Talk:Climate change consensus/Archive 1

Why does this page exist?
I find it hard to believe there is space in the GW menagerie for yet another page about the controversy. Apart from being nicely written, why isn't this just a duplicate? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it was a spin off (WP:SPINOFF) of Global warming controversy; ran out of space in the article so there you go (WP:SIZE). ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There are two major problems with that position:
 * Presumably the people who spun it off were unaware of Scientific opinion on climate change, which is now no longer the case
 * It begins by even-handedly stating what "Environmental groups, many governmental reports, and the non-U.S. media" often state, followed by what "Opponents" maintain. Then goes on to debate the two camps' views in clear violation of WP:WEIGHT. Even reading the language of this lead, it is clear that these two viewpoints are held by 'everybody and his dog, worldwide' and 'a few other US media reports'.
 * This is clearly a WP:POVFORK and should be merged with Scientific opinion on climate change and/or Global warming where the material can be given its due weighting by a much larger team of experienced editors. --Nigelj (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion has been centralized at Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change, section "Consensus on climate change controversy". Oldid. ChyranandChloe (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus v Opinion
I believe the first subhead should be 'Scientific Consensus' not 'Scientific Opinion' as it seems to analyze whether or not the various scientific opinions have reached consensus, that than analysing scientific opinion per se. --Jaymax (talk) 10:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

- For the same reason as the foregoing, I oppose calling it "consensus" which IMPLIES that there IS one, when in fact there are divergent scientific opinions. The primary meaning of "consensus" is: "Agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole" -- it does not mean "potential consensus". Therefore, how about this title: "CLIMATE CHANGE DEBATE". Or, if you want to err more on the side of the alleged side of the group of scientists who propound it for the UN and the WHO, then: "CLIMATE CHANGE ASSERTIONS".


 * Pondered this - changed to Scientific community, which I think sits better with some of the other sections as well. Would be interested to hear thoughts from whomever wrote the above (and others).   ‒ Jaymax✍ 03:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Broadening the article
I would like to see more coverage on the non-scientist based commentary around scientific consensus, and indeed general consensus, on global warming. Any suggestions? --Jaymax (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Which other scientific articles currently cover unscientific opinions too? --Nigelj (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * When this article was spun off of Global warming controversy, the idea was to describe the scientific consensus in the context of the political debate (the original title was "Consensus on climate change controversy", but after a month it didn't make a lot sense). Obviously a political and public consensus doesn't exist. However a paragraph or two on polls would fit fine. I do have once source in mind. Gallup studied whether the public believed there is a scientific consensus, of course "consensus" isn't an everyday term, so they asked do "most scientists believe that global warming is occurring". Since 01', with consistency, apparently so (third graph down, beings "The scientific consensus over the reality..."). You can finish the source, there's less agreement on its causes though. You can create a new "Public opinion" section if you want, this isn't a very high priority article, and I'm kind of busy this week. ChyranandChloe (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Per ChyranandChloe. This article was always supposed to be about the non-scientific debate as to whether there is scientific consensus.  Indeed, the article Scientific consensus itself makes clear that 'consensus' is not itself part of the Scientific method - QED, this is not a 'scientific article'.  ‒ Jaymax✍ 01:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nigel, I am struggling for a way to convey my understanding (intent, I guess, a bit) that this article NOT be a scientific article, but an article about perhaps the single biggest (and most important) argument that comes up in general (not just public, but also political and other) discourse about global warming: "Do the scientists agree?"  I desperately want SOoCC to be a science-based article, as you do I believe.  When polls, politicians, business interests, talk-back hosts, etc etc say 'there isn't a consensus amongst scientists' that view needs to be aired somewhere, alongside the counter argument (ie: according to the scientists, they virtually all agree).  Having this article, which is ABOUT the scientists, but not a 'science article', enables that, and is doing so shields SOoCC from non-science content.  It's not about 'public opinion' in the whole, but about this one issue that bridges between the science and the non-science.  Let me know if I've been understandable.  ‒ Jaymax✍ 13:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

