Talk:Scientific consensus on climate change/Archive 10

A note about polling
You got very shouty on your talk page and said quite explicitly: '''I'm not going to get involved in this dispute other than reviewing the protection and watching for further edit warring or disruption after protection expires. Please stop pestering me about this''. Have you now changed your mind? Based on your getting very shouty on the your talk page, I'm doubtful you are a calm and neutral party in all this William M. Connolley (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of these proposals contain a provision to reduce the protection prematurely. Polling on the protection issue misses the point. The purpose of debating here is to resolve the underlying issues that led to the article being protected. It's plain silly to poll on what the protection level should be, that's not really how it works. The protection expires tomorrow, discussion here should be focused on finding consensus on the NPOV tag and the issues that led to the edit war over it, that is the path to the article remaining unprotected in the future, not a majority vote, which is clearly not working out anyway.If edit warring recurs once the protection has expired, that will increase the chances of further protection periods and/or user blocks, which is not the outcome any of us want.  Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would add that calls to reduce the protection to semi seem misguided as well. The edit war was between well-established users, and there is very little vandalism in the page history, so what semi-protection would accomplish is not at all clear. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been pursuing things in good faith. I have asked people to come to a consensus on whichWP:DR we should pursue to resolve the underlying issue.  Notable editors refuse to even discuss it and some have even apparently threatened to edit war the template as soon as the protection is lifted.  I have also pursued some structural changes targetted at addressing the underlying dispute.  Certain notable editors saw fit to try and thwart that progress by reverting my changes back to a state which hinders rather than enhances progress.  In some cases these are the same editors who apparently intend to continue the edit war over the template. While I do not have any particular desire to see this article protected, indeed I would prefer that it NOT be protected, I do have an interest in seeing that the POV tag is not edit warred off the page.  Since edit warring is disruptive and the intent of some is plainly clear, I would ask that you consider extending the protection until we have some good faith discussion here by those who wish to continue the edit war rather than acknowledge and address the core issues, or there is at a minimum an agreement that the POV tag should remain until the underlying dispute is resolved. --GoRight (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting to find out what these "underlying issues" are. It is clear from the polls above that the tag isn't supported by a consensus of editors, and as it hasn't been justified it should be removed. Verbal chat  19:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you go back an review the prior discussion on this point. You have obviously not understood the points being made and perhaps some repetition would clear things up for you.  Repetition appears to be a core component of your mental processes.  --GoRight(talk) 19:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "It is clear from the polls above that the tag isn't supported by a consensus of editors, and as it hasn't been justified it should be removed." - No, the polls above demonstrate exactly the opposite. --GoRight (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is clear, all the supports and opposes for the various polls that included removing the tag show that there is no consensus for the tag, and still the content under dispute hasn't been disclosed. I'll stop repeating the question when it is answered rather than avoided, and the same goes for the clear admin abuse encouraged by you. Verbal chat  20:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "I'll stop repeating the question when it is answered than avoided" - I've answered it multiple times now. What is it you think is missing? "the same goes for the clear admin abuse encouraged by you" - What is that supposed to mean?  What the heck is admin abuse and how have I encouraged it?  I'm just a lowly editor for heaven's sake.  --GoRight (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Tedder abused his admin tools breaking both 3RR and PROTECT, which you repeatedly encouraged him to do on his talk page, coming close to meatpuppetry. You haven't answered the questions, you keep deflecting. Feel free to answer them. Verbal chat  07:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about requiring consensus FOR having a POV tag. Consensus should be required in order to remove a POV tag, I think.  ‒ Jaymax✍ 22:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct. --GoRight (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the consensus is against, clearly, and the tag has still yet to be justified. Verbal chat  07:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you see me getting involved in the actual content dispute? No, you do not. I got "shouty" because you would not let up in insisting that I get involved in it, despite my repeated "non-shouty" indications to the contrary. My concern here is that these "polls" are not going to alleviate the problem, and that edit warring will resume when the protection expires tomorrow. I honestly do not care at all about the outcome, as long as it is supported by consensus here and edit warring does not continue. Let's keep this debate focused on the issues not theeditors. And I'm not just talking to William either, there are some rather uncivil, ad hominem arguments being posted here. Personal insults are the last refuge of those who have run out relevant, logical arguments. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (misc disagreemtns glided over; continuing: ) My concern here is that these "polls" are not going to alleviate the problem, and that edit warring will resume when the protection expires tomorrow - in this you are certainly correct. This was why I proposed a 1RR limit - it won't make the problems go away, but it will make the edit wars more manageable William M. Connolley (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please put down the stick ... --GoRight (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this helpful? Verbal chat  07:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly, the polls failed to draw out any consensus solution - I thought we could find something that at least everyone could live with. I event thought (and still do) 1RR was a good idea, despite it being raised in a "counter proposal". Incidently, writing this, I acknowlege that's perhaps what your Proposal #3 was about, but given that #2 was introduced as a counter proposal to #1, and #3 echoed #2, I (and perhaps others) took it to be in the context of the broader issues raised there.  I would support 1RR as a stand-alone issue  ‒ Jaymax✍ 23:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Another Idea
(Moved from the RfC section by request of Jaymax)
 * Another Idea.  Suppose this article were renamed "Scientific Organization's Statements on Global Warming".  It would be a kind of enlarged list.  Then the only things that would be allowed would be statements by Scientific Organizations and there would not have to be any argument about whether the statements were "pro" or "con" but only if the reference was valid and correctly quoted.  Statements by individual Scientists would not be included (but would of course, be in included in the page on "Scientists who disagree" or whatever that page is called. As a list of scientific organization's statements it could be referenced in the main article as part of the idea of consensus as long as the list of individual scientists was also referenced nearby.  That would be NPOV. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not seeing how this allows balance and space for the sources that represent other opinions. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * By renaming the article it makes its purpose clear -- it is not by implication ALL Scientific opinion of "Climate Change" but is, instead, very specifically the statements made ONLY by Scientific Organizations (those would have to be defined and I would be willing to define it as "Formal Organizations with legal standing composed chiefly of scientists or with a focus on scientific research").  This allows balance and space for all organizations that that represent what ever opinions that they have.  If there are absolutely no organizations that hold opinions against global warming, then so be it. That is the way it is.  The article is STILL NPOV even if that is true, because it is always open to including statements by organizations that disagree.  At the same time, the article can have, as a link perhaps in the hatnote, to the "Individual Scientists who disagree" or whatever that article is called.  This would allow readers to go to both sides without wading through too long an article that reads like a war. --Blue Tie (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Finally I would add that by calling it "Scientific Opinion of Climate Change", it is has the appearance of being the final word on all scientific opinion -- even if it later says "well, we mean only organizations". Avoid the word "opinion" -- which is softer and squishier and say "statements".   Make it "Organizations" and then it can be balanced by the Individuals who disagree article.  To me, I fail to see how this is not the best solution for the readers. --Blue Tie (talk) 04:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me help you pass this ... how about excluding any reference to a subjective "organization" or "individual" POV in the title. Leave that out and then there shall be space and balance for an objective NPOV. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Blue Tie, thanks for splitting this off. There are actually two questions here: (1) The title, (2) the criteria for the organisations
 * On (2), I am curious about the possibility of broadening the criteria, although I'm far from convinced it would reduce the number of complaints about having any criteria and excluding individuals, but I think the matter deserves some attention, and may have merit even if it would not reduce some of the more misplaced criticism. I would like to throw into the pot notability - Perhaps, rather than being of national-or-international-standing, a scientific society which is notable per WP:N meets the threshold.  I am averse to the term 'organisation', prefer societies, (fellowships, academies, etc) where the membership primarily comprises individuals involved in scientific research, and connected by discipline, or be an all-encompassing society (such as the Royal Society) and set up in the pursuit of knowledge, rather than an agenda. Which sounds (and probably is) quite complicated, and might amount to the same set of organisations, but is more wiki-friendly, and does allow for the opinions of smaller societies to also be included.  There should be some demonstrable, even if weak, connection between a specialist discipline and GW (like atmospheric chemistry, or health effect mitigation).
 * On the title - I don't like moving away from Scientific Opinion because to do so is 'dumbing down' - the term seems to me to be universally used within the relevant community to mean what it means for this article. More particularly, the article also includes surveys of individual scientists, the survey being an alternate to the internal processes of a society to reach a conclusion.  It is not the time to be looking to hive off the surveys (he says, wearily, slightly begging).  So the title cannot be specific to organisations - that is more for the section heading.
 * But finally, one comment of yours has me wondering if there might be some misapprehension: There hasn't actually been debate (while I've been here) about whether organisations are 'pro' or 'con' - I've actually gone out looking for 'con' statements to include, because having one would deflect some of the accusations of bias - but rather they have been about whether the organisation and the source meet the relevant criteria. There don't seem to be any dissenters, and that might not change even with broadening of the organisational criteria. Thus the summarising statement that there arn't any in the list (however it is worded) may remain, and would continue to generate reaction.
 * ‒ Jaymax✍ 05:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sidenote on the title - try googling "scientific opinion -climate" and alternatives. It might be appropriate to pluralise to opinions, but that feels as wrong as, say, public opinions would when giving a list of public opinion survey results on a topic... ‒ Jaymax✍ 05:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion
I think entries in the organisations list should be notable Learned societies with some demonstrable interest in, or contribution to, global warming science, arising from the scientific disciplines they incorporate. Note that this might align to national or international standing, but more likely will broaden the field. ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm...seems like what you just said (notable Learned societies with some demonstrable interest in, or contribution to, global warming science, arising from the scientific disciplines they incorporate) is a long-winded version of scientific bodies of natonal or international standing. Unless you're advocating for including the Social sciences!  But that would be heresy!--CurtisSwain (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is a shift from the above discussion. Hasn't this been discussed at length already in the archives? is the intent to rehash it every time someone new comes in and asks the same question?Airborne84 (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Who's new? Anyway, Curtis is half right - but notability is wiki-friendly, and the "demonstrable interest in, or contribution to, global warming science" is something that has come up here in talk several times, I think with the consnsus that it is a requirement, but isn't included in "scientific bodies of national or international standing" and isn't formalised anywhere else AFACIT (Curtis, you're prob best to advise if anyhave been left out on that basis?)  ‒ Jaymax✍ 12:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm new, so I shouldn't be talking about new people... I just read through the archives of these articles (skimmed) a couple of days ago and it seems like we're discussing topics that have already been hashed through. Anyway Jaymax, I'm glad you're here (and many of the others) defending the accuracy of, and working hard to improve, these articles. I don't have the time to stay engaged for long, so I'll have to leave the task to better people than I!Airborne84 (talk) 12:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, stick around - surely you must realise by now how much fun we have! ‒ Jaymax✍ 12:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the issue keeps coming up shows that it has yet to be adequately resolved. The FAQ is for dealing with repeated questions, but nobody's written anything explaining or justifying the restrictions. I know (or believe), and many veteran editors of this article know (or believe) that looking at position statements, synth reports and surveys is the best way to assess the scientific community's thinking on any given issue. The problem is the average reader doesn't understand this and we don't have an RS that confirms it. Frankly, I think the problem and the continuing perception of POV and bias issues can be solved by loosening the criteria and including petitions and open letters, which are about the only thing the dissenters have on their side. Doing that would more adequately acknowledge the existence of the handful of scientists who disagree with the majority opinion. It would also clearly show that the dissenters are the minority. If the views expressed in this article are that of the vast majority (consensus), then we need to demonstrate that by placing the dissenting views along side and letting the reader compare the two.

Jaymax: well stated. Let's go with notable or demonstrable interest in.... --CurtisSwain (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "notable and demonstrable interest in..." ? ie: exclude, for example, the Mars Society (or are we at cross-puropses?) (edit) actually, they're not a scientific society anyhow, but you get my point... ‒ Jaymax✍ 12:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"notable Learned societies with some demonstrable interest in, or contribution to, global warming science, arising from the scientific disciplines they incorporate" that's pretty wordy. How about just notable scientific societies? Obviously, if a sci. soc, issues a position statement they've demonstrated an interest. notable scientific societies redirects to Learned society, excludes those flaky social scientists:) and is wiki-friendly as you say.--CurtisSwain (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is as I see it that the rationale for including this article in Wikipedia (looking at position statements, synth reports and surveys) could apply to many other related topics. The key to establishing the legitimacy of this article is finding a source which actually examines the development of Scientific opinion on climate change rather than what those opinions are at any one point in time as demonstrated by some of the statements made by various organisations. If there are not any, then I would say a merge is on the cards, and if that can't be achieved then its back to edit waring, POV pushing and all the other symptoms of there being no general agreement as to what this article is about. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * CurtisSwain, I agree with you in principle that the discussion regarding scientific disagreement with the majority must be covered. However, I can relate to you that I quickly found the link to that article when I visited this article about a month ago. I went to it and read through it thorougly. If you add it here in condensed form, that article would arguably need to be deleted. It seems that this overall topic needs to be sectioned appropriately due to its size and controversy, not combined (although that is just my opinion). Also, I found it useful reading through the article on scientists who disagreed. If it was condensed into this article - it would not have been nearly as useful. Again, any reader who comes here to be informed will do what I did - click the link to the "scientists who disagree" article and read it.


