, a WSJ editorial carries considerable WP:weight.

I support the idea of a "Controversies" section. WP:Be bold! Pete Tillman (talk) 05:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's a starting proposal:

In the wake of the Climategate revelations, the Wall Street Journal summed up the potential impacts on the public perceptions regarding the scientific consensus on global warming as follows:

"The furor over these documents is not about tone, colloquialisms or whether climatologists are nice people. The real issue is what the messages say about the way the much-ballyhooed scientific consensus on global warming was arrived at, and how a single view of warming and its causes is being enforced. The impression left by the correspondence among Messrs. Mann and Jones and others is that the climate-tracking game has been rigged from the start." -- WSJ, 27 November, 2009

and then cite the indicated article above. --GoRight (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that certainly sounds like NPOV .... not. Using an editorial (which is opinion - no matter if its from the WSJ or another source) as authoritative on public perception is POV, and rather extreme undue weight. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC) [as well as completely off-topic in an article about scientific opinion --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)]

It isn't scientific opinion. It's the stated opinion of some journalists. --TS 05:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. It is discussing the controversy surrounding the subject of this article. It is not being used to establish or state any scientific facts. --GoRight (talk) 05:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If it is relevant to the Scientific opinion, then it is valid. It does not deserve undue weight however, the article requires a NPOV on the scientific opinion. The source can be attributed. Must start this section somehow. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with User:ZuluPapa5. This seems like a reasonable start. Pete Tillman (talk) 05:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Scientific opinions are not sourced from non-scientific sources - and certainly not from editorials and other opinion articles. The editorial is reliable for only one thing: The opinion of the WSJ editorial board (assuming that its the main editorial). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Any attempt to push non-scientific views into this article is likely to fail messily. --TS 08:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is good to see so many newbies take an active interest in this article. However, it needs to be pointed out that a topic such as Climate change is so huge, no single article can possibly incorporate all pertinent and important information. Therefore, large complicated topics will usually branch off into smaller articles where pertinent and important aspects can be covered in more detail. When you have something you think is important, the trick is to find the appropriate place for it. If you click on "Category:Climate change", or "Category:Global warming" at the bottom of the article, you'll find there's hundreds of articles covering various aspects of the topic. This article, as stated in the first sentence, documents current scientific opinion on climate change as given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. It does not document what newspaper editors or other laymen have to say about scientists' opinions. What the editors of the WSJ or any other newspaper have to say would be more appropriate for Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, and/or maybe Global warming controversy. --CurtisSwain (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I see no push when the proper qualifications are WP:NPOV and WP:RS, the article must serve these. Readers and editors are not being helped as to the proper place to place views that come from reliable editorial boards. TS, I would appreciate your help, over threats. CurtisSwain Wikipedia is not a place for "documentation", it is for NPOV. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

GR's climategate suggestions are a joke and don't really merit discussion William M. Connolley (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a legitimate controversy which warrants mention in this article. It is not a joke. --GoRight (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Where are your sources, William M. Connolley. Last I checked, climate gate was reliably published and relevant to controversies with this articles subject. NPOV clearly says: "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." Why do you wish to negotiate this? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering that there are now reliable sources questioning the legitimacy of the CRU’s temperature history and the fact that they “lost” the source data for it, a controversy section is entirely appropriate. WVBluefield (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Newspaper journalists are not reliable sources for scientific research. If the UEA, the CRU or any other scientific body of national or international standing issues a statement saying that they have changed their opinion as a result of what's in these e-mails, then that would be worth covering. --Nigelj (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Appreciated ... this article is not scientific research and it must have a NPOV. It is about the organizational scientific concensious. Reliably sources about this subject are valid. Somehow, I get the impression amateur wiki scientists are working WP:OR here. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk)

ZP5 hits a home run, this article isnt purely scientific, and as such all notable POV's should receive consideration. WVBluefield (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

WVBluefield-"this article isnt purely scientific" ? Where? Where in the article is any space given to non-scientists?--CurtisSwain (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is scientific - sorry. And all notable POV's amongst scientific organizations are included. What you (and others) are proposing is public opinion/opinion in editorials which has absolutely zero context/meaning in an article about scientific opinion. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

citation is needed for "“lost” the source data" - as far as i know the source data is still available at the individual stations, and at NOAA. As for "reliable sources questioning the legitimacy of the CRU’s temperature history" that is a scientific area, and thus journalists and opinion writers aren't reliable sources to it. As for having a controversy section - such sections are generally discouraged on Wikipedia, and the reasons for it are fairly simple: they are prone to be used as coatracks for criticism without due weight. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point about coatrack, it can be managed. NPOV is the issue at hand. The criticism has valid weight. It is always best to properly attribute and let readers decide. Unless you are in denial, there are many sources criticizing the scientific organizations. They have a valid voice on Wiki.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"many sources criticizing the scientific organizations" - sorry but if they are the usual rabble of opinion articles, pundits etc. then they aren't relevant as to the scientific opinion. If you are talking peer-reviewed critique, then its another thing - but then it isn't, is it? Criticism on an article about scientific opinion must be scientific. And due weight must be addressed which is why individuals criticizing is undue weight. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this article is not restricted to scientific discussions only. I will repeat this in case you somehow missed it above, the article I am using (a) is NOT from an individual but rather is the editorial opinion of the WSJ itself which gives it plenty of weight for inclusion, and (b) it is not making any scientific claims (which does not disqualify it from inclusion since this encyclopedia covers both the scientific and political aspects of any topic. If you prefer, we can point out that this is a political point and not a scientific one, but it is clearly an appropriate one for this page. --GoRight (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, the article restrictions demand a NPOV. Rules must be balanced too. This is no game ... folks can not trump NPOV with article rules. The rule makes a NPOV even more obvious. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, in this corner we have the U.S. National Science Foundation, the Royal Society of the U.K., the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, the European Geosciences Union, the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, the Royal Meteorological Society, and the World Meteorological Organisation.

And in this corner, ladies and gentlemen, we have... an editorial in the Wall Street Journal.

I almost feel sorry for you guys. No, I take that back. Lt. Gen. Pedro Subramanian (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Except that the WSJ is NOT being lined up to either support or refute the science as your (false) analogy would suggest. The WSJ editorial is discussing relevant public perceptions and opinions as they relate to the topic of the article. This is not the same thing, nor does it require any scientific background to formulate so all the grandstanding about "scientific opinion" is irrelevant to the point being discussed. --GoRight (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

all the grandstanding about "scientific opinion" is irrelevant... I forgot -- now, what's the title of this article? Dr. Dr. (Mr. M.D.) Arthur Resnick (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

More WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? If a controversy erupts concerning the topic described in the title of this article, where exactly is it to be discussed if not in this article? --GoRight (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The WSJ is not a "scientific opinion". The editorial doesn't even talk about "scientific opinion" it talks about a specific issue, and "public opinion". It is completely off-topic in this article. And while this may be the editorial opinion of the WSJ - it is still opinion. (and not a scientific one) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that the informed scientific opinion on climate change should be balanced by ill-informed, non-scientific opinion. That isn't how neutral point of view works. --TS 21:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, that may be how some see it ... that's not what I am saying. I am saying wiki has NPOV standards that include "all significant" views. It is largely irrelevant, that they are "scientific" or "non-scientific" what is relevant is that they apply to the organizational "scientific opinion" from reasonably reliable sources. No OR, coatracks or undue weight is necessary. Now please hear this carefully. WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS THAT THEY ARE PROPERLY ATTRIBUTED. (Being bold, so folks can address this issue, please.) The attribution takes care of many wiki policy concerns and balances NPOV at the same time. It is simple magic, right!! (Now I only wish the scientists get the source attribution correct, they likely have the same issues we do ... smile). BTW, I believe it is presumptuous to imply folks are "ill-informed, and non-scientific" just because they are not inside the official scientific process. The Philosophy of science holds that all humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, and that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world. (Please lets not talk about philosophy further in this thread, start an new one). Sincerely, Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The views of non-scientists are not relevant to scientific issues. This is why we don't put nonsense about Genesis and Noah and talking snakes into the article on evolution. --TS 22:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The public perceptions of the process by which this "scientific opinion" has purportedly been reached are clearly relevant to this article. The issue at hand is not a "scientific issue", as I know you are perfectly aware, so your apparent repeated claims that you didn't hear that are disrespectful of your fellow editors and are not at all helpful in the process of consensus building, IHMO. --GoRight (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but it is your personal original research that the scientific opinion is based in any significant part on what the WSJ is talking about. Not to mention that you yourself are suffering from a bad case of i didn't hear that when you both ignore the intro sentence to the article, as well as several people pointing out that this isn't the correct article. Public opinion is not scientific opinion, and the opinion of the WSJ and other editorials are not appropriate sources for or about the scientific opinion. The article that you do want is Global warming controversy, where it would be relevant, but might not be sufficiently notable (yet) to merit inclusion. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, please review WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. "it is your personal original research that the scientific opinion is based in any significant part on what the WSJ is talking about" - Let me repeat the quote here and highlight the part that ties it to this article:

"The furor over these documents is not about tone, colloquialisms or whether climatologists are nice people. The real issue is what the messages say about the way the much-ballyhooed scientific consensus on global warming was arrived at, and how a single view of warming and its causes is being enforced. The impression left by the correspondence among Messrs. Mann and Jones and others is that the climate-tracking game has been rigged from the start." -- WSJ, 27 November, 2009

Is the highlighted portion not EXACTLY what this article is about? Hopefully that clears things up for everyone. --GoRight (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't clear anything up. The highlighted sentence is the only statement in that editorial that talks about scientific consensus. Its cherry-picked. And you may also want to note that while they say that its a discussion on how the scientific consensus is arrived at, they aren't saying that it is based on that. And it is still only the opinion of the WSJ editorial staff, which for all their credentials aren't in any way or form authoritative (or even interesting) on scientific opinion. Not only is it off-topic, its also a cherry-pick and undue weight. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a cherry pick, it is clearly the primary point of the entire article. Your personal POV concerning the WSJ editorial staff, while amusing, isn't really relevant to determining whether they are noteworthy. They clearly are. There is not undue weight here despite this being the typical last ditch argument in these types of discussions. --GoRight (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is not a "personal POV" that the opinion of the WSJ staff isn't a scientific opinion, nor is one that the WSJ aren't experts on scientific opinion. As for "clearly", well then it seems to be rather strange that its hidden all the way in the middle of the editorial. As for "notable", well that always is determined by context, and in the context of scientific opinion the WSJ doesn't even come close to being notable. For now this will be all, since i've repeated myself sufficiently. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I get the distinct impression that folks can only point out absurd examples to make their points here. Let me make a simple logical case, they are entirely relevant, because (Set A) and (Set Not A) are required to have a balanced view in any valid process to verified truth, that is scientific or wiki standards. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

We're going round in circles. You can't shoehorn non-scientific viewpoints into an article about scientific views by saying that non-scientific viewpoints are needed to "balance" the scientific views. And that's the way it is. There are articles about the political controversy surrounding global warming, about the email hacking incident and its fallout, and even one about global warming conspiracy theories, and that isn't an exhaustive list. This particular article is about another subject: scientific opinion on climate change. If and when there are significant developments there, this article may change. --TS 00:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

So stop repeating yourself on irrelevant points. Non-scientists can certainly form opinions about the processes by which scientific ones are formed, as is being shown in this example. There is no wikipedia policy that allows a given page to be artificially restricted to one POV as you are attempting to do. WP:NPOV demands that all significant points of view be represented, and the POV of how the public perceives the credibility of this purported scientific consensus is clearly relevant to this page. --GoRight (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Non-scientists can certainly form an opinion on the processes. But no matter how you turn that - it is still not a scientific opinion, and while you seem to ignore it, that is the topic of the article. (not: non-scientific opinion on what scientific opinion is or how its arrived at). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes! This article is "restricted to one POV", a scientific one. Unfortunately, some people just can't accept the fact that, other than a tiny handful of marginal scientists, the entire scientific community completely supports human-caused global warming. --CurtisSwain (talk) 08:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Intro guidance to List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

I added this [10] to help prevent folks from posting individual scientist opinions here, so this article can focus on the organizational views. I appreciate that folks must have qualifications along side their opinions. As well, it takes more that one to obtain opinion objectivity. Removal seems like editors are suppressing established, notable, reliability sourced dissension, (for their own qualification standards), as well as disrupting a direction to a wiki article to focus on individual opinions. This instruction aims to maintain civility. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

...and your addition was quickly reverted. As Boris pointed out, the list is not one of "individual scientist opinions", but only one of dissenting opinions. As stated in this article's FAQ, numerous individual scientists have made a variety of public statements on this topic, both dissenting and concurring, and everything in between. There are hundreds of thousands of scientists in the world. Collecting and organizing their individual statements on the topic would an impossible undertaking, and would be like conducting our own survey. Fortunately, others have surveyed individual scientists, and their results are summarized in the Surveys section. Additionally, nothing is being suppressed here. This article links to the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming in the Statements by dissenting organizations section.--CurtisSwain (talk) 07:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The FAQ and the initial directions are not adequately helping to prevent disruptions to this article. The list is buried down deep and should be brought up front and center too. It's a qualified list. No one is asking for the impossible. It is possible to put the link near the instructions. "For individual scientific opinions, options see List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" on a separate line would be adequate. This is a common approach on Wiki. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The list is not a list of "individual scientific opinions" but a list of "scientists opposing the mainstream scientific opinion" - there is a large and not very subtle difference. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Please help us find the right list. The difference may be the title to the list article is misleading us. Seems like directions at the top of this page, to see the drop-down boxes (or whatever they are called) Is an appropriate civil solution. Some kind editors are better organizing these. Still in favor of a controversies section (per discussion above). Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Such a list doesn't exist (and probably never will). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Kim D. Petersen, would you deny the right for such a list to exist? Would any other editor like to declare their intentions with regards to preventing such a list? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Any Wikipedia editor is entitled to argue the case for the deletion of a particular article through the deletion process. There's no reason why a Wikipedian should support the existence of every conceivable article on a subject. On the other hand, creating a stub article on this subject would be the work of a few seconds. --TS 00:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I've started List of scientists supporting the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Let's hope the servers have enough space... Lt. Gen. Pedro Subramanian (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I give you an A for Wikipedia:Writing_for_the_opponent I pray you do not encounter prejudice on its existence. I'll abstain from editing because these views are given undue weight (smile)Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No i would not "deny" such - i've simply taken Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists supporting the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming into account. A "list of scientists supporting..." wouldn't be significantly different from a "list of scientists." --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Offensive to NPOV vs on topic