AFD?
I'm inclined to think that this article hasn't proved its worth, but *has* caused a lot of wrangling - at Articles for deletion/Public opinion on climate change (thought almost all there is very polite) and a magnet for oddity at Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change. How about we just delete it? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that this article is not going anywhere useful. I think the potential solution is taking shape, but a little incoherently at the moment. Politics, policy and public awareness moves in very different ways in different countries. While the science of GW has a worldwide consensus, and so can be covered in general articles, I think that covering these other, human, issues needs individual articles per country. I believe there are such articles for the US, the UK, India and a few others, and ItsmeJudith has suggested a structure (somewhere) based on two new categories to put them all in. I could find these refs and such with a little trawl. I do know that these articles don't currently have a consistent naming convention, and I don't think they are getting indexed or listed anywhere yet. Do others think this is worth some discussion and some planning for structure and consistency? If so, where? --Nigelj (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No. This article really started getting some edits only in August and September.  Since then, the number of edits over time has been steadily increasing.  The article has not had time to "prove it's worth", but is heading in that direction.   The notability of the topic would be difficult to dispute.  Barely a day goes by when I don't hear or read someone talking in some RS about whether or not there is consensus.  Restrictive google searches bring up tens of thousands of hits.  This article is not the magnet-for-oddity on SOoCC.  ‒ Jaymax✍ 01:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete sound fine, the "Scientific community" could be merged into Scientific opinion on climate change although I don't know what we'd do with the politics side. This article has proven its worth that we did miss some points in SOoCC, however it doesn't fit there and it's too long to fit back in Global warming controversy. If you two, WMC and Nigelj, could figure out where all the content would go (besides the del-drain), then you've got no opposition from me. Breaking it down by country sound like a good place to go, most of the articles already exist (e.g. Climate change in the United States). If that's where you want to go, sound off. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed. This is just WMC trying to channel all the consensus discussion to the "scientific opinion" article where they can use the "scientific opinion only" argument to scrub any discussion of the public side of things.  That is the root cause of the current dispute there and why WMC has suddenly shown up here. All discussion of "the consensus" should be moved from that page into this one so that the public aspects of the debate are not systematically scrubbed as they are now (at least on that page).  The following redirect pages should be updated to point here instead of there for that very reason: Scientific consensus on climate change, Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, and Scientific consensus on global warming.  The consensus related redirects have no business pointing to a page where the public aspects of the debate are being scrubbed, IMHO, as that is inherently a WP:NPOV violation.  --GoRight (talk) 02:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Split My suggestion actually described (and my intention actually was to see) a split rather than a delete. - As noted at Articles for deletion/Public opinion on climate change, it seems this article is a POV fork. Moreover, the article is written with a strong POV (even in the title).  Public opinion in this page can be used to bolster the Public opinion on climate change article and scientific comments can go in Scientific opinion on climate change page.  jheiv (talk) 03:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm reserved about outright deletion, but the title is odd for two reasons: Jheiv's proposal above to split between Scientific opinion on climate change and Public opinion on climate change seems reasonable. Pcap ping  11:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the scope of climate change discussed here? If it is just global warming (FA) in the 20/21st century (and consequences thereof) it needs some renaming.
 * The word consensus in the title is a bit problematic, because the consensus exists in some circles, like scientists, and decision makers, but not in others. It's like having an article called consensus on the health effects of smoking instead of health effects of smoking (side note: I don't like that that redirects to health effects of tobacco, because it's about smoking and not chewing or other uses, but it is not as bad of a title as this is).
 * Split-Yes, our wise Mensan Jheiv has the right idea. The Petitions and Open Letters sections can go onto Scientific opinion.  That will help that article be less restrictive, and it should cut down on the POV and bias accusations as it will give some space to the dissenters without violating WP:WEIGHT. --CurtisSwain (talk) 11:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Split I agree with ChyranandChloe: Merge anything scientific (that's not already there) into SOoCC and put the rest methodically into articles on public awareness of, public opinion on, public policy (mitigation and adaptation) on, politics of, economics of, agreements and legislation on, etc. I worry about each of these articles becoming US-centric, with huge sections on individual US senators, and whole continents then described in two sentences or omitted, so I would vote for splitting them by country or continent. But the normal process of get started, and split stuff off when there is too much material, works fine. --Nigelj (talk) 12:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So a self selected list of self-declared scientists goes into SOoCC. That will not end well.  It will start with Nobel prize winners, and head for the gutter, taking the article with it. (or are we saying the heartland list should be at SOoCC?  'cos no.)  ‒ Jaymax✍ 13:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand your concern on the H list. Scientific opinion on climate change is almost empty. The reader should have little trouble judging for himself the credibility of a non-scientific body like the Heartland Institute publishing a list of dissenting scientists. Especially after some scientists on the said list complain about their inclusion on it. If there's consensus to keep the H list out of there (the talk page of that locked down page is WP:TLDR to me), then put in the Global warming controversy, or even in Climate change denial, although the latter looks like will be merge upstream at some point. Pcap  ping  13:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant the H list as just one an example of what will be endless debate bordering on battle. SOoCC is a science article, Climate change controversy is too big and broad to cover this significant aspect of the controversy properly.   ‒ Jaymax✍ 13:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See, now this thread only illustrates what I see as the inherent NPOV problem with SOoCC. The criteria there are being established and enforced selectively so as to push any skeptical views off of that page.  It is intellectually dishonest, IMHO, to allow this to continue.  --GoRight (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree - that aspect is about keeping that article on-topic - in the same way that the Christianity article doesn't debate (eg.) atheist views of that topic. With the consensus section there at present, it's a bit like if the Christianity article had a section on why non-Christians are wrong, but refused any external opinions. The solution would be to remove the pro-Christian bit, and thus justify keeping any anti-Christian content off the page also.  ‒ Jaymax✍ 23:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, where do allegations of external pressure on scientists go? (whether allegations of supporting consensus to keep funding, or allegations of political pressure to not support the consensus)  ‒ Jaymax✍ 13:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec?) Global warming controversy seems a good place for anything starting with the word "allegation". Pcap ping  13:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see this article as mostly a sub-topic of that one, so I would agree, EXCEPT that this controversy in particular (is there a consensus?) is probably the most significant, the one in which the public is the most uninformed (according to polls), and the one where it is perhaps easiest to cover both sides of the debate alongside each other in a meaningful way. (whereas other aspect require delving into the science, this particular controversy is basically he-said-she-said, where (to simplify) on one side you've got the scientific community, and on the other you've got talk radio. It deserves its own article, I think.  ‒ Jaymax✍ 13:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * When I suggested above putting 'science' into SOoCC, of course I assumed that it would first have to meet the existing requirements for inclusion there. Secondly, "on one side you've got the scientific community, and on the other you've got talk radio". I assume you mean US talk radio? I don't hear all this stuff where I live, I don't think the radio debates are at all similar in India, Africa or China. This was my point about US-centricity - if we create an article called Public opinion on global warming in the US, then all those who care deeply can report, in whatever detail other Americans prefer, all the talk-radio debate they like without the rest of us having to read or edit it. Public opinion on global warming in Europe, Public opinion on global warming in Asia, Public opinion on global warming in the Caribbean would all also take on their own characters. --Nigelj (talk) 13:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Public opinion on climate change can, and probably will end up having sub-articles. But there's no reason to overdesign for that now; see WP:IMPERFECT. Pcap ping
 * Currently in New Zealand - it's significant here (ref: Leighton_Smith_(radio). I was living in the UK, it was significant there.  I had cause to listen to streaming Aussie talk-radio for an unrelated reason recently (Sydney I think) - the 'no consensus' was so thick I had to turn it off for the sake of my blood pressure.  So no, I don't mean US.  This is a global, if not universal, controversy - and largely the 'no consensus' arguers re-iterate very similar 'information' (NB: related, I was also streaming the Australian Senate audio the same day, and that was pretty disturbing at times as well!) - I would hate to see the extent and reach of this issue lost to national pages. May I ask where you live (and if not, that's cool)?  ‒ Jaymax✍ 14:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec x 2) To qualify as a genuine sub-article of Global warming controversy, this article would have to be Climate change consensus controversy (or "GW consensus controversy"), but it's not called that. I don't see the point of rehashing the scientific consensus in this (or any other article) when we already have global warming as overview, and Scientific opinion on climate change as a very detailed article. The public opinion section is rather small here, and seems to have been added as an afterthought given it is not even mentioned in the lead. Like said before, the unqualified use of the word "consensus" in the title is problematic: scientific consensus vs. public consensus in country XYZ etc. So it's best to separate the issues. Pcap ping  14:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This edit diff may have been a mistake. I think ChyranandChloe may allude to that above somewhere.  The article was very new then, and the old name sounded clumsy. (Too many 'C's perhaps)  ‒ Jaymax✍ 14:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "So it's best to separate the issues." - No, it is NOT best to separate the concerns when doing so leads to a NPOV problem on SSoCC. Controversial topics are supposed to be consolidated with all of the significant view presented together.  The separation of Public and Scientific material constitues a POV fork in this instance and precludes any discussion of topics which span the two such an the public views OF the scientific ones (e.g. the scientific consensus on climate change).  --GoRight (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Reading this article before even being aware it was controversial, my impression was that it was a POV fork. If the Opinion article is too long, we just need to find more creative ways to fork it.  If this article were modified to make it non-POV, in theory it would be no different from the Opinion article.  --π!  17:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I offer as pro forma evidence for the significant notability of this topic: google search. (try adding site:au, or site:ca,uk,nz etc to see how it is the same debate globally) Notability is the not the only factor in determining whether an article is worthy of the encyclopaedia, but it is the main one. I plead for a stay-of-execution on the articles behalf.   ‒ Jaymax✍ 22:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Merge The forces of impatient destruction are at work again ... when this topic can be merged into a new unified article across the many wonderful joys of reliably sourced opinions into a NPOV, see this Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change discussion. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

More spaghetti...
Don't hate me SOoCCers...

