Talk:Scientific consensus on climate change/Archive 23

Neutrality tag

When to remove

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:

   There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.
   It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.
   In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

These conditions have not been met. Biscuittin (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You were too quick for me! Here's what I was writing in the section just above before you opened this new section:

Hi, Biscuittin, the reason there are no opposing voices is because there is no dissent among the aggregate of scientists and scientific bodies. Please re-read carefully the first paragraph of the page to understand the article's scope and topic. Also please look at the note at the very top:

This page is about scientific consensus on the current climate change, or global warming. For public perception and controversy, see Public opinion on climate change and Global warming controversy.

The views of individual scientists are referenced at the other two articles and particularly at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Happy Holidays, YoPienso (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Now to respond to your citation of policy:

It isn't clear what the neutrality issue is. You are trying to insert the dissent of 3% of scientists on a page about scientific consensus. The article says that no national or international body dissents since the AAPG revised their statement. YoPienso (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You think the conditions have not been met but "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity", see WP:CONSENSUS. I'm happy enough for the tag to be in though while you try and explain why you think WP:NPOV is not being followed. Dmcq (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Did I jump the gun? I've reverted twice so am out now. To me it's a straightforward issue of a lone editor not understanding the scope and topic of a page and therefore getting frustrated when his/her edits are reverted.

I'd guess you were writing while I was and nearly had an edit conflict. I've indented your comment. YoPienso (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought I was responding to Biscotti saying 'There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved' and then "These conditions have not been met". I was just saying I was happy for the tag to be in while they explained their point. They have now gone and raised an incident report at ANI and warned me about it - except I can't see anything there. Presumably they think I should stick around watching while they raise the AN complaint. Dmcq (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• TAG, Template:NPOV
• TAGGER, Biscuittin (talk · contribs)
• TAGGER'S PRIOR STATEMENT FOR NPOV was added in prior thread at 00:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC) and reads

"It devotes only three lines to dissenting voices, so there is a breach of WP:NPOV".

Discussion
Biscuittin has failed to produce any RSs that discuss how any dissenting voices are related to the big picture scientific consensus described in the lead, and has failed to explain why this individual's or that individual's opinion of matters is sufficient to set them against the opinion of the US National Academy of Science statement (previously called to his attention) that it is a scientifically "settled fact" that the climate system is warming and the cause is very likely us. Thus it is unclear what the "neutrality" issue might be and the tag should be deleted. Special note, whatever opinion any ed might hold (including me) about science, the scientific process, or the nature/existence of scientific consensus, that ed's opinion is meaningless here. All that matters is logical reasoning applied to the available RSs. From the sketchy reasoning so far provided, it sounds like Biscuittin is challenging the very notion of a scientific consensus on ANY issue as a fallacy, despite an ocean of RSs on the subject. B, if I misundestand, please politely correct me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

As an aside - if a person does come here with a rant it may be because they don't understand this is not A forum or misunderstand how articles are compiled. I think editors should show good faith in the first instance and try and explain matters straightforwardly or point them at the right place. Editors should not be here to try an engage in one side or the other of climate wars but to build an encyclopaedia by saying neutrally with due weight what the reliable sources say. Dmcq (talk) 11:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Even dissenting views are edited out of the talk page. This is not a neutral article, the neutrality tag should remain. Does anyone think that Cook et al is a reliable source, despite him being a well know activist with his emails on the paper exposed.71.215.64.244 (talk) 16:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I get the feeling you haven't even checked where the reference is used in the article. But anyway do try reading the article and then say what you object to and provide a peer-reviewed citation which says what you want to say. Dmcq (talk) 23:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I see you recently changed "Cook et al" to 'Cook a cartoonist and climate blogger" in the article about surveys of scientists on climate change. You removed the fact that it was not just him but also a number of other authors and you made it seem as if he had no qualifications. This is hardly neutral point of view. Contributors need to employ neutral point of view even when they disagree with what is said otherwise Wikipedia would be just another blog full of people spreading disinformation. Dmcq (talk) 23:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Scientific opinion on climate change. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20151104071444/http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf to http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Does this rewrite the article?

Pie Chart representing 99.9%

Pie Chart representing 99.9%

"The articles that turned up in the Cook et al. search were not drawn at random but appeared because they answered the search topics “global warming” or “global climate change.” The authors in the Cook et al. database were writing about AGW. Would they have written about a theory that they believe is false yet never say so?"

"It tells us that there is virtually no publishable evidence against AGW. That is why scientists accept the theory."

"The consensus on anthropogenic global warming is not 97 percent. Instead, publishing scientists are close to unanimous that “global warming is real, man-made, and dangerous,” as President Obama put it." http://www.jamespowell.org/index.html

http://www.takepart.com/article/2015/07/09/climate-consensus-deniers-97-percent-is-wrong

Sagredo^{⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄} 01:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Neither of those references is to a peer reviewed work nor a secondary source explaining a peer reviewed source. It is someone giving their own ideas as a secondary source and has very little weight in this context. So basically no. Dmcq (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

James has told me that he has submitted this work for publication. We can afford to wait until the paper comes out. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Please Include the PBL Climate Science Survey

Please integrate the Climate Science Survey performed by PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency:

Although the survey seems to confirm a general consensus --

There are actually some notable distinctions and anomalies - dis/ambiguating the concepts: Global Warming, Climate Change, and Anthropogenic Climate Impact.

http://www.pbl.nl/en/news/newsitems/2015/climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses

CLIMATE SCIENCE SURVEY Questions and Responses Bart Strengers, Bart Verheggen and Kees Vringer 10 April 2015

Thanks!

Elika Kohen 08:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Reporting bias

The reporting bias is strong with this article.

Why are all of the concurring statements excerpted in this article while the dissenters are minimized to a list of names in an entirely separate article? (rhetorical question)

Adraeus (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

See previous section for an idea on the proportion. Also note that we don't list individual opinions in this article at all. You might also want to look at false balance. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but that argument's premise is that this article is about "scientific consensus on climate change" while the title of the article is actually "scientific opinion on climate change." Moving the dissenting opinions to a separate, less comprehensive article looks like simple effacement and negationism. I'm not at all interested in whether you think the dissenting scientific opinion on climate change "deserves" coverage. Pointing to an article clearly labeled "opinion essay" that makes unqualified judgments about what information is worthwhile really doesn't help your case. Wikipedia isn't about taking sides. Present the dissenting opinions fairly, or change the name of the article. Adraeus (talk) 12:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, in that case I think we need to agree to disagree. I suggest you read WP:UNDUE and, indeed, the article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

As always, reliable third party sources are needed, showing how minority views are received by the majority. Calling such views "dissenting" is absurd, these aren't Dissenters. I've changed the heading to Opposition to mainstream scientific assessment which ties in with the see also. Will review how we might expand this section concisely. . dave souza, talk 20:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Adraeus (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I say amen. Scientific opinion is split on this issue and the article sounds like all are of like mind. Page needs a major revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bt10ant (talk • contribs) 00:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Where is the science ?