I suspect this article is offensive to WP:NPOV. The issue seems to be what is on topic and what makes a NPOV. Does anyone have relevant guidance to point to in this conflicting matter? I could not find the on topic guidance. Thanks. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that there are scientific organizations not listed here? Lt. Gen. Pedro Subramanian (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. How is that relevant? --GoRight (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I am looking for the off/on topic wiki guidance. Did you WP:IDHT with feigned incomprehension? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That is not the correct answer to this question. -5 points. Dr. Dr. (Mr. M.D.) Arthur Resnick (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this your idea of good faith discussion? --GoRight (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Please comment on the edit, not on the editor. Hope this helps. Dr. Dr. (Mr. M.D.) Arthur Resnick (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, are these edits consistent with good faith discussion?  :) --GoRight (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Lets try again. Have you read the line on top of the article? The one saying:

This article documents current scientific opinion on climate change 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.

That is the topic of this article. And Boris' question about whether there are scientific organizations not listed here - is entirely on point with regards to NPOV of the article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Why yes I have. No one is disputing that that is the topic of the article, which is precisely why the WSJ article needs to be referenced here because it is discussing a public controversy ABOUT that very topic. Should I start a new article titled "Public controversies surrounding the scientific opinion on climate change?" I guess I could and cross link the two, but under other circumstances I would expect that (unidentified) people on your side of the discussion would claim that I was creating a POV fork. So, what's your preference? A section in this article or a whole new article with cross linkages? --GoRight (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Public controversies surrounding the scientific opinion on climate change wouldn't be such a bad idea, but then we already have Global warming controversy. Dr. Dr. (Mr. M.D.) Arthur Resnick (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"but then we already have Global warming controversy" - Nope, it's not the same topic. --GoRight (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If you think the encyclopedia is missing an article, please create it. --TS 02:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

An article about controversies over scientific consensus on climate change already exists. Its summarized on the controversies page (from which it was forked when that article got too big). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Really, to what specific page are you referring (that specifically discusses controversies over the scientific consensus)? --GoRight (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It takes very little time to go over to Global warming controversy and checking which articles that are summarized in the section called "consensus". But i will help you: Climate change consensus is the article you seek. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I did go there as you say and found that specific page. However that page is NOT discussing the controversies surrounding the scientific consensus. That's why I was confused by your comment and sought clarification. That page reads a lot like this one, actually. This page has become a POV fork and should be deleted, IMHO, as discussed below it should be merged into Climate change consensus. Much of the material between the two is redundant and therefore is being given WP:UNDUE weight. --GoRight (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Concern Summary

Thanks, sure I've read the intro directions by now. I even tried to improve them with 2 solutions offered and 2 others in mind. I am still looking for guidance to support its existence. Let me summarize my concerns. The directions create a NPOV issue. Wiki is not a place to "document" a POV ... it is for NPOV. The article has structural issues that do not help the reader or editors maintain NPOV. I seek to be civil and help folks reach a NPOV. "non-scientific" and individual scientists views are not adequately covered in this article. I suspect the structural issues are going to be easiest to address. (see: Wikipedia:STRUCTURE) I guess the FAQ require work too. Kindly, Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "NPOV issue"? You really haven't clarified what you mean by that. Surely it's not a simplistic "some say the Earth is flat, while others believe it is round," but it isn't at all clear what you do mean. Dr. Dr. (Mr. M.D.) Arthur Resnick (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"What do you mean by "NPOV issue"?" - I would assume they mean that you are excluding legitimate points of view from the article as they relate to the scientific opinion on climate change. Is there some other interpretation that you are thinking of that I am not seeing? Please elaborate on why you find this so confusing. --GoRight (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair ... This is abstract and simple. The directions specify View A. Folks are excluding (Not A) and focusing NPOV on A only. In reality A and (Not A) exist in View B. It the NPOV for View B that has issues. This can be fixed with reasonably attributing the existence of (Not A) and helping the reader find (Not A) articles. NPOV always applies to A and B. Seems like folks claim (Not A) is the same as (Not B), which is false. Arguing with (Not B) seems to be absurd right now. I can't find guidance to support A only views. Breaking for a few. Thanks Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I understand the concept you are describing here but I am having trouble mapping the A and B back to something specific in our current context. For the sake of this discussion, A = ?? and B = ?? in your view? --GoRight (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, A = the directions specification. Not A = is other relevant WP:RS pertaining to A. B = the universe of reasonable opinion with an editorial board per WP:RS, on both the issue of A and (Not A). So, B is made NPOV whole by addressing Not A. Not B is irrelevant. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the attempt, but I'm of good solid hillbilly stock and have trouble with all this symbolic logic stuff. Is it possible to lay it out in plain language? Dr. Dr. (Mr. M.D.) Arthur Resnick (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It has been said above in this talk in plain language, adding the guidance context would be productive. The abstraction diffuses the POV folks are attached to. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Where is the guidance?

These [11], [12], [13], [14], revisions require guidance support for the on/off topic issue and for the article instruction/directions. These edits were made for a WP:NPOV and then reverted. Someone should kindly provide wiki guidance on these reversions to maintain them. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

found Wikipedia:Stay_on_topic#Stay_on_topic Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added the POV intro dispute tag. This is an issue Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Information_suppression, the directions have constructed an unsupported POV rule to suppress information. I'll give it some time. My intentions are to change the intro to better support a NPOV. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You linked to the wrong section. You meant Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Expertise. -Atmoz (talk) 06:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It is NPOV supression by strawman experts. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 06:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The intro directions are a Strawman fallacy issue. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion? You've raised lots of objections, but have made no recommendations for an alternative to the present wording. I'll remove the tag absent such. Dr. Dr. (Mr. M.D.) Arthur Resnick (talk) 05:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you offer any consensus? The first one [15] I made you reverted without adequate guidance support. I discussed them above here in this talk page at least two times and you still don't hear them ... do you?. Now I fear, you disruptively reverted the POV tag without resolution [16]. The onus is on you, my friend to find guidance on your unsupported reverts. My proposals are made. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 06:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth I have a suggestion: Hat notes following the description of what is in the article in the form:

Notable non-scientific opinions on climate change are located here.