This article should be titled Global warming controversy (scientific consensus), or something like that (assuming it continues to exist). ‒ Jaymax✍ 14:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not good because the convention in Wikipedia is to put the context in parentheses not the other way around. So, "Scientific consensus (global warming controversy)" would be more appropriate, but it's a pretty inane title... Pcap ping  14:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I offer a couple of examples of using parentheses to disambiguate a sub-topic WITHIN a context - I'm sure there are others, but these have a certain weight to them... Naming conventions (use English) Manual of Style (titles) ‒ Jaymax✍ 14:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Couple of day on and some thought - I plan to effect a move to Global warming controversy (scientific consensus) shortly unless someone yells with a solid reason why not. I am cognisant of the AfD potential as above.  Assuming the change goes through and is not reverted, I will go through linking articles and update those accordingly.  ‒ Jaymax✍ 10:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't about any scientific controversy. It is about the general controversy inspired by the scientific results so there shouldn't eb any scientific in the title. The article Scientific opinion on climate change deals with just the science side. If it was restricted to the science aspects most of the article would have to be removed. I can see a prolem with the leader though in that it doesn't say what the subject of the article is in the leader. Dmcq (talk) 10:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I half agree, but this article is specifically about what denialists seem to have, of late, taken on talking about as "the so-called scientific consensus", in media globally. It's specifically NOT about the controversy inspired by, for example, polar bears and the Arctic icecap - it's about the question being discussed in many spheres: "is there a scientific consensus on global warming?" That is not a science question (there is no scientific test for consensus). So the words 'scientific consensus' need to be in the title, but without implying this is a science based article. Better suggestions on how to achieve that welcome!  ‒ Jaymax✍ 10:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Global warming controversy around the presence or otherwise of a scientific consensus - not. :)  ‒ Jaymax✍ 10:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Global warming controversy (Is there scientific consensus?). Yukky, but perhaps. ‒ Jaymax✍ 10:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Dmcq, this edit is not in keeping with the topic of this article. What needs fixing is the scope of the title, not the scope of the article. Not reverting atm... ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This however, is bang on the money :-) ‒ Jaymax✍ 14:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems to me to be more in line with the contents of the article than what was there before. If you can describe what the contents of the article are better go ahead but an article that doesn't say what it is talking about in the leader is a bit rudderless. Dmcq (talk) 11:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the definition of scientific consensus because firstly that defined by the wikilink and secondly people might confuse a scientific consensus with a general consensus. It should be somewhere else in the article rather than being a definition of another subject in the leader. Dmcq (talk) 11:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Still would appreciate you title ideas, but the present title fails to address that this article is about scientific consensus, without being a science-based article. I'm more worried (for right now) about fixing the potentially misleading title, than the lead.  If we can get agreement on a title, the lead will (hopefully) follow more naturally.  ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Further to that, I would remove  Climate change consensus is the collective judgement, position, and opinion of the general community including scientists, politicians and economists on climate change., because that doesn't define the topic here, but holding off, because title first.  ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There already is the article scientific opinion on climate change which deals with the scientific consensus. This article can talk about the wider response to that scientific consensus but if you stuck scientific into the title I think WP:WEIGHT would imply one had to remove most of the content. That shows that such a title doesn't describe the contents. Dmcq (talk) 11:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't make sense that simply having the word scientific somewhere in the title, ipso facto, means that the article can only cover scientific considerations. There must be scope for articles that properly cover popular debate about science and scientists from both scientific and non-scientific perspectives!  ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If the subject was restricted to Global warming controversy (scientific consensus) it would seem it was being restricted to whether there was a scientific consensus or not. And by any reasonable definition of scientific consensus there isn't any. There is however a very notable debate about climate change and whether it is true or not, but there's little science about that. It involves things like people not wanting to lose their jobs and scepticism and suchlike as well as a bit of science recruited along the way. It isn't primarily about the scientific consensus. Dmcq (talk) 12:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It WAS restricted to that, it IS restricted to that currently except for your most recent edits. THAT is the Raison d'être for this articles existence, if you go back into the history and the discussion at SOoCC that led up to it. It has a misleading title.  Some people vehemently say there is scientific consensus, others vehemently say there is not.  THAT DEBATE is the topic of this article.  The broader debate (ie: whether the conveyed science is true or not) you allude to is covered at Global warming controversy.  This article is not PRIMARILY about whether there is a scientific consensus, it is SOLELY about whether there is a scientific consensus, from various perspectives.  ‒ Jaymax✍ 12:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * NB: If you do go back to the SOoCC archives, you will probably find me pondering at some point about including the broader consensus issues in this article. I had not, at that time, clarified in my own mind the distinction thatI am now expressing here.  The point being (again) it's all about the scientists, but not all of the scientists.  ‒ Jaymax✍ 12:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, I'm afraid. You cannot write an article about a scientific controversy until some major scientific organisation says that they disagree with the others. At present that is not the case. What you have here is a disagreement between the worldwide scientific community (as represented by the combined research of all national and international bodies) and (a) public perception in some countries, esp US, (b) some politicians esp in US, (c) some members of the public with some scientific background (e.g. BSc, MSc, PhD and/or once worked in a scientific research establishment etc) who think they have thought of something all the others missed and call themselves 'scientists' because it helps with their image, (d) others like (c) who are being paid by Exxon etc to say they have thought of such a thing, (e) economists, (f) industrialists, etc. The controversy is between these people and the scientific consensus. There is also no gap between the scientific consensus and all the above people in many countries of the world, esp developing countries like those in the 'G77' group at Copenhagen, the UK, French, German etc governments (if not all the civil servants in these places) --Nigelj (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you - although I'd de-emphasise the US-ness slightly (not very much). So - taking exactly what you have stated above, what would you title an article that dealt with exactly that topic matter?  You have acknowledged a general controversy, more specific than 'Is GW real'.  I accept, totally, it's not scientific controversy.  But it is undeniably a controversy, and it is undeniably about the existence or otherwise of a scientific consensus (which, just for clarity, I know there is).  What would you title an article that specifically examines THIS controversy, that you have outlined above; be it between a large sector of the French public, or Indonesian public, or a US or Australian senator, or a blogger on Exxon's payroll;  and the scientific consensus that you-and-I know exists. (because the US senator is spouting the same pseudo-facts, but probably honestly held opinion, as the French tobacconist, and this sub-controversy deserves an article, reflecting all views per WP:UNDUE etc).  ‒ Jaymax✍ 14:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd have two articles, Public opinion on climate change and Policy debate on climate change to deal with these two aspects (One of these exists already). I have argued recently for country- or continent-specific articles in both cases. I withdraw the idea of country-specific as we can't have 193 of each. I'm still keen on continent-specific articles, but am happy with the idea that these will start as general articles and be subbed-out as needed if the content gets too big. My master plan for world coverage :-) is falling down all over the place as articles like Climate change in California, Climate change in the United States, Effects of global warming on India etc exist. There may be authors wanting to write about animal (and human) migrations and behaviour changes, spring coming earlier, wetter winters, dryer summers, altered monsoons etc in their continent: these could be 'Effects of global warming in ...' --Nigelj (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That then comes down to a question of emphasis - I would argue that this issue transcends the public, policy, and scientific opinions. Not least because some want-to-make-policy-types spout the same objections as the public.  I would appreciate it if you humoured me... Assuming an (ie. this) article continued to exist and covered the faux-debate on is there really a scientific consensus? from all sides and continents where the debate persists, what would you nominate as the title for such an article?  ‒ Jaymax✍ 16:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's part of the policy debate on climate change - some policy makers are trying to use the 'faux-debate' as a smokescreen for their inaction on what remains, objectively, clear settled science. --Nigelj (talk) 13:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm yet to be convinced that Public debate on X; Policy debate on X; Scientific community debate (virtually settled if you ignore some of the geologists) on X - belong in three different topics, rather than in an article X. ‒ Jaymax✍ 08:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Split proposal