Where is the coverage of the actual science of human-caused climate change? I came here expecting to find equations, models, pressures and temperatures, and all we have is "opinion" and "consensus"? No other other science page on wikipedia would function like this, we don't have a "scientific consensus on quantum mechanics" or "scientific consensus on gravity" page. Like most wikipedians, I couldn't care less who is consensusing on what, rather I want to see the facts for myself and draw my own conclusions. Surely we can do better than this? Please can someone knowledgable about climatology give this a total rewrite and show the facts, theories, observations and inferences that scientists are apparently consensing on? You know -- there are this many tonnes of these gasses, this much coal gets burned every year producing this many additional tonnes, and experiments in the lab, with citations, show that each additional tonne does X to frequencies Omega of the sunlight spectrum resulting in delta T ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.233.44 (talk • contribs)

Global warming. It is worth reading the top couple of lines of an article if it doesn't seem to be what you are looking for as they will normally provide a link to the sort of thing you are looking for, they are normally in blue like the one I just gave. Also if you are searching for something try a less specific search first like 'climate change' rather than lots of words. Also when starting up a new section on Wikipedia could you put it at the end of the talk page please. This will happen automatically if you click on the 'New section' tab rather than the edit tab. It is also appreciated if you can put four tildas as in ~~~~ at the end, this will sign and date what you say thanks. Dmcq (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

(ec)See global warming. Climate sensitivity, Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere, Keeling Curve,.... Also see IPCC AR5 and the links to the original report there. Neither quantum physics nor gravity is currently under organised attack by commercial interests. On the other hand, we have Creation–evolution controversy and Project Steve. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Flood geology is a religious one, In Defense of Smokers is a commercial one, and HIV/AIDS denialism is just pig-headed. And of course there's always paranoid conspiracies like the moon landing conspiracy theories. I think it is getting worse with internet media groups where people can find like-minded people to echo and amplify their silly ideas. Dmcq (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Global warming is a bit better ; also I found Attribution of recent climate change which is meant to be specifically about the human causation issue. Still neither seem very strong on actual equations and models. Is there no-one on wikipedia who understands the real science of this stuff well enough to give the equations? I just want to know things like: how much fossil fuels are burned each year; how many tonnes of carbon that puts in the air; how much of that carbon goes back into enhanced plant growth; how much remains as excess; and how many degrees warming per tonne of carbon we should expect and why (eg pictures of a lab experiment where a flask is filled with air, and carbon added, and the temperature changes measured.) There also needs to be some discussion of the philosophy of science concepts of causation which are critical to understanding whether or not science can, even in principle, make inferences about causation such as human causation of climate change in the presence of counfounding factors. There is a massive field of statistics and philosophy of science devoted to such questions. It would make a far, far, stronger explanation of the subject than the (presumably well meaning) mush on all these pages so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.235.227 (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

"And (if so)..."

I disagree with this revert, based on the rationale that "It's not good to assume a conclusion when determining something even if one is sure about it." This is an encyclopedia article not a grade paper. We are not here to "determine" scientific opinion on climate change, but report what it actually is. Starting the article by writing as if it is in doubt and not getting around to the reality until the second paragraph is not the best way. --Nigelj (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's job to preach to people. We should present what's out there using neutral point of view. The first paragraph says what the topic of the article is. The second summarizes the conclusions. If you look at the comments about this article there is no question in peoples mind about what the conclusions in this article are. The debate is over whether they are justified or no. That is what the very first paragraph covers. It covers the essence of what scientific opinion is and is why this article iis different from other articles about climate change. And we should always determine what sources say rather than just reporting what we know. Dmcq (talk) 08:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Cook et al.

Dmcq has reverted my edit. Please see my edit summary for my reasoning. Has anybody an objection to my edit? --Distelfinck (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to assume that those who have reverted your edit object to it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

They said their paper was on the consensus on AGW. However you say that is a different topic from the topic of this article. I think you need to give a bit of explanation on how it differs to an appreciable extent from the topic of this article. Dmcq (talk) 09:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The article in its current state says "97.1% endorsed the consensus position". No further explanation follows, as to what is meant by "consensus", so the reader has to assume that a consensus previously defined in the article is meant. Scrolling further up, there is a definition:

"The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that humans are causing most of' ..."

But this is not what the source paper means by "consensus". For example, papers that take no position on to what extent the current global warming as caused by humans, are also counted by the paper as endorsing "the consensus" (an example given in the paper for such an endorsement is: "'Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes contribute to global climate change'"). It follows that the paper is talking about a different consensus than the article, and we have to clarify in the article, what consensus they are talking about. The consensus they are talking about is, in their words, "the consensus position that humans are causing global warming". This is why I made the edit. --Distelfinck (talk) 10:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

What this article says is 'A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these 97.1% endorsed the consensus position.' It doesn't just say '97.1% endorsed the consensus position'. What kind of crap stupid morons do you take us for? And your own analysis is WP:OR if they say that "the consensus position that humans are causing global warming" is what they're trying to measure and you think they have made a mistake. It is peer reviewed. You need another reliable source that discusses that. Dmcq (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

What they mean by consensus position is IIRC elaborated on page 3. I think here's a misunderstanding, please reread what I wrote, and what specific sentence of mine you think is false (you alluded to that I wrote something wrong with your "It doesn't just say '97.1% endorsed the consensus position'. What kind of crap stupid morons do you take us for?"), so that I can correct it

What I want to put in the article is following the wording of the source which says "the consensus position that humans are causing global warming". --Distelfinck (talk) 11:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying it is an appreciably different topic from that of this article? The table on page 3 shows how they tried to measure this. Is there some source saying they made some appreciable error with that or there was some methodology flaw? Dmcq (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know of any flaw in the paper at all. As I said, I think here is a misunderstanding. I'm not a native speaker. Maybe William understands what I'm trying to say. Currently the article says "97.1% endorsed the consensus position". But you have no proof that the consensus position they are talking about in the paper is the same as the consensus position we are talking about in the Wikipedia article. In fact, there is evidence against that, as I tried to convey. Let me try again -- this is a bit repetitive, so feel free to skip the rest of this comment. The consensus position talked about in this Wikipedia article is: "The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels." When the authors of the paper would encounter a paper saying "'Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes contribute to global climate change'" then they would rightfully classify it as endorsing "the consensus" (and classify it wih some subclass of that). Rightfully, because "the consensus" Cook et al. are talking about is that humans are causing global warming. But the consensus talked about in this Wikipedia article entails more, it entails "that humans are causing most of it", plus a position on deforestation, etc., and the paper they're classifying is not saying all of that, just some of it, and it is simply taking no position on the rest; so it is endorsing "the consensus" in the context of the study, bot only "a consensus" in the context of this Wikipedia article. So the current wording in the article saying "97.1% endorsed the consensus position" is wrong, as only a part of that 97.1% are endorsing all of the various things that the consensus talked about in this article entails, like deforestation etc. That's why I want to replace that sentence with "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming." --Distelfinck (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can make out you are saying the big difference is they didn't say 'humans are causing most of the increase' just that they were contributing to global warming. So it could be possible that they were just endorsing a minor contribution of humans and most of the increase in the last fifty years was just natural bad luck. That would certainly be an appreciable difference if the authors meant to include that. However the third sentence of the introduction says "Despite numerous indicators of a consensus, there is wide public perception that climate scientists disagree over the fundamental cause of global warming". Fundamental cause does not sound like a minority part to me. They then go on to "We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)." Dmcq (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