 * GC, I simply don't understand your rationale that this type of article doesn't belong in an Encyclopedia in any form. I believe your opinion on this to be idiosyncratic. You can see my comments in a thread a few above on that. The setup for the "List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" is very similar. It simply represents the dynamics of that topic. Further, I read that entire article and I found it very useful as well. Are you on that talk page arguing for its dismemberment or deletion? Logically, you should be doing so since your argument is against the inclusion of this format in an encyclopedia at this point. However, deleting these articles will not contribute to the knowledge of the reader that comes here to become informed. It will simply destroy their ability to gain knowledge. How can you support that concept on a website like Wikipedia?Airborne84 (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * With regards to wordiness, we could have a summarised criterion in the lead, the concice but full criterion below the section head, and a more 'helpful for editors' descriptive criterion in the FAQ. eg: (not suggesting these words especially)
 * Lead: Notable scientific societies
 * Section head: This list of notable learned societies which promote a scientific discipline which is related to global warming ...
 * FAQ: explain directly connected as being impacted upon by, or research into, perhaps with examples, etc
 * Perhaps the article list of scientists opposed ... should become list of notable scientists ... and have dissenting and supporting sections? For the lead here we need a source (and it should be out there) that explains why the opinions of societies and surveys of scientists are more notable than those of individuals and of self-selected groups.
 * ‒ Jaymax✍ 00:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's probably better that I don't get involved in the discussion as to the semantics of the title and lead. I agree with the way it is based on the other threads, but that's not say a change couldn't be an improvement. I will just say that it will be important to balance conciseness with accuracy. There's a reason why scholarly works tend to have three-sentence descriptive titles and "Newsweek" article titles are concise. The audience must be kept in mind. In regard to your latter point, it would seem that a source for the lead is the best way to go. Personally, I find it incredible that it needs to be explained why a scientist's opinion is more relevant than an average individual, but given the content of some of these threads it's probably better just to acquiesce in that area and source it. I'd like to help more, but I have a deadline on an article. I can only pop in to help guard the basement for a while.Airborne84 (talk) 08:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that there are more than just scientists have things to say about climate change or global warming - I believe there is a large body of work on this subject coming from economists and politicans as well. It is not acceptable to have a lead based on original research stating that the content of this article is limited to one group or excludes another, as is the case now:


 * This article is about scientific opinion on climate change as given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. This article does not include the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions

In order to demonstrate that this article is capable of meeting the requirements of WP:NPOV, the current hat note and lead must be replaced by a reliable third-party source that defines, even if only in the broadest terms, what this article is about. We can't leave the defintion of this article to personal opinions about what it is about, or not about. Just because an article is "useful" in the mind of one or more editors is not sufficient rationale for article inclusion, and won't resolve disagreements over personal opinions about the article's subject matter. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Such an approach is probibited by WP:NPOV which says "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents".
 * Be careful not to conflate NPOV with topic beyond what the rules state. This article is about Scientific Opinion, it must be NPOV within the topic.  For example, the artcle on Christianity doesn't discuss aetheistic views on christianity.  The bit you quote I read to be about segregating text within a topic.  However I agree that the topic itself, and it's notability, needs better sourcing.  FWIW: The article seems to be 'useful' on many thousands of external websites as well - that doesn't entitle it to exist, but does provide strong motivation to improve it.  ‒ Jaymax✍ 09:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * GC, would you like to answer the question of why you aren't raising this issue in regard to the hat-note for the "List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" article? Regardless, you continue to violate WP:SOAP which applies to "articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages."


 * I believe there is a large body of work on this subject coming from economists and politicans as well. Politicians are not scientists.


 * Your specific assertions about a more general (and acceptable) topic of discussion have no basis or support. This has been pointed out to you. Jaymax and CurtisSwain are engaged in productive debate about how to improve the article. You continue to revert to unproductive idiosyncratic arguments, most notably about "opinion" and "original research" in the current hat-note. If you toned down your rhetoric, you might get more support. Jaymax argues a stronger, more general version of your diatribes - but in my opinion entertains far more of your rhetoric than is merited. I, for one, will stop responding to your posts until they don't violate WP:SOAP and they represent a productive, logical argument.Airborne84 (talk) 10:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The point I was making is that this article's subject matter is more or less defined by a hat note which is unsourced. This is a fact, not rhetoric. My proposal is to replace the hat note and the lead with sourced coverage which addresses directly the title of this article. If you have a more productive suggestion that is better than replacing the current hat note with sourced content let us know, but as it stands, the unsourced hat note can be removed in accordance with WP:BURDEN. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

UCS backgrounder / Topic notability
This edit added a sentence on the Union of Concerned Scientists report "Who Are They and Why Do Their Climate Reports Matter". I do not see where this edit has been discussed recently here, nor does spot-checking indicate that it was in the article before. If either of these observations is in error, please forgive me. Elsewise, please remember to discuss potentially controversial edits and avoid edit warring. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I just took out that strange sentence. If the statement made in that sentence is to be included, it should be put in the appropriate place in the article. Count Iblis (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I put it in after a comment that we didn't have much in terms of secondary sources for the notability of the topic as a whole. TBH i didn't spend much time contextualising it, thought that would happen with time. And finger-slip resulted in no edit comment.  ‒ Jaymax✍ 00:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For info, below is the content
 * According to the Union of Concerned Scientists backgrounder on the IPCC "Who Are They and Why Do Their Climate Reports Matter", representing the range of scientific opinion on climate change fairly is critical to scientific credibility and political legitimacy.
 * ‒ Jaymax✍ —Preceding undated comment added 11:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC).

Note - if anyone wants to help, I'm looking for good WP:RS, including mainstream media, that uses the term "scientific opinion" or "scientific opinions" WITHOUT a prefix of 'majority', 'consensus', 'accepted', 'general', 'predominant', or 'prevailaing' etc - ie. using the term to refer to the range of opinion, or the set of opinions, rather than a singular opinion. (obviously needs to be in the context of AGW). The issue I'm having is too many search results accepting the singular, consensus opinion - thus clearly demonstrating the notability of the article topic here, but only statistically (ie: via WP:OR). ‒ Jaymax✍ 02:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Surprised at POV tag
I apologise if I am failing to follow procedure in my comment (I'm a newbie). I found this article when searching for information regarding the standpoint of scientific bodies in regard to mankinds contribution to climate change.

I found the article to be useful and informative. I did not observe any undue bias, with a great number of references and quotes. I was surprised to find it being challenged as having a non-neutral point of view.

Even after reading all the discussion, I just could not find one valid challenge from those who are complaining. There was no mention of scientific bodies whose positions are not covered. The one from Poland was dealt with appropriately as being just a subcommittee. Even then I didn't feel that the statement quoted showed a dissenting point of view, just the need for further study. In any science there is always the need for further study.

I don't think this article is intended as scientific fact, merely as a summation of the position taken by scientific bodies on man's role in climate change. It does that well.

I do not think that all the consensus should be condensed into a single statement, as it is useful to see each body listed and a statement from them.

Again I apologise if I am out of line here, but to be quite blunt, the only complaint I see against this article is how abundantly clear it is that scientific opinion, as represented by internationally recognised scientific bodies, is largely supportive of the notion that climate change is happening and is very likely greatly influenced by human activity.

If I am wrong, then please, all you have to do is find an international scientific body that presents a different opinion, or to show that these quotes are out of context. And if you can do that then I'm sure your information will be duely included.

Xtempore (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Xtempore, I understand your comments. I only started researching these topics a couple of months ago and started looking at these talk pages about a week ago. I finally realized that the reason so many skeptics with agendas are making strange and incomprehensible (to me) attacks on this article (among others) is because they can't find a dissenting opinion. For skeptics with strong feelings, the fall-back plan seems to be to attack this well-resourced article with whatever tactics they can drum up. I've seen some reasonable recommendations to make the articles better by considering all sides though, so I'm also glad these aren't primarily opinion pieces - it would make Wikipedia irrelevant. Stay tuned to the talk pages and weigh in with your opinion for consensus on disputes such as those you've seen. Be objective and you'll be an asset as an editor.Airborne84 (talk) 07:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, from the mouths of babes...Can we have these last two comments bronzed and placed at the top of the talk page?--CurtisSwain (talk) 12:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have also checked the page and don't see any NPOV issues. I think we can consider the page thoroughly checked. Verbal chat  13:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to retitle to "Climate Change Opinions"

 * Oh spaghetti, yes another re-title proposal.
 * Proposing this article be retitled to "Climate Change Opinions" (Please notice the plural on Opinions. This allows for a NPOV here.
 * Reason being it is a content union between Climate Change and Opinions. This simple change would avoid many POV disputes here and assumes faith that editors can balance the opinions in fairly attributed weight to the respective sources. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can name a reliable, third-party source that cites this name, then you are on to a winner. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt it very much (the winner part), since it doesn't encompass what the article is about. Count me as an oppose whether there is reliable sources or not for such a title. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "opinions" in an article title? Especially a controversial article? That looks like a NPOV nightmare. The article is necessarily very focused on accepted scientific consensus, this change is ill-advised. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't Climate change consensus the more appropriate article if any for such a name as it covers this subject? A rename is if another name wold be more appropriate for the subject matter of an article. If you believe the subject matter of this article is not suitable for wikipedia you should be proposing an WP:AFD instead. Dmcq (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyway do you agree that the NPOV noticeboard represents NPOV reasonably or are you in disagreement with the noticeboard about WP:NPOV? Dmcq (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really clear why we have two articles on what is probably pretty much the same subject: this one and climate change consensus. Is there some way other than grabbing both talk pages and their archives, and potentially subjecting my brain to an aneurism, to find out what's going on? Would somebody care to bring me up to date? --TS 22:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So you haven't spotted Economic opinion on climate change yet :) Dmcq (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Plus Public opinion on climate change though that's just a stub currently. Dmcq (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There's also Climate change denial Dmcq (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And Global warming controversy, I think I better stop looking. Dmcq (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I know of the other articles. It's only these two articles that seem to me to be on the same subject.  They should probably be merged.  Vague stuff like "Opinions on global warming" are unhelpful.  The understanding of public opinions on global warming is a separate subject (and the content might surprise many Americans, who are subject to a very limited range of views on the subject).  Economic views is a specialist subject and takes climate change as a quantifiable variable that provides an input into the economic decision-making process.  Climate-change denial is a bit iffy in my opinion; it's about a real subject but we haven't yet got a handle on it (possibly because original research by Wikipedians may outweigh verifiable information in that field.)  --TS 22:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Look at the the outline of the Opinion article ....
 * Good points above. What is really troubling me, is that as far as I can tell, none of the other GW articles have such offensive hat notes. I mean sources are not finding a proper home. What I don't like about the word "consensus" is it must be qualified about which something is specifically consenting to, else the reader must guess. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean this bit?

'Scientific opinions' are opinions formed via the scientific method, and so are necessarily evidence backed. A scientific opinion, representing the formally-agreed consensus of a scientific body or establishment, often takes the form of a published position paper citing the research producing the Scientific evidence upon which the opinion is based. 'The Scientific Opinion' can be compared to 'the public opinion' and means the complex collection of the opinions of many different scientific organizations and entities, and also the opinions of scientists undertaking scientific research in the relevant field.
 * What exactly about it means you want to remove the 'scientific' from this article when there is another article without the 'scientific' in its title? Dmcq (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This article reads like a Wiki survey of opinions expressed by scientifically oriented organizations, from that perspective it could be a synthesis of "scientific opinion". Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources for the title: I performed some Googling on the proposed title "Climate Change Opinions" and it appears in several sources as if to indicate support for the surveys included in this article. As I consider the proposed title further, in light of the current article title, this current article may, in fact, be a synthesis of "scientific opinion" created by restrictive hatnotes rules. Looking for I found sources to support the current title. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can cite your source, then we can all see what you mean. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 00:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I apoplogize I cannot do more than guard the basement right now. I'd like to be a more active participant in improving these articles, and I applaud those that are engaged in this effort. However, I oppose a further title change (although I found some of the rationale in the archives regarding a change from "climate change" to "global warming" to be worthy of consideration).
 * Without going into detail, this discussion is moving down the slippery slope that I thought it would (straight toward the basement). Changing the "scientific consensus" to "scientific opinion" is arguably OK, but a further change to "scientific opinions" misses the point of the article. "Climate change opinions" places the title squarely in the basement in that it does not accurately describe this article.Airborne84 (talk) 04:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is all well and noble, but what sources are you citing to support your proposal? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'll admit I wasn't as clear as I should have been above. I oppose the proposal in the thread. Airborne84 (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal withdrawn and motion to reconsider as Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Meta-discussion
It must be obvious by now that we're not going to get full buy-in to anything from everyone. The closest we have to consensus is "option 2" well above, now at 12 13-6 in favour. Nor are we going to have a focussed discussion on the talk page, without admin intervention - people are too ill-disciplined. There is an RFC still pending above - some of the "regulars" here haven't even bothered to respond William M. Connolley (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would note again (without prejudice to the rest of the proposal) that page protection levels are not determined by polling, and there has not been a serious problem with ip or non-autoconfirmed users, so the semi-protection provision is kind of toothless/pointless.Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * @WMC - That proposal is stale. It is discussing a NPOV template that is no longer on the page, and the protection in question has already expired.  --GoRight (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope. Equivalent template is in place, equivalent protection too. The proposal is current. Naturally, if you wish to treat your vote as expired I'll be happy to consider it 12-5 insteadWilliam M. Connolley (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait. What? William, do you mean Proposal #2 under the section protection as in:
 * Article down to semi
 * 1RR limit for all
 * Removal of NPOV tag

If so, then yes, that's what most editors agree on. So, we should do that.--CurtisSwain (talk) 01:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This site is not governed by majority rule. There is no consensus.  --GoRight(talk) 01:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * While that is true, it is also true that ‘’Consensus is not the same as unanimity’’:
 * …"after people have had a chance to state their viewpoint, it may become necessary to ignore someone or afford them less weight in order to move forward with what the group feels is best….Insisting on unanimity can allow a minority opinion to filibuster the process."
 * --CurtisSwain (talk) 05:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is the one. We've tried everything else, time for that I think William M. Connolley (talk) 08:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The filibuster is occurring over silly (waring) rules put forth by folks (possibly) acting on the sole behalf of the IPCC mission, as if they own the POV in this article. Addressing the NPOV issues without "feigned incomprehension" will move the article forward. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to say things much more clearly and not make it personal. As far as I can see you are saying that there is a WP:neutral point of view or weight issue with the article. What you primarily need for that is to show the consensus that the leader says is there is not there, you have to find a citation for a scientific society where the society disagree to a large extent with the conclusions endorsed by the IPCC. The statement there is verifiable, you have to produce aWP:Verifiable citation which contradicts it to some degree. Dmcq (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dmcq, point taken about sources which are many here. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * @Dcmq - "What you primarily need for that is to show the consensus that the leader says is there is not there ..." - That is a silly statement. You are, in effect, asking us to show that the majority here agrees that they have created an article in violation of WP:NPOV.  Such a thing can never be obtained since the majority will simply refuse to acknowledge the point ... exactly as we have been seeing over the past week or more.  --GoRight (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I too am puzzled (I'm ignoing the PA stuff). Which rules? What filibuster? Do you mean, you don't like proposal 2? If so, we already know that [[User:William M. Connolley|William M.