 * (outdent) The list is a draft, if you improve the list, I expect you to do so. A policy debate is more akin to Copenhagen, this menagerie doesn't mention that. Policy entails politics, and we've got an article for that, Politics of global warming. I don't think we need another article. This is what I have broken down by section:"Scientific community" → Scientific opinion on climate change, duplication mainly."Allegations of coercion, censorship, or other external factors" → Politics of global warming, politicians pressuring scientists."Heartland Institute's list" → The Heartland Institute, duplication, might be worth a sentence in Politics of global warming."Petitions" → Politics of global warming or themselves. The Oregon Petition, Leipzig Declaration, Science and Environmental Policy Project can go home."Open Letters" → Politics of global warming or cut, scientists/non-scientists pressuring politicians. Not very notable."Opinion Polls" → Public opinion on climate change, created for a reason."'So-called' consensus" → not notable, unless to the individuals themselves.</ol>When this article was spun off of Global warming controversy, it was spun off because it wasn't important enough to stay. Public, Politics, and Science—yeah, that seems about right. Let finish this, what do you guys think? ChyranandChloe (talk) 08:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Entirely independent of me, this debate came up at our Xmas lunch. Perhaps it was spun off because controversy is at 120k+ and this is the single most-debated aspect of the GW controversy.  Note also that the pressure on scientists is not soley political, it also arises within the scientific sphere and business sphere.  I am trying to think of another topic that is split up depending on the particular career of the person making an observation on it.  ‒ Jaymax✍ 08:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just referencing some history around this article here and here for those who might not have been engaged in those discussions. The second link tends to support that this was spun off from the GW Controversy article, because it was the biggest subtopic there per WP:SPINOFF.  It would seem a retrograde step to try and merge it back into that still-oversize article.  ‒ Jaymax✍ 09:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And finally (for the moment) throwing in another title thought based on re-reading the above: Global warming controversy concerning scientific consensus ‒ Jaymax✍ 09:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you've lost me, is this a go ahead? No part of the proposal had anything to do with shipping the text back to GWC, and "Global warming controversy concerning scientific consensus" is neither actionable nor really helpful. We're talking about this article dude, let's not get sidetracked. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems like a good proposal. Nicely done.  No changes to propose.  --DGaw (talk) 06:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The top level heading 'more spaghetti' was a reference to title suggestions. This article is about "Global warming controversy concerning scientific consensus" - hence that. But yes, I was out of context with the comment about merging back into GWC.  But I go back to the fundamental concept: that a single, intact (sub-)topic should not be scattered to the winds.  What encyclopaedic use is that?  Historically speaking, I want Wikipedia to capture this key aspect of the debate for generations to come.  Stirring it into the pot is not the right thing to do, from a knowledge-documenting, encyclopaedic perspective.  ‒ Jaymax✍ 09:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (outdent) Please Jaymax, I beg oft, please come down from thou high place and speak with cogent concrete actions. Methinks if we split the article, most of it would go to Politics of global warming, which supposedly shalt better "capture this key aspect of the debate for generations to come." With greater scope, greater page views, and greater namespace—it would be thou undoing to decline. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then woe is me, for I am undone - I believe our topic here to be most surely notable... ‒ Jaymax✍ 07:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The only other significant area I see as needing to be addressed is terminology. "AGW", "Global Warming" & "Climate Change" have begun to be used interchangeably, when in fact they are three very different things.  Even in this article and discussion board, I notice the terms are mixed and matched.  This is part of the great confusion the public has with understanding the science behind the controversy.  I am hoping that is not the case with the contributors, but that may well be the case.  There is a reason the term was changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change", for reasons I think are scientific, political, and economic.  To make this article as useful as possible, I strongly recommend a link to a tutorial explaining the difference between the three words, or inclusion within the article itself.  Ziploked (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Globalize
I don't mean to divert people's attention from the split discussion, but looking at recent edits I felt I had to establish this point too. If you scan down the article, when it's not listing American associations and societies, it's quoting the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. Then it gets really started on the Heartland Institute, the UCS and SEPP (all US-based) before a brief mention of Canada leads us back to US scientific societies and US public opinion. I see one mention of Afria and one of Australia. This bias may not be immediately visible to some editors, but needs to be considered when splitting the article too, I believe. --Nigelj (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just added a poll that's pretty global - but agree much more needs to be done in this direction if the article is to justify itself. ‒ Jaymax✍ 15:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

How about the opposite?
I mean make keep in this article just the US-centric dissent on GW? And retitle appropritately, e.g. "Dissent/Oppostion from/to climate change consensus in the United Stated" or similar? The contentious parts that editors of SoCC don't want are exactly those that fit under that kind of title. The rest is already part of SoCC and PoCC. Pcap ping  15:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I suggested Public opinion on global warming in the US above. Or Public debate on global warming in the US?--Nigelj (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * On a closer look, it doesn't like a focus on the US is workable: the Leipzig Declaration was a German-based effort. The "sixty scientists" open letter was sent to the Canadian Prime Minister. These guys are at best WP:FRINGE scientists, so these issues might belong in a section in the SOoCC article (with less detail), but the Climate change denial may be more appropriate, although I'm not incredibly keen on the rather strong language there. (It doesn't seem on the same level with Holocaust denial or AIDS denialism given that there are still some non-committal statements from scientific organizations, and the SOoCC article doesn't label these organizations as outright denialists etc.) I would also be careful in labeling fairly old dissent as denialism because most refs supporting the use of the "denial" word are from 2007 or so. So, YMMV where to move such material from this article. One would have to consider the position advanced by each group etc. More effort than I'm willing to invest in this article (reading the original sources), so I'll let the "regulars" deal with it... Pcap  ping  18:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with calling out specific views within specific nations but it is probably premature, IMHO, to start breaking that into separate articles. Keep everything together in one article, divided by sections, until it becomes unmanageable and THEN start creating the sub-articles.  Dividing things prematurely only dilutes the content and encourages POV editing.  --GoRight (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Quoting myself from the section above: I would hate to see the extent and reach of this issue lost to national pages. ‒ Jaymax✍ 22:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. Climate change/Global warming is a global issue.  The scientific community is a global community.  We need to keep a global perspective in the parent articles.  However, spinoffs that go into more detail of what's happening in different nations are also of value.--CurtisSwain (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Global warming controversy is already at 123K, so the question become when does a geographic fork make more sense, and when does a sub-topic fork make sense. I think the chart on page 7 of global survey pdf makes it clear that is there scientific consensus? is a global-sub-topic, largely because, as you point out (although I hadn't really thought about it before), the scientific community is global (unlike, say, the political community, or the local conditions regarding, say, sea-rise or agriculture)  ‒ Jaymax✍ 23:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Overwhelming majority
I don't want to get into an edit war, but I think it should be reverted as a reliably sourced statement which also reflects the content of the article. Consensus is heavily weighted one way.

