Talk:Climate change consensus

Merge?
Time to merge this into public opinion on global warming perhaps William M. Connolley (talk) 08:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Why? - only a small portion of this article relates directly to that topic. ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No objection to merging but the other title is longer, perhaps some thought should be put into the overall title for the topic. Dmcq (talk) 11:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support a merge - the two topics cover (or should cover) the same ground, but this one with a meaningless slant to the title. Public opinion on global warming is a good title as it is part of a set including scientific opinion on global warming, economics of global warming, politics of global warming, etc. --Nigelj (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's scientific opinion on climate change. What is the slant you think is meaningless about the title? Dmcq (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, you're right about that name! The slant comes from the word consensus: there's a clear scientific consensus (as in SOoCC), but then this goes on to talk about the politicians and the public, and as we know, there is still a lot of relatively meaningless noise coming from these quarters, that is not best described by the word consensus. That's why we have all the other articles, and all the geographically specific articles, 'Politics/public opinion/economics of CC/GW in US/UK/Europe/Australia/etc' (there are dozens of them, I believe). It would be nice if all of this could be summarised as a 'consensus', but really it can't yet, and I think all the bits will be better explained, in their own separate places at this point in CC history. --Nigelj (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Very definitely they should be merged. I think the public opinion title is probably better for the merged article and the bit about whether the public thinks there is a consensus amongst scientists can form a major part of it. Dmcq (talk) 13:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Moving forward
It's been almost a month with no objections. I believe we are in consensus. Since no one has taken the liberty to move forward, I'll do my best. Below is a list of what I've did, if anyone has an objection. I'll be happy to step aside and discuss how to handle each list item.Lead Questionnaire regarding level of agreement over global warming essentially duplicates the sources and content of that found in Scientific opinion on climate change.Sources over public opinion may be moved to Public opinion on climate change.Section 1: Scientific community The section "List of position statements" essentially copies from Scientific opinion on climate change in an incomplete manner. It may be removed without loss of information.All remaining information may be found on the main page, therefore no content needs to be moved.<li>Section 2: Allegations of coercion, censorship, or other external factors <li>Op-eds by Lindzen may fail WP:RS.</li><li>The remaining information may suffer notability issues.</li><li>Despite these concerns, most of the information may be moved to Global warming controversy. Removed for now, it's inclusion may be discussed on the receiving article's talk page.</li></ol></li><li>Section 3: Petitions <li>In the subsection "Concurring", may belong on Politics of global warming.</li><li>In the subsection "Dissenting", information may be moved to back to its corresponding main articles, respectively: Earth Summit, Leipzig Declaration, and Oregon Petition.</li><li>The information in "Dissenting" may be summarized into Politics of global warming. A proposal may be made on the corresponding talk page.</li></ol></li><li>Section 4: Open letters <li>Information may be summarized and moved to Global warming controversy.</li><li>Proposal is underway for its inclusion, depending on whether it is notable and the sources reliable.</li></ol></li><li>Standard Appendicies: See also, References, ect. <li>See also is just a collection of links and can be deleted.</li><li>References are included inline with its corresponding sections. Nothing lost here.</li></ol></li><li>Resulting Page <li>Disambiguation for now.</li><li>Later it may be redirected to Public opinion on climate change or Scientific opinion on climate change.</li></ol></li></ol>Here is a link to the page before the merge, in case there information that I've missed and someone would like to recover. --CaC 174.52.224.148 (talk) 05:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * <ul><li>Discussion underway in Talk:Global warming controversy.</li><li>Discussion not started in Talk:Public opinion on climate change, don't believe it will be improve the article.</li></ol>--CaC 174.52.224.148 (talk) 06:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The merger broke the link at Scientific opinion on climate change that pointed to Petitions and other "self-selected lists of individuals' opinions". The link should be replaced with a Wikipedia section that addresses a collection "self-selected lists" of the same nature. Your proposal to spread the Petitions between several articles will leave that original link without a referrent; what about placing the whole section "as is" into either Global warming controversy or Politics of global warming, as a compilation of several noteworthy petitions? Diego (talk) 14:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your list of steps should be expanded to include the missing steps from the Merge guideline, in special to check the Special:WhatLinksHere to fix the links that now point to a disambiguation page. Diego (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)