Connolley]] (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing personal intended ... it's all wiki business, right. Perhaps, I should make a few sourced content changes when the article opens .... then clarify things in an RfC here after the above one closes?  Seems like I should have an RfC go here. Would you agree, WMC? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There's quite a few there but they seem to be individuals and newspapers, could you narrow it down please to something relevant to the subject of the article? An official statement from a scientific society is what is needed not articles by individual scientists. Which ones do you think are especially relevant? Thanks. Dmcq (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dmcq, the sources are relevant for anyone who is open to accepting thisNPOV_tutorial. Talk about what "Scientific Opinion" means might be better directed to the Opinion article, where verified sources can be addressed there. Perhaps we should start a new thread here on the specific topic of these sources to provide a balanced "Climate Change Opinions" article here (please note the plural "Opinions"), yes?Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk)`
 * You seem unwilling to point to whatever it is that you think is relevant. It is up to you to show why the article does not have a neutral point of view. You have not done so. I have looked at the opinion article and I am pretty certain that if a lot of scientific societies say one thing and there aren't any that disagree to any great extent than they should be given much greater WP:WEIGHT than individual dissenting scientists. You have to find a scientific society or something of equal weight that backs up whatever point it is you have to oppose what is there. This article is about scientific opinion not climate change opinions in general.Dmcq (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I pointed to the sources (with my comments) and to the NPOV guidance. I have made changes and will add further sourced content to address my concerns. The article currently has undue weight (like a coatrack). When editors hold one opinion category as a distinctly separate article, they are attempting to negotiate a POV, which is in clear opposition to NPOV principles. Please do not dictate to me what I must do. Is there a reason why you find other than scientific opinions less then worthy for this article? Thank you.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The title is Scientific opinion on climate change. That is why 'other than scientific opinions less then worthy for this article'. This page is for discussing improvements to this article. The article Climate change consensus sounds like what you are looking for. If you were looking at an article on the Catholic view on the sanctity of marriageyou would not expect it to list the views of the Mormons or atheists. Dmcq (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wiki is about NPOV before any article title. The current title serves a narrow point of view. GoRight has proposed a merger with Climate change consensus.  I now propose this article is a content union with Climate Change and Opinions.  If I were where looking for an example of how "heresy" were where excluded from Climate Change Opinions, I would look to the current state of this article. Kindly Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You've got this neutral point of view thing wrong. It is about treating the subject dispassionately according to sources about the subject, it is not about some global consensus which extends down into each article. Please consult Neutral point of view/Noticeboard if you disagree with that. Non scientific opinions are not the subject of an article about scientific opinions. There is no overall consensus in WIkipedia about articles, they stand on their own. Tghis is not conservapedia or something like that where the overall ethos of beliefs has to be respected in each article. If you believe the article should not exist then you may nominate it for deletion otherwise the subject of the article is what this discussion page is about and nothing else. Dmcq (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your concerns Dmcq, and I checked the notice board. Could you perhaps point to some specific guidance for me to address your views on a NPOV?  I shared my specific references,.  It's difficult to asses "right" or "wrong" without some particular guidance.  Frankly, it seems like  a Non sequitur (logic) to argue one view is better than another when discussing NPOV ... if I understand correctly that is what you are attempting. With regards.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you be specific please and give a particular place in the article which is not neutral or one fact you'd like mentioned somewhere in the article that would make it slight better accord to NPOV? Not a great big list of names, just one statement in the article or one statement you'd like to see in the article plus one citation for it. Then we can analyse it according to WP:NPOVaor pass it over to the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard to see what they think there? Thanks. Dmcq (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_9 should address most of your questions about NPOV and this article I believe. Dmcq (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I reviewed it. Am I correct in assuming that discussion treated "global warming" as an academic topic to refute other views? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe it was treated according to wikipedia policies in the noticeboard about neutral point of view. I take it you think the noticeboard did not treat it according to your interpretation of the policy WP:NPOV? If so this is not the appropriate forum, either the talk page of WT:NPOV or the village pump about policies WP:VPP are the places to discuss the problem if you think the noticeboard is applying policy wrongly. However in the interim I believe consensus here would side with any decision in that noticeboard. Dmcq (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm still looking for an answer to what ZP5's 'The filibuster is occurring over silly (waring) rules put forth by...'' is supposed to mean William M. Connolley (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WMC, please tell me what you believe my statement means? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You made a statement. It seems you are unwilling to explain it. And WMC please drop it if he doesn't answer the first time. If it is very relevant to the subject I'm sure they would try harder to get the point across. Dmcq (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dmcq, I am willing to explain it and I would like to answer his specific misunderstandings. I would not like to make any false or bad faith assumptions about him. He can represent himself very well when he chooses. Thanks. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk)
 * You were asked to explain it and didn't. I have not asked for an explanation. There is no point in making obscure statements and requiring people to scratch around for meanings. Please discuss improvements to the article and lay off the puzzles, they don't help that I can see. Dmcq (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is directly relevant to the WQA "WoT" issue. Which Zp5 is nicely demonstatingWilliam M. Connolley (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 2 has enough consensus to be a goer, and the others are all non-starters. We can safely assume that it would be the most acceptable course of action. --TS15:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, that proposal is stale and a non-starter as a result. It is addressing a NPOV tag that doesn't even exist at this point.  The WP:1RR question wasevaluated on its own and soundly rejected.  --GoRight (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That was my, in retrospect overly bureaucratic, proposal to reduce 3RR to 1RR. Repeatedly reinserting a contentious change without clear consensus is still edit warring. I have not decided yet whether to allow protection to expire in about 24 hours and block liberally, or extend the protection until the RfC closes or there is a clear indication here that the article will not again immediately descend into abattleground. Any advice on this matter is welcome here or at my talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 1 for the current protection.
In the interests of finding some truly middle ground here, please consider the following: --GoRight (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Remove POV check request from the top of the article.
 * 2) Place a POV dispute template in the consensus section where it shall remain until disputes over that section and the consensus related redirects to this page are resolved.
 * 3) Article down to semi-protection.
 * 4) Normal editing rules apply.

Support:
 * 1) --GoRight (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC) (as proposer)
 * while reserving my right to subseqently support WP:1RR as a stand-alone issue ‒ Jaymax✍ 00:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I support the insertion of a POV section tag on Section 5 while it remains here. But, per below, protection levels are out-of-scope, and I like WP:1RR  ‒ Jaymax✍03:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Comment: I don't know how many times I'll have to say this before you all will get the picture. Page protection levels are not determined by polling. The protection is going to expire in the near future, and if edit warring comes back, it will likely be protected yet again, and/or blocks will be dispensed. Asking for semi is nonsensical anyway, the protection was in response to edit warring, not vandalism by new or unregistered users.Beeblebrox (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I find polling is occasionally a useful way to get a quick feel for the level of consensus or discord around an idea. But not for supplanting discussion. But I see your main point that such polls should not discuss protection levels.  (just like straw polls in jury rooms shouldn't consider likely sentences.) Fair enough, striking vote.  ‒ Jaymax✍ 03:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal #2
Counter proposal:


 * Article down to semi
 * 1RR limit for all
 * Removal of NPOV tag

William M. Connolley (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) CurtisSwain (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Verbal  chat  19:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Guettarda (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Count Iblis (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Ratel ► RATEL ◄  05:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Nigelj (talk) 12:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Why are we voting on this?  We don't vote. Just do it. --TS 21:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) Tjsynkral with the caveat that 1RR shall not apply to obviousWP:OR--Tjsynkral (talk) 03:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Apis  (<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">talk ) 13:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Airborne84 (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) --GoRight (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Brittainia (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC) This editor has been blocked for sockpuppetry, advocacy and edit warring. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) NPOV tag should remain until dispute is settled ATren (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Silly proposal, last I saw these eds where ignoring a NPOV dispute.  Are they now agreeing to a dispute? If so, then under wiki rules not there own. That's another issue with WP:OWN, like they can set the rules for a page.  I yield no consent to rules from heavily interested parties.  Mediators may help set rules.  Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree with semi, but do not agree with the other standards.  Although I am not aware of what the NPOV issues are, I suspect that if the article were renamed to describe "Scientific Organizations stated opinions" or something like that, it would be less subject to NPOV disputes.  It would be kind of a sister article to the individual scientists opposing list.--Blue Tie(talk) 03:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) We still have an absurdly pointless set of tags on the Anthony Watts (blogger) page, which I'm told need to stay there in perpetuo, because a AfD resulted in stalemate. The same editors arguing that the NPOV tag on this article is pointless edit-war to keep the Watts tag in place. Let it not be thought that a small group of Wikipedians are disingenuous & hypocritical; the tag needs to remain in place until the discussion resolves. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree - Yes ... right on ... renaming (without a single "Opinion" category) and following the structure set out in NPOV_tutorial would be simple help here for me and to balance better with the other articles. Zulu Papa 5 ☆(talk) 04:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Removal of the tag has nought to do with imposing a 1RR restriction.  As long as there is a dispute about POV, the NPOV tag is not a stigma on the article, it is only a notice that some people disagree.  Which appears to be a fact of life. Collect (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think that every controversial article should be tagged indefinitely? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You appear to misread my comment -- which is that where there is apparently substantial active disagreement, that a POV tag is not onerous to an article.  It is intended to inform readers, and not be a stigma for the article.  In the case at hand, there appears to be substantial and continuing disagreement, which has nought to do with "indefinitely" at all.  Is there, in fact, current substantial disagreement as to POV for this article at all?  Do you believe that the POV tag damages the article at this point? Collect (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The NPOV comment requires a reason. You cannot assert that the dispute over the tag is a valid reason for the tag, we need some actual dispute about the content of the page. Pages cannot be tagged indefinitely for no reason. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  17:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And the reason(s) have been stated multiple times. --GoRight (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not I that needs to point out that there have been a number of discussions on these topics regarding POV.  I only point out that where such discussions exist, that the POV tag is proper.  Indeed, this section on "proposal 2" is not the one in which to discuss whether POV exists, or what the POV might be. Collect (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

[indef blocked for Persistent WP:ADVOCACY, edit warring, and abuse of multiple accounts-Kim D. Petersen (talk)]
 * You can't undue someone's vote retroactively. They obviously weren't blocked when they made it.  --GoRight (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * By that standard if one individual voted 100 times using sockpuppets the duplicate votes couldn't be removed if the socks were later discovered. This comment shows more about your editing philosophy than you may intend. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have raised the issuehere. If this is indeed a confirmed case of an abuse of a sock I will remove my objection. --GoRight(talk) 01:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC) Updated:"This comment shows more about your editing philosophy than you may intend." - Aren't you the one that has been complaining so much about people impugning you with things that you did not state?  Please return to your glass house.

abstain
 * 1) While I would be okay with this, I am cognizant of it failing to address the concerns of others that led us here (concerns which, to me, seem at least partly valid, but which do not constitute POV, especially not on this page.); and I see no reason why we can't resolve those issues, while also simultaneously achieving the outcomes in proposal #2. ‒ Jaymax✍14:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Motion to close
Yes, there is irony with time invested in Proposal #2 and "Procedural disputes block climate accord" let the horse go in peace. Zulu Papa 5 ☆(talk) 18:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

GoRight: "The dispute is over the exclusion of the legitimate points of view concerning "the consensus" which currently occurs on THIS article"
I urge GoRight to drop this point. Because if this article is going to say anything about claims that a consensus does not exist, it can only do that by debunking such claims, as that is the prevailing POV in the literature. There are no two equal sides on this issue. A NPOV wiki article will have to say that the sceptics are wrong when they say that there is no consensus. I'm sure that this is not what GoRight wants to see.