You are doing bad original research, based on circumstantial evidence. Look at table 2 (on page 3). The 97.1% figure is produced by lumping together their categories 1, 2 and 3 of endorsement, which they define in that table. On the same page they say so: "To simplify the analysis, ratings were consolidated into three groups: endorsements (including implicit and explicit; categories 1–3 in table 2), no position (category 4) and rejections (including implicit and explicit; categories 5–7)." Category 1 from those three endorsement categories is described as "Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming". Categories 2 and 3 are not about humans as a primary cause. --Distelfinck (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

You are doing your own analysis rather than following their conclusions. Find a source for your point of view. Dmcq (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

From the source: "Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming." This is the source for my proposed sentence "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming." The sentence that will be replaced by it is not supported by the source --Distelfinck (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I already pointed you at the introduction where they gave a longer definition of consensus as used by them. What is there to indicate that they changed what they meant by the consensus between the rationale for the study and their results? Dmcq (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The authors are not giving a definition of the word "consensus" for the rest of their study in the introduction. That is being done by the Oxford Dictionary and others already. The study authors are stating in the introduction that there is consensus that humans are the primary cause, without basing that on the results of their study. They are doing what study authors often do: Putting a view of what is going on in their field of study as an introduction in their scientific article, then following with describing their actual experminent or other contribution. --Distelfinck (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll repeat what they said again in case you missed it: "We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)." "in order to determine" is a description of what their study is to do. This has gone on too long. What you say is not supported by what the authors say and we can't go delving into their work and start doing our own analysis. The way to refute what they say in Wikipedia is to produce another source criticizing their work. Dmcq (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with what the authors are saying, I'm disagreeing with what you think the authors are saying, which is two cups of tea. Methodology is described in the "Methodology" section of the paper, not the "Introduction" section. Just read the whole paper, and the right section. The people who did the study did indeed, as stated in the introduction, determine how many papers endorsed that humans are the primary cause -- but did not publish that figure in the paper. The figure can be calculated from the supplementary data file - there's 64 papers falling in category 1 ("Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%") --Distelfinck (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Methodology is not purpose. It is method. Getting what they are trying to do from the methodology is analysis. We can't do that within the policies and guidelines on Wikipedia. And we especially can't do our own analysis of their data. It is counted as WP:OR. If you can produce another source saying that really what they say they did is different from their stated intentions then fine. Or just some review tha analyses what they did would be good. Other than that the only other recvourse is WP:IAR to raise an RfC or something like that to decide that they didn't do what they set out to do. \I did that with a mistake in a textbook a while ago where a person insisted on insisting the mistake because of the book so it is possible. Dmcq (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I've left your change because it isn't actually wrong but I do hope you're not intending to go and try implying elsewhere that AGW could be a minor effect according to the study. Dmcq (talk) 09:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

it was interesting looking at he data. Amazingly high proportion of Geology and Energy journals among those rejecting AGW. Which I suppose is as one would expect really. But we can't do anything with stuff like that.. Dmcq (talk) 10:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

First paragraph is out of place

The first paragraph in the lede currently begins "The scientific opinion on climate change is the overall judgment among scientists regarding the extent to which global warming is occurring, its causes, and its probable consequences ..." which I must say is quite weird. After all, "Scientific opinion on climate change" should be self-explanatory (and if it isn't, it's something that can be searched up in a dictionary). I would have expected the first paragraph to say what the opinion is, not describe what "scientific opinion on climate change" means + how the data is gathered.

So based on the current text I would delete the first sentence altogether, then rearrange the current first paragraph to come after the paragraph describing the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, or possibly drop it from the lede completely and move it to the first section of the article proper in a section describing how scientific opinion is gathered. I'd do it myself, but given likelihood of reversion I'm starting this discussion first. Banedon (talk) 09:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

See WP:LEAD "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". What you are saying sounds like the 'Fresh fish sold here today' joke where it is shown that the entire sign is pointless. Also despite you thinking it is obvious there are an awful lot of people who haven't the foggiest what a scientific opinion is. Dmcq (talk) 09:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

After some thought I think the difference in opinion arises because we answer the question "what is the scientific opinion on climate change?" differently. If someone asked me that question, I would say that the scientific opinion is that the Earth is warming, it is likely due to human activities, etc. On the other hand you would presumably answer the same question with what scientific opinion means, how we know that, and so on. Needless to say I like my answer better. However I recognize that this isn't something that can be attacked by discussion - one either reacts with the former answer or the latter, not some compromise of both. If the latter answer is indeed the more common response, then keeping the text as it is would be preferable. Banedon (talk) 06:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

That difference goes through the whole of Wikipedia. It isn't Quora or Stack Exchange or Yahoo Answers or even Wikipedia's own reference desks where people ask a question and get an answer. It is an encyclopaedia which gives information about topics rather than straightforwardly just answering questions. Dmcq (talk) 10:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The title includes a noun, which the WP:LEAD has to summarily explain ("scientific opinion"). For the nitpickers I did indeed take that to be a compound word. The title also contains an adjectival phrase ("of climate change") and since this is the WP:LEAD we also need to explain that. Plus, being an adjectival phrase we have to explain it in the context of the noun it modifies ("scientific opinion"). Personally I like the present approach. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dmcq I can easily imagine the same issue happening at Quora or Stack Exchange etc - it's just how people react to the question "what is scientific opinion on climate change?". The question is pertinent on Wikipedia as well, since any article on any topic must deal with it to some extent (e.g. an article on cars would deal with "what is car?", but everyone would answer that question the same way). @NewsAndEventsGuy, thing is if asked to explain what scientific opinion is my first reaction would be "the opinion of scientists", which doesn't actually explain anything because I've used the same words 'science' and 'opinion' to explain the term. That's a sign to me that it's a dictionary question. Climate change is more difficult but I recognize that as a technical term which can be searched up; indeed we have a climate change article. In the same way I feel that an article on alternatives to general relativity should not have to explain what general relativity is in the lede.