Revert?



- DHooke1973 (talk) 09:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 'Overwhelming' is specifically used by the third cite (Royal Society), Royal society is inarguably well placed to judge whether or not the majority is 'overwhelming' so yes. It belongs there.  ‒ Jaymax✍ 12:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I reverted it because majority seems to make the point and a single source doesn't seem like enough justification to make the change from "majority" to "overwhelming majority". I'd understand if there were multiple RS that noted the overwhelming majority (just two even), but I just haven't seen it and only one is referenced. jheiv (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Try this google search and choose any you like from 274,000. OK not all WP:RS, but I would suggest Friends of the Earth or the Met Office on the first page. Since when have we needed a certain number of reliable sources for each word? The sentence already has 4 citations to cover different words of it against unreasonable sniping. If we need 2 cites for every word, it will become silly. This is not a dispute it is just sniping at established facts. --Nigelj (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The word "overwhelming" carries significant weight, and shouldn't be thrown around lightly. It is my opinion that inclusion of a word like that when simply majority suffices requires extra sourcing.  Certainly, if the fact that 50.5% of climate scientists agreed, you would require significant sourcing to phrase it as "bare majority" or "slim majority", if you accepted the phrasing at all.  In general, I think it would be good measure for all of us to keep our language as "watered down" as possible unless specifically sourced by multiple reliable sources.  That being said, it seems that there is enough sourcing for the word, even though I'm not sure where they come up with the basis for using it, that is not of my concern.  In short, I don't think removing it is still necessary.  jheiv (talk) 00:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * All Royal Society is really saying is that there is scientific consensus. Where "overwhelming" is—is ambiguous. The Royal Society, while speaking for the scientific community, is an authoritative body, not an aggregate of opinions held by individual scientists. While the Royal Society isn't a number, a number does exist. Doran & Kendall Zimmerman published the latest one in Jan 09', from faculty listings the number of scientists is know, so this is a parameter not a statistic. 97.4% for actively publishing climatologists, there are variations, for example economic geologist and meteorologist are much lower. Back in Apr 08, STATS did another, similar results. Publishing matters, so there's been studies on abstracts from scientific journals. For the article, I think we can do better than just saying a lot of scientists agree. I've got some text ready, you want me to swap it in the article? ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Edited in the 97%+ and the actual RS wording in the meantime. ‒ Jaymax✍ 10:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Split Article?
It looks as though the decision here was to split, however it looks like there were only a few votes. Should the article be split such that public opinion in this page can be used to bolster the Public opinion on climate change article and scientific comments can go in Scientific opinion on climate change piece? jheiv (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Sounds a prime way of starting arguments. How are we to say that a particular study or survey is on one side of this scientific/public divide? The current Scientific opinion on climate change has a well defined objective with fairly easy criteria for inclusion and so does this article. I think the only result would be confusion and disruption. Dmcq (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support: This article is not about a clearly defined topic. The proviso is that those who edit SOoCC and POoCC will have to apply normal notability and other criteria to what actually gets into those articles from here: some material from here may have to fall by the wayside, but some other bit(s) may get into both! --Nigelj (talk) 23:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In my head, it's clear; can we make it clearer here? ‒ Jaymax✍ 07:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I'd rather have this article merged into "politics of global warming" and "global warming controversy" (where it originated). SOoCC is imho quite good as it is, and it would be detrimental to its state to have small stuff/controversy/individual bickering put there. The whole "is there a consensus?" stuff is political/value stuff which i don't think that SOoCC would benefit from. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support It is difficult to tell what folks are consenting too. The climate is always changing, (in addition to cause attributions.) Besides wiki says consensus may change, so why expect this subject to be stable. Maybe keep sources thae say "climate change" and "consensus", however this may be better as a section in another article untill it grows out in space in balance from there. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 06:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, can we make it clearer that this article is about the debate (political, public, and tangentially scientific) about whether there is a scientific consensus that global warming is occurring, and that humans are primarily responsible? ‒ Jaymax✍ 07:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per prior comments. ‒ Jaymax✍ 07:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support: the only section I see that can go to Public opinion on climate change is "Opinion polls". I'd doubt the remaining sections will get into SOoCC. I'll support you jheiv, but there needs to be better foresight. Need to know where everything is going. Peterson has something going, Politics of global warming can hold some. ChyranandChloe (talk) 08:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't want information further buried in a maze of inter-linked articles with no guidance on navigation. I want to see a map of the articles with a brief rundown of what each is supposed to contain. In fact, I think I'd like to see the "root article" for GW as a graphic showing every article (or branch of the science), and make the map the first place people arrive at from a google on "Global Warming". Then, if you've come to these articles looking for arguments against the likes of Dr Will Happer (a sceptic from a different branch of science) or Don Easterbrook (believes that we're about to see cooling) you can find what you're looking for. (Don't confuse the academic Don Easterbrook with the academic Gregg Easterbrook, the latter having become a believer in 2006). Currently, I'm finding the whole thing really confusing. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What does figuring out a more effective navigation for GW article have to do with splitting this one? I think you're looking for the navbox, Glossary of climate change, or Index of climate change articles. (I do agree with you that we need central navigation, but let's not get side tracked.) ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * support deletion of this article and merge anything useful elsewhere; Pub Opp being the worthy successor to this William M. Connolley (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * William, a question... what's your thinking regarding voting to merge this article, but vote against merging Climate Change Denial? It seems to me that it might make sense to merge this and that into Public Opinion or Politics Of using the same logic, and eliminate some significant duplication. --DGaw (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Denial is a process, or a psychosis, whereas consensus is a sum collection of relevant opinions. Much of this stuff would be very useful at POoCC. --Nigelj (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that's sort of what I'm saying. Even if the distinction you draw is the consensus view, both "climate change denial" and the content here are aspects of the public debate over the larger topic.  (Indeed, while I don't recall reading either article recently, I'm inclined to wonder why "public opinion" and "politics of" aren't merged, since public opinion and politics are so closely linked.  But I digress.  The reason I bring all this up is I'm inclined to support the same action (whatever that is) in both articles. --DGaw (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between politicians and the general public, if you digress or support, discuss it on the appropriate talk pages. Let's not get sidetracked. Anyways, this is WMC's opinion, and I don't believe Nigelj or myself should speak for him. ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not 'speaking for WMC', just answering the point raised. Trying to personalise these issues, or find out what each other really believe, or pick off opponents one by one in personal discussion, does not help improve the articles. --Nigelj (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment, it's one thing to say you support splitting this article, and another say how. See, let's not get sidetracked. ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Article probation
Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Opening sentence is misleading
The opening sentence of this article states: "Over 97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation is a significant contributing factor to global climate change[1]" references a study by the University of Illinois. However, according to the actual study, the number of "actively publishing climate scientists" that responded to the study was seventy-nine individuals (79), all of whom were in the U.S. or Canada. This is hardly 97% of ALL actively publishing climate scientists as this article infers, and should be corrected.