Another issue is that the sceptic POV should be mentioned here on Wikipedia. But because this is a such a minority opinion, you could hardly mention that the Global Warming article without violating WP:Weight. That's why we have the Global Warming Controversy article. There is plenty of room to write about claims and counter claims on the scientific consensus there.Count Iblis (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Alas, you still don't understand the thrust of the problem. There is an entire body of topics, debates, and controversies surrounding "the consensus" that exist entirely within the public (as opposed to the scientific) domain and they have absolutely nothing to do with "debunking such claims".  In fact, my core argument here specifically relies upon the fundamental assumption that such a "scientific consensus" does in fact exist.  To provide but one such example, a discussion of the public opinion trends associated with "the consensus" is a perfectly valid topic of discussion that is wholly unrelated to "debunking anything" and doesn't rely upon peer-reviewed anything.  My NPOV issue is that this article, which given the current configuration of the redirects and wikilinks is the de facto "main article" on any discussion of the consensus, is systematically blocking any discussion of those public domain points of view.  So either allow them to be expressed here, or move the "main article" for the discussion of the consensus elsewhere.  Climate change consensus would appear to be a natural choice for such an alternate location.  --GoRight (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I do understand you, but if you include public opinions on the consensus, then everything that is written about the public opinion, including criticisms of some sceptical opinions is fair game. That will then likely open the door to far more editing disputes which will be fought with wiki policies like WP:Weight, WP:Undue, WP:RS. That's why content forking to move sceptical opinions to separate articles were they can be discussed in greater detail is better. Count Iblis (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's well enough covered in the denialism article, to my mind. We don't need to go into it specifically at all, really. --Nigelj (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Nigel, up a bit you say: "But whether or not greenhouse gasses are causing dangerous, man-made global warming is not a matter of opinion. Matters of opinion include issues like (list)" - I would add to your list: "whether or not there is scientific consensus that greenhouse gasses are causing dangerous, man-made global warming" as a matter of opinion. As evidence I would offer your local talkback radio station. This is the nub, I think, of GR's concern, and touches on ZP5's key concern I think. Proper coverage, not of AGW science (nominally factual) per se, but of thedebate around consensus, is stifled - only one side of the debate around consensus is permitted on this page, despite the debate around consensus being a hot topic with strongly held and strongly disagreeing opinions held my many. Why can we not cover the consensus issue (both sides) over at Climate Change Consensus which appropriatly kicks off strongly with the (overwhelming) majority scientific view - the contested section here is ALREADY duplicated there.‒ Jaymax✍ 22:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, per Scientific Consensus "Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method." - so is it appropriate to cover it in any depth on a page where inclusion criteria is largely driven by the sceintific method? ‒ Jaymax✍ 22:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, per NPOV, "there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page, if an assumption is best discussed in depth on some other page. Some brief, unobtrusive pointer might be appropriate, however." ‒ Jaymax✍ 22:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Would GoRight be happy with a link back to the Global Warming Controversy article?Alex Harvey (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, because there is already a spinoff from that article specifically dedicated to this topic, it is Climate change consensus. The solution I would prefer is that this article simply include a brief statement and a pointer to that article as the "main source" for this topic, at which point it only makes sense to update the consensus related redirects to point there as well.  --GoRight (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In fact, my core argument here specifically relies upon the fundamental assumption that such a "scientific consensus" does in fact exist. - Since the current article makes no POV claim based on this phrase (it only mentions that it is of interest and that several scientific organizations use it themselves), and since this article is about scientific not public opinion, it seems this argument is redundant. DHooke1973 (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

What is to be done?
It seems to be there are actually only three choices facing the editors of this article: The good news is that at least one reliable third-party sources exists that could be used to define this article's subject matter, but what is really needed is at least one more so that it can be categorically "nailed down". This article suggests that this article is about the development or evolution of, or periodic changes in the Scientific opinion on climate change, rather than the opinions themselves, or specific instances of scientific opinion. Once the subject matter of this article can be described or defined by an external source, I think you will find that the content disputes can be resolved without recorse to agruing over whose opinion is right or wrong.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Find one or more reliable, third-party sources that provide significant coverage regarding the title of this article which be used to define or describe its subject matter of this article in order to comply with the requirements of Wikipedia's content policies;
 * 2) If no reliable, third-party sources can be found to define the articles subject matter, then accept that this article is a content fork from the article Climate change (or some other topic), and arrange the merger of the two topics. For as it stands, this article's subject matter is so ill defined that its existence runs contrary to both WP:NPOV as well as WP:NPOV;
 * 3) Accept that no conensus can be achieved, and continue to engage in content disputes, edit warring and deletion discussions, which would be symptomatic of this article falling outside the scope of Wikipedia's content polices, in particular WP:NOTOPINION.
 * Question: What about sources that describe 'Scientific Opinion' in the abstract, rather than GW specifically? Do these help, or are they valueless here?  ‒ Jaymax✍ 10:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ignore the abstract and read the paper where all the relevant issues are discussed.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "what is really needed is at least one more" ? ‒ Jaymax✍ 10:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ...so there can be no dispute from relying on just one source to define this article's subject matter. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I should have been less obtuse. I read the paper you reference yesterday.  You say we need more than one - I am suggesting that another might deal just with the 'scientific opinion' aspect.  ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Until more sources can be found, I propose dropping the (unsourced) hat note, and adding the following paragraph as the lead:

Scientific opinion on climate change, as expressed by the United Nations-sponsoredIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has repeatedly stressed that global warming is a serious problem and that governments need to respond to this challenge promptly. While the scientific agreement that global warming is taking place and that its consequences will be severe has been growing, it is not a universally held position among experts. Expert disagreement and uncertainty over global warming is particularly likely when scientists are asked to offer broad conclusions, such as the rate of global warming, potential effects, and policy suggestions, which involves value-laden and often contentious discussions of what should be.

Surveys of how scientists view the status of climate change research, conducted in 1996 and 2003, demonstrated a significant shift in scientific opinion regarding global warming, though there remains some disagreement about whether humans are responsible. There has been a significant increase in the level of expert confidence in some aspects of climate change research, most notably land surface processes and sea ice, but scientists remain uncertain about the accuracy of scientific models that offer predictions for future consequences of climate change.
 * I feel this source coverage of Scientific opinion on climate change represents a considerable improvement over the existing hat note and lead section. --Gavin Collins(talk|contribs) 17:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Two problems with your proposal Gavin, (a) The source is a "political" science opinion, and (b)its a US organisation opinion and not a balanced world consensus option. Recommend looking for a source from climate scientists and a consensus opinion at that. Problems with vague wording "some disagreement", whats that then - 1%, 10% of scientific org opinions?.. or "scientists remain uncertain" about what exactly? this blurb gives a nice fuzzy interpretation of climate science as of today, with references to studies from 1996 and 2003, sure why not go back to the 70 and 60 for opinion, might water it down a bit more.. —Precedingunsigned comment added by Windandsea (talk • contribs) 18:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Problems, problems, problems. I am not saying this citation is perfect, but in the absense of any good source about the title of this article, it has got to be an improvement. If you can come up with a better alternative, all well and good. But in Wikipedia, reliable secondary sources such as this are valuable additions to any article. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would oppose this change for reasons adequately described already on this talk page.Airborne84 (talk) 04:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Gavin, please c.f. List of Conan O'Brien sketches.  ‒ Jaymax✍ 08:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think we will even find a source that is indicative of what any one or group of editors perceive to be the Truth™, but we can find sources that are verfiable and reliable, and replaced unsourced statements that are not. What ever objections Airborne84 has about this source, he needs to back up his assertions with some sort of reasoned arguement supported by evidence. Alternatively, if he can find a better source, then let him put it before us so we can verify it and check it for reliablity. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * GC, you're still operating from the incorrect premise that the hat-note consists of original research and needs changing. I can't count the number of times you've asserted this with no agreement from editors. To make it easier for you to read the paragraph in WP:DISRUPT on Tendentious Editing, I'll paste it below for you.


 * Here are some hints to help you recognise if you or someone else has become a problem editor
 * You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people. If your arguments are rejected, bring better arguments, don’t simply repeat the same ones. And most importantly, examine your argument carefully, in light of what others have said. It is true that people will only be convinced if they want to be, regardless of how good your argument may be, but that is not grounds for believing that your argument must be true. You must be willing to concede you may have been wrong. Take a good, long hard look at your argument from as detached and objective a point of view as you can possibly muster, and see if there really is a problem with it. If there isn't, it's best to leave the situation alone: they're not going to want to see it and you cannot force them to. If there is a problem, however, then you should revise the argument, your case, or both.
 * Cheers. Airborne84 (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it fair to say that my proposal is the only one sourced by significant coverage from a reliable secondary source that is indpendent. If you have source that is at least as good as or better than this in the sense that it addresses the topic in detail and without original research, then bring it on, but so far we only have your opinion that the hat note is not original research, when what is need are citations to back up your viewpoint. Without a citation to support the hat note, you opinoin carries no weight what so ever. Accuse me of what you will, but the incluison criteria for a standalone article in Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary. So far you provided nothing that suggests that this topic is suitable for inclusion, other than asserting that the hat note is all that is need. To that I say the emperor has no clothes. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "Two problems with your proposal Gavin, (a) The source is a "political" science opinion, and (b)its a US organisation opinion and not a balanced world consensus option."
 * (a) The source is NOT a political body, but a scientific intergovernmental body. Unless you want to change the Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change page too. (b) How is it NOT the balanced worldwide opinion??

"The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change is the leading body for the assessment of climate change, established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences.

The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. Differing viewpoints existing within the scientific community are reflected in the IPCC reports."


 * I submit that the IPCC is in fact the ONE and ONLY expert source that does indeed summarise worldwide scientific opinion, because (i) it is created for that very purpose (ii) its reports contain information supplied by the worldwide scientists DHooke1973(talk) 01:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no "problems" with the source: it is a reliable seocondary source, and it is probably the only one cited in the article whose subject matter matches the article's title in the sense that it is actually commenting upon the subject of Scientific opinion on climate change. Whether the source is biased or not is a matter of opinion only, but what is important is that it is not original research: if the reader can check the source of the statements made, then at least it is verifiable, whereas the old hat note was not. Also it is the only source cited in this article which attempts to establish the notability of the article topic "Scientific opinion on climate change". In fact, it is possible to say that this article is not a content fork, because it cites significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that is independent that address the subject matter of article topic directly and in detail, without original research. I see that as a benefit, not a "problem".--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Gavin, I dont have issue if that source is from IPCC, but the second part of your suggested quote i have issue with as outlined in my prior response. Your Ref title is [The Structure of Evolving US Scientific Opinion on Climate Change and its Potential Consequences], from the 'American Political Science Association' thats not IPCC.Windandsea(talk) 18:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the time to participate in talk page discussions
I just had a quick look now, but I'll be too busy in the coming few weeks to do much here. However, since the discussions here are going nowhere anywhere, I reserve the right to revert the page back to the current version which includes the hatnote defining "scientific opinion". Any inclusion of political opinions (even about the scientific opinion) is i.m.o. unacceptable. There exists a scientific opinion on climate science and it should be possible to have a wiki article that exclusively contains that scientific opinion which is 100% free of political noise, opinions of lay persons etc. etc. Count Iblis (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So do you support replacing the existing consensus section with a brief comment and then a reference to the corresponding section in Climate change consensus? I've already shown thatsection in that article is more complete than the one here.  This would move the non-scientific opinion BASED discussions you want left off of THIS page to THAT page leaving this one uncontested (by me at least). --GoRight (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Iblis, I think all but one editor here pretty much agree with you, including most of those who see a NPOV issue. ‒ Jaymax✍ 03:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Count Iblis, your statement is right on the money. GoRight's proposal also seems reasonable in that it:


 * 1. Doesn't represent an attempt to merge article on a huge topic that needs separate, structured articles.
 * 2. Leaves the dynamics of a useful article (this one) intact and undiluted.
 * 3. Directs readers interested in information on the "consensus" to a more complete article -adding to knowledge, instead of subtracting from it.

I'lll admit there were a couple of aspects to the article GoRight mentioned that merit adjustments though. Conversely, if the change isn't necessary to help solve a huge rift between the editors, it may not be warranted. Cheers.Airborne84 (talk) 03:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Count Iblis, are you under the impression that you WP:OWN the article?--Tjsynkral (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree 100% with Count Iblis. The inclusion of political or any other non-scientific opinions is unacceptable.  This article is for people who want to cut through all the propaganda ("most scientists agree", "most scientists refute", "there's a consensus", "there isn't a consensus", "the consensus in growing", "the consensus in crumbling", "there's a growing body of skeptics", etc.)  This article gives people what the scientific community actually says and in their own words.  I also agree with GoRight and Airborne.  If for nothing more than brevity, we should lose the whole consensus section.  I've gone back and forth on this, but the word "consensus" is used in 7 of the statements this article quotes, and there's really no point in beating it over the readers' heads.  Besides, the whole debate about "consensus" gets rather ridiculous with people arguing whether is means 100% unanimity or simply a vast majority (it actually can mean either).  So, yes, the consensus section should go, and non-scientific silliness should stay out.--CurtisSwain (talk) 11:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This would go a long way to resolving my NPOV concerns with this page. However, if people are not currently aware of it there is a movement afoot that would make my proposal above moot, see.  Now, if the Climate change consensus article is deleted and split between Public opinion on climate change andScientific opinion on climate change I would find it acceptably NPOV to maintain a "scientific consensus" section in each of the two articles and cross link the two (i.e. the one here points to there and vice versa).  Under that scenario the scientific position statements could stay in this article.  --GoRight (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds quite reasonable.--CurtisSwain (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's completely reasonable that scientific position statements would stay in this article. If they didn't, this article would be blank. Anyhow, there seems to now be no objection to removing the POV tag immediately. Adding in a "see also" link to a "public opinion" page is fine, but has no bearing on the POV-ness of this page either way. DHooke1973(talk) 23:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I had time to create a new article :-)
See: User talk:ZuluPapa5/Climate Change Opinions‎

This intends to:
 * 1) Keep the purist "Scientific opinion" in a separate article. (With brief acknowledgment and link)
 * 2) Content fork the surveys from here into the new article
 * 3) Merge Economic opinion on climate change into a section
 * 4) Save Public opinion on climate change into a "Historical opinion" section
 * 5) Create space and balance for "Editorial opinion" and 'Advocacy groups" sections


 * I predict this article will long survive the horde of noise, before the tide rises to swallow the wiki servers and humanity. (Smile it's just humor.)