Disputes as to what the scientific opinion on climate change is are located there.

etc.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you link to the actual articles you'd like in the hat notes? Having a link to XYZZY is probably an improvement to the current article, but I don't think it's on topic. -Atmoz (talk) 06:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

great suggestion. let me cool off some, they are in the Template section for controversies. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 06:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea where it might be. KDP made a suggestion for the second link, but I don't see that one as appropriate. Some surveys seem to be here (in the article), but I don't know where they should be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see [17]. Thanks this would help, but does not solve the NPOV issue. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 06:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you read my edit summary, as well as other comments on this? You said "individual scientist views," without further qualification. As we have pointed out to you that's obviously wrong. Had you said something like "the views of individual global warming skeptics" there would have been no problem (at least for me). Dr. Dr. (Mr. M.D.) Arthur Resnick (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a simple fix to hat notes (adding the POV term is provocative and uncivil, you with many provocative names), lets cool off a bit and return. (BTW, if the POV-Tag is being reverted, that's a good sign the article has POV issues.) Cheers Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk)

Proposing solution to concerns

It sounds like what some editors really want is to make this article more like Climate change consensus. Which is probably a good idea, merge the two articles to create one that's a bit more inclusive and comprehensive. Maybe say some something in the lead like various commentators, politicians, bloggers, etc. have made a wide variety of assertions about the degree of validity human-caused climate change has within the scientific community. Then give some examples with proper refs: There's a consensus. There is no consensus. A growing number of scientists doubt it., etc. Then go into how the article documents (or summarizes) current scientific opinion on climate change as given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists, but also include petitions and open letters like Climate change consensus does. Of course, we'd still have to be careful to avoid undue weight, so the article still wouldn't include individual universities, or laboratories (which tend not to issue position statements anyway). Statements made by individual scientists would still be excluded, again to avoid undue weight, but the article could still provide a link to the List of scientists opposing... for those readers who want to take a trip out to The Fringe. I think this would greatly improve the article, and (hopefully) reduce the number of POV accusations it gets. How do y'all like that idea?--CurtisSwain (talk) 08:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

My immeadiate reaction is no. I don't much like Climate change consensus. This article is about the *scientific* opinion on climate change, which is the bit people ought to care about. Leave the bloggers out of it William M. Connolley (talk) 09:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, there is a vast difference between the scientific opinion on climate change, and the public opinion on climate change, they are completely separate - and should stay that way (since that also reflects the real world). Here we describe the expert opinion, and in the other article we describe the philosophy/controversy/individual views etc. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a useful page documenting exactly the scientific opinion on climate change, and it does this quite well. It also has a simple and clear structure that makes it easy for readers and editors to use. Note how comparatively little of the usual bickering we have had here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Right. I think we're actually in agreement here, in so far as what is most important is to describe the expert opinion. What I'm saying is that this article should briefly acknowledge that all kinds of non-scientists make all kinds of wacky assertions about the scientific opinion on climate change, and then give them the real deal (synthesis reports, position statements, surveys, etc). --CurtisSwain (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I love this story: There are two ways to find the distance to the moon. Either you set up a radar system and measure it, or you go into the street, ask a thousand people how far they think it is, and average their answers. With more people taking Media Studies than Physics at university, some may want to explore the world via the blog, the focus group, and the talent show. There is no way that wishes, opinions and prejudices should be weighed seriously against facts and the combined consensus of the world's climate scientists. If Wikipedia were to decide to go that way, I suggest the movement start at Lunar distance (astronomy); we'll see how far they get with that first. --Nigelj (talk) 12:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"ask a thousand people how far they think it is, and average their answers" - Ironically, you have just described how the scientific consensus on climate change has been arrived at. That's pretty much what the word consensus means. --GoRight (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the point where you have to try to grasp the difference between the opinions of "people with PhDs who spend their whole working life studying things in a highly structured way" and those of "people in the street". That you equate the two is the whole point, I think. --Nigelj (talk) 12:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No irony. Ask a thousand professional astronomers how distant the moon is, average the answers, and you'll probably get the same result as the radar. Why? Because they read the results of the radar experiment. There is a difference between 'scientific consensus' and 'consensus'. To get a 'scientific consensus' on climate change you don't even poll all scientists, just the one's in the relevant fields.--Jaymax (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Briefly acknowledge is the right way to go. Good proposal, but the articles are too big to merge. Consensus in fixing the hat notes should help folks find Climate change consensus and others with high relevance. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I know of no consensus that the hat note needs 'fixing' - there is nothing wrong with it. Maybe what we need is some kind of Climate Change info box or link box or whatever you call it, like the top one in the right-hand margin on OOXML? --Nigelj (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That wouldn't be adequate. The dispute over what is "scientific" and what is "mainstream scientific consensus" (in other articles) means that we'd need an additional phrase, or possibly sentence, covering each of the related articles. That would seem to me to make it too large for a disambigbox. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

My dispute is over how to balance opinions, where one category is "Scientific opinion" Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Cease-fire on POV template

Okay, all of you. Quit inserting and removing the POV tag on the header. Rather than full-protecting the article, I will block editors that insert or remove it for WP:3RR/WP:EW. Consider this your warning, I won't be leaving warnings on editor talk pages. tedder (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I protest. You have issued your warning with the article in the wrong state. Please issue your warning after the POV tag is restored. --GoRight (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:WRONG, and as ZuluPapa5 said, the POV tag is provocative and uncivil; it doesn't help the article at all. The article is very active- the {{pov}} tag is best for articles that need attention- this one certainly doesn't. tedder (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Tedder ... misrepresented me. I placed the POV tag and claim their are POV disputes all over this talk page to justify its existent. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 06:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

GET REAL FOLKS.... THERE IS A POV DISPUTE HERE ... NO NEED TO DENY IT. Warning given and taken. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If thre is a POV dispute, it is presumably under "Offensive to NPOV vs on topic". But I see no coherent explanation there of what the dispute is supposed to be, let alone an attempt to resolve whatever that dispute might be William M. Connolley (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Look again please ... there are reverted diffs and proposals. It is pointless to challenge NPOV with out supporting guidance, good sir. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is nothing more than a POV fork from Climate change consensus. It should be AfD'd on that basis. --GoRight (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you really think so, then the course is obvious. May i btw. point out that Climate change consensus is a very recent article (created March 30, 2009), whereas this article originates Sep 2003 . --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't much matter how they came into existence, my use of the term "POV fork" was meant figuratively and not literally. But for those who wish to focus on the literal definition, I stand corrected. The substance of the point remains, however. --GoRight (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Kim is right. Climate change consensus was created as a content fork from Global warming controversy. This information is readily available via the "history" tab at the top of every article. Editors should do a bit of research before posting comments on talk pages. That way they may avoid looking like they don't know what they're talking about.--CurtisSwain (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the history. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If there's any more nonsense on this article, I'll be suggesting some kind of administrator action. That probably won't be further protection in this instance. --TS 20:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm here in a mop role only. If anything beyond blocking and protection is needed, it'll probably need to go to WP:DR. tedder (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If you're considering admin action, I'd like to point out that several of us have asked for a clear statement of quite what the POV controversy is over this page. WVBluefield, GoRight and ZuluPapa5 have all added the POV template - presumably any of them should be capable of explaining why they have done so (in fact, any of them should be able to point to existing text on the talk page that justifies the template); but none of them have.