The proof of my assertion is in the text of the footnoted document: "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.99.178 (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the works cited, you can download it here. There aren't that many people who are "[...] listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change." There are a lot of climatologists, but very few who are activity publishing. Of course, since actively publishing would imply that they write the bulk of current scientific papers, right? This study was done a while before, where 75% of papers are "explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals", 25% "dealt with methods or paleoclimate [past climate change], taking no position", and "none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position". I do, however, agree with you that the opening sentence is misleading. At least poorly written. The first paragraph of the "Science" section in Public opinion on climate change would be a decent replacement. Right now we're discussing whether to dissolve this article, which would make what is written moot. You can join the discussion above, see . I would greatly appreciate your opinion! ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * After my recent edits, I think it is now much clearer. John Hyams (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no climate change consensus
There also is no consensus on E=MC^2 or on anything else. Consensus is political not scientific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.61.194 (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is consensus that electrons played a part in relaying the above message to a breathless world. --TS 23:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Truth", to Authenticity ... 99.155.152.14 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC).

Merge with the Global Warming Controversy article?
It has been suggested to split this article, but it may also merit incorporation into the global warming controversy article. I'm not sure about this, but from what I read this article mainly describes the debate (controversy), not the consensus. John Hyams (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Is "Climate change consensus" a topic notable in its own right?
Is there any significant coverage that address the specific topic of "Climate change consensus" from reliable secondary sources? If so, why are they not cited in this article? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Gavin.collins has been cautioned to stop similar discussions at Scientific opinion on climate change and pursue dispute resolution elsewhere. There are now discussions at Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard and No original_research/Noticeboard. There are similar long term discussions on various policy talk pages and the village pump policy pages and on other types of articles too. Dmcq (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that this article is under threat from deletion or proposal to merge with one or more other articles. Is there any significant coverage that address the specific topic of "Climate change consensus" from reliable secondary sources? If so, why are they not cited in this article? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Climate change denial
I had thought that this article might be able to cover the subject of climate change denial so that article could be merged in here. Having looked though it more I just can't seem to get it to fit together. It is a bit peculiar that this article mentions denial in the leader but skirts round the subject in the rest of the article. I think there should be one section explicitly devoted to that subject and I'll have a look now at doing something like that instead with a bit at the top saying for more see climate change denial. Dmcq (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Rv: why
I don't think Deltoid is an attack blog William M. Connolley (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * For technical reasons I can't revert your edit, but although I disagree with the characterization of deltoid as an attack blog I would revert your edit if I could. The posting contains negative statements about Peiser which are inadequately sourced. under the BLP it dies, end of story. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 20:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Blog refs
Copied over from short brigade harvester`s page

Boris I see you removed Roger A. Pielke`s ref from Climate Change Consensus, Is he not a wp:rs as he is actually writing about something within his area of expertise? mark nutley (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Here he makes an allegation of unethical conduct against the editors in question, i.e., "using their positions to suppress evidence." I don't see where his expertise in numerical modeling and dynamical analysis provides sufficient justification for a statement with such obvious BLP implications. Given your oft-stated concerns over BLP I'm a bit surprised at your approach here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Erm, i see no names mentioned in that statement? Were exactly do the wp:blp concerns arise from? if i was not assuming good faith i would almost think you are doing a tit for tat thing here mark nutley (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Giving names is irrelevant when sufficient description is present to identify the individuals in question, as it is here. For example we couldn't say "the U.S. Senators from [insert state] were accused of election fraud" absent strong evidence, even if we haven't explicitly given their names. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The only thing i see in wp:blp which remotly covers this is In some countries, corporations, companies, and other entities are regarded as legal persons. This policy does not apply to them So blp does not really apply to here does it? mark nutley (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So you're saying it would be OK to use someone's blog post to state "the U.S. Senators from [insert state] were accused of election fraud" because they would fall under the heading of "countries, corporations, companies, and other entities"? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well yes and this has been done, so long as the source is reliable and attribution is given that it is their opinion then it is ok under policy. mark nutley (talk) 07:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed the Heartland list completely
As Heartland is not a reliable source, and certainly not for information about BLP's. Without the caveat's from deltoid and the scientists themselves, and even the removal of Bast's comment - it has been whitewashed to the extent where the infomation can't be included. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. --Nigelj (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably could move that section wholescale to Climate change denial with this reference The Guardian: Czech leader joins meeting of climate change deniers Dmcq (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. If we're not going to allow any refutation, such dodgy stuff poses a serious BLP problem. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the list posted on the heartland site not mentioned in any wp:rs? I`ll take a look tommorrow for some. @ Boris please respond to my question above, thanks mark nutley (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if it is - it doesn't make the BLP problem go away. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What exactly is the blp issue with the list kim? mark nutley (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Lets see.... Hmmmm.... Claims that some scientists have different opinion than what they really have? Could that be it? Hmmmmm --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So? Surely there are also wp:rs which gives their story? It seems pointless to remove an entire section without looking for new refs don`t you think? mark nutley (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark, whitewashing the section as you did - isn't going to make the critique go away. Bast himself (in one of the sources you removed) responded to that critique - with a specific statement that he would ignore what the scientists themselves said, and Bast most certainly is a reliable source on the Heartland list. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * For gods sake, i did not whitewash anything, and i take exception to the accusation. Is bat`s comments not to be found on any wp:rs at all? Are you saying we should allow the use of blogs so long as they back up your argument? Come on man, look, i`ll try and find some wp:rs sources tommorrow for both sides ok mark nutley (talk) 00:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Bast is the president of the Heartland institute. As i said: Bast is a reliable source concerning the Heartland institute (no matter what the publication venue is) - you are making the mistake of thinking that RS is black/white (ie. either a source is reliable in general, or it isn't reliable at all). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I've always been rather uncomfortable with the use of Heartland as anything other than an ideologically committed source. It would probably be better on the denialism article. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 08:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * They do fairly notably disagree with the scientific consensus though whatever about their motives. I suppose a link to the denial article should be put in this article somewhere instead of them. Dmcq (talk) 11:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As "ideological committed source" the Heartland Institute is just about on par with the IPCC on these self-published opinions, although the Heartland folks do have questionable source handicaps like the IPCC. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Erm? Could you explain that in a less convoluted language, i'm afraid that i can't understand your comment. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, the Heartland Institute publishes opinions on a variety of topics. The IPCC publishes its opinion on a single topic. This makes the IPCC a questionable self-published source of lower quality than HI because of single purpose "ideological commitment". see WP:SPA Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Mark Zulu Papa 5 is pushing a not-so-subtle "IPCC is not a reliable source on the science" subtext, and wants set up Heartland as a competitor of comparable validity. Am I right, Mark Zulu Papa 5? Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 16:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Tony you posted much the same thing yesterday, which thankfully you reverted. Not once have i posted the the IPCC is not reliable, yes they have made mistakes, but to er is human. Were do you get this idea that i am trying a "not so subtle push that the IPCC is not reliable? mark nutley (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I cannot apologise enough. I was referring to Zulu Papa 5's comments, not yours.  I did indeed mistake him for you the other day, too.  I'll have to be especially careful about how I refer to you and him from now on. --TS 17:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * TS, the IPCC and HI are comparable as wp:sps however, obviously the IPCC takes greater effort to qualify and quantify their opinions before publishing them on thier own website. Supposedly, this would mean the IPCC would have less errors, however my impression is the IPCC error rate is close to everyone elese in these issues (because they don't issue primary sources, which is a root cause to error rates).  The IPCC also picks up a greater amount of press.  I assume, the HI is economical disadvantaged compared to the IPCC. Again, what is interesting is the HI and other editorial boards (like professional newspapers or academic presses), handle a variety of opinions on a variety of issues, while the IPCC is focused on a single opinion that is prescribed in their mission statement. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops
Just like at SOOCC, this is the Doran survey. Which we've already got William M. Connolley (talk) 08:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, i removed it after seeing that the Doran eurekalert matched the one that the user gave as reference. (same author, same title, date glitch :) ) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if MN had checked before editing :-( William M. Connolley (talk) 09:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My bad, sorry. Read 1999/01 as 99/10, mark nutley (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And again. Try to keep up William M. Connolley (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Worth inserting into this encyclopedic article?
From here: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/13/the-ipcc-consensus-on-climate-change-was-phoney-says-ipcc-insider/#ixzz0rONPXy3M