Being my last two creations were deleted. Let's talk about this content fork and union here please. Sincerely, Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * How does that topic really differ from Climate change controversy, and the more narrowly focussed Climate change consensus? (just realised abbreviating to CCC in talk isn't such a good idea)  ‒ Jaymax✍ 03:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That one is really called Global warming controversy. We don't need yet another page from ZP5 at the moment. Settle down William M. Connolley (talk) 09:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WMC, as far as I am concerned, you may lead the way to merge in the CCC articles for which you have expressed disapproval. That could help moving things forward here. (smile)Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Good work ZuIu, I think it's a great idea that has lots of potential. Various groups of people have made public proclamations of their views of global warming/climate change, business groups, religious groups, etc.  The article could become a valuable source for readers who want to know, "Hmm, what does the Catholic Church say about AGW?  What do Buddists say?  Economists?  The insurance industry?..etc.  However, you might want to change the title to Opinions on climate change.   Your working title kind of sounds like the climate itself holds an opinion.--CurtisSwain (talk) 10:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, "Opinions on Climate Change" would be a better title and that article could serve as a NPOV over-arching article that links to this one for the scientific opinion. Other categories of opinion could start as sections within that article and if they get too big could be spun off like this one.  We sould have to reconcile that article with Climate change consensus andPublic opinion on climate change so that the purpose of each is clearly delineated. --GoRight (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Agreed, I'll change the tile and post redirects for the draft old title. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent idea, separation of science and all other options (media/political/economic/religious) can only help in adding clarity to this topic, as today there is so much noise generated by the fringe opinions and media opinions that they are presented on even paring with scientific opinions/papers/evidence based theories. How will you divide the article weight for each category - in order of importance to average joe (eg political options first comprising of 25% of article length, next importance my guess is religious opinion 15% etc) Windandsea (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, let's work with something we already know and can easily quantify. For example, we know that the world's population is a little over 6.5 Billion and we know that some 2,500 scientists have a consensus on the scientific opinion.  So, roughly (2,500 / 6,500,000,000) * 100 = ~0.00004% of the column inches should be dedicated to the scientific opinion in comparison to the rest.  Make sense? --GoRight (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC) YMMV on my calculation for the appropriate weight of the scientific opinion. :)
 * Not sure i follow you GoRight. Are you arguing that each of the 6.8 billion personal opinions are of the same weight as scientific, political, media, religious org opinions, or are you just taking the piss because you dont approve of this new opinion article, that it goes against your own 'personal' opinions on climate change. if so, i suggest you create your own personal reflections blog. Windandsea (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Opinions must be from reliable sources for wiki, please. The 6.8 billion have a role in addressing the issues, but are off topic forum here.  Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I guess I had my tongue planted a little too firmly in my cheek on that one. First, I am generally supportive of the article on opinions so your last bit doesn't seem to apply.  As for the rest of my comment I was merely making the (tongue in cheek) point that when determining the relative "weight" of Public vs. Scientific opinion the applicable ratio would be 6.5 Billion to 2,500, roughly speaking.  Obviously this is an upper limit, though, there could be other weighting approaches ... in reality there not only ARE other weighting approaches THEY would most likely be the ones actually employed.  --GoRight (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will start a talk page with FAQ for the draft article. Also, I believe that if "climate change" issues are going to progress in society for a meaningful purpose, they must be open to all disciplines, and not solely the realm of scientific research. As far as deciding weight, I propose to organize sections along the lines of disciplines found in a university. The weight will work it self out in space in balance to the sources. When necessary, separate content forks can be created for space expansion, as long as a balanced summary remains and the fork itself is balanced. For now, merging in other articles may be beneficial to bring these issues together in one place. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "For now, merging in other articles may be beneficial to bring these issues together in one place." - Agreed. --GoRight (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

How this proposal covers this dispute
As stated above, this article would be summarized and content forked in the newly proposed balanced NPOV article. This discussion belongs here. Thank you. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I should place this template Template:Topic_co-ordination_link on the articles in question, yes?Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk)
 * No - you shouldn't. Because there is no consensus for such a discussion. (and in all cases it doesn't belong in article space). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Please notice the 2RR ,, with no talk from the 1RR proposer. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No William M. Connolley (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Question: What course of action will folks consent to for including content with the sources listed? Zulu Papa 5 ☆(talk) 15:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Since most of those sources do not match the article's topic, they shouldn't. It is impossible to determine scientific opinion from single individuals, and from non-scientific sources, which i guess is a horse carcass that has been beaten to death by now. Some of these sources may have relevant places (according to weight) in Climate change controversy or other articles, but since they are indications of individual disagreement (or opinions from non-science sources) they do not belong here. --Kim D. Petersen(talk) 18:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Pardon the persistence, what makes these sources a "Controversy", but for "Scientific Opinion"?Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Try carefully reading my comment, you may also want to wander through all the other comments that have been made on this point. I see no merit in explaining the same thing again and again and .... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've gone through all the archives and participated in this talk for some time. What I've seen and agree with, is GoRight's assertion that this article requires greater space for acknowledgment of "controversies" to be balanced in a NPOV. My apologies, did you see that in the dispute here?   I made several proposals to move forward, perhaps I should now share my draft RfC proposal?  Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, i have seen it, read it, and responded to it quite a lot of times. So have rather a lot of other editors. Making proposals that from earlier discussions have little to no support is a waste of time. You can submit your RfC if that is what you want - but please do not wave it around, whether or not there will be an RfC has no impact (or shouldn't have any impact) on how people see issues. (let me be more specific: If people are acting in good faith, then saying that this will end up with an RfC is not a way to change their views).--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems strange to me that you are creating an article which covers the same area as Climate change controversy. And as far as I can see the reasoning is that you have some citations for climate change controversy that don't fit into this article so they should go somewhere else. I think you are trying to say they should be in this document but it looks like you've tried to change the name of his article so they would actually fit as they don't fit the current topic of this article. Could anyone explain what is happening here please? One reason for the controversy is because of the scientific opinions but putting it in this article would be completely againstWP:WEIGHT. There are lots other reasons for the controversy that have nothing to do with scientific opinions - people wanting to keep their jobs, people not wanting to reduce their standard of living, general scepticism and conspiracy theories, religious nutters wanting to end the world or whatever. Dmcq (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * My intention is not to reinforce "controversies', but to present multiple opinions and assume good faith in the reader. To explain, this article is a WP:coatrack for the IPCC.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Question Are there any climatologists in the Holy See? DHooke1973(talk) 04:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Scope?
See climate change vs. global warming. We should use some consistent terminology, otherwise it's unclear what this is about. On a cursory examination it seems mostly about global warming, so I think it should be renamed. Pcap ping  11:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Global warming - increase in temperature Climate change - change in weather patterns Global warming is a behavioural subset of Climate change.. [Climate change] is the consensus scientific terminology used today, as it incorporates global warming, along with many other topics not mentioned in global warming article. Windandsea (talk) 14:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

See "Archive 9" for example ... "How about the title Scientific view on global warming and current climate change, since global warming is what is happening on average globally, while climate "change" is the local temporarily current disruptions due to the on average warming (the overarching current event). As a side-note, both of those terms miss the broader scope of gases & soot (greenhouse & "forcing agents"), deforestation, mass species extinction, rising oceans (with loss of dozens of small nations predicted), drying of soil & increased rainfall intensity (degradation of agriculture, loss of potable water), ocean acidification, softening of permafrost (buildings and trees falling-over) with methane leaks from the land and lakes (even catching on fire), ocean acidification (corals dying, shell of shelled sea animals softening and the collapse of entire ecosystems), etc ... being discussed at COP-15 by the vast majority of Heads of State of the entire planet. Polar bears dying-off and glaciers melting are minor in the big scope of the trends viewed around the world." 209.255.78.138 (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So, the guys that promoted Global warming to FA status were all wrong and misguided? It seems that WP:UCN applies here. Pcap ping  15:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Peer review
A peer review has been requested for this article at Peer review/Scientific opinion on climate change/archive1. Since this seems to be an article that is subject to a lot of disputed edits, is it stable enough for a peer review? Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg;22:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It has only just come off protection William M. Connolley (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Scientific Opinion linking to Opinion
I reverted an edit that removed the wikilink to Opinion. Scientific opinion should have it's own article. Any good writers want to volunteer to author one? (I've been collecting useful source material at User:Jaymax/Scientific_Opinion). ‒ Jaymax✍ 09:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Mea culpa. You're quite right. It's the opinion article that was the problem, not the link.- DHooke1973 (talk) 09:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have created the discussion page on Jaymax's article:. --GoRight(talk) 17:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Three reverts rule?
I got warning that I made two reverts. My intention was to protect the content from changes made by William Connolley. I was trusting Wikipedia until I read on Internet about his activity on behalf of radical AGW. Now you can block me :)


 * Allegations of impropriety made against William M. Connolley by Lawrence Solomon in the National Post and then repeated uncritically by James Delingpole in the Daily Telegraph were addressed in this discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. --TS 00:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the hint. I read it, and I find defence of WMC rather unconvincing. I was browsing his edits for days and I find them quite depressing. I will look at Wikipedia with grain of salt after that. One more illusion is gone :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.189.3 (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please leave personal comments about other editors out of the talk pages. Dmcq (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

hatnote removal
I've reverted gavin.colin's change from the hat-note, to something that is based entirely on a single source. First of all, as we've discussed earlier, i don't believe that there is consensus for such a change. And secondly because the change is to something that is less neutral and more value-based than what we are attempting with this article... We've been through 4 AfD's where this has never been an issue - so i rather doubt gavin's interpretation of policy.