My best guess would be that the tagging is "revenge" for not being allowed this edit [18]. That edit (a) introduces non-science opinion into an article about scientific opinion, and (b) deliberately uses the "climategate" redirect for POV-pushing, which is why it is unacceptable William M. Connolley (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for others, but you have correctly identified my reason. It has nothing to do with revenge, though. It has everything to do with only allowing this page to present a single POV when it's content so closely mirrors that of Climate change consensus. I don't care which article came first. My use of the term POV fork was figurative and not meant to be taken literally. The fact remains that the two articles share significant amounts of content and should be merged, and all significant POV should be addressed per WP:WEIGHT. This obviously includes things like a discussion of the public perceptions of the so called scientific consensus on climate change.

"(a) introduces non-science opinion into an article about scientific opinion" - No, it introduces a relevant discussion of a controversy surrounding the exact topic of this article. The refusal to allow this discussion to be introduced is the source of the POV controversy, which has been perfectly obvious from the start. Responding to your query about what is the source of the controversy would have (as is now obvious) been redundant and a waste of everyone's time.

"(b) deliberately uses the "climategate" redirect for POV-pushing, which is why it is unacceptable" - Well, if this is the only thing holding up inclusion of this discussion I would be happy to instead use the CRU email incident link instead. I only used the Climategate redirect for brevity, as well as the fact that it is also quickly becoming the most widely recognized moniker for the incident in question. --GoRight (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The content of that edit grossly misrepresents the nature of the 'crisis' that was engendered by the e-mail hack. The crisis is one that may affect the future career prospects of some senior employees at the university; it may affect the standing of the university in the academic community; it may affect the way scientists feel able to communicate for years to come. These are serious issues. What it does not do is make one ha-peth of difference to the science of climate change, the projections, the causes, the necessary CO2 cuts, the consequences of going over a 2 deg C rise since pre-industrial times etc etc. All of this is easily sourced by reading the article on the hack. See [19] for just one. --Nigelj (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The content of that edit is a verbatim quotation from an editorial written by a major news source of considerable note which directly discusses the topic of this article. The rest of your statement has no bearing on this particular discussion. --GoRight (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it is good that GR has finally stated (or rather, agreed that I have correctly stated) the reason he added the POV template. It would be graceful we he to admit that he was wrong to add the template prior to such a justifiaciton being on talk. Furthermore, I'd like to note his comment "I can't speak for others, but you have correctly identified my reason" - this, accurately, points out that it isn't possible (as I and several others have said) to guess why WVBluefield and ZuluPapa5 added the template. I'm confident that no-one would consider accusing either of adding a template that they hadn't bothered to read, so they must have noticed The neutrality of this introduction is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page - which means, as I and several others have been saying, that they were incorrect to add the template.

GR's objection, however, is spurious. He asserts that It has everything to do with only allowing this page to present a single POV but this is not true. The page presents scientific opinion. Were there several, we would be happy to present them. But there aren't. GR seems very hung up on Climate change consensus. He made the bizarre suggestion that This article is nothing more than a POV fork from Climate change consensus. It should be AfD'd on that basis. When it was pointed out that in fact the situation was reversed - Ccc is the younger article - GR, logically, should have proposed AFD of that page. He hasn't. The solution to this otherwise puzzling problem is trivial - GR is a POV pushing GW skeptic (this isn't a secret - he admits it) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"GR is a POV pushing GW skeptic" - I'm curious, WMC, where have I ever admitted to this? You can label my suggestions any way that you wish, which is obviously just a distraction from the substance of this discussion. These two articles clearly share significant overlap and should be merged, and one of the AfD'd. Since the other article has already been described as including discussion of controversies surrounding the scientific consensus on climate change it only makes sense to retain the other article. This article clearly suffers from the problem that people seem to be resisting the introduction of legitimate content pertaining to the topic at hand. Regardless of how you try to distract people with labels, this remains true. --GoRight (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

My point exactly - an editorial opinion piece is only a valid source as to the opinion of the author. The author is not a scientist, his/her opinion is not subject to proof or evidence or open to peer review. This is an article on scientific opinions, as it should be. There are many more op-eds in the world mainstream press that take the opposite view, as I cited above. No scientific body has issued a statement retracting any previous AGW position in the light the hacked e-mails. Etc etc. This is not a POV issue, it is a non-issue for this article. There are other articles where such journalistic and public opinions are laid out, end-to-end with due weight and balance. --Nigelj (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

WMC, I added the POV template because this page is full of POV dispute. My specific issue is the hat notes (direction, instruction) as discussed above and in my diffs presented. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it is excellent that you, like GR, have now clarified what you think is wrong. I don't expect you, any more than GR, to admit taht you shouldn't have added the template until you'd done so, and had a chance to discuss the matter. That leaves WVB who seems to have tagged-n-run: I guess we can at least be grateful for the latter portion William M. Connolley (talk) 09:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

GR re-added the POV tempalte. I've re-removed it. As I said above GR's objection, however, is spurious. GR has, subsequently, produced nothing to make his objections non-spurious. This article clearly suffers from the problem that people seem to be resisting the introduction of legitimate content pertaining to the topic at hand is vacuous without diffs to support it William M. Connolley (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Random note: I've struck out my reference to ZuluPapa5, as it was unintentionally taken out of context. tedder (talk)
• The issue is covered on my talk page. It is difficult for me to dispute intentional statements. I know what I felt and talked. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Restored after PA [20] No tampering. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Warning

It appears [21] a POV tag edit war is being escalated again and disrupting this page. Request for oversight. I intend for the tag to be on. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

NPOV issues with the hat notes

Before advancing a proposal, let me clarify the NPOV issues with the hat notes that are causing a POV problem. These issues are a serious offense.

1. Editors are acting as if they OWN the interpretation of the hat notes.
2. Editors present as if one given opinion is "right" and therefore other opinions have little substance.
3. Editors are entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it not credible to this article subject. In disagreement with the actual source read.
4. Editors are ignoring or deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms, but claiming it may not be admitted to this article.

Would anyone disagree that this is occurring when enforcing the hat notes? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Rev. Willie Archangel (talk) 04:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I see ... strike a NPOV dispute with a yes, and yet reverted and deny my NPOV tag, then change the signature. [ PA redacted ] Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Please follow my advice and take it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. This will keep the same topic from coming up in multiple articles and save time. It also may be a forum where we can avoid flaring tempers that reduce grammatical consistency; please refrain from making comments about other editors, Awickert (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

What would you have us bring up at WP:AN? Is this not merely a content dispute? WP:AN will simply say that they don't address content disputes, no? --GoRight (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Not WP:AN, but rather WP:RSN. I would discuss the issues that Zulu Papa 5 speaks of with respect to the use of sources. Getting a more definitive answer about the use of sources would help to consolidate the debate that is currently occurring on at least two talk pages. The debate over what sources are acceptable needs to be checked off the list before actual content discussion can be productive. Otherwise there are two levels of dispute (the content and the acceptability of the sourcing), so things are getting convoluted. Awickert (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: RSN vs AN. My bad. Sorry for the confusion. --GoRight (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see evidence for any of this. How about, just as a start, you present some diffs to support your very first point William M. Connolley (talk) 09:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence to justify your position either. Does this not imply that we are in dispute over the POV represented in this article? --GoRight (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Surely there is a limit to how often the same editor or two can re-start the same argument again under a new thread? Surely once the facts have been explained a few times, and a clear consensus shows up again and again, we have to give it a rest? In very simple terms, the article is about scientific opinion, which limits it to scientific opinion. If this wasn't clear enough, there is a hat note that helps explain it. The reason this is useful is that this is a place on WP where you can read about 'scientific opinion on climate change', hence the name. If there was any scientific dissent, it would be covered here. Even scientific non-committal-ness from petroleum geologists is covered here. What you can't do is compare uninformed blogs, conspiracy theorists, creationists, tin-foil hatters, political journalists and other nutters with scientists, and pretend that doing so leads to a balanced discussion of the facts. --Nigelj (talk) 12:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