The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.

“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.”

Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia—the university of Climategate fame—is the founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and one of the UK’s most prominent climate scientists. Among his many roles in the climate change establishment, Hulme was the IPCC’s co-ordinating Lead Author for its chapter on “Climate scenario development” for its Third Assessment Report and a contributing author of several other chapters.

Hulme’s depiction of IPCC’s exaggeration of the number of scientists who backed its claim about man-made climate change can be found on pages 10 and 11 of his paper, found here: http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG%5B1%5D.pdf Ikilled007 (talk) 11:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Best not to spam this stuff around, especially since it is wrong: William M. Connolley (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Uhhhhh, See the last link in my post? Yeah, it's to the paper you linked to, too. And on pages 10 and 11, it discusses the lack of consensus. What exactly is wrong? Ikilled007 (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I got the wrong link but you're still wrong. Try leading to  William M. Connolley (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * How can a quote of a secondary source be 'wrong' by the editor offering 'a' said 'xxx' - the secondary source is clearly spinning the primary source, and there may even be an argument for bias in the primary source (I only skimmed it) - but if additional secondary sources have picked up on this, it may be a good item for inclusion in the article, to explore / demonstrate the ongoing (but thankfully, of late reduced) debate around scientific consensus. Indeed, after reading WMC refs I think this would be a useful inclusion in context ‒ Jaymax✍ 12:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Anderegg et al
A recent paper mostly based on prior work by Prall has been published in PNAS. Like most academic analyses this one finds that support for the conclusions of IPCC in public statements made by scientists strongly correlates with experience and eminence within the field. Tasty monster (=TS ) 14:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

http://scienceblogs.com/classm/2010/06/the_credibility_factor.php

The above link for reference only. It isn't a suggested source to use in the article. Tasty monster (=TS ) 14:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The study has been put into Scientific opinion on climate change which has a section about it here. I'm not sure that particular study will have much effect at all or is particularly notable in the context of the public perception. Dmcq (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit I'm not clear about why this article exists, but I expect the findings of the paper address the question of whether there is a scientific consensus on climate change. I'm not clear on what grounds any Wikipedia article about the consensus could realistically ignore the consensus. That would be silly, surely. Tasty monster (=TS ) 20:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I'd have thought this article should only put in the most noteworthy bits in that section and leave the main mass to the scientific opinion article. On that basis I wouldn't say this has much to do with general climate change consensus. It's a question of weight, this article shouldn't drown out the public consensus bit Dmcq (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Based only on a search for the term 'consensus' in both the paper and the blog, I don't see a contribution to the debate here. As to why the article exists, the 'denial' article focuses on those who are financially or otherwise motivated to promote a particular perspective, the SOOCC article exists to set out what the scientific opinion actually is. This article serves to document the wider debate around whether or not there, infact, is a scientific consensus (POV: There clearly is consensus, but that fact of something does not lead to everyone believing it to be true).  There is also the public opinion on climate change generally, but again, that is distinct from the public or political (or even scientific) opinion as to whether there is a scientific consensus - a topic that of itself still generates significant topic specific coverage, despite the (POV:) blatant evidence.  ‒ Jaymax✍ 13:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Curry on consensus
I recently added a link to this interesting discussion at Judith Curry's site:
 * "No consensus on consensus" by Judith Curry, September 27, 2010

WMC reverted, commenting "ext links not encouraged, and why this one?"

It's an essay by a notable climatologist on how a scientific consensus is formed, and specifically how the IPCC acted to encourage the formation of the climate change consensus that is the subject of this article. You can't get more topical than that. Most likely, bits of her essay will get incorporated into our article in time. In the meanwhile, an external link seems like a good start. --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems like some of the 'skeptics' are trying to use the CRU emails and '2035-gate' to build a feeling that there isn't even a scientific consensus now, or if there is, the IPCC doesn't know what it is. She links to a few more of them at the bottom of her post. These are still blog posts and self-published at the moment, but if she, or any of them, want to try to publish this in a peer-reviewed journal, or if we get academic coverage of the general phenomenon in such a place, then it's good to go here. Until then, it may be relevant in her own WP article, as material about herself and her opinions, but I see it's not been considered notable enough even for that yet. Until all that changes, it's no use here. --Nigelj (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "It seems like some of the 'skeptics' are trying to use the CRU emails and '2035-gate' to build a feeling that there isn't even a scientific consensus now" - Then that is the kind of thing that should be included in this article, but in the context that you describe it. ‒ Jaymax✍ 00:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there a definition of what "consensus" is? Does an 85% to 15% split indicate a consensus? How about 98% to 2%, then?


 * To put it another way, how many bona fide climate scientists have to agree with AGW theory (compared to the number who "disagree with the mainstream") for us here at Wikipedia to declare that there is a consensus?