In any case I don't think it's that big a deal - if people in general prefer the current version, then leave it be. Banedon (talk) 01:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

AGU's date of first adoption

Here is a quote from an AGU press release, that mentions 2003 but no earlier adoption:

"The climate change position statement was first adopted in December 2003. It was then revised and reaffirmed in December 2007, and again in February 2012." [1]

Poodleboy (talk) 05:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, there was a statement published in 1998, as described and re-published in EOS - see [2]. It has a different title, so arguably these are two different statements. It should be easy to work this in, but I have to go read theses now... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

It does appear from that source that a statement was adopted in 1998 and published in 1999. Strange that AGU would get their history wrong. Unfortunately the statement is not in the link you provided. I've no problem with the date being added if sourced, but the original editor provided none, so it was difficult to distinguish from vandalism. Poodleboy (talk) 08:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

To quote from the source: "The AGU Council discussed, modified, and adopted a final statement in December of 1998. AGU published the statement, Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases, in Eos on February 2, 1999". It looks fairly unambiguous to me. Or maybe you don't mean the statement on the publication of the statement, but the statement itself? It's the part under the "Preface" section, called "Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases".--Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually that article under the "Preface" did not appear to be the statement, this is the statement from the Feb 2, 1999 EOS [3]. What is under the preface appears to be some supporting review of the literature. The actual "position" is shorter and unsigned. Poodleboy (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Stephan, very interesting: an early use of the famous MBH99 graph!
NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS) - Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases links to another pdf of the EOS September 28, 1999, article, which has a link to the position statement (as adopted by the AGU Council in December 1998, and published in the February 2, 1999 issue of Eos, archived 29 April 1999). . . dave souza, talk 10:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

To clarify; the EOS article, which was itself rigorously peer reviewed, was published in Eos on September 28, 1999 – the NASA version includes in the intro "The present article reviews scientific understanding of this issue as presented in peer-reviewed publications that serves as the underlying basis of the position statement." That seems to have been left out from the other pdf of the source. . dave souza, talk 10:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I've added the information to our article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The extensive quotation from the September 28, 1999 citation in the article, may give the wrong impression that it is from the position statement given the context in which it is used in the article. Wouldn't citing the actual position published in the Feb 2, 1999 EOS be more appropriate if any significant quotation is to be provided?Poodleboy (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Survey's of Scientists Section

Roy Spenser cites a reanalysis of the surveys done by Oresko, Kendel, Anderegg, Cook that seriously questions if the published literature actually support the Global Warming position. In addition, the Petition project indicates that many scientists do not agree with the warming hypothesis (at least as being caused by CO2). These papers should be worked into this section. See: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

Could you put in a link to a peer reviewed paper showing something like this thanks. Dmcq (talk) 10:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Ideally, it would be nice to say something about scientific theories being tentatively accepted because they have not yet been Falsified and that once Falsified they are — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.233.121 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Nobody accepts something just because it hasn't been falsified, do you mean something else? Just because something has not been rejected does not mean there has been any acceptance, e.g. storms happen because there is a cow somewhere that wants them to happen is not really falsifiable but no-ones going to accept it either. Dmcq (talk) 10:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere

This is not a consensus but is based upon IPCC AR4. AR5 backed off of the attribution of most to GHGs, to specifically include other anthropogenic forcings, and it backed off of "most" to "more than half". Peoples imaginations run wild with "most". Here is the IPCC AR5 SPM (Summary for Policy Makers) statement:

“It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together"

AR4 references should not be used, AR5 actually supercedes AR4 in its assessment of the state of the science. Poodleboy (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Please explain how "more than half" differs from "most". Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Poodleboy: You are new here, so unaware of a lot of water over the dam. Editors reached a general consensus (no, I don't have a link handy), that it would be best to replyrely on the report prior to the most recent one. I fully understand why you might disagree with that conclusion, and many editors would agree that the most recent one should be used, but until that consensus is overturned, that's where we are.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

[Two intervening comments required for context of the reply below were, not helpfully, in my opinion, removed by this edit]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

May I suggest that you desist from personal attacks per WP:NPA? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanx for the link, it let me know I could remove that personal attack. BTW, is someone implying that I was making an unsourced edit, a personal attack?Poodleboy (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Either you have a weird humour, you are intentionally obtuse, or we don't share a common language, despite superficial appearances. I don't think I have anything useful to say to that comment. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that falsely accusing someone of violating rules is a personal attack, that perhaps can be removed per WP:NPAPoodleboy (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Probably a good time for all involved to take a break, drink some tea, and review WP:CIVIL. TimothyJosephWood 00:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't implying that Schulz had made a false accusation. I had cast aspersions that were a personal attack, so per WP:NPA I removed my personal attack and I removed the attack on me that accused me of denial. Even though that left Schulz's comment out of context, I didn't feel I could remove it. Poodleboy (talk) 01:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I question whether you took a break. I seriously question whether you reviewed CIVIL. And I'm almost certain you drank no tea. TimothyJosephWood 01:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

2016 first flush Darfeeling Turzum. Tea is always a good suggestion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Poodleboy, your original assertion that IPCC "backed off" its AR4 attribution statement appears to be based on the SPM, which is a super condensed version of the report that often loses nuance and detail. See the more detailed AR5 WG1 Technical Summary, where, at pg 66, is found "Consistent with AR4, it is assessed that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 is very likely due to the observed anthropogenic increase in WMGHG concentrations." NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, In the same paragraph you quote, there is the "extremely likely" statement, you went with the "very likely" statement. Note that this article gets it wrong, stating the GHGs are extremely likely, you correctly state "very likely". Both do "more than half" rather than "most". "It is extremely likely that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010." In regards to how consistent with AR4 it is. We will have to check with that. Poodleboy (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The AR4 working group I technical summary, goes with "most" which is not a very precise statement and suggests closer to all than to half. "It is very likely that anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases caused most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century." Poodleboy (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is the actual Stocker source, not quite sure I got is cited right. [4] Poodleboy (talk) 08:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@William M. Connolley: I know you cried out in horror, but you might want to check the AR5 sources, the "extremely likely" 95% applied to "human activities", the text you mistakenly embrace, applies it to activities related to greenhouse gasses, which AR5 only reaches "very likely" 90% and "more than half" on.Poodleboy (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is the link [5] using the ipcc site instead of the site you gave which is virus infested. And could you cut out the crap rhetoric thanks. Dmcq (talk) 09:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't noticed it wasn't the official .ch site. Poodleboy (talk) 10:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

You mistake my meaning. We've been through this before. Its the sci op; not the IPCCs William M. Connolley (talk) 16:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

It sure was close to the IPCC language. Poodleboy (talk) 01:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

You've got the direction wrong, the IPCC tries to find out and document the scientific opinion and tell governments about it. You were saying something analogous to that someone is thirsty because they drink some water. Dmcq (talk) 08:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

No, the authors cherry pick at will. Papers showing model errors larger than the CO2 forcing, get single line mentions, and buried, rather than consideration of the implication of those errors for the model projections and attributions. The reforms between AR4 and AR5 have helped, but the authors still are not subjected to peer review.Poodleboy (talk) 09:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

If we're done talking about a proposed article improvement can we close the thread before getting too deep into general criticism of IPCC? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't get the 'No'. If you mean you think the IPCC just writes a 'consensus' and the scientists work to try and make it fit their research and the facts that is simply untrue and wrong. This article is not about the IPCC writeup of their conclusions. It is about scientific opinion on climate change. Dmcq (talk) 11:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The 'No" is not to whether the IPCC report is scientific opinion, but whether their opinion should be labeled "The scientific consensus", to their credit they change their opinion every few years, but, of course, some of the authors are different. I doubt believers want their "consensus" to change that often. Poodleboy (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