More WP:IDHT. You can't change the facts by merely repeating your flawed positions. The fact that you are trying to bully people to get your own way is clearly indicative of the fact that there is a POV problem with this article. The WSJ opinion piece provides a legitimate description of a controversy relating specifically to this article. There is no wikipedia policy that restricts this page to only scientific opinion, quite the opposite. WP:NPOV clearly states that all significant POV must be represented and the public POV is clearly being excluded from this page in contradiction to WP:NPOV. --GoRight (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

"bully people to your own way" is rather interesting. You seem to be arguing that we should change the whole topic of this article, and since there isn't consensus for it - we are bullying. "scientific opinion" no matter how many times you are ignoring it - is not determined from opinion articles in the WSJ. You are 100% free to address NPOV by adding contradicting scientific opinions from relevant sources, and relevant sources are scientific ones. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

"In very simple terms, the article is about scientific opinion, which limits it to scientific opinion." - Simply put, I dispute your ability under wikipedia policy to enforce this statement. This is in direct contradiction to WP:NPOV. --GoRight (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

ZP asserts Editors are acting as if they OWN the interpretation of the hat notes. I want to see some diffs that support this assertion. Apparently this is an issue so serious that it justifies a NPOV tag, so there ought to be clear signs of someone trying to "NPOV" these hatnotes and someone else stoutly resisting. Where is this evidence? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

WTC WMC... fair demand, you will see evidence all over this talk page. First .. someone tampered with the evidence [22]. Next, we must have NPOV qualifications to prevent a corrupt process. Folks who has a WP:COI to declare? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZuluPapa5 (talk • contribs) Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think it is now entirely clear that ZP5 is wasting everyone's times and polluting this talk page with nonsense and abusing the page itself with edit warring. ZP5: this is your last warning: if you have nothing serious to say, go somewhere else. If you cnotinue to waste people's time here, it is RFC time. Your unproductive antics are the reason we need admin "watch" over this page William M. Connolley (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

WTC, WMC, I don't want to waste folks time with a corrupt process. Specifically to WMC ... Does WTC WMC have a WP:COI to declare? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Zulu Papa 5, you can find everything you want to know about WMC on the internet. Your current behavior is not becoming of polite discourse, so please cool down a bit before writing again. Impolite discourse is unproductive. Awickert (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Awickert ... presumably when dealing with COI issues on content I must file a notice board issue. Does Awickert have a WP:COI to declare? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

In good faith I will tell you that quite a bit of my work has been relevant to petroleum geology, so if anything, I might have an anti-global-warming COI. But that's the end of my patience; one more accusation from you and I will have a LOI due to unpleasantness of working with you. Awickert (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I accept and honor your COI statement. Asking for a COI statment is civil. I will make mine in due time. (P.S. your LOI might be considered threat aimed at me. Web info is inadmissible COI unless the ed brings it in.) Regards Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk)

It is not a threat, it simply means lack of interest, as I have been kindly ignoring what I perceive borderline behavior from you for some time now (have been chalking it up to the nature of these talk pages), and I really really dislike unproductive talk page discussion. Asking for statements of COI from everyone who diagrees with you is also borderline IMO... seems like an investigation due to mistrust of the motives of everyone who disagrees with you. But if that is the way you want to go about this, you should state your potential COI now, not in due time, because it is honorable to hold yourself to the same standards you request of others. And after that, let's move on to content, Awickert (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

COI and Policy Issues First: I would like to move onto content. I have at least 3 content proposals in mind to present. However, I know there are two issues to be discussed first:

1. I've reviewed all the talk here and archives, there is significant evidence that Reliable Sources are being deigned denied a home in Wikipedia. Moreover, the NPOV arbitration process has not adequately served severed the sources by negotiating an attribution to a valid article on Wikipedia. The presents a significant conflict of interest to Wikipedia principlesals.
2. The Wikipedia:OC#OPINION and Wikipedia:Stay_on_topic#Stay_on_topic guidance appears to be most relevant in properly addressing the hat notes. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Restored after PA [23] No tampering. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you translate this into English, or any other language I understand? Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I would be glad to help you, unfortunately folks are demanding content from me, over my peaceful talk. Please direct me to a thread on your talk for this discussion. It would help if you could be specific about your misunderstandings. I should not talk further here about it, until content is added. My correction may help. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

NPOV issues with this article.

Since WMC feels that we have not sufficiently followed what he sees as the proper process for establishing a dispute over the NPOV of this article, let us simply rectify that situation by following the steps he has outlined. From that perspective, I offer the following.

This article suffers from a WP:NPOV issue in that discussion of public controversies surrounding the topic of this article are being inappropriately excluded. The public perception and discussion regarding the purported Scientific opinion on climate change and the Scientific consensus on global warming represent a valid POV under WP:NPOV as it relates to the topic of this article. Excluding such a discussion creates an misleading impression for wikipedia readers regarding the overall level recognition and acceptance that this opinion enjoys, or not, among the world's overall population.

Some of the primary issues that have been identified thus far are documented in the following sections:

• This article needs a controversies section.
• Offensive to NPOV vs on topic
• Proposing solution to concerns
• Cease-fire on POV template
• NPOV issues with the hat notes

--GoRight (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I request we hold off on this, until we get WP:COI and evidence tampering taken care of properly. That is the correct process. thanks Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem you face here is that the criticisms against the validity of the official scientific opinion is not based on good evidence. The criticism certainly exists, but the sources in which they are published allow the crtics to get away with poor rhetorical arguments. Also there is not peer review here, so flawed statements can be made by the critics with impunity.