 * Or if it's not our place to come up with a number or ratio, then how shall we describe the dispute? Do we say that Survey A indicates no disagreement at all while Survey B indicates 10% disagreement, or what? --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Human activity as primary cause vs. "significant contributing factor"
The intro said that 82% of scientists "agreed with AGW", apparently on the basis of a survey which asked them:
 * "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

My question to my fellow writers is whether agreeing that human activity is a "significant contributing factor" is the same as agreeing with AGW, i.e., the theory that most of the warming since (say) 1850 is due to human activity.

Are there any scientists who say make a distinction between "significant" and "most"? (I think Richard Lindzen is one.) And if so, should we consider their ideas? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, Dr. Roy Spencer wrote:
 * Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade.

Would this be considered an example of confirmation bias? (At least in his eyes?) --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * At least grammatically and scientifically, " a significant contributing factor" is not the same as "most". I'm not even sure that " the significant contributing factor" would imply "most"; there could be many minor factors which combine to produce most of the effect.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It sounds like the intro needs to be revised to reflect the source. --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't want to remove the NPOV tag without further discussion, but I think just saying "82% agreed" seems simple enough. I would have no objection to the exact question being in the lede, but a paraphrase should be adequate.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That's still a very convoluted sentence. I'll get back to it -- summoned to a "Honey-do" ;-] --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a need for a tag at this time, so I've removed it (and the globalize one, as this article already includes global coverage). Viriditas (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead
This is very confusing. The lead currently says: "Climate change consensus describes the public debate over whether there is a scientific consensus on global warming, which is the current climate change, and as to or the extent of man's involvement" That's not accurate. The lead describes a new intersection between two different articles, public opinion on climate change and media coverage of climate change as a run around of our article on scientific opinion on climate change. I'm not seeing the need for this article as it duplicates three existing ones. Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Taking a moment to look at the history, this article was split out of Global warming controversy in March 2009. I'm not seeing the need for this article at all and it would be best presented as a targeted redirect or a disambiguation page. Viriditas (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that this, as a separate article, is of no constructive use in our coverage of the topic. See above. The first sentence makes this muddle clear, "Climate change consensus describes the public debate...", how can a consensus describe a debate? --Nigelj (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes a merger seems appropriate, but before that process at least we can rewrite the first sentence. Aside from the initial contradiction ("consensus" vs. "debate"), the ending grammar is atrocious -- "and as to or the extent of...". In re merge, I can see alot of overlap, but part of the problem (here and overall) seems to be alot of ambiguity in popular usage of the terminology. At some point in the past decade or so, the terms 'global warming' and 'climate change' became synonymous for various reasons. - PrBeacon (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This article is about the debate generally around a Scientific Climate Change Consensus. It's not about the science itself.  The problem with merging it with Public Opinion ... is that much of the debate goes on in the political and media spaces.  It also touches on denial.  Furthermore, the most argument that there IS a consensus comes from Science. The question "It there a scientific consensus" is a significant part of Global Warming Controversy, deserving of it's own article.  It could be merged back with Controversy, except for WP:SIZE issues."  The first sentence is certainly problematic; but I cannot see how this major element of the controversy does not deserve it's own article.  To be fair, when it was spun off, the 'so-called consensus' nay-sayers were a lot louder than they are now.  ‒ Jaymax✍ 01:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Scientific Consensus on Climate Change denial ? ‒ Jaymax✍ 01:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not so much the lead that's confusing as it is the article. It's helpful, as Viriditas pointed out, to look at the history of the article. But it's also interesting to think about where you hear the term "consensus" used - on one hand, when people are talking about the mainstream position. On the other - when people are questioning the existence of a mainstream position, "the so-called consensus". This article leans towards debunking - calling the consensus a debate, for example, and listing petitions.

The solution isn't so much a merger as an overall rationalisation of our coverage of the topic. But in the meantime this article, as long as it exists, should clearly explain what people are talking about when they say "consensus", and why the "skeptics" question consensus (while keeping an eye on WP:UNDUE. But we do need to think about rationalising our coverage of the topic area, build top-level articles that clearly cover areas of knowledge, and build daughter articles that go into more depth on specifics. Guettarda (talk) 04:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have made some edits to the lead in an attempt to better define the original (and presumably) continuing (for now) purpose of this article. Feedback would be appreciated.  ‒ Jaymax✍ 03:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think there is a mainstream position. The question out there is whether the mainstream position is a "consensus", or whether there is significant dissent (i.e., within the climate science community). I am aware of several prominent individual scientists who have made arguments that AGW is unfounded. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Political statements
Ages ago, I started a very poorly titled section 'so-called' consensus. Rightly removed. However perhaps there is scope for a list of statements by 'thought-leaders' such as politicians outside science that go to the issue of the existence (or alleged otherwise) of the scientific consensus. eg, today an Australian senator said "Quite simply, the concept that there is a consensus on the science is one of many fabrications undertaken by the alarmists that has now been debunked."Cory Bernardi. Thoughts? ‒ Jaymax✍ 03:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Media headlines? "No consensus among climate scientists after all" The Australian ‒ Jaymax✍ 03:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

What sort of controversy there is
I moved the page, to reflect the wording of the intro. Then I tried to improve the intro a bit more, but the History says I changed it back. I did not intend to change it back: I must have pressed the wrong button or something.

Seems to me there are three disputes:
 * 1) a general public dispute: some people think scientists are all in agreement; others think there are a significant number who disagree with AGW theory
 * 2) a political dispute, which largely mirrors the public one (or maybe it's the other way 'round)
 * 3) even a scientific dispute, with surveys of scientists indicating anywhere from 5% to 20% disputing the IPCC "mainstream" statement about "90% certainty that most recent warming is due to human activity"

A neutral article would, of course, source all this stuff, rather than trying to find and proclaim a conclusion. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Whatever, but I don't like the new title - 'word soup' springs to mind, it's very difficult to parse. If what you want is an article about is The disputes about whether or not there is really a consensus about climate change then this doesn't really say that. I think that the complexity in titling this is actually a good argument for the proposed merge with Public opinion on climate change.
 * Re your point 3, I'm not sure where you get your figures, but the most recent peer-reviewed survey I know of is Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider (2010) that says that "97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers." --Nigelj (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't get my figures anywhere, because I don't have a dog in this fight. I allude to the various surveys and literature searches and petitions and pronouncements. I'm suggesting we list all of these, as these are the fodder for the controversy over whether there is a consensus.


 * Surely you are not saying that it's WP policy always to go along with the latest peer-reviewed survey? --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no need to stick in controversy, are you saying that you have made sense of what is before controversy by sticking controversy after it? Then what was before controversy made sense. Sticking in controversy and making such a long title does not make it into a common phrase either. I see you have been on Wikipedia for a while and that you actually do understand English and know the policies so I can only interpret your action in a bad faith light as deliberate disruption in aid of your Conservapedia agenda. Dmcq (talk) 01:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have reverted to the old title. The new title can be discussed here and we can see if there is some consensus on it or something else. I tried editing the new lead to something okay but then found the old lead before Ed rewrote it was better so have reverted to that too. Dmcq (talk) 08:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)