'believers'? and a 'consensus' in quote marks? What a load of rubbish you spout. You've got everything the wrong way around. Dmcq (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions apply to this page. Dmcq (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dmcq:"extremely likely" is a term of art put forward by the IPCC for the 95% confidence. Can you find any support for using that with the title phrase of this section of talk? The support you will find is for "very likely" and it will be for "more than half" and not "most". If you think this is haggling over nits, imagine what the IPCC process itself was.Poodleboy (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Address everyone unless what you have to say is very particular. IO don't need to be pinged here. What you put in is simply wrong. Please stop edit warring and pushing your own silliness. Dmcq (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dmcq: I was resetting the indents because they had gotten to deep, and as a courtesy I let you know it was a continuation of an interchange with you. Regards. Poodleboy (talk) 05:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I partially agree with Poodleboy, specifically that if we are using IPCC as our source, we should try to focus on the most recent IPCC Assessment report, which right now is AR5. Here are some relevant excerpts from the AR5 synthesis report

• The IPCC is now 95 percent certain that humans are the main cause of current global warming. In addition, the SYR finds that the more human activities disrupt the climate, the greater the risks of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems, and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system. The SYR highlights that we have the means to limit climate change and its risks, with many solutions that allow for continued economic and human development. However, stabilizing temperature increase to below 2°C relative to pre-industrial levels will require an urgent and fundamental departure from business as usual. Moreover, the longer we wait to take action, the more it will cost and the greater the technological, economic, social and institutional challenges we will face.......forward to AR5 synthesis report at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf

printed pg v; pdf pg 6

• The evidence for human influence on the climate system has grown since AR4. Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, and in global mean sea level rise; and it is extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans. Impacts are due to observed climate change, irrespective of its cause, indicating the sensitivity of natural and human systems to changing climate...... AR5 SYR Bubble 1.3 pdf pg 64, priinted pg 47
• It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together (Figure 1.9) ..... AR5 SYR 1.3.1 pdf pg 65, priinted pg 48
• The contribution from the combined anthropogenic forcings can be estimated with less uncertainty than the separate contributions from greenhouse gases and other anthropogenic forcings separately. This is because these two contributions partially compensate, resulting in a signal that is better constrained by observations. {Based on Figure WGI TS.10} ...... from AR5 SYR Caption, fig 1.9

What these refs say to me is that the science is heading in the right direction, and we're dialing in the details. They do not warrant our adoption of Poodelboy's verbiage that IPCC has "backed off" anything. Quite the opposite, when you also look at SYR in its entirety, which also includes

• Some risks are considerable even at 1°C global mean temperature increase above pre-industrial levels. Many global risks are high to very high for global temperature increases of 4°C or more (see Box 2.4). These risks include severe and wide-spread impacts on unique and threatened systems, the extinction of many species, large risks to food security and compromised normal human activities, including growing food or working outdoors in some areas for parts of the year, due to the combination of high temperature and humidity (high confidence).... AR5 SYR printed pg 65; pdf 82

Finally, when you look at the attribution graphs showing different human influences, greenhouse gases remain the largest. Do we really need to state the technical certainty level in the lead's summary, or for that matter in this upper level summary article? This evolving area of nitty gritty details seems more appropriately addressed in Attribution of climage change.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the technical details are irrelevant to this article. It is about the scientific opinion more than the details of global warming which are covered in other articles. It is also not about the IPCC or what it precisely said. The main topic is whether there is a scientific consensus where consensus does not mean that everything is nailed down like in some religious belief system. Poodleboys talk about 'I doubt believers want their "consensus" to change that often' completely misses the point about what science is. Dmcq (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

For "scientific opinion" we should stick to AR5 Working Group I, and not the "synthesis" report which has even more political input. My main issue is not about what the science is, although the article mistates that, but on what the "consensus" is. It is not wikipedia's place to declare IPCC reports the "consensus", they aren't even peer reviewed, they are politically reviewed with the few author/scientists trying to give the politicians as much as ethically possible without selling their souls.Poodleboy (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

It is you who keeps saying IPCC are setting the consensus. And this article isn't about the science. There is no peer review system for saying something is a consensus! Science doesn't work that way. The basis of the consensus claim is given in the section Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Scientific_consensus. See the article Scientific consensus for what is meant. You'll notice there that there is no central body dictating a consensus that scientists must believe in and adhere to like you seem to think. Also you seem to have the idea Wikipedia editors are making things up. This article is only here because the topic has become notable for so many people denying there is general agreement amongst scientists about global warming and there has been stuff written about it. Dmcq (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

No, the original text was using IPCC language and claiming that was scientific consensus. Some of the 97% and 98% claims floating around are based on peer review articles claiming there is a consensus and to have measured it, for example Doran and Zimmerman (2009) [6] However, the peer review may not be very good, since this article miscalculated the "consensus", it should have been 94.9%. Even so, most skeptics are part of the consensus as they defined and measured it. Poodleboy (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Please provide a citation for what you say rather than doing your own research. Dmcq (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't notice that I provided a link to a peer reviewed article on the matter.Poodleboy (talk) 05:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Most real skeptics, including the vast majority of scientists working on the topic, contribute to and support the consensus as assessed by the IPCC Assessment Reports. Fake skeptics promote climate change denial. . dave souza, talk 07:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Where in that citation is the 94.9% you talked about? And where in that citation does it say they include most skeptics as part of the consensus? Or where do it say the peer review is not very good? This is the sort of thing I mean by WP:Original Research. Dmcq (talk) 08:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The authors made a mistake, the 94.9% isn't in the paper, they only included respondents to question two in the denominator. But one more scientist answered Q1 with "remained relatively constant", so wasn't asked question two. Still he should have been included in the denominator.Poodleboy (talk) 11:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Go and find a citation that says that or raise it in some forum where it'll be looked at by someone qualified or anything like that but as far as Wikipedia is concerned it is your own WP:Original research. Please do not waste people's time here with the results of your own investigations. We are not supposed to be qualified to make decisions about stuff like that and it simply is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia without a citation. Dmcq (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

If you are really certain you have found an error in such a work it is just about possible to get an agreement that such a work should be ignored even without another peer-reviewed work pointing it out. What you would have to do is raise an RfC and say that you believe the work has made a straightforward error and explain why and see if the weight of the community sides with you. In general editors on Wikipedia have little time for people doing their own research though. Dmcq (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Could be wrong, but I read the AR5 statement of "extremely likely" that "more than half" as a one-tailed test null hypothesis with 95% of the distribution to the right "half of the observed warming." If it were a normal distribution (though it's not, and I haven't seen an estimate of what that probability function looks like), the mean would be near 75%. The problem is forcings aren't well-understood enough so it literally could be all warming observed is man-made and the distribution extends beyond 100% of the observed warming. Finding the "most likely" amount and the other side of the tail is harder than attributing where the distribution lives. The weakness in the approach is that it's based on some level of expert opinion rather than testable hypothesis (at least the AR5 attributes a lot of it's distributions to that). Anyone care to word it as null hypothesis statement? --DHeyward (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