To be more specific: We are not (and should not be) taking a stand as to what the scientific opinion is, or what it means - but instead just focus on documenting what it (currently) is, per the limitations set out in the hat-note. We can't and shouldn't make statements on what individuals think or whether there is an opposition or not (unless it falls within the scope of the article), since that invariably will make us/the article take a stand, and move away from NPOV. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC) To be brutally honest, I think this hat note is not about scientific opinion at all: it is acutually acting like a sort of teritorial marker, which says this article is WP:OWNED. Lets face it, "formalized" scientific opinion is too vague a concept to be meaningful. It is a sort of code, along the lines of "formalized" scientific opinion = Truth™. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia:Reliable sources states that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves". Since there is consistent disagreement about the title or the scope of article (even the third opinion seems to have his own personal view on the matter), it seems to me that if a "Scientific opinion on climate change" has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, you would want to cite those sources as the start of this article so that it is clear that the article satisfies the inclusion criteria for a standalone article. Maybe there have been so many title and content disuputes about the article (not to deletion nominations), perhaps any change seems threatening, but I would have thought the addition of high quality sources would be the least of your worries and would actually contribute to resolving all these disuputes. I am not sure how you are going to make any progress without good sourcing. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC) Until earlier today another version of the unsourced hat note existed. Now there is another one. It seems to me that opinion is cheap, and is likely to be changed every time someone takes a dislike to it. If sourced coverage is the currency that buys credibility for an article topic, I would have thought reliable, third party sources that address the articles subject matter directly and in detail are the gold standard which we should all be working towards. WP:OR says "Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented". So in answer to KimDabelsteinPetersen, it is not a deadhorse that I am flogging, I am merely arguing in favour of applying the three core content policies that determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. So far, Jaymax has argued that a Google search is sufficient to justify having the current hat note in the lead section, but I don't think that arguement is worth much in terms of currency that buys credibility. Restore the sourced material and lets take it from there as Dmcq recomends.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that because you believe the hat note represents the truth, where as reliable secondary sources do not? Don't forget that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I belive that is not the consensus in Wikipedia, but here as well. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't represent "truth", it represents the limits that we've agreed upon via consensus, over a long period of time. The article is entirely based upon reliable sources (to rather extreme degree even) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments on User_talk:Jaymax/SO_Hatnote would be appreciated. ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Then if it does not represent the "truth", why would you want to lead this article with a statement that is original research? I don't see how you can base consensus on original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not altogether happy with the change but I think it was much better than the hatnote. I think it should be put back in and people try editing it rather than going back to the hatnote. Dmcq (talk) 11:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have to correct KimDabelsteinPetersen: there is more than one source replacing the hatnote. If there is an objection to those sources, then name then give reasons. Just because you think it is consensus, is not a valid reason. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Gavin, what, specifically, are you saying is OR? Can you rephrase the statement that the lead makes that you regard as OR?  Is it that scientific opinion is limited to societies, or what?  What I want to dig out, is whatit is that you see, that others don't - getting you to rewrite what you see may make us all go 'ahhhh' (but I'm not betting on it :)  ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the hat note is not sourced, the statements of opinion it contains cannot be verified. It says This article is about formalized scientific opinions on climate change. What source says this? What is a "formalized" scientific opinion?
 * For the record, I just changed official to formalised. Again, how can you source a statement that says 'this article is about ...' - it is illogical. There may be an implicit statement that should be sourced, but, just as it's impossible to source a statement that says "This article is about the bow used to play a string instrument.", it is impossible to source a statement stating what any article is about. You need to clarify a specific implicit or explicit statement that is not self-referential to the article, that is contained in the lead. ‒ Jaymax✍ 12:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is possible. If a reliable secondary source that is independent addresses the subject matter of the article topic directly and in detail, it effectively defines the topic. Look at lead of the article Accountancy for example. It does not say "This article is about...", it simply discusses the subject matter without having to resort to original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "formalized" scientific opinion = Truth™ is/was not my intent. And I agree it's vague. Aristotle apparently listed (paraphrasing some guy named Otfried Höffe) the weighting criteria for deciding controversy as "wide distribution, a certain amount of justification, venerable age, and the support of recognized authorities". Considering the first and last of those is what gives us 'formalised'; the second of course gives us 'scientific'. ‒ Jaymax✍ 12:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 'This article is about ... ' is standard wikipedia disambiguation template text intended to assist people who might come to an article expecting to find something different. ‒ Jaymax✍ 12:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing "standard" about the hat note as it stands. It attempts to define the article's subject matter, without providing any verifiable source for that definition, and because of that, it will always open to challenge in accordance with WP:BURDEN. It may say what you want it to say, but regardless of whether your opinion is right or wrong, it is your statement of opinion. Whether your opinion is correct, a matter fact, the truth or divine revelation, I cannot judge. But if I replace the hat note with significant coverage from a reliable secondary source that can be verified, it may not be perfect by any means, but at least it can be verified in accordance with Wikipedia policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What is my 'statement of opinion'? What the article is about?  Is the hatnote at article Bow_(music) a statement of opinion?  I am really trying to work out what you're getting at here.  ‒ Jaymax✍ 13:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your statement that this article is about formalized scientific opinions on climate change is a matter of opinion. What is "formalized" scientific opinion anyway? Does it involve scientists wearing suits & ties, as opposed to white coats and protective goggles? You do realise that "formalized science" is not defined anywhere in Wikipedia, let alone "formalized sccientific opinion". What is your source for this statement? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not still on about this, are you Gavin? I have been through this, at length, with you on your own arguing this exact point, for days, and so have others here. An article's title and its hat note do not need a citable source: As long as there's enough verifiable and cited material to make an article, and the title and hat note describe the content of the article, that's it. It's a sub-article of one aspect of a bigger subject. You're going to have to think of something else to debate with us here, as we can't all just keep debating this forever with you alone. --Nigelj (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm done as well, I have made a genuinely good faith attempt to understand your issue, but I have failed. And all my attempts to reference other examples, so that perhaps an analogy or comparison might, perhaps, enlighten one of us, by some difference or similarity, have gone un-addressed.  ‒ Jaymax✍ 14:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My parting gift Google "formal opinion" ‒ Jaymax✍ 14:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for labouring the point, but whilst an article's title and its hat note do not need a citable source, they can't exist simply as a hook on which to hang original reasearch. Whilst the term "formal opinion" may appear in a Google Search, the fact that does not make it any less the opinion of Jaymax as to how this article is defined.
 * We are relying on reliable third-party published sources, and it is rather hard to think of organizations with higher reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. And we aren't relying on "opinions of Wikipedians" - in fact we are doing so less than most other articles, since we are including every reference that falls within the scope of the article. Your "consistent disagreement" is rather overstated, and seems to be the opinion of a minority of editors. We have been through 4 AfD's which indicate that notability certainly isn't the problem (all with a very clear consensus for keep) . Can we please stop beating on this dead horse? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC) [just for fun Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)] [stricken the AfD comments since the milestones section was for another article (now corrected) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)]
 * I think it is fair to say that this article contains lots of reliable, third party sources, but there is still a problem with the key lead section, in that neither the lead not the hat note address the subject matter of this article topic directly or in detail, nor without resorting to original research. If you have a better proposal for the lead, bring it on. However, a hat note based on the opinions of Jaymax, is not as good as reliable, third part sources, I think you will agree.

Third Opinion
I have never seen this article before and am responding to the request for a third opinion.

The article was much better without the changes to the lead from Gavin Collins. Those changes miss the point of what the article is about. However, I think it would help if the name of the article was changed so that it better reflected what it is about. I suggest Collective scientific opinion on climate change.

Yaris678 (talk) 12:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It is difficult okay. I'm not keen on the formal or collective because it is simply scientific opinion and all the individuals dissenters are not represented because of WP:WEIGHT rather than by the definition that removes them in the leader. However without such a word in people will keep arguing for inclusion of all sorts of things that more properly belong in an article like global warming controversy or climate change consensus. Dmcq (talk) 12:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Though i do appreciate the input from Yaris678 - I've removed the WP:3O tag, since there are significantly more than 2 editors disagreeing on this. The correct venue for getting extra input would be an RfC. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * GC, I can't say I'm surprised that you unilaterally changed the hat-note. Please refer to 2/0's comments in an above thread:


 * Short version: only edit if consensus has been reached at a relevant talkpage section, referenced in the edit summary, or you are reasonably confident that other editors with whom you are collaborating will not object to the change.


 * Did you not read that or do you not care? I oppose the change. What consensus have you built? Please address the question instead of launching into another diatribe which will just cause me to repost the section on Tenditious Editing. Airborne84 (talk) 00:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I know Jaymax was making a good faith effort, but I think all (or at least most) of us can agree that we don't need a modifier like "formal" or "official". Although those may be accurate descriptions of the position statements, they're not quite right for the synthesis reports, and they certainly don't work for the surveys.  So, can we at least agree on removing the word  "formal"? --CurtisSwain (talk) 08:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've got no objection to it's removal. ‒ Jaymax✍ 08:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Done.--CurtisSwain (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

That's good. Now, I have a worry about the use of the plural "scientific opinions on climate change" in the hat-note. I think there is a subtle difference between this and the title of the article, "scientific opinion on climate change", One includes the possibility of everyone's scientific opinions, but the other, the subject of the article, is about the collective opinion of science itself, of the body scientific. I think we should lose that s. --Nigelj (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Singularized it like the title (there's a new word) Dmcq (talk) 16:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=singularize
 * But anyway, I think it should be plural here - The article reflects scientific opinion, by collecting scientific opinions according to criteria intended to ensure they are representative. (See new section below). I think it's right that the lead introduces the plural opinions that we collate.  ‒ Jaymax✍ 09:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

add IPCC context and mission per talk?
I've just removed this. ZP5 added it with an edit comment of add IPCC context and mission per talk but I don't see the consensus to add it. Per what talk? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

To be clear: this article isn't the IPCC opinion on climate change, and although that has been suggested often it has been rejected often. So over-emphasis on the IPCC in the lead is wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 12:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * To de-emphasise the IPCC in the lead, we need a different strong source for the statement of consensus. If IPCC continues to be used as the 'starting point' for separating the article into 'concurring' and 'dissenting' then it's not so terribly wrong to give the context in the lead as well - But it would be better to move most reference to the IPCC in the lead into it's Synthesis Report section?   ‒ Jaymax✍ 00:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see why you need a different strong source. I don't think you will find a better source - unless WMC knows different? However, if you want to de-emphasize the IPCC in the lede, then there is still no need for any citations other than the IPCC report itself. How many climatologists' work is outside IPCC remit? Anyway, the sources in the article itself back up that the majority claim. DHooke1973 (talk) 01:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The IPCC is just an assessment of the state of the science, just as the Climate Change Science Program (now USGCRP again). It is the assessment that is most used in this context, but not the only one. If you compare the USGCRP and the IPCC reports they say must the same thing. So the emphasis on the IPCC is understandable, but misleading. And a description of the IPCC seem quite off topic here (thats what wikilinks are for). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for talking WMC. This article is lead by the IPCC statements, the IPCC mission provides context for these statements. .... KPD ... "A description of the IPCC seem quite off topic here" ... Folks progress in this article is continues to be obstructed by uncompromising editors who insist they must define the article POV. How unreasonable is it to have a simple sentence stating the IPCC mission? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyone who wants to see what the IPCC is about can follow the link. It's not necessary to duplicate this material in every article that mentions the IPCC (or any of the other organizations in the article for that matter). Oh, and calling everyone who disagrees with you "uncompromising" and "unreasonable" really isn't in the Christmas spirit. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's reasonable to have greater context then a link. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is off-topic/unreasonable here because this article has nothing to do with the mission of the IPCC (or the IPCC), thats something that can (and is) described in-depth at the IPCC wiki-article which is linked. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Get real KDP ... this article would not exist but for the IPCC mission and statements. And it should be included for context. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is very likely that an article such as this would exist without the IPCC mission and statements, since the science still would say the same thing (the IPCC still doesn't do science - it assesses the state of the science). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * KDP, I find your arguments to be approaching Absurdism, while is a strict sense the IPCC mission may not be the logical subject of this article. In all good faith to wiki humanity ... the IPCC mission is relevant, notable and sourced for inclusion here.  Please show faith and allow a compromise so we may move forward. I've added the IPCC mission to the IPCC section. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We were told not to do any edits here without consensus, and you clearly haven't got a consensus. So i've reverted it. I've already told you my objections (as have several others)... Calling them absurd is not really getting us anywhere does it? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Where would you like to go with this, KDP? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Zp5 has made two more changes that clearly lack consenus. I've notified 2/0 William M. Connolley (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2009(UTC)


 * See WP:BRD please. Now discuss your revert, WMD. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk)


 * I think that has already been done. Article is not about IPCC. Science would be the same without the IPCC.
 * IPCC are a strong and reliable source, but that does not mean the lede need bother explaining who the IPCC are. DHooke1973 (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see my point above about Absurdism.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk)
 * There's hyperlinks to them and a bit t the top of the section saying see the article for more about them. The name itself is also pretty self-explanatory so I really don't see why more needs to be said about them here. One of the big advantages of WIkipedia over a conventional encyclopaedia is how much easier it is to click on a link and find the associated information. Dmcq (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Links are fine however, this issue requires not to cite the IPCC 'out of context'. Since the IPCC mission takes on a discourse and convention, as to its object of analysis. Reasonable context for the statements will occur when the IPCC statements are placed in their mutual coherence relationship between the statements and mission.  Without the mission the IPCC statements may be interpreted incoherently. I've seen evidence for this in wiki. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I saw your point about Absurdism, and it's the same as your current point about Absurdism. That is, it isn't a point, it's an unsupported assertion.
 * What Dmcq said about links.
 * "Since the IPCC mission takes on a discourse and convention, as to its object of analysis" is not especially coherent.
 * DHooke1973 (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't see why the context is needed and it seems out of place in the main text, but as it is my wont to compromise, would others agree that the cited mission of the IPCC be given between "ref" tags as a footnote to the first mention of the organization? Awickert (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Per WP:silence I am about to proceed with Awickert's proposed compromise to foot note the IPCC mission. The issue could be better addressed in the main text, however footnote is ok with me now to move on.  Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well i still don't agree - for exactly the same reasons as i've given before (IPCC is not in focus here). Silence here only means that the only proponent for such a change "left" for a while. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Am I to assume you are uncompromising here KDP? The IPCC happens to be front and center in the lead, yes. The IPCC findings are what many of the orgs reference, Yes.  The IPCC is the major proponent of the singular scientific opinion presented in this article, YES!  I am puzzled by your consistent negativity. If you offer no consensus, than perhaps you should consider silence. What will you consent to KDP? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, i can see no rationale whatsoever to include anything about the IPCC's mission statement. The IPCC is an assessment report of the scientific literature on the subject, just as the US CCSP, had the latter been earlier, all the organizations would refer to it instead of the IPCC. It is not the IPCC which does the findings (the IPCC doesn't do any research itself). There is no such thing as a "major proponent" here (unless you are speaking about the parity of the scientific literature). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The IPCC mission statement helps to attribute the IPCC source with RS material that is beyond your opinion. When you say "no" to including the IPCC mission, you may be unreasonable to wiki principlas for source attribution. You are ignoring my stated rational. Sorry if I may be trespassing on your views about the IPCC, but can you see RS atribution is necessary given the NPOV RFC underway in this article? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Copying the IPCC mission statement into a note is not attribution, it doesn't add value or any missing context to the articles, it would just be clutter. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:FOOT "Wikipedia 'footnotes' serve two purposes. First, to add explanatory material, particularly if the added information would be distracting if written out in the main article. Second, they are used to present citations to reliable sources that support assertions in the main article." With the substantial value the IPCC has contributed to this article, the IPCC mission adds derivative explanatory value to provide the reader with the IPCC's motivation. The negation of the IPCC mission as clutter, seems odd. No one wants to defile this article.  The mission statement helps the reader appreciate the IPCC's solical political context.  No matter how much science seeks to run away from this, it's a scientific reality (and sourced). Wiki has room for a footnote. It not like it's some kind of squatter now is it. Open the article to a footnote and be done.  Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is not here to make the reader "appreciate the socio-political context" of the IPCC. That is what the article on IPCC is for. We are also not here to describe each scientific societies mission statements, which actually would be more relevant. It doesn't add value, and thus it is clutter. (btw. i think you need to brief up a bit on English "defile" seems to be a rather far-out word here). Science is not "trying to run away" --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I said "help" you said "make". You can stretch my words into the absurd, but the reader benefits by their choice. While you are seeking to withhold from them.  That's a selfish goal.  The negativity offered seems to be for your purposes (no clutter, no value, no context) with little faith in the wiki reader to say "yes" under their own choice.  Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Peaceful meditative silence here is good faith to proceed. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