This means that you cannot argue here like "X made statement Y in the WSJ, the WSJ is a reliable source, therefore statement Y belongs in this article." If editors here are willing to spend the time engaging with you about statement Y, then that would have to happen on a "first principles" basis, in which scientific sources can also be used. These discussions are (in principle) allowed despite the OR and Synth policies, because these only apply to what is edited in the article. Count Iblis (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, please read the discussion above and particularly the suggested quote from the WSJ article. It is not making an argument of the form you describe. That article is not making a scientific argument, so it does not require that the author have any scientific credentials nor that the article itself be peer-reviewed. The opinion being expressed by this notable source relates to how the general public perceives the legitimacy and the credibility of the scientific opinion itself (i.e. the subject of this article) as well as how that opinion was formed. So, despite the fact that this is not a scientific opinion in the sense that you mean it, this discussion nonetheless belongs in this article. The public's opinion on this topic represents a valid POV that is being excluded in contradiction to WP:NPOV. --GoRight (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but then the legitimacy and the credibility of the scientific opinion needs to be discussed in this article in a NPOV way. On this talk page we would need to tackle this issue head on. In the article, you cannot just have a statement saying that some fraction of the population think that the scientific opinion is obtained in a flawed way, without also all the facts that exist that strongly dispute this. We would need to write about how the peer review process works, the fact that there have been no officially recognized instances of failures of the peer review system as far as climate science is concerned etc. etc. Count Iblis (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to a fair discussion of the issue based on WP:RS sans any WP:OR. I don't believe that this requires a complete overview of the peer review system, however, which would be WP:OR as it relates to this topic. Besides, this is likely already described elsewhere. If you have secondary WP:RS that discusses the topic that would serve as a reasonable counterpoint to the WSJ opinion. I will again note, however, that once this is added it only underscores the overlap between this page and Climate change consensus and the need to merge the two, IMHO of course. --GoRight (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Another new thread, same two editors, making the same point. I cannot explain what 'scientific' means again. Thank you for trying, Count Iblis; you have the patience of a saint. --Nigelj (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

First, I am concerned with what NPOV means. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

To be termed NPOV, an articel's method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[8] Wiki NPOV philosophy looks at the underpinning logic of the NPOV method, at what separates NPOV from POV, and the ethic that is implicit in NPOV. There are basic assumptions derived from wiki philosophy that form the base of the NPOV method - namely, that reality is both objective and consistent with reliable sources, that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, and that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world verified by reliable sources. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I think a simple hat note specifying where material that does not belong in the article should go should be adequate. I can see the difference between (established) scientific opinion, and the opinions of (established, respected) scientists, and the latter may belong somewhere. I do not see an NPOV concern other than ambiguity over what should be in this article rather than that article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

When there is a legitimate public controversy about some topic X which warrants only a short paragraph or two to describe, is it not customary and appropriate that this be described in a controversy (or similar) section within the article on topic X itself? In this case, topic X = "the scientific opinion on climate change". Ergo, the description of this controversy belongs in a section of this article. --GoRight (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, all i've seen so far, is a few editors who seem to be unable to grasp that failure to gain consensus isn't a POV dispute. Since my arguments have been stated several times, i'm going to stand by my statements, without extra comment, until such time that actual arguments that haven't been discussed over and over again come forward - or an actual consensus emerges. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Please no prejudice ... NPOV is consensus and may change like anything else. No change is evidence for a POV in effect.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk)

I see that GoRight has re-added the POV template, in clear contradiction of Tedder above: "the POV tag is provocative and uncivil; it doesn't help the article at all. The article is very active- the {{pov}} tag is best for articles that need attention- this one certainly doesn't." There is little point in typing comments to people who don't read them, including an administrator's warning directed straight at them. This topic has been done to death: Two editors against a clear consensus. --Nigelj (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

My intent was corrupted to keep the POV tag was corrupted. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

---

With the exception of the subsection on 'consensus', this article is nothing more or less than a list.

It is reasonable to debate what the criteria should be, or should not be, for inclusion in the list - although that debate has been had several times, resulting in the consensus italicised para in the lead.

It is reasonable to debate whether a particular entry should or should not be included, according to the list criteria as currently defined

Beyond those two points, I fail to see how POV can be argued. It's just a list.

(I personally believe that the 'consensus' sub-section doesn't belong in this article - it doesn't fit within the lead definition of what this article does - and the rules for inclusion are a lot less exacting than those for published scientific opinions of institutions or surveys of relevant scientific opinion.) --Jaymax (talk) 01:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is an interesting point because I have for the past couple of days been considering making a proposal here that may resolve my POV concerns. It is closely related to your observation. My concern is, indeed, closely related to the "consensus" aspect of things and not specifically with how the "scientific opinion" has been articulated above. It has been suggested that Climate change consensus is the more appropriate venue for my concern since that is where the controversies are claimed to be addressed.

WP:NPOV indicates that IF the topic of the "climate change consensus" is to be covered in this article then it must be covered in a WP:NPOV way which mean criticisms and controversies must be addressed. Let me make the following proposal and see how others feel about it as a resolution to the current disagreement:

1. Move all of the "consensus" related content out of this article and merge it (there is a lot of overlap already) into the Climate change consensus article and I will then take my issue to that page. We can leave a small one or two sentence statement here and a pointer to that page for people looking for a discussion of "consensus" related material.
2. The Climate change consensus page seems to significantly overlap in content with this page as it tries to also describe the "scientific opinion" there as well. So I would similarly suggest that the "scientific opinion" related content from that page be likewise merged into this page with a small 1 or 2 sentence statement left there and a pointer to this article as the main article on what the "scientific opinion" actually is.
3. The Global warming consensus redirect which currently points to this page would then be changed to point to the other page that actually discusses the "consensus" which in turn then has a pointer to this article for the details on the "scientific opinion" associated with that "consensus".
4. I am also aware of numerous places where there are likely wikilinks of the form [[Scientific opinion on climate change|climate change consensus]] which should then be modified to instead use [[Climate change consensus|climate change consensus]] when they are encountered.

This seems to me to be a reasonable way to address the current dispute on this page and it has the extra benefit of reducing duplicated content between the two articles. Would other editors find this approach acceptable? --GoRight (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Shall I interpret silence as consent to put this proposal into practice? I'll wait a bit more but lacking any objections I'll move forward with it. --GoRight (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No. You should interpret it as this talk page having a lot of traffic and obviously implausible suggestions not garnering much attention. Oppose William M. Connolley (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

A better solution would be to delete CCC and have a single coherent article (the present one). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, then it would seem that the WP:DISPUTE is still on. Pity. I hereby request that the {{POV}} template be placed at this top of this page to reflect this on-going dispute. --GoRight (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Why? Because you haven't attained consensus? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Because there is a dispute over the neutrality of this article. I made a legitimate proposal. No one responded for 2 days. Now that I have asked if silence is consent WMC has rejected the proposal. I am certainly open to alternatives on how best to address the problems, but wherever the consensus is documented it needs to be presented in a WP:NPOV way, which includes some discussion of the controversy surrounding it. --GoRight (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, i didn't notice it. Frankly i thought that this part had been discussed to its death. So start an RfC already - that would be the next step - correct? I suggest you start a new topic and parlay out a wording for it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not convinced that an RfC would be the best choice. You frequently raise objections to !votes. I need to review the options available to us (in a reasonable time, obviously). How would you feel about a mediation, assuming that people would agree to be bound by the outcome up front and that we could agree on a mediator who would even agree to tackle this. Although the point to be decided is narrow (i.e. whether notable controversy, both public and scientific, should be included in any discussion of the consensus). Let me sleep on this one. I will try to get the ball rolling tomorrow. --GoRight (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have bad experiences with mediation (ie. they end up unresolved (at least those i've followed)). RfC's are not for !votes, but for bringing input, ideas, editors and seeing how people see the dispute from the outside. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Mediation is fine with me, however why should it be binding. It should help bring clarity to things. Although, it does seem like eds may have their headphones on and trenches dug.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I hereby request that the... - ah, Thats what your about - this is merely your excuse for re-tagging the article. No; you're acting in bad faith here, again - all you are doing is angling to damage the article William M. Connolley (talk) 08:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC) And GR apparently interprets "I hereby request that" to mean "I'm about to" [24]. Perhaps we have a language issue? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"Perhaps we have a language issue?" - No, not really ... at least on my end. I can't speak for yours. Here's the timeline: [25], [26], [27], [28], and THEN [29]. Also, let me draw you attention to all of the discussion below concerning this topic, which you apparently believe is from a different timeline. --GoRight (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

---

[This line added to separate text from a different timeline - William M. Connolley (talk) 08:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)]

Okay, slow down. It's a busy time in the world of climate science with the whole CRU-email thing and COP15. But, I like the idea of "reducing duplicated content" and I think Boris has the right idea. I've been trying to merge the two articles in my sandbox, but haven't had the time. I think we need to consider why readers come to this (or the other) page, and what it is they're looking for. If this page contains virtually no information about the minority view, I'm afraid many average readers will think it's just a bunch of "biased" "POV" BS, and will go elsewhere. It would be best to show the minority view here where readers can see it along side the majority view. You know, kind of like having two people stand next to each other to see who's taller.--CurtisSwain (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Per the discussion on Tedder's talk page, I am restoring the {{POV}} until such time as this dispute is resolved. --GoRight (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify what you mean by "this dispute is resolved." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

By "resolved" I mean that the dispute no longer exists ... in that we are collectively agreed on how to present the material in a WP:NPOV manner, which must (IMHO) include a reasonable treatment of the controversy or controversies surrounding the consensus (both public and scientific). --GoRight (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

So as long as one person disagrees the tag stays up? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not 1 person, it was three at least and I am sure others would agree. I like Tedder's answer to your query, after WP:DR has run its course. I am considering the WP:DR options that may have some chance of success in resolving the matter. Do you have any preferences for where to proceed first? --GoRight (talk) 02:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I note you didn't actually answer my question. Note that the WP:DR process is designed to provide advice rather than to arrive at a definite conclusion (except for arbcom cases). So, my question still stands. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

For the duration of the WP:DR yes, but not indefinitely. Clearly the intent of the tag is for it to be temporary and as the essay it references points out we should all be able to agree to that. I am no exception.

So long as those objecting remain engaged in the discussion and WP:DR is progressing the tag should stay up. This IS a finite duration with a well defined conclusion. WP:DR can't go on forever, obviously. Either we will reach some accord during the process or I guess ultimately Arbcom or a mediator (assuming people agree to be bound by the result up front) will make a ruling on whether this article is consistent with the WP:NPOV policy.

In any event I am quite confident that Tedder will insure that one person is not allowed to disingenuously keep the tag up as you seem to fear. --GoRight (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You've nearly answered my question, so allow me to press a little further: Would it be correct to state that the tag stays up until the conclusion of the formal WP:DR procedure? Is that the case, regardless of the outcome of the procedure? (PS. Please do not impute unstated "fears" or other subtexts to the statements of others.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"PS. Please do not impute unstated "fears" or other subtexts to the statements of others." - No offense intended. Concerns, then, if you prefer.

"Would it be correct to state that the tag stays up until the conclusion of the formal WP:DR procedure?" - I can't speak for others, but for my part yes. This is agreeable.

"Is that the case, regardless of the outcome of the procedure?" - Again, I can't speak for others but I would certainly be willing to abide by the outcome as long as you (collectively) likewise agree up front.

So there is no misunderstanding, here, I am talking about a reasonable application of WP:DR which is viewed as having multiple levels of escalation if memory serves - not that I would want to drag things out unreasonably or unnecessarily. For example, if we do an RfC I would reserve the right to appeal to either a mediation or an Arbcom hearing although I would prefer to avoid that. In the case of a mediation I would only agree to that method of WP:DR as long as both sides agreed up front that it was binding (and hence there would be no appeal to Arbcom). --GoRight (talk) 03:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's clear enough. So let's get it going. I for one will not agree to mediation because it appears to seldom have a useful outcome. Participants (including the mediator) tend to tire out and the whole thing fizzles with no result. So it's an RfC and then Arbcom, right? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Boris, I am in the count ... and you count too. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Which WP:DR to use? (1st)

Well it seems the first order of business is to agree on which form of WP:DR to use. There seems to be a wide variety opinion on that topic so perhaps we should see if there is even a consensus on how to proceed. This seems important so that individuals will be more likely to buy into the result. Interested parties should declare their preferences below:

• In the interests of time I lean towards binding mediation myself as some of the people involved have traditionally complained about things that look like a !Vote, and it is unclear what we would do if it fails to demonstrate a consensus either way. Then it would either go to mediation or Arbcom which only drags the whole thing out further, which I want to avoid. If the majority of people here prefer to start with an RfC I am fine with that but I reserve the right to appeal the result. --GoRight (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

  If we do an RfC it is not clear to me how this would be structured. We have multiple related but independent issues that need to be resolved:

  1. Where should the primary discussion of the "scientific consensus on climate change/global warming" be documented? In this article or the overlapping Climate change consensus?
  2. Should the primary discussion of the "scientific consensus on climate change/global warming" include a discussion of the controversies (whether public or scientific) with that consensus?
  3. Where should the "scientific consensus" redirects point the reader to? They currently point to this page but if the discussion of the consensus is moved elsewhere and this page remains should the redirects be redirected?
  4. Where should wikilinks for the "scientific consensus" be directed? There are many that point to this page but if the discussion of the consensus is moved elsewhere and this page remains should those wikilinks be updated?

  I am not sure how we would try to put all of that into one RfC and be able to discern any reasonable interpretation of the results. So do we run independent RfCs for each, or what? I lean towards independent RfCs to keep the results clean but I can understand if others disagree. Do we use the standard BOT implemented 30 days for the RfC or something else? I see no reason to use anything other than the standard period but I expect others will have differing opinions. Which RfC categories do we put these in? I lean towards both science and politics. --GoRight (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm objecting. You are not singling out the problematic issue - but instead seem to be expanding it with what you think it should be. Focus please on This article. The issue as i've seen it is that you and ZP5 want to include a discussion on public views about the scientific opinion, and thus also a change of the hat-note. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I call for a source list to, verify and validate the sources for inclusion to address this objection. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Mediation - The evidence can be established here (not suppressed), if folks continue in NPOV denial after making it abundantly clear, then must begin a seriously formal and in-depended process. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean "independent process" as there is no such word as "in-depended."--CurtisSwain (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Who

GR sez It's not 1 person, it was three at least. Who are these people? GR, and I presume he is counting ZP5, but who else? (PA RMV by [30] ) doesn't count: he has made not the smallest of constructive contributions to any GW page or talk page, and is frequently incoherent William M. Connolley (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

[31]. --GoRight (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Saying "WVBluefield" would have been easier. But no: look at his contributions to this talk page: negligible. This is a one-person campaign by you (well, now a 2-person campain sinc Tedder has joined in, but he isn't talking here either) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I count like any other non-COI editor would. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)