It's actually a lot simpler than this. AR5 sez "The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming," i.e., the warming has been entirely (approx 100%, give or take) caused by human activity. Gavin Schmidt says the likeliest fraction is 110%, which is comparable to other estimates I've seen (details here). Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, 110% wouldn't be all of the warming. Some of it would have to be unresolved climate commitment from the recovery from the Little Ice Age. It can take the ocean several hundred years to reach equilibrium with the new levels of forcings that were involved. Poodleboy (talk) 05:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, "recovery from the Little Ice Age." is classic climate change denial myth as though there's some automatic unforced bounce-back; the 110% human contribution is consistent with the longer term pattern of AGW overriding the long term cooling trend expected from long term Croll cycles and shown in multiple studies such as PAGES2k. Perhaps Poodleboy would care to find a published reliable source for his otherwise mysterious "unresolved climate commitment"? . . dave souza, talk 07:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The Wigley and Meehl papers on the climate commitment page weren't good enough for you? Would you care to find a paper showing that the Little Ice Age didn't have different levels of forcing? Poodleboy (talk) 07:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Flannel! You're clearly misrepresenting Meehl, nothing there about LIA and the only mention of ice is how much it will contribute to sea level rise caused by AGW. Why tell porkies?? . . dave souza, talk 09:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

From the Wigley paper, climate commitment from past natural forcings: A breakdown of the natural and anthropogenic components of the CC commitment, together with uncertainties arising from ocean mixing (Kz) uncertainties, is given in table S1. Past natural forcing (inclusion of which is the default case here) has a marked effect. The natural forcing component is surprisingly large, 64% of the total commitment in 2050, reducing to 52% by 2400. Poodleboy (talk) 07:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Could we get back to the topic of the article please? This is not the place to debate whether climate change is happening. The page is about whether the scientific opinion is that it is happening. Are you saying that you disagree that a there is a scientific consensus that most of the warming is due to human activity? And if so have you got some peer-reviewed citation showing that scientists do not have such a consensus? Or possibly some statement by a scientific body like the AAAS? This is the sort of thing needed to match what's here. Dmcq (talk) 08:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

No one is debating whether climate change is occurring or whether most of the warming is anthropogenic, evidently some people have trouble acknowledging that some part of it could be natural. Climate commitment is not specific to anthropogenic forcings, even changes in natural forcings can take centuries to equilibrate to, and even the IPCC concludes that most of the warming through the first half of the 20th century is natural. So what are you going to argue, that somehow, because the forcings were natural, the oceans warmed to depth instantly? Poodleboy (talk) 11:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@ Poodleboy, you've been asked for sources specific to the topic, instead you throw in deviations and suggest completely unrelated sources that you can't have checked, keep trying to override sources with your WP:OR, and wander off into WP:FORUM questions. That's disruptive editing, please desist. . . dave souza, talk 11:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Sources require you to actually understand what you are reading. Evidently you didn't. You are the one suggesting that the climate commitment results don't apply generally. Poodleboy (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a forum for discussing climate change. What is relevant is summarizing what reliable sources say about the topic of the scientific opinion on climate change. Whether it really is happening is quite irrelevant and your thoughts on whether climate change is happening are doubly irrelevant. Dmcq (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

It does require that you understand can can properly summarize what your have read, unless you are actually quoting something in enough context. Do you have something substantive to contribute about the issue of whether the "extremely likely" IPCC term of art language is properly represents the IPCC statement on the attribution to GHG forcing? Poodleboy (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

There are lots of secondary sources that have commented on the IPCC and there are lots of scientific bodies that have produced position papers on global warming. There are citations to many of them in the article. We don't have to do anything like what you say. And as I said a couple of times before the article is not about what the IPCC says it is about the scientific consensus. We should be looking at and summarizing the general literature with the IPCC being a major one. Besides the IPCC statement which you dispute we can take for instance the first science body mentioned the U.S. Global Change Research Program and it says "The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases". Have you got a reliable source saying otherwise? Dmcq (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a source putting those words in the IPCC's mouth, like we don't have a source to put this phrase "most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases" in the IPCC's "extremely likely" context. Poodleboy (talk) 23:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not looking for particular words, just something saying something like that. Most of the material in Wikipedia should be by editors finding the salient points and summarizing it in their own words with citations to the sources. And we should normally try using secondary sources for interpretation. See [7] for a secondary source which says pretty much the same as this article about what the IPCC said. Instead of giving your own interpretation can you give some source like that for what you say? Dmcq (talk) 08:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

It is WP:OR to conclude that the secondary source is pretty much the same. We have the original that took pains with its words. Why accept a lesser source?Poodleboy (talk) 10:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

My comment was only to address "most" vs. "more than half". AR5 used language that implied a one sided tail with 95% confidence that anthropogenic contributions to warming were to the right of 50%. I don't recall anything in AR5 describing he nature of the tail so we can't say that it's inconsistent with "most of the warming" (or even that the statement was weakened (though I think there were tighter bouns placed on individual forcings). I don't think it means we can say it's centered or bounded at any particular point as each forcing (anthropogenic and natural) has it's own error and confidence intervals and appears that there are individual opinions (i.e. Gavin Schmidt has his theory) but no consensus has emerged on the tail boundings other than a 95% chance it lies on the right of 50%. It would be interesting if there are difference papers that estimate the 50% probability as well as upper 95% limit that would make it a two-sided tail but that seems beyond current capapbility and consensus at this point. --DHeyward (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Boris above notes AR5 sez "The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming," implying nearly all of it. AR5 WG1 SPM has "Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system. The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750 (see Figure SPM.5)" In further detail, it notes "The total natural RF from solar irradiance changes and stratospheric volcanic aerosols made only a small contribution to the net radiative forcing throughout the last century, except for brief periods after large volcanic eruptions." Figure SPM.5 shows only solar irradiance changes as a natural positive forcing, volcanic aerosols are omitted as an erratic [negative] forcing. Other sources as discussed above confirm that by far most warming (or possibly more than 100%) is human caused, so we shouldn't give undue weight to a theoretical possibility that "most of the warming" might approximate to 50%. . . dave souza, talk 09:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Putting numbers on it from Figure SPM.5, Total anthropogenic RF relative to 1750 – 2.29 [1.13 to 3.33], while Natural Changes in solar irradiance – 0.05 [0.00 to 0.10]. Calling 2.29 "most of" 2.34 when it's 97.8% is grotesque understatement. . . dave souza, talk 10:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

That's all true enough but you are arguing on the basis of the science and the question has very little to do with that. It needs to be answered on the basis of Wikipedia policies. Dmcq (talk) 10:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies require source based research, and the AR5 WG1 SPM is clear that "Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system. The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750". Backing up Boris, it states "The RF from emissions of well-mixed greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O, and Halocarbons) for 2011 relative to 1750 is 3.00 [2.22 to 3.78] W m^–2" which on the above basis is 102%. The total anthropogenic RF is 2.29, mainly due to offset by aerosols, land use and changes in albedo. That's a good source for "most" meaning nearly all, rather than just "more than half" as DHeyward seems to be suggesting on the basis of unsourced musings. . . dave souza, talk 10:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

You are performing WP:OR and thinking linearly in a nonlinear system, you can't just draw conclusions from the individual forcings or their sums. Simplistic analyses assume that the sensitivity is the same for forcings that are coupled to the climate system differently, both chemically (e.g. ozone generation) and in vertical and horizontal distribution, as Knutti himself acknowledged in Knutti and Hegerl (2008).

“The concept of radiative forcing is of rather limited use for forcings with strongly varying vertical or spatial distributions.”

and this:

“There is a difference in the sensitivity to radiative forcing for different forcing mechanisms, which has been phrased as their ‘efficacy’” [8]

Solar is coupled more strongly to the stratosphere, oceans and land surface, the lower latitudes and certain aerosols, CO2 to the troposphere, rather uniformly distributed, black carbon to the cryosphere, etc. The climate is nonlinear dynamic system. Gavin Schmidt would be the second to tell you that the CO2 radiation band can only penetrate millimeters into the oceans. While solar can penetrate 10s of meters. There are kelp forests in 100m of water. The pause in the surface temperature trend is apparent in the heat storage into the oceans. The system is still accumulating heat, i.e., it is warming, but it is less than before the pause. With the ARGO system, we are ready for our first good measurements of this phenomenon when the pause ends (it may have already).Poodleboy (talk) 10:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

This is not a forum. And especially not off topic conversations. This article does not mention forcing. Any deductions you make about it as far as what is here would be WP:OR. Have you got something and a source directly relevant to improving this article? If not then please stop cluttering up my watchlist. There's lots of forums on the web for you to argue your thoughts in. Dmcq (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Where were you when Souza was spouting off about forcing? It is ridiculous that you are editing the climate subjects if you don't realize that CO2 is considered and modeled as a forcing on the climate system. As to sources directly relevant to improving this article, I have already pointed out how the IPCC sources are being misrepresented, if we properly represent them that will certainly improve the article. Try to follow the thread, or do you really want to remove all mentions of forcings both anthropogenic and natural? Poodleboy (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't want either of you going on about forcing or any other ideas about the science. WP:OR says how to use sources and how to get interpretation and weight from secondary sources. I thought I had made that clear to him as well. You didn't even mention anything about the original question when you went on about it. Stop using this talk page as a forum to discuss your thoughts about climate change. Wikipedia is not in the market for original research. It is banned. You should not be doing it. It is an encyclopaedia and the basic principles are explained in WP:5P. This is not the place for people to air their own thoughts on subjects. As it says at WP:OR "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." and also see WP:PSTS about how sources may be used. Dmcq (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll also copy the relevant bit from the top of this talk page in case you missed it "This is not a forum for general discussion about Scientific opinion on climate change. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Scientific opinion on climate change at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk." Dmcq (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I referenced the term at issue "extremely likely" eight times up above, how many times have you addressed the substance, instead of inappropriately applying wiki-lawyering.Poodleboy (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

You didn't refer to it at all in the bits I replied to recently. The last time you mentioned it I replied "I'm not looking for particular words, just something saying something like that. ..." And you produced nothing but your own thoughts. The sources are pretty clear and you still have not produced anything but your own analysis. Your own analysis is not usable in Wikipedia and especially against citations to reliable sources. Your complaint still doesn't make what you say a consensus. What you have to do is produce something saying that what is there is just the IPCC rather than a consensus as a lot of sources say it is a consensus. You have to find a reliable source for your edit rather than slow edit-warring which will simply get you banned. This article is under WP:Discretionary sanctions. Dmcq (talk) 08:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

You obviously haven't read the IPCC source, the phrase is practically word for word of their "extremely likely" conclusion. Where did you find ArtifexMayhem? Try to make sense.Poodleboy (talk) 08:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Obviously it is you that has not read and understood the source. I haven't been lost in years. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@ArtifexMayhem: It would be more obvious if you talked about the substance rather than me. You are just a flyby, prove you aren't.Poodleboy (talk) 09:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@Poodleboy: Maybe you missed this,

It's actually a lot simpler than this. AR5 sez "The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming," i.e., the warming has been entirely (approx 100%, give or take) caused by human activity. Gavin Schmidt says the likeliest fraction is 110%, which is comparable to other estimates I've seen (details here).
— User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris 03:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

but Judith Curry already tried the "50/50 Gambit"™. Cherry picking a few lines from AR5 does not support the edit you keep trying to make. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Not only did I not miss it, I responded to it. 50/50 probably applies to the rapid warming of the 80s and 90s but not the long term trend. Do you have a specific cite for your Curry reference?Poodleboy (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Try the link. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a reference to the 50-50 on either the Judith Curry or the cherry picking pages.Poodleboy (talk) 11:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

See her with it at [9]. Dmcq (talk) 11:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

You just had to go and immediately revert after I warned about slow edit-warring and discretionary sanctions didn't you? I've raised an incident notice at WP:ANI. Dmcq (talk) 09:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The IPCC source, as cited, " IPCC, "Summary for Policymakers", Detection and Attribution of Climate Change, «It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century» (page 15)" indicates "that humans are causing most of it" is an understatement: from that source alone, "that humans are the predominant cause of it" would be more accurate. Other cited sources also support "most of it", so I'll leave it as that unless take page consensus is reached on strengthening the wording. . dave souza, talk 09:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Here are the very likely quotes:

"More than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST) from 1951 to 2010 is very likely due to the observed anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations."

"Consistent with AR4, it is assessed that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 is very likely due to the observed anthropogenic increase in WMGHG concentrations."

Here are the extremely likely quotes:

"It is extremely likely that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in GMST from 1951 to 2010."

"The evidence for human influence on the climate system has grown since the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together."

− Poodleboy (talk) 09:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

More than half is most of. We're supposed to normally use our own words rather than closely paraphrasing. And the next sentence in that last report was "The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period". The consensus is not some IPCC only thing, secondary sources have commented on this as I have pointed out above so you don't need to and should not do your own analysis. Dmcq (talk) 09:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

So can anybody else understand that the "extremely likely" term of art is being applied to the total human influence, and the IPCC has been careful to apply only the "very likely" term of art to the GHG component in isolartion? Dmcq obviously can't. I have a feeling that Souza might be able to if he really tried. Most is stronger than "more than half" and when the legacy text used "extremely likely" if was obviously borrowing the IPCCs term of art, so essentially lying by applying it more broadly.Poodleboy (talk) 10:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh no it hasn't! From the Detection and Attribution section D3 linked below, "Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3°C over the period 1951 to 2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C. The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from natural internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C. Together these assessed contributions are consistent with the observed warming of approximately 0.6°C to 0.7°C over this period. {10.3}". Poodle boy's wording was very misleading, hence reverted. Can we improve our wording? . . . dave souza, talk 10:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

None of Poodleboy's selective quotations override (or are inconsistent with) "Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9}" from IPCC WG1 SPM D3 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change. (Looks to me like p. 17, so suggest a correction to the page number in the article). . . dave souza, talk 10:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Why would it over ride that? That isn't the text being corrected in the article. What I provide does over ride this text: "extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels."Poodleboy (talk) 10:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Suggested rewording

Existing wording:

The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.

Taking into account the points recently raised above, suggest:

The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans. It is likely that the warming is mainly due to human activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels, and that greenhouse gas warming has to some extent been offset by human caused increases in aerosols. Natural causes had little effect over this period.

The IPCC SPM is a very widely based assessment, and so a good summary of scientific consensus. Other sources are less specific. . . dave souza, talk 10:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC) revised 10:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanx, that definitely corrects the abuse of the IPCC term of art, and is a fair summary of the IPCC conclusion. It is a bit dangerous to put forward 5th IPCC report as the consensus, would you want to embrace and include this IPCC AR5 statement: “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.” That is actually a step back from AR4. I support your new text, but don't see how I could win a battle to attribute it to the IPCC rather than the consensus. Poodleboy (talk) 10:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

We should be using secondary sources though for interpretation, though it wouldn't make much difference here. For instance the BBC news in [10] says "The much-anticipated report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that with 95% certainty, humans are the dominant cause of global warming since the 1950s. And it is their assessment of the scientific consensus rather than something that just comes from them as Poodleboy's edit seems to suggest. I don't see anything wrong with the original and I tend to try avoiding making things longer. Dmcq (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC) missing sig added 12:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't the scientific consensus come from scientists? Why risk something getting lost in translation. I support Souza's text, but I can't help him defend it against flyby reverts for a couple days. Are you going to edit war?Poodleboy (talk) 10:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

No. That is not what Wikipedia is in aid of. We should summarize what others say. I'm sure your massive intellect would come up with much better summaries by looking at the primary sources than secondary sources but unfortunately Wikipedia is built to only accept what those of meager minds like mine and a willingness to look at the sources can do. We are incapable of assessing things ourselves so there is a rule that we just summarize what these secondary sources say. Dmcq (talk) 10:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

So you ARE declaring an edit war.Poodleboy (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know where you got that from. But then again how can I figure out the thoughts of my betters? And I probably wouldn't even understand any explanation. As you say "And note that Dmcq is incapable of parsing the rigorous english language being used in the scientific reports, so merely repeats wikilawyer language." Dmcq (talk) 11:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Dmcq, as the BBC notes there's not much interpretation involved in "humans are the dominant cause" rather than just "humans are causing most of it" which some misinterpret as "a small proportion over 50%", and I think that's worth clarifying. It's also reasonable to point to the more detailed breakdown of causes as "likely". So, another draft suggestion, tightened a little:

The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans. It is likely that this mainly arises from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels, partially offset by human caused increases in aerosols; natural changes had little effect.

Not much longer than the original, but more nuanced. . . dave souza, talk 12:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Fine by me. As to the aerosols I very much hope we're not reduced to using Stratospheric sulfate aerosols (geoengineering) for mitigation. Dmcq (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

In fact, so much of the GHG forcing has been cancelled by the aerosols, that the warming itself must now be mostly attributed to the black carbon responsible for the polar amplification phenomenon. :) Really!! The more detail you add, the further from a possible claim of a consensus you get. The reforestation of Canada has actually increased the warming, because the evergreen forests have a lower albedo in the snow in winter and the open fields in summer. Souza's first proposal is better supported by the sources. If you look at the source with the inprecise "dominated" that Souza is trying to capture, you will find the very next paragraph is the limit of the detail that the "extremely likely" applies to.Poodleboy (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. Aerosols do not cancel GHG forcing in particular, but temporarily increase albedo, so reflecting more energy in general. This claim is analogous to "Tax revenue cancels most government expenses, so only highway construction and school expenses cause the deficit"... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it was sarcasm. But if you've been following the literature, you will have noticed an increased appreciation of the role of black carbon. In any case, would you care to assist in protecting the integrity of the IPCC rigor in using "extremely likely", "very likely", etc? Poodleboy (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Poodleboy, see Poe's law and desist from your failed attempts at levity. Rigour mortis is unhelpful ;-P . . . dave souza, talk 19:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Poodleboy does indeed appear to be misreading the source, as noted above "Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3°C over the period 1951 to 2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C". Clearly most of the warming is due to greenhouse gases. Does the suggested wording cover this clearly enough to offset the blinkered preconceptions of some readers? . . dave souza, talk 17:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I should point out that "likely" is also an IPCC term of art. Given that the AR5 climate sensitivity to CO2 range is 1.5C to 4.5C and will probably have to be lowered to 0.7C to 4.5C per doubling and given the different efficacies of different forcings, these arguments based upon linear assumptions are ridiculous. We should focus on accurately representing what the IPCC says. Certainly we should ignore the BBC internet columnist that Dmcq wants to introduce as an expert on the climate consensus.Poodleboy (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

There you go! First offtopic remarks about black carbon and evergreen forests. next you're going about sensittivity: all irrelevant to this overview of the consensus on overall attribution of warming. The SPM is clear, so stop wandering off into your unsourced original research. . . dave souza, talk 19:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I never tried to put any unsourced WP:OR into the article, that was the legacy version. As to black carbon and evergreen forests, how are they off topic when you are discussing 110% and proposing a version with deforestation. I love how the wikilawyering spews off without a first thought. Or were you asking for sources on the talk page? Were you going with Gavin Schmidt? Did he forget the black carbon? Poodleboy (talk) 21:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

It is OR because they are not directly relevant to the topic. Neither black carbon nor evergreen forests appears in the IPCC summary nor as far as I know in any of the other assessments by the scientific bodies of the consensus nor in the surveys. The policy states "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented". Dmcq (talk) 23:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

He did say one thing which I agree with which is that adding more and more detail gets further away from something that can be called a consensus. What the IPCC says there is labelled a consensus because so many bodies say they concur with the IPCC, but they also tend to say something a bit less precise themselves. We are not trying to paraphrase what the IPCC says, we're trying to say the overall consensus part of what it says. The more precise bits can be left to the article on global warming which goes into detail about the science. Dmcq (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Daves 2nd draft

Poodelboy's original criticism, as I understood it, is wonderfully corrected in Dave's second draft, which I endorse. For housekeeping purposes, here it is again

The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans. It is likely that this mainly arises from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels, partially offset by human caused increases in aerosols; natural changes had little effect.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, as that seems to have general agreement, I've implemented it and at the same time have updated the chapter url to give a direct link to the SPM. . . dave souza, talk 05:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The suggested statement is quite misleading.

• "unequivocally warming": "On average" and "slightly", neither homogenous nor as strong as mostly predicted.

• "Natural causes had little effect over this period" is rather funny. Natural causes have major effects, the mainstream modellers assume that natural causes are have - on an average - no current overall trend.
• One of the main human contributions and influences on climate change and as well possible results, landuse patterns is left out completly.
• That said, several aspects are not true respectively provide a slainted picture. Polentarion Talk 17:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Since the article is named "Scientific opinion on climate change" and not "Polentarion's opinion on climate change", you will need a good source for that. That is, a climatology source. Not sociology or economics or any other sorry excuse. So, bye. --Hob Gadling (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)