&rarr; I have blocked for 31 hours for edit warring. Please do not let this affect this discussion if it is productive. Please also remember to discuss potentially controversial changes here first, point to the relevant consensus in the edit summary, and do not re-revert or otherwise edit war. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

American Geophysical Union article

 * "Recently a major study in the American Geophysical Union's official publication, the Journal of Geophysical Research, supported earlier research in concluding that least 80 percent and perhaps far more of the observed warming over the past half-century is natural. Factors well beyond our control, such as cloud cover... matter far more than we do. " &bull; Ling.Nut 09:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Individual studies like that go into Climate change consensus. Dmcq (talk) 11:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, and without all the gratuitous puffery. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What criteria are you applying Dmcq, to direct this scientific opinion? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In summarising the breadth of scientific opinion it's inappropriate to concentrate on a single paper presenting a minority opinion. --TS 16:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's basically it. Individual studies just don't cut it in the weight department for an article like this when measured against the statements of the scientific societies. The article Climate change consensus deals with the wider business of the public perception of whether there is a scientific consensus and so if the study has been used in any notable way in that debate it certainly should feature there. It might also be used in a more specific article about the subject of the study. Dmcq (talk) 21:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe this is the article being discussed. It appears to have been published in July of this year.  Like any scientific article, its level of legitimacy and significance will be determined by how well it's received by the scientific community.  Either the consensus article or the main Global warming article may eventually be the right place for it if it proves its worth. --CurtisSwain (talk) 23:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm no climate scientist but on a quick read of that it's clear to me that it is only the first step in showing anything meaningful about climate change. Fora start no explanation is given of why the Southern Oscillation does what it does so there is no strong implication one way or the other in the correlation. It needs a lot more digestion and comment before people can conclude anything from it. Dmcq (talk) 23:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The article's main point is that there is a correlation between ENSO and global mean tropospheric temperature, to which anyone conversant in climatology would respond "well, duh." The article also contains lots of errors, such as the assertion that climate models don't include ENSO. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I am inappropriate, but sounds like folks are saying this source carries no weight, therefor "scientific opinion" criteria are irrelevant? That would be worth reconsidering. Does anyone have faith it can be properly attributed? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 06:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Can WHAT be "properly attributed"??--CurtisSwain (talk) 09:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it carries no weight at all. I'm saying the weight is too small for an article like this which lists things like scientific societies and synthesis views. Individual scientific papers contribute to an opinion, they don't describe the opinion. Dmcq (talk) 09:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A paper in a journal is a statement of the scientific opinions of the individual authors, and excluded as such according to our current criteria. If the criteria allowed for this paper, we would have to include every other paper.  I see this as potentially a good _example_ of the lack of unanimity, in the presence of strong consensus, at Climate change controversy.  ‒ Jaymax✍ 09:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Scientific opinion on climate change is ...
Para 1 currently reads "Scientific opinion on climate change is given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. This does not include the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions."

We need an adjective to make it make sense, because "Scientific opinion on climate change" DOES "include the views of individual[s]" - it is the article which doesn't, and I think we can do better that be arbitrary. We need a word that distinguishes what makes polls, synthesis, and organisations from individuals to make that para true. Someone chucked in 'official'; I tweaked that to 'formalised' to make it slightly broader, and Curtis rightly removed it. But what IS it that distinguishes the opinions we collect here, is it that they are "representative"? Is there a better word? What is the fundamental reason we distinguish between the two, and can we get it defined in a word (or two?)

We can all see it, all define it in a paragraph, and it is an obvious inference for the great majority of visitors to the article. But 'obvious inference for most' doesn't feel very encyclopaedic - and yes I know the bolding indicates the statment is about the article, but still...
 * ‒ Jaymax✍ 09:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that is mainly there for the various climate change sceptics who want to insert their dissenting opinions. They take a paper by some scientist who finds problems with some aspect of climate change and turn it into a dissenting scientific opinion. As to the specifics, why do you say scientific opinion includes the views of individuals? As normally understood it doesn't as far as I'm aware except when one goes deep down to find the strength of the opinion. For instance with evolution I'm sure it is possible to find some scientists who'll say earth was created 5000 years ago and men and dinosaurs walked on it together in harmony, but that is not scientific opinion by any stretch of the imagination. Dmcq (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, a scientific opinion is any opinion formed scientifically, whether held by an individual or formalised in an organisational opinion paper. This 'specific' is key.  See User:Jaymax/Scientific_opinion/Refs - Polanyi, who has had much to say about Scientific Opinion, said: "Scientific opinion itself cannot be said to exist except as the opinions expressed by person, who are recognized as scientists." - If you can find a ref that defines scientific opinion to exclude individual scientist's scientifically formed opinions, I'll be delighted to add it to my list!  ‒ Jaymax✍ 13:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So you quote the author of 'Life's irreducible structure'. Well I can easily see them rejecting anything like scientific opinion as an overall concept. Possibly consensus view or something like that would be better as a title but if you really wish to reject the idea of scientific opinion as used by this article you should try changing the consensus at the Opinion article first. How would you characterize the standing of evolution as opposed to irreducible complexity or suchlike? Dmcq (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought this was getting nailed by "Scientific opinion can be used either as a count noun or as a mass noun" et seq (User:Jaymax/Scientific opinion). After that is it not simply a matter of linguistics? We have "a scientific opinion" as Jaymax defines above (anybody's); "scientific opinions" - lots of the same, still relatively meaningless; finally we have "scientific opinion" itself - the collective opinion of the body scientific. It is the latter that forms public opinion and policy, puts men on the moon, and that is taught in schools and in universities etc., that usually stands for centuries before being tweaked, and very rarely overthrown by something bigger and broader. What does Thomas Kuhn have to say about this in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions? Lots of relevant stuff about paradigms and consensus (I don't have a copy), maybe not the exact pairing "scientific opinion" followed by a neat definition, but I think our anti-scientific friends here are scraping the barrel when they say that they contest that there is any such thing until we can prove that there is. --Nigelj (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dmcq: "you really wish to reject the idea of scientific opinion as used by this article" I do NOT want to reject the idea of scientific opinion as used here, and I WROTE the definition at opinion. What we have here is an article that addresses the collective mass-noun scientific opinion, by listing 50+ representative count-noun scientific opinions, from polling of individuals, from societies (of individuals), from synthesis (of papers written by individuals).  Regarding scientific opinion as an overall concept: you really should check out those refs.  Polanyi doesn't reject it, he not only embraces it, he puts it on a huge pedestal.  ‒ Jaymax✍ 22:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well thanks for that opinion article as it has saved some arguments here. I don't see what your problem is, societies are not the same as a collection of individuals because they come to consensus decisions. You may have written that bit in the opinion article but it would be reverted or changed without consensus. It is no longer purely what an individual wrote. Dmcq (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Societies published opinions ARE different to individual's opinions, and carry much greater weight.  All I'm saying, is that the fact should be touched upon in the lead, perhaps by inserting a word '____ scientific opinion on climate change is', which summates WHY we don't list individual's scientific opinions, and makes sense leading into the second sentence. ‒ Jaymax✍ 23:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I would use the term "collective scientific opinion" for now, as I suggested at 12:19 on 19 December. If we can write a decent article on "scientific opinion", which clarifies this issue (and is in article space, not a user sub-page) then maybe we can revisit the issue. Yaris678 (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggest applying a convention for singular "opinion" when there is a mass POV (unified group or individual in weight) and plural "opinions" when there is countable diversity on a topic or issue that may be quantified in range. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)
Consensus to include this organization has failed to materialize owing to overwhelming opposition and multiple identified issues. Please take this to Reliable sources/Noticeboard if a second opinion is desired.

Is the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) actually a part of The Heartland Institute or how is it funded does anyone know? Dmcq (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it needs any regular funding, since it's not an ongoing organization with a staff. Heartland and others fund its meeting(s). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See also International Conference on Climate Change from which the NIPCC sprang.--CurtisSwain (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess also being funded by Heartland doesn't automatically make an organization non-scientific though it might instill doubts. The major reason I'd say it wasn't a scientific body is that it was set up specifically with a point of view and the people who join it are selecting themselves as being biased that way. In science one aught not start off with ones conclusions. Dmcq (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It makes it not of 'national or international standing', so WP:UNDUE here. --Nigelj (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The funding of an organization, although relevant, should not be the criteria for deciding whether it is scientific in nature or not. The important thing is the method: it uses reviewed and published data and studies, discloses its methods and opens its results for criticism. Science is about intellectual openess, curiosity and honesty. I have seen no explanation of undoing my edits, aside from the NIPCC being "un-scientific", without further explanation of this claim.
 * Yes, the NIPCC was set up because they had some doubts about anthropogenic climate change, and it is not hiding it. Its just the same way that the IPCC was set up because they supposed something was going on.
 * "National or international standing" is a convenient way to discard a non-governmental organization which you may not agree with. Julien Couvreur (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence that it is a scientific organization? (aside from assertion of the NIPCC/Heartland? (who are the members?)) Do we have any indication that it has had any impact on the scientific opinion? In fact: Is there any indication that it is taken seriously from a scientific point of view? (my answers would be: No, No and No. - but please show that i'm wrong) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It was not set up in the same way as the IPCC. If the IPCC was set up that way it would start with the result that there was global warming and the people in it would be self selected for their bias that way. There's a big difference between the scientific method and people with an agenda. And yes it isn't an organization of anywhere near the same calibre as the various scientific societies listed in the article. Dmcq (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is good to see that governments and politicians don't have bias. In that sense, the IPCC is less scientific than the NIPCC. Also, the "self-selection" argument is unconvincing, as any researcher working on a topic is self-selected. 01:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In this case, as far as I'm aware, NIPCC's influence is not of international scale. It might have influenced, possibly, a now defunct American government.  It now influences no government of which I'm aware, it has no influence on the science because it doesn't summarise the peer reviewed literature in the same way IPCC does.  It exists solely, as does Heartland, to sow Fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) on well settled science that threatens its interests.  --TS 20:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the criteria of "influence" have to do with deciding if a piece of work is scientific or not? Similarly, whether an issue is supposedly settled is orthogonal to whether some work is scientific. Julien Couvreur (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is clear that the NIPCC even exists, in a meaningful sense. It looks to me like Singer and a few cronies, presumably with someone else ghostwriting the docs. What JC says above is pertinent: its methods are unclear, it avoids the P-R literature, its reports are not open for review before publication, it is dishonest William M. Connolley (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, no author takes responsibiliy for any chapter - it's a collective work (or, more likely, the work of the two listed Heartland editors pasting together the standard sceptics arguments). 20% or so is a list of (alleged) signatories of the discredited OSIM petition. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a summary report which does put together all the critiques of the IPCC report in one consistent volume. Each chapter provides detailed references for the sources, with individual authors. Richard Lindzen was apparently good enough to contribute the IPCC report (as lead author for one chapter), so he presumably is good enough to criticize it too (both the analysis, results and the process). Julien Couvreur (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The report is listed here as a synthesis report, but going by the list of references (last page of the preface there's no way it qualifies as one. ‒ Jaymax✍ 22:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you care to clarify your point? Maybe read chapter 1... Julien Couvreur (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Fair enough - for the benefit of others: it appears each section is followed by numerous journal references. ‒ Jaymax✍ 01:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess I have a problem considering a group of individuals gathered together to deliver a predetermined result (the NIPCC), to be a scientific process - regardless of the credentials of the people involved. Am I missing something? Airborne84 (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * While I have the same problem, I think we'd need some very strong independent secondary source to state authoritatively that the outcome was truly pre-determined. It'd have to establish that there was zero possibility of the prior opinion of the authors being unchanged in the presentation of the report.  And I don't see how that can be established.  ‒ Jaymax✍ 01:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

A discussion about the membership self-selection bias in both the IPCC and NIPCC could benefit from reliable sources. Is there any source to distinguish or discuss these? It might even be worthy of a paragraph or section in the article for specific context to how the "scientific opinion(s)" were formed. Self-selection bias is a relevant and valid scientific topic along with many others in List_of_cognitive_biases. Specific sources should lead the way.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I found a few reliable sources on the IPCC version of "scientific opinion" still looking for the NIPCC.
 * Call, Vincent, "SUPPORT FOR CALL FOR REVIEW OF UN IPCC" nzclimatescience.net, 09 March 2008,


 * Morano, Marc, "Disband UN IPCC? The Dirty Politics of Climate Science", Right Side News, 27 November 2009


 * Morano, Marc, "IPCC Scientist Calls Global Warming Fears the Worst Scientific Scandal in History", Right Side News, 17 June 2008


 * Heiser, James, "Poll Shows Belief in Global Warming is Declining", 23 October 2009,


 * CFACT, "Climate realists to ice down IPCC fever at CFACT’s International Climate Eco Summit", 10 December 2009
 * Scherm, H. "Simulating uncertainty in climate–pest models with fuzzy numbers",Environmental Pollution, Volume 108, Issue 3,   June 2000,   Pages 373-379


 * McLean, John, "The IPCC's dubious evidence for a human influence on climate" October 2007

Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Crook, Clive, "Trust the Public on Climate Change", Financial Times, 14 December 2009

After reviewing these, and the article talk above. I am arriving at the view there is substantial skepticism within the IPCC about the role of natural sources in climate change. No wonder the "opinion" on this page seems off balance. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Please review WP:RS. Your current interpretation is severely at odds with the current interpretation. Neither "Right Side News" nor "CFACT" nor opinion pieces are are reliable sources for anything but the opinion of the author. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for providing the wikipedia guidelines to support the discussion. I would consider NIPCC a "significant-minority view" according to this framework. Do you have specific concerns about the reliability of the NIPCC work, authors or publisher? Julien Couvreur (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 'Arriving at the view' sounds like synthesis or original research to me. What you really need to do is find some renown society or some such institution like the ones listed which gives an opposing view. Dmcq (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What is it exactly about the ones listed which makes them listable? Surely you can't mean government-sponsored ;-) Remember that the page is called "scientific opinion on climate change", not "majority opinion" or "mainstream opinion". The authors and contributors for NIPCC report surely appear to be credentialed in the scientific field. That said, credentials alone are not proof of good scientific work, but it should shift the burden of proof to show that the work *is not* scientific, rather than the opposite. Julien Couvreur (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Most of them are government sponsored, do you have some conspiracy theory going about governments colluding about global warming? They certainly seem to have been good at their cover up! Why is that that people always seem to be saying things wrong of others what's most wrong with their own case rather than finding specific differences, it's weird. Look all you have to do is get some report from the National Instiute of Higher Studies of Shambala or Wu or wherever that supports what you say, Tuvalu probably wouldn't mind some money for instance so the Heartland Institute could probably get something notable there. Dmcq (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks to Stephan Schulz as with any other opinion, they originate with the author(s). Now, I suppose this is the stage where folks apply owned "expert" opinions to discredit one author over the other?  Well, I say we must have a diversity of attributed opinions to represent "scientific opinion" so this article may have space and balance for a NPOV.  The NIPCC provide a balanced view to the IPCC. The editorials provide the context on the imbalance of each. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see Scientific opinion. This article uses the singular referring to official declarations as opposed to the views of individual scientists. Grouping a bunch of scientists who are opposed and giving them some grand sounding name is not the same as having a reputable body which has done an impartial review of the science. Find some such body if there is such a case to be made. Dmcq (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Dmcq, I am sorry to insist but you did not actually answer my question. What is it exactly about the ones listed which makes them listable? Is being government-sponsored the criteria? Is that what you mean by "official"? What is the criteria which makes one synthesis report more acceptable than another? Julien Couvreur (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect it's what they're not that is important in this case. They're not ad hoc organizations set up to push a specific point of view.  --TS 23:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That reference I gave said it all and referenced Scientific community for the institutions, what was the problem with that? In particular read the bit there about 'Speaking for the scientific community' there. You might also want to follow the reference there to learned society there. Dmcq (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC) (and exactly where are these sharply discounted rates that are a major benefit for members that are noted in 'learned society I wonder)


 * Reliable sources are defined by what they are, and are attributed as such. Attempting to reject things by what they are not, is simply unfaithful to what they are and can be. The sources have a role in this article, now let move forward on the proper weight. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Background to RfC

 * Yes it is balanced. Given that, no it doesn't need an NPOV tag. Yes, 1RR limit would help avoid disruption William M. Connolley (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the Consensus section only is unbalanced. The POV tag should stay while the article includes a section on the debate around whether there is consensus, but restricts that to only contributions to the "popular discussion" from scientific societies.  The section is already duplicated at Climate change consensus, and striking the section here and adding a brief pointer, per NPOV, would resolve the POV issue.  ‒ Jaymax✍ 23:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Given the current configuration of the two articles, what Jaymax said makes a lot of sense.--CurtisSwain (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "The POV tag should stay while the article includes a section on the debate around whether there is consensus, but restricts that to only contributions to the "popular discussion" from scientific societies." - I agree. This is in essence the point I have been making and it is the basis of my proposed solution above.  My only other related point is that as long as the redirects and wikilinks related to a discussion of "the consensus" are used to direct people here (thus effectively establishing this as the "main article" for that specific discussion) then there is still a problem, IMHO.  I have begun the process of trying to rectify that specific point but my efforts yesterday were "hampered".  --GoRight (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The article topic is too poorly defined to enable any consensus to emerge. The reason is that it is a content fork from the article Climate change. identifying the article as a fork is not hard to do because the form of the title runs contrary to Naming conventions, as it uses the convention "Scientific opinion on...." in its title which seperates in from Climate change in name only. I have not seen this done for any other article topic, i.e the "opinions" (aka the sources) are never seperated from the overarching article topic (climate change). --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 00:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This hatnote, "This article does not include the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor lists of individuals such aspetitions" demonstrates a POV issue with the article for excluding views and many sources in the article history.  The IPCC mission should be included for context. In addition, other opinion categorizes must be briefly included (following NPOV_tutorial) to balance the article view. The title should be explicitly objective following category guidance. As is now, the article is a Coatrack for "documenting" .... "scientific opinion" as singly manifested by the IPCC mission.  No org mission should be held above Wiki NPOV, non-negotiable. There are sources to reasonably summarize and include other opinions here. Edit wars can be avoided when warriors abstain. No need for 1RR if the warrior(s) acknowledge their waring and abstain. (Thanks for the RFC. Let me know if anyone has questions.) Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional comment:The Heartland Institute NIPCC report should be given space and due weight as a scientific opinion for NPOV balanced scientific opinions in this article. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (Mostly duplicated from above) As long as this article is being utilized as the "main article" for a discussion of "the consensus", as evidenced by the fact that redirects and wikilinks referring to "the consensus" are bringing users to THIS article, then the discussion of "the consensus" on THIS article must include a discussion of viewpoints (i.e. from the public domain) other than purely peer-reviewed ones. The fact that the peer-reviewed argument is being used to prevent those other points of view from being included is the source of the NPOV dispute on THIS article.  So, there are two possible options for resolving the dispute:
 * Move the discussion of "the consensus" to a page where the peer-reviewed argument won't be used to eliminate discussion of otherwise valid points of view, or
 * Allow those points of view to be expressed on this page as WP:NPOV demands.
 * I have been pursuing the first approach as this will enable those who prefer to have a place that describes only the peer-reviewed opinions to continue to do so, although the termpositions would be more appropriate. The dispute is not over the listing of the scientific positions of the various organizations represented here.  The dispute is not over attempts to undermine the scientific credibility of the positions articulated on this page.  The dispute is over the exclusion from THIS article legitimate points of view from the public domain which focus on "the consensus".  --GoRight (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with GoRight. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's a thought: The primary purpose of an RfC is requesting outside input. And as usual, the outside input is being drowned out by the same old folks restating their same old positions. Let's reboot the process and those of us who've already stated our positions ad nauseam agree to back off and let others get a word in. What say? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Beeblebrox said "it would be best if each made a brief statement here summarizing their position" - some are more brief than others - follow-on discussion (including this entry of mine) is mostly unhelpful ‒ Jaymax✍ 03:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * GR, would you consider removing your discussion reply to me; ZP5 would you consider removing your disussion reply to GR; Curtis, would you consider moving your comment to be its own statement; Jaymax, would you consider deleting your discussion reply to SBHB?  Oh, that's me, right, yah sure - I'll do it once it's had time to be seen by the involved parties.   ‒ Jaymax✍ 03:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC) collapse in good  ‒ Jaymax✍ 06:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This article is about the scientific opinion on climate change, which is distinct from, and not impacted by (but has impact on) the political or public opinion on climate change. The article does this by describing the views from major scientific bodies, and surveys that try to determine scientists opinion - as such it has included all viewpoints from these aspects. What this means and what, if any, impacts this view may have on political or public opinion and the debates about it etc. lies outside of the articles purpose, and is discussed at Climate change consensus, Global warming controversy and to some extent at Politics of global warming. Perhaps we should have another article as well called Public opinion on climate change (seems there is a lot of material), but it certainly doesn't belong here.--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Q: Who's "purpose" does this article serve? And how?Zulu Papa 5 ☆(talk) 04:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It serves the purpose of describing the scientific opinion on climate change, it does it by documenting every official statement that has been made from major scientific bodies on climate change as well as all surveys that we know of that have been conducted on the subject (including two from Bray & von Storch who are "unofficial" (ie. unpublished)).--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You may have confused "purpose" with "function". "Purposes" serve an intended subject (i.e. a person or org, while "functions" serve another object.  You have described, "scientific opinion" as an object here.  I have not seen you identify who (person or org) the article serves? Sincerely, Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Kim, does the article also represent the Pielke's perspectives, he leads a fairly large group of researchers after all, and does it represent von Storch's, Zorita's (yep, there are more bloggers out there these days). Does the article represent the UAH's views (Christy & Spencer)? Does it represent Lindzen's group's views? I think this may be GR et al's point.Alex Harvey (talk) 05:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We do not document individual opinions, nor do we document self-selected lists of specific viewpoints - such as the 1700 british scientists who just signed a statement to confirm that there is a consensus. The reason for this is simple: They do not show what the collective opinion is - but instead how singular (or polar/biased) viewpoints see things. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment

 * The crux of this debate seems to hinge on two issues:
 * Is the article balanced with regards to point of view and which sources are accepted as reliable enough to merit inclusion here?
 * Is the above problem bad enough to merit keeping a tag on the article?
 * Since there is already a lot of debate from the currently involved parties, it would be best if each made a brief statement here summarizing their position, and then let previously uninvolved editors comment for a bit. If you do not feel this summary adequately represents the key points, please note that in your statement. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Maybe we can kill two birds with one stone here by addressing this as well: Should the article be placed on a editing restriction limiting editors to one revert per day in order to encourage discussion rather than revert warring? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: in the interests of encouraging outside participation, I have copied the opening statements to, above; this method has worked before, but if it is undesirable here please simply undo it and remove this statement. Valued outside commenters, Beeblebrox's opening statement looks like a fair summary of the remaining points of contention, but please review the material in the above section for more detail to this dispute. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have temporarily turned off automatic archiving so that this thread will remain active. Please manually move stale or inactive threads to the archive, and reactivate the bot after the RfC closes on 2009-01-12. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm still pretty new to this page. I can't fully address the editing restriction proposition since I don't know all the details about how that works. However, anything that promotes discussion instead of unilateral editing that is likely to be immediately controversial is a good thing.
 * After some thought, I support the removal of the tag. The proposal to add a discussion regarding the debate on the consensus is an interesting one. I agree with GoRight that that discussion must be included in Wikipedia in the interest of completeness. I don't think this article is the right place, and the argument that omitting it from this article violates NPOV is not compelling. I would support it here except that I think it would lead to a slippery slope that would quickly grow and overshadow the specific dynamics this article describes.Airborne84 (talk) 12:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The only remotely sensible objections are about the Climate Change Consensus page. There is no sensible objection remaining to the current version of this page. If you want to delete the Climate Change Consensus and fork, fine. Propose on that page's talk, and the main page's talk.
 * There is a proposal to keep the tag "while the article includes a section on the debate around whether there is consensus"
 * This has been done - "Surveys of scientists and scientific literature".
 * The "Consensus" section merely reports that people want to know what the scientific consensus is and that scientific organizations use this word themselves.
 * The remaining objections to this page boil down to "Are scientific organizations reliable sources for scientific opinion?" and "Public opinion isn't represented on the scientific opinion page."
 * The answer to both these questions is a straightforward "Remove the POV tag now."
 * The POV tag on this article is ridiculous and reflects poorly on wikipedia. Unless, of course, you want to put a POV tag on the evolution scientific consensus pages, and also the relevant cosmology pages - then we can all breathe easy and forget about wikipedia being taken seriously at all. DHooke1973 (talk) 23:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Some of the comments above suggest that some editors may misunderstand the purpose of the POV template. It is not a "badge of shame" or a "warning to readers" or a disclaimer.  Its only acceptable use is to request that editors join a discussion about improving the article.  If you're using other means (e.g., this RfC) to do that, then it becomes redundant.  If the discussion stops -- whether because it is resolved or because you all just get tired of it -- then the tag should be removed under the 'active dispute' clause.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have any policy doc ref for that, WhatamIdoing? Or does anybody else? A couple of editors here recently have been prepared to have the article locked for days, or get themselves blocked, rather than to have that POV 'badge' removed. Obviously every active editor here is well aware that there is an argument in progress, but much of the time it seems to be about the POV template itself. We had one admin, who for a while took a view similar to yours, but he later appeared to change his mind, and then withdrew from the page anyway. Some actual policy would be useful regarding the use of the POV tag as a "badge of shame". --Nigelj (talk) 21:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't understand anything of this RfC. The discussion seems to be spread all over the talkpage, and I cannot see any statements of the involved parties, nor a place to put my opinion. Labongo (talk) 07:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have removed that RfC tag as it mainly seemed to have been about a NPOV flag on the article. Thankfully that edit war seems over now but other's will doubtless start - see about being on probation at the end. Dmcq (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The RfC was refractored to where the comments are ahead of the intro. Seems like this should be changed and a place for new comments should be made clear. As a precaution, the RfC time may require extension. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk)