Talk:Scientific consensus on climate change/Archive 11

Article probation
Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

List of climate scientists
The hatnote serves to disambiguate, and assist people coming to this page who might be looking for something else.

If someone is looking for opinions of individual notable scientists working in the field, they should go to List of climate scientists - a few minutes clicking on the articles listed there will demonstrate that they virtually all include the opinion of the listed scientist.

I t is an absurdity cannot make sense of saying that because the actual opinions are a click beyond the listing, we should not point to the list in the hatnote. If the issue is with the wording (I thought Curtis' implementation of "a|and|b" was fine) then tweak the wording, don't damage the hatnote by making it less useful by removing the link. ‒ Jaymax✍ 03:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support for putting in that list reference. I don't like long hatnotes but people might want to see what individual scientists think when they go to an article about the overall scientific opinion. Lets get this resolved quickly one way or the other and not turn it into another thing like the great NPOV tag marker debate. Dmcq (talk) 07:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * oppose List of climate scientists is just that - a list. It doesn't contain those people's opinions. Nor it a list of people *working* (it contains stiffs). Please do not fall into the error of considering it a negative of the list-of-sci-opp page (for example, it contains Lindzen). Nor, in many cases, do the articles of the scientists contain their opinions, J's incorrect assertion to the contrary (for the obvious reason: agreeing with the prevailing opinion simply isn't notable). J, may I suggest that if you want polite discourse you avoid referring to my opinions as absurd. I invite you to refactor your comments above William M. Connolley (talk) 10:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with WMC, the links should be relevant to opinions. The List of Climate scientist could be a See Also link.
 * Disagree, that calling out absurdity is uncivil. It is a logical augment, which may indicate a point which does not have meaning to WP:5 Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have re-factored as requested, but note I largely agree with ZP5 above. ‒ Jaymax✍ 22:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose i checked the List of climate scientists and i have a hard time reaching any significant number where personal opinions are mentioned. It may mention their research focus, but in most cases nothing about their personal views. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My own random sampling results may have been an outlier. If this is infact the case, then I would withdraw my point on these grounds.  I clicked on six (I think) and in all cases, their scientific position was clear.  I may have just been lucky.  ‒ Jaymax✍ 22:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Clicked another six random, only two this time had parts which indicated opinion on the topic at hand, and so I withdraw. ‒ Jaymax✍ 03:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Royal Society statement
Cheers,

Would this statement issued by The Royal Society 16 Dec 2009 qualify for inclusion?

It is certain that GHG emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and from land use change lead to a warming of climate, and it is very likely that these GHGs are the dominant cause of the global warming that has been taking place over the last 50 years.

According to themselves, they are "the national academy of science of the UK and the Commonwealth".

Mikael Lönnroth (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's generally recognized they're a national academy of science. It certainly looks like it qualifies, how was the document described in whereever it was linked to from? Dmcq (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry found it
 * "This statement has been approved by the Council of the Royal Society, and was prepared in consultation with 30 leading climate scientists. It is informed by decades of publicly available, peer-reviewed studies by thousands of scientists across a wide range of disciplines. Climate science, like any other scientific discipline, develops through vigorous debates between experts, but there is an overwhelming consensus regarding its fundamentals. Climate science has a firm basis in physics and is supported by a wealth of evidence from real world observations."
 * Dmcq (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would qualify. The Royal Society is one of the oldest and most respected scientific organizations on the planet. However, we have so far refrained from including individual National Academies statements, as they are represented by several Joint Academies' statement, so having individual statements wold be somewhat redundant. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The one thing that worries me is that there's so many of these national academies and the article is pretty long already. It'll never end if all the nationalk academies get more than a mention. Would it add appreciably to the article? perhaps just an added citation is all that's required. Sorry I see that was your point. Dmcq (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand now and agree with you. Thanks for comments :) Mikael Lönnroth (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Royal Society of New Zealand entry is similar, and we have long included their individual statement. We should be consistent?  ‒ Jaymax✍ 00:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds ;-). Seriously, the RSNZ has signed up to the 2001 Joint Statement, and released its new statement in 2008 to reconfirm their stance, while the Royal Society itself was a prime mover for all of the Joint Statements up to the 2009 statement. We could add the RS individually, but I don't really see an advantage. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hrumph - system complexity is always an under-appreciated Bogie :-) But anyhow, perhaps, under 'joint statements', rather than just inline listing 32 countries, we should bullet-list the 32 national academies. That way at least 'The Royal Society' (and the others) get a mention.  ‒ Jaymax✍ 03:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Article source quality standards
Currently, there are 102 references listed for this article. They appear to have a wide range of quality to support the current view in the article. (some with broken links) However, when new sources are presented to expand the view, they somehow are being judged as not reliable. I am concerned about potential double standards in this article. In particular, when comparing sources that support the NIPCC statements for this article. Would it be productive to classify the sources here, in an effort to have some meaningful standards based on precedent? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment If there are deadlinks being cited in this article, please update them or link to an archived copy of the relevant page. WP:CHECKLINKS may help. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've run checklinks ... Don't know how to link to an archive.  Should I just label with death dates for dead links? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There should be a link to archive.org in the script, though I usually just end up fixing the article manually. The citation template has a field named archivedate or something like that, which needs to be filled if archiveurl is used - link to the original, and use the last good date/url from the Wayback Machine. Of course, if the page has just moved to a different location by the same publisher, updating the link is preferred. On the same topic, there was a thread an archive or two back on the Royal Society that seems to have gotten lost. It also touched on organizational issues so I will not update it myself, but it could take care of one of the dead links. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, ran the waybacks on the dead links, no reincarnations, maybe on the next craw. Will check again in the New Year. Will try to heal the non dead. Thanks. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We've just been through NIPCC above. Don't restart it, it would be a waste of time William M. Connolley (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I would have thought this would be seen as leaving a fairly low threshold, you don't have to find a learned society of particularly high repute so what's the problem? Dmcq (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There are perhaps at least two methods to classify the sources A. Make a table of qualities with relevance to Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A reliable source on the wrong subject doesn't count for too much compared to a reliable source on the right subject. How about looking at whether they are relevant to 'Scientific opinion on climate change'. Dmcq (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I realize that the NIPCC discussion has been closed (quickly, which seems to be the norm when people don't want to discuss certain aspects), but this is simply ridiculous. This article is the scientific opinion on climate change, how can anyone with good conscience not include the opinion of Singer (who is a well known Climatologist) just because he doesn't toe the company line. The efforts by some to 1984 the climate articles are simply sickening. Arzel (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read scientific opinion and its link to learned society. Sanger simply does not speak a scientific opinion in the form of a scientific consensus, he gives an individual opinion which contributes to the overall scientific opinion. The NIPCC is a group formed of scientists dissenting from IPCC. It is not a learned society evaluating the various papers and giving its overall opinion. To say that Sanger is equivalent to a learned society would be at best original research and synthesis on the part of wikipedia. This stuff goes at Climate change consensus which describes the controversy over whether there is a real consensus over climate change. As I said before the easiest thing to do if somebody is desperate to put this in is have him speak to a learned society somewhere they have lots of sceptics and he might get them to say something different. The point is you need review and overall agreement by peers that the material is right, saying it oneself or gathering a group that agree is not enough. Dmcq (talk) 08:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Although, The IPCC is also not a learned society but we (rightly) include their synthesis report ‒ Jaymax✍ 08:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Verifications
I've verified there are reports applied as reliable sources in this article which were published from charitable organizations and are comparable to the NIPCC report in quality.

Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Heartland Institute is an 24 year active 501(c)3 org, with an approved U.S. mission which precludes solely private benefit (as verified by their website and www.IRS.gov.)
 * A Heartland Institute press release responded to attacks on the NIPCC report . It claims a long history of publishing reliable scientific and economic analysis of global warming. The NIPCC report is a synthesis, written by S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. and an additional 23 contributors, including some of the most accomplished atmospheric scientists in the world. The synthesis references approximately 200 published (peer-reviewed) papers and scientific reports in support of its conclusions.
 * The report itself may be currently undergoing peer-review in the public domain.
 * These attributes of the NIPCC report can be included in this article with faith in the reader.


 * Hmm, so as the treasurer of a registered charitable institution that has been around longer than that I should have a voice too? :) Anyway here's a link to The Heartland Institute on Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Validation
Note: The validation of the Heartland Institute NIPCC report in relation to the IPCC and Scientific Opinion is occurring on a parallel path here Talk:Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing out that discussion. However validation is not a term that conveys anything to me in this context. What I can see is that there is a discussion on Talk:Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change about the NIPCC report which this discussion also discusses. Whether or not it is included there doesn't seem all that relevant to the arguments here saying it shouldn't be included. Dmcq (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are welcome .... let's try again from above. What criteria would you apply to validate a source's qualities for inclusion in this article? Listing them out with link to wiki guidance, might be helpful here. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have explained that 'validation' in one article does not imply the same for another. Please try and use references to wikipedia policies instead so people don't have to learn new words with new meanings which haven't been agreed. Wikipedia already has words for practically all the applicable concepts honed through an enormous number of discussions, they are given in its policies and guidelines like WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verifiability.


 * As you wish to "try again from above" I will quote what I said above to Azrel so you can see it:


 * "Please read scientific opinion and its link to learned society. Sanger simply does not speak a scientific opinion in the form of a scientific consensus, he gives an individual opinion which contributes to the overall scientific opinion. The NIPCC is a group formed of scientists dissenting from IPCC. It is not a learned society evaluating the various papers and giving its overall opinion. To say that Sanger is equivalent to a learned society would be at best original research and synthesis on the part of wikipedia. This stuff goes at Climate change consensus which describes the controversy over whether there is a real consensus over climate change. As I said before the easiest thing to do if somebody is desperate to put this in is have him speak to a learned society somewhere they have lots of sceptics and he might get them to say something different. The point is you need review and overall agreement by peers that the material is right, saying it oneself or gathering a group that agree is not enough. Dmcq (talk) 08:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)"


 * or do you wish to start at an earlier point? Dmcq (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Which guidance says being a "learned society" is a valid qualification for inclusion in wiki? Did you miss, that the report was published by the Heartland Institute under their editorial standards which meet the reliable source guidelines.  Sorry to repeat myself, however this "learneed society" requirement seems like original research. Can you please site a guideline for it? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not say that a source had to be a learned society to be a reliable source. You're thinking about that other article you mentioned above when you go on about reliable source, it doesn't even get as far as that consideration here. That's what I was saying about your 'validation'. I said this particular article was about scientific opinion as in its title 'Scientific opinion on climate change' and I pointed you at what scientific opinion was about. There are many articles where that is not a requirement. It is a requirement here because this article is about scientific opinion. The Heartland Institute is not a learned society. It is not relevant in any way to this article. Even under reliable source guidelines if this was aboutr scientific opinions in general rather than scientific opinion as a collective it wouldn't qualify because of WP:weight as this is about the science side. It might only qualify as part of the public perception and that is covered under Climate change consensus or some particuar points in it might be relevant to particular points in the scientific argument. Dmcq (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reliable source(s) that classifies "The Heartland Institute is not a learned society" or as "public perception", they themselfs and other reliable sources indicate they present scientific opinions? see: Talk:Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change]   It might be productive to attribute weight to what they are with reliable sources, rather then speculate what you say they are not ... would you agree? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What has this article got to do with public perception? An why have I to find some source that specifically says The Heartland Institute is not a learned society? I think I'd find it easier to show Ronald MacDonald's university is a learned society, at least they're interested in whether their hamburgers taste okay or not. There's nothing at the debate you point to showing they are regarded as a reputable scientific society. That seems to be a debate about whether they have weight enough to even be included in that article in the criticism section. Personally I have no particular feelings on that matter and I'd probably include it there as an inclusionist but it definitly doesn't belong in this article. Dmcq (talk) 07:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Wiki requires reliable sources to make a point. When you negate without a reliable source, then an editor may assume the point originated from you, and may discount the weight accordingly.  Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * We have three essential lists here, a list of scientific learned societies, a list of surveys of individual climate scientists (and, by proxy, abstracts) and a list of synthesis reports. The criteria for inclusion are different - but both the talk of 'source quality' and 'learned society' are, I suspect, not getting at the core of the question.  ‒ Jaymax✍ 08:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A separate section was started on this below by Jaymax. Dmcq (talk) 10:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The specifics of this thread are still active. It is about time to propose content that is attributed with reliable sources.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That wikipedia requires reliable sources does not mean all reliable sources are qualified to be in an article if the subject of the reliable source is irrelevant to or of far too low weight for the article. Dmcq (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * To make this relevant, what does your statement mean for the Heartland NIPCC report? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Validation meaning in wiki
Answering Dmcq's recurring question about what validation means in wiki:


 * Verifiability (WP:RS) is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with,
 * No original research
 * Neutral point of view
 * Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit and distribute
 * Wiki requires civil content

The Heartland NIPCC Report content meets all three criteria by the community, so is it Validated for inclusion. It's just that simple. The amazing thing is that they very same journalistic process is largely evident in the scientific process and quality control processes. My reason being there is a "unity of purpose" for humanity in these efforts. (Note, Validation in formal language is objectively self evident for meaning, and avoids the requirement for peer-review because of semantic consistence; however, wiki requires a civil community to provide meaning.)

To bring it home, The Heartland NIPCC Report sufficiently meets the criteria necessary for inclusion. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Validated is not a wikipedia term in its policies and guidelines. It is a term you made up. there is no such thing as what validation means in wikipedia when editing articles. The question was what you meant by it. I am happy to try and figure out what people mean if they give their own reasons for wanting something in, the aim is to improve the encyclopaedia, but when you say 'validation in wiki' you are in effect claiming you have a policy or guideline backing that term up and you are claiming you can do something according to the consensus in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines despite other editors objections.
 * By the way your 'My reason being there is a "unity of purpose" for humanity in these efforts' is just gobbldygook as far as I'm concerned but at least you make no wikipedia claims on its behalf. Dmcq (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is included in Wikipedia at Fred Singer It might well be included at SEPP as well. The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change as an article seems to have had it's page content moved - per admin's recommendation at AfD - I would suggest working to establish the entities notability requirement - presumably it may have changed since 12 March 2008 when the AfD was closed? This article is not the home for that report, per others points.  ‒ [[User

Talk:Jaymax|Jaymax✍]] 03:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, the report is as least as notable here as the IPCC reports are, I agree it is not the home,just like the IPCC and other climate change topics have separate articles. I am for waiting to establish it better in other articles first. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I second jaymax on that. I think the best place to develop it would be the SEPP article rather than Fred Sanger's article where the redirect currently points. Dmcq (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

What are the criteria for Synthesis Reports
The NIPCC debate seemed to be going well, but closed without resolution. Rather than re-opening it, I would like to hear opinions on what OBJECTIVE criteria should be applied to determine if a synthesis report (note: this is distinct from the organisational criteria) is to be included. AFAICT, no one offered any objective basis for including IPCC, USGCRP, and ACIA. So, specifically, what should be the OBJECTIVE criteria by which we evaluate whether a report which PRESENTS ITSELF as a comprehensive review of the published science, should be included or excluded here? ‒ Jaymax✍ 08:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Declaring my position: We should use notability throughout - if an entity produces a 'scientific synthesis report', and that entity is notable (eg. would survive an AfD) then it should be included here (alternately, that the report itself is notable) ‒ Jaymax✍ 08:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Reconsidered per Dmcq. The test should be whether the synthesis sets out to be representative (weighted according to prevalence of opinion). ‒ Jaymax✍ 00:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is about scientific opinion, not about synthesis reports. Because it reports on a number of synthesis reports does not mean it is about synthesis reports. The title is 'Scientific opinion on climate change'. Learned societies have contributed synthesis reports. That does not mean that anyone giving a synthesis report is a learned society. Besides which many people doubt the NIPCC report is a synthesis report even as you can see from the other debate ZuluPapa5 referred to. The NIPCC debate was closed because it was just going over all the same old ground again and the result would lead to the same old conclusion again. It was a broken record. Dmcq (talk) 09:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

In fact have a look at the Frequently Asked Questions box at the top of this page to see answers to the questions. Dmcq (talk) 09:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point a bit, as the article has evolved, three lists, representative of scientific opinion, have been incorporated. By far the biggest is the learned societies.  But nothing requires that a survey comes from such an organisation; likewise, nothing requires that a synthesis report should come from such a society; only the organisational statements do.  The FAQ does not address the question. :-/  ‒ Jaymax✍ 10:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is about scientific opinion as in "formally-agreed consensus of a scientific body or establishment" and using "the scientific method". It is not about synthesis reports. It is not about non-scientific bodies. It is not about groups who come together with an agenda to push a point. Dmcq (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (e/c) So you argue that the NIPCC is not a scientific body? SUBJECTIVELY I agree with you. Now please present the OBJECTIVE test we can use here. Separately, how do polling organisations fit into that? Or a single scientist reviewing abstracts (both of which are currently included in the article) ‒ Jaymax✍ 10:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no absolute line between chairs and tables but one can still tell the difference in most cases. And this is one, it was set up with a specific mission to push a point of view rather than investigate it. I'll have another look at the article for questionable entries, I certainly think that web survey is very iffy on methodological grounds, if it doesn't have a reliable source citation saying it gives scientific opinion I think it should be removed. Dmcq (talk) 10:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you've missed the articles Climate change consensus which debates whether there really is a scientific consensus, or Public opinion on climate change which is about opinion on it in general? Dmcq (talk) 10:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, please stop assuming I'm somehow either new around this article, or uninvolved in articles such as Climate change consensus, especially when we've engaged at some length on that articles talk page. ‒ Jaymax✍ 10:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think perhaps you want this article to be about a different subject. If you can give the first paragraph summary for the leader of what you want the article to be about instead and people could debate that. Otherwise please stop going on about something the article is not about. Dmcq (talk) 10:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Not at all. The first para currently reads "Scientific opinion on climate change is given by (1) synthesis reports, (2) scientific bodies of national or international standing, and (3) surveys of opinion among climate scientists." with my added numerals.  It has been similar to this for a long time.  Because it is the biggest section, the criteria for (2) has been well established over time through consensus and case examples. The criteria for (1) and (3) have not been contentious, so have not been discussed in the same way.
 * There is an opportunity to discuss (1) at this time, and I think we should take it, just as we have in the past with (2). ‒ Jaymax✍ 22:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh I see, sorry about that. I thought you were applying that term to the reports in general as you seemed to bring that in on a discussion about the NIPCC report. I would have thought the only qualifications needed for a synthesis report would be that it must be a reliable source with reasonable weight and that it actually try and determine scientific opinion. A survey of the literature classifying papers by their conclusions that passed a reasonable peer review and people had noticed for instance wouldn't have any problem that I can see. The NIPCC report wouldn't qualify for a number of reasons but principally because it doesn't try to determine scientific opinion. Dmcq (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry I didn't explain clearer earlier. The connection to the NIPCC report is that is was briefly listed as the fourth item in the synthesis reports section of the article.  If a Synthesis report seeks to determine and summarise the balance of current scientific opinion, then I agree that's a good criterion.  (because it is representative, not because it excludes NIPCC).  The NIPCC does try to determine through synthesis scientific opinion, but in a selective, not a representative way. Would you agree?  ‒ Jaymax✍ 23:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well scientific opinion is what the article is about so yes I think that's what a synthesis report in the article should be about. I don't see any other synthesis report as being a reliables source for anything in this article unless it is adopted by a scientific body or suchlike which is the biggest list of entries in the article, so that needn't be used as a criterion for synthesis reports. The only determining I can see the NIPCC trying to do is in the other meaning of determine as in to be the cause of or give direction to. Dmcq (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Asking for an objective test of a scientific body is as pointless as asking for an objective definition of a scientist. This section is trying to solve an insoluble and pointless problem William M. Connolley (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And yet for organisations, we have the consensus established tests of standing, and some connection to cause or impact of climate change, to give us a workable, fair, defensible set of criteria to ensure representativeness. Why should it be impossible to do the same for synthesis reports?  So the problem has been solved, with a point, for part of the article already.  ‒ Jaymax✍ 22:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

To put this on point, I would like to see objective criteria supported by wiki guidance, so that it may be qualified with verification and validation, which is the basis of scientific process. This would provide a "unity of purpose" in points between editors and wiki. I suspect that subjective "expertise' is being applied to excessively "object" to new content and progress. The point is, wiki principles have meaning which are above selfish nihilistic points from any one individual.  Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please stop inventing terms. Putting 'wiki guidance' in bold and underlinint it does not mean it conveys any information to me. Where is this term described in a policy or guideline if it is so important? Validation also is an unknown term as far as I know. If you're going to talk about wiki principles then please refer to them, e.g. where in WP:5P is anything you're talking about? Dmcq (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that "feigned incomprehension" (playing dumb) may be considered incivil as I have made good faith effort to explain validation too you. Wiki guidance should be obvious for Wikipedia guidance. Please be specific where you have a misunderstanding.  Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have complained to you about using strange terms that convey no meaning in wikipedia terms. As I explained to you before I am very willing and happy to try and figure out peoples reasons for trying to put things in if they give their own reasons in their own terms. I might still ask for more explanation and I have done so in this case because I really have not a good impression of what you are trying to say. You have been around on Wikipedia long enough to know a bit about the main policies and guidelines and I see you referring to one above. I have tried to be civil but I really must complain strongly about your use of 'wiki' when you say your reasons in your own terms and mix in 'wiki'. It implies you are referring to some Wikipedia policy or guideline like the ones referenced from the WP:Five pillars. Doing so is implying you have the right to insert something because of consensus in Wikipedia about those policies and guidelines despite objections here. However what you say does not in fact refer to any Wikipedia policy or guideline as far as I can figure out. I object to you claiming rights above objections here without specifying the grounds of that claim properly. I reject your accusation of incivility and if you wish to make more of that please take it up with the administrators instead as this page seems to easily descend into more acrimony. Dmcq (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * On Jaymax's original proposal at the top of this section that any synthesis report produced by a notable entity should be accepted. I disagree. The main qualification I can see for a synthesis report than isn't otherwise acceptable is that it try and determine scientific opinion and a peer review agrees that it made a reasonable attempt. I don't see the entity producing it as having much to do with it though the publication doing the peer review would count towards the reliable sources criterion. Dmcq (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess also if a good reliable source cites the survey and says it assesses scientific opinion that is like a peer review. Also something like a Harris poll is generally reliable in itself though one should say who commissions anything like that. Dmcq (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * struck out my original thinking ‒ Jaymax✍ 00:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Bray/von Storch 2003
I've undone the removal. I think the paragraph sufficiently discusses the problems with the survey. Also, the paragraph includes a link to their latest survey, which doesn't have (some of) those issues. MikeR613 (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't say I'm happy with it, perhaps it could be pared down to the latest report which has at least tried to do things properly. Has anyone peer reviewed that study? Dmcq (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the survey(s) can stay, since the caveats are clearly demarcated. We should note that the later study isn't peer-reviewed though (if it isn't) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, neither study was ever really published. They're available on their websites. I'm not an expert, but insisting on peer review is probably more appropriate for their technical work on climate rather than on a survey. It would be nice for readers to have access to the surveys, at least - they ask a lot of interesting questions. As opposed to (IMHO) Doran and Zimmerman, which is published, peer-reviewed, but asked essentially no questions at all. I've suggested removing it in the past, since it is so devoid of substance... Bray and von Storch is the best one I've seen, and it would be a shame to leave it out. The fact is that there are very few good surveys on the subject. What do you do when Reliable Sources are so sparse?
 * An aside: I am actually pretty unhappy with the treatment of the surveys here, but I'm not sure how to fix it. This article might be supporting one of two points of view. 1) There is essentially no controversy among climate scientists on this subject. Look at the unanimity among societies! We have a separate article about the two or three wackos who disagree. Or 2) there is a strong majority of opinion in favor of the standard AGW view, but there is also a decent percentage (1/6?) of climate scientists who don't agree with one aspect or another. Note that the impact of these two points of view is entirely different. I think it is clear that the article is more oriented toward 1). But the surveys rather suggest 2). But, the writing about the surveys glosses that fact over. It seems to me that it misleads the reader by tending to only quote the results that point in one direction, without mentioning that solid minority. MikeR613 (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think 'significant findings' should be touched on, balanced with not reiterating every finding. If 15% disagree with a statement, that is not as significant as 15% agreeing with a statement, because it's not usually very clear what they do believe (or even if they are just 'not sure' enough to agree, depending on the polling approach).  Is there a good example where a significant minority viewpoint is clear from one of the polls that we could discuss?  ‒ Jaymax✍ 00:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you can look over the various surveys, but Bray/von Storch is really in a class by itself in terms of the variety of questions and detail; it deserves a fuller coverage. Of course, if it's unavailable because it's not peer-reviewed, I understand, but it's too bad. I just have a feeling that if you want to talk about Scientific opinion... that the surveys are really a better indicator than what the various societies voted on, which is after all subject to majority rule and politics and the like. So why don't the surveys get anything like the detailed coverage of the societies? MikeR613 (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are creating a false dichtomy here, it is not either/or. The trouble is that the (mainly) public debate in (primarily) the US is taking its tolls, where things still seem to be stuck in the "it cannot be man-made" vs. "its man-made" "debate", and this to an extent unfortunately carries over to Wikipedia, since a lot of news-papers are focusing on this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But that is exactly the point I'm making: The article seems to be supporting an either/or dichotomy, without discussing the real alternative in detail - that the vast majority of scientists feel a certain way, and a significant minority feels differently. The surveys could help to make that clear.MikeR613 (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Original research warning - I'm posting a question at http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com on whether they're publishing it. MikeR613 (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Some citation in a reliable source saying it was a survey of scientific opinion without any major caveats would be enough for wikipedia I believe. If reliable sources say there is a problem of course that would also have to be given due weight. Just that a peer review would give a lot more weight overall. I like surveys, they give details of the extent of consensus, its more informative than institutions saying their overall opinion. Dmcq (talk) 09:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If this was a scientific survey that was rejected at the peer review stage and may now (apparently) be published unmodified in a blog, what use is it? I can understand us wanting to rely on commercial surveys done by people who are experts and able to employ field researchers, but even if it had passed peer review this would have been, at best, a finger in the air. Having said that if the caveats are strong enough there's no great harm. --TS 14:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems the 2008 survey was published, a note by it in that web site says: "The full article has been published here: Bray, D., and H. von Storch, 2009: 'Prediction' or 'Projection'? The nomenclature of climate science. Science Communication 30, 534-543, doi:10.1177/1075547009333698" Dmcq (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I must admit that 2008 report doesn't sound all that relevant to this article. The 2003 one is the only really relevant one and it was rather flawed. Dmcq (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There were a couple of pertinent questions IIRC. ‒ Jaymax✍ 13:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2008 11c, 15e, 20, 21. (45 & 46 make me go eeek at the 20%+s) ‒ Jaymax✍ 13:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I like surveys with an eeek factor ;-) It sounds then it should be in, the journal would normally check the methodology side of the survey. Dmcq (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have any reason to think that "this was a scientific survey that was rejected at the peer review stage". It was fairly recent, and may well be in the pipeline. The other article on "prediction and projection" I don't think is relevant; it's a note on one single question in the survey.
 * I see that the reference to the surveys is gone again; I again think it should stay, if only for the links. MikeR613 (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the rejected refers to the 2003 survey not the 2008 one. Dmcq (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I may just be supporting it since I recall (vaguely) all the effort that went into hammering out the compromises that made that section tolerable, but: is it really necessary to remove it? It contains appropriate caveats re its hackability and its rejection William M. Connolley (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Just got a response from Bray at the kliemazwiebel page http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2010/01/dennis-bray-and-hans-von-storch.html?showComment=1262804650905#c2262908132399828882 "Dennis Bray said... Hi Mike There are and will be peer reviewed publications from selections of the survey results but a complete entity - i.e. the entire survey in one piece - will not be published other than as the PDF already on the web. A hundred or so pages of descriptive statistics are not very attractive as a peer reviewed publication. Neither the 1996 nor the 2003 surveys were 'published' in their entirety but were nonetheless listed n wipedia. Hope that helps." In other words, no one publishes this kind of stuff in a journal; it's too long. Do we have to wait till they publish some of the summary results? I think it's clear that it wasn't "rejected" in the way that the 2003 survey was. (The one they published already about Projection and Prediction is clearly not what we need.) MikeR613 (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The point about the Projection and Prediction article is that it is based on and references the survey so that shows it is an acceptable basis for a peer reviewed publication and provides a citation as a survey. Dmcq (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And again from there - "Dennis Bray said... Hi Mike
 * There is a paper concerning consensus now in the review process and there is also a paper concerning climate models nearing the submission stage. There is enough material for a significant number of papers but I am not as certain that there is a significant amount of reviewer/editor interest to publish them." MikeR613 (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Locked
Discussion here still seems unresolved and bitter enough to give me a strong suspicion that edit warring would have resumed, so I have locked the article until just after the RfC concludes. If anyone else would prefer to unprotect now without waiting for the discussion below, you have my endorsement as long as you monitor the article aggressively afterwards. I would like to unlock this article for the reasons below, but if necessary to prevent disruptive and tendentious editing, the article may remain in semi-stasis edited only through editprotected.

The proposed merge target for Scientific opinion on climate change is in flux; this may or may not affect that proposal, as might this diff from GoRight, above. As at least the majority of the sources used in the section are solid and arguably on-topic, this question should not require protection; perhaps it could be rewritten to avoid bullet-point style. The several renaming discussions do not at this point seem disputatious enough to require edit-protection. Adding sources documenting views of non-scientific organizations or individual scientists would be out of the scope of the current title and article scope, and so discussion can be tabled until such a time as such a move has consensus. The issue of naming and targeting redirects has some bearing on this article, but does not justify protection. The wording and links in the hatnote have been discussed ad nauseum, but seem amenable to normal editing methods. Other dispute resolution mechanisms are in place or in preparation, but resumption of normal editing should not be dependent upon them. Assuming that it survives AfD, Public opinion on climate change should probably be linked somewhere in this article; excessive protection damages the encyclopedia.

For these reasons, I plan to unprotect the article in about a day, after everyone has had a chance to read and offer feedback on this section. The basic outline of has consensus, though not unanimity. The arguments offered in the surrounding sections, some of which are now archived, offer nuance and explanation to the bare poll. The POV-check has received input here, and no contrary input at WP:CNB. The tagging project has devoted a fair bit of effort to ensuring that the templated text does not take a position one way or the other, but its fundamental purpose is to attract interested editors. This article is actively edited, and other more effective input-gathering mechanisms are in place. For these reasons and none other, I plan to remove the tag in my capacity as an administrator enacting the clearly-expressed will of involved editors; had the article not been locked, I expect that it would have been removed already (again evidence that excessive protection damages the encyclopedia). Adding any similar tag will be considered prima facie evidence of edit warring; any editor who does so will be blocked for a short period to limit disruption. Removing any similar tag will be considered prima facie evidence of edit warring; any editor who does so will be blocked for a short period to limit disruption. Every non-trivial change to the article should include in the edit summary explicit reference to consensus at a talkpage section; for example: tag removed per Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change and Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change. Editors making repeated undiscussed obviously and blatantly controversial changes will be blocked for a short period to limit disruption and edit warring. Any material that is reverted is considered controversial, and should be discussed here before being reinserted. If a relevant talkpage discussion does not yet exist, the reverting editor should start one, clearly expressing his or her concerns. It is best practice to start the section before reverting the edit, and to include a compromise proposal. Please comment and advise. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Question: For clarification, how do you advise on (as restated by me) "Take the sources to the RS notice board", "Put the IPCC Mission in for context", "May I have the next RfC?" and "This dispute may be resolved by creating a Opinions on Climate Change" article points I have raised? Finally WP:1RR should be a voluntary measure at first. Kindly Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I oppose the removal of the NPOV tag until the disputes have been resolved. --GoRight (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC) (Obligatory Statement)

Question: You mention consensus for proposal 2 above. Does this mean that 1RR is in effect, and what are the parameters around it's meaning since this was unclear the last time it was brought up? Is this WP:1RR? --GoRight (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Question: What is the time limit, if any, associated with the adding and removing of NPOV tags? --GoRight (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The prohibition applies only to adding or removing such a tag without first gathering consensus here; if the editors here agree that adding or removing a tag is likely to lead to article improvement, then I support that. I left the time period deliberately open-ended in the hopes that at some point in the decently near future a consensus supported by everyone will develop and we can drop all this. If, after the current kerfluffle dies down, a proposal here detailing NPOV concerns goes unanswered, adding a tag would no longer be prima facie evidence of edit warring. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 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. The latter condition applies primarily to grammatical fixes and other minor edits. If a change is reverted, follow WP:1RR and do not re-revert; instead, wait for the reverting editor to explain his or her concerns at the relevant thread here. A reverted edit should not be reinstated until such a time as consensus is reached here. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Unlocked. Please edit only according to clearly expressed consensus. Any edit warring will lead to blocks, as this article has been protected too long already. I intend to monitor this article as closely as I can for the next little while, but if problems develop without speedy redress, please make use of WP:ANEW and WP:RFPP. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have retroactively logged this at General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Remote future timestamp to stop premature archiving. --TS


 * This is basically covered by General sanctions/Climate change probation now, and the rest I put in an editnotice, so it should be okay to let the bot archive this now - removed timestamp above. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggest adding Scientific American link "... . Their so-called "consensus" on global warming is scientifically irrelevant because science isn't settled by popularity."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense&page=4 ... "Claim 5: Climatologists conspire to hide the truth about global warming by locking away their data. Their so-called "consensus" on global warming is scientifically irrelevant because science isn't settled by popularity.  > It is virtually impossible to disprove accusations of giant global conspiracies to those already convinced of them (can anyone prove that the Freemasons and the Roswell aliens aren't involved, too?). Let it therefore be noted that the magnitude of this hypothetical conspiracy would need to encompass many thousands of uncontroversial publications and respected scientists from around the world, stretching back through Arrhenius and Tyndall for almost 150 years ... [over long quote trimmed - we can read your link William M. Connolley (talk) 08:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)]"   99.155.155.73 (talk) 07:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That should probably be in Climate change consensus or Climate change denial, it doesn't really fit into this article which is bout the scientific opinion on it. Dmcq (talk) 07:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What is the difference? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Between the two articles? The first says it is about the public debate over whether there is actually a scientific consensus and the second is specifically about the campaign to rubbish the science, or expose the conspiracy or however one views it. There's a couple of others too that are fairly close in their shades of meaning and that's why I said two instead of one - I'm not sure which is best. I think the climate change denial one perhaps as the Scientific American article is about fighting it rather than just giving or describing an opinion. Dmcq (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, if you read the Sci.Am article, specifically "Claim 5", and click on the hyperlink "official positions of dozens of scientific organizations"...guess where it takes you.--CurtisSwain (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

An addition to this, or another page? Why haven’t we rallied our collective power to solve global warning?
Why haven’t we rallied our collective power to solve global warning? by Daniel Gilbert (psychologist)  99.35.9.49 (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Include "List of ..." in section headings
Per WP:LISTNAME - should we change To each be 'List of _________' ? ‒ Jaymax✍ 21:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Synthesis reports
 * Statements by organisations
 * Surveys of scientists and scientific literature


 * Maybe. "Should" /= "must," so in the absence of complaints I'd ask the question "Does it improve the article?" If not, perhaps it's best as is. Airborne84 (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Isn't that style guideline related to whole article names, not section names, and so not even relevant here? --Nigelj (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

IPCC to retract remarks that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035
See World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown from the The Sunday Times. Regards, — mattisse (Talk) 21:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Storm in a teacup. Refers to a paragraph prepared by the Asian working party of Work Group II (effects of global warming). The output of Work Group I (physical basis) is not affected, or are other aspects of Work Group II. --TS 22:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't minimise it - the IPCC author/review system fell down in one place. It's impossible to really know for certain whether it's a single occurrence (probable), or a systematic issue (unlikely). Regardless, the IPCC will need to address it's review systems to avoid recurrence.  Regardless of all that; it's got nothing to do with this article. (another example of the article title being a touch ambiguous)  ‒ Jaymax✍ 22:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Use of an editorial as a source
Earlier this morning, I flagged the last sentence of the article's first paragraph as requiring a citation, based on Voiceofreason01 having noted it previously. Stephan Schulz kindly pointed me to a reference later in the article, which is the source of the statement. In reviewing the source, however, I discovered it is a letter to the editor drafted by the Council of the American Quaternary Association. While editorials may be used as sources in Wikipedia without violating WP:NPOV, they can only do so if the views they present are clearly attributed. I have updated both appearances of the reference to include the appropriate attribution. --DGaw (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Editorials are normally excluded as other than opinion, because they have less editorial oversight than regular journalistic pieces. That is not the case in a Peer-reviewed journal, the letter is (afaikr) peer-reviewed in this journal, and it was sent out to relevant parties, so that it could (and was) responded to, before getting published. And it is from a respected scientific society. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * DGaw, please check the archives. This has been discussed already. Airborne84 (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with DGaw. It is one thing to cite a respected journal, but very unusual to cite a letter to a journal, a bit like citing the letters page in the Economist as a source. As Voiceofreason01 has pointed out, extraordinary claims should be backed up with top notch sources, and while I concur with KimDabelsteinPetersen that the source is respected, I think it should be flagged as being a letter, not scientific paper.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no parallel with "letters to the editor" in a newspaper or magazine. "Letters" to a scientific journal are subject to peer review and editorial control. Try writing a "letter" to Eos or BAMS and you'll see. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 07:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Frequently Asked Questions
Is it worthwhile expanding the FAQ section on the talk page? We seem to be addressing the same questions repeatedly. Of course, they are not closed for discussion permanently, but maybe a more comprehensive coverage of the relevant questions would be worthwhile. On the other hand if people just don't visit that page in general, or there's no interest in doing it, it's probably not worth the effort. Thoughts? Airborne84 (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Content Fork
Going back to the thread Content fork, it is clear that issues raised have not been adressed in any shape or form. The legitimacy of this content fork in relation to Wikipedia's content policies is in question, yet nothing has been done to address this key issue. What is to be done? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) As this article stands, its title "Scientific opinion on climate change" is not a recognised term used to address its subject matter by the world at large.
 * 2) The article lacks any form of definition from a reliable secondary source. In fact, there is no single source cited that mentions, let alone address directly and in detail, the subject of "Scientific opinion on climate change".
 * 3) The hatnote and lead of this article which define the articles subject matter is comprised of original research.


 * The reason it was archived in early December and not raised or discussed since is that you are the only proponent we have for this viewpoint. --Nigelj (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:WASTEOFTIME. Speedy close William M. Connolley (talk) 10:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT might be more relevant in this context. The question still remains, what sources are there that can establish this article's notability in its own right? Which source addresses the article's title directly and in detail? I think more than just bald statements of opinion are needed to answer these questions. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The matter has been dealt with as far as consensus on this page is concerned. Nobody else was much interested. What you've got to do if you still disagree and think it is important enough to be worth the bother is raise the matter somewhere else. See WP:Dispute resolution. Things can be raised again every so often on the talk page but this is too soon. Probably the only place I can see where this would go is the notice board for notability at Notability/Noticeboard. Dmcq (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I can read the objections to my criticisms, but the evidence in support of these objections sees to be wholly lacking. Instead of dealing with evidence that this article is a content fork as an open window, it seems that the objectors view criticism as a wall, which by definition precludes any access to reality. This extreme attitude, which considers all reference to Wikipedia content policies as theoretical naivete, is in reality a perversion of of the spirit of WP:CONSENSUS. If you have evidence that this is a recognised article topic that is the subject of reliable secondary sources in its own right, bring them forward by all means. But to baldly assert that this "matter has been dealt with as far as consensus is concerned" is wholly disingenuous. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what adding links to various websites, including those that cite Wikipedia as their source, in any way diminishes the criticism. What is lacking are at least several reliable secondary sources to identify "Scientific opinion on climate change" as a seperate subject in its own right. The fact that the subject of these links is Climate change is not helping the discussions. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It shows that at least 3 reliable sources consider the Scientific opinion on climate change both interesting and worthy of reporting about. And that should be all that is needed to match your previous objections. Now please back away from the poor equine stiff :-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Correction. Only one source is reliable (the rest are unpublished websites) and the subject of the only peer reviewed article is "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". This article is probably nearer to the article title, but it only mentions "﻿Mainstream scientific opinion". The fact remains that "Scientific opinion on climate change" is not a defined or recognised subject in its own right. If scientific opinion is cited in Wikipedia articles, it is used within the context of recognised article topics such as Climate Change, Global Warming or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, not split out from articles addressing the same topic. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't an "unpublished web site" not be on some intranet? Preferably a small one? Of course the sites are published. You might try to argue reliability, but Science Daily has been around for 15 years, has an editorial staff, and has won numerous awards. It's not a peer-reviewed journal, but for general comments and notability it's plenty good enough. And the Science Council looks pretty reliable to me, as well... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article may not be a prime candidate for deletion, but the title is not ideal. It is vague and could lead to a WP:COATRACK of pro and anti global warming sources. My view is that the issues here are best dealt with in other articles about climate change, with care taken about sourcing.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Scientific consensus on climate change might be a bit better I think but I really can't see the need. I do not see why you think my reply was disingenuoius and I see nothing relevant at the attached link Denying the antecedent. The point is the best way to get something done on Wikipedia is to do something positive like suggesting a new name and giving reasons or proposing a delete and giving reasons why it is a good idea. What has been done here is totally negative - and the replies have been dismissed in a negative way with no positive contribution. There's been other complaints about the title and hatnote and the existence of the article, they have been a bit more positive with suggestions about new names, changes or where to merge. The consensus so far seems to have been to do very little. There is no point expecting any action when nothing except complaints are voiced and people have talked about it before. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia which is written by its contributors and the operative word is contribute. Say what you want rather than what you don't want or write a bit of article text if you want something useful to happen. Dmcq (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Dmcq, a valiant attempt, but it will fall on deaf ears. Having watched Gavin Collins' lengthy objections last month (and responding to some of them because I assumed good faith on his part), I finally decided to stop wasting time by addressing them. My recommendation? Read through some of his archived posts. If he's saying something different now, feel free to respond. If he's just repeating something that did not gain consensus before, it's best to save time by not typing responses. Worse, lengthy discussions lend credibility to otherwise senseless arguments. Airborne84 (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The issues which I addressed in my previous posts are just as relevant now as they were then, and dismissing them as being "negative" or "time wasting" is not shedding any light on this article being a content fork, or the damaging consequences of allowing this state of affairs to persist.
 * To establish the notability of this topic, and to refute the criticism that this article is a content fork, requires significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that address the article title directly and in detail, which are absent from the lead or the body of this article. For instance, the articles Climate Change, Global Warming and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are addressed directly and in detail, usually by sources which are expressing some form of opinion, whether it is scientific, economic, political or otherwise.
 * Clearly there are several editors that disagree with the assertion that this article is a content fork (fair enough), but if the main issue is disputed, then at least consider the symptoms that are the badge of a content fork. The hatnote and lead to this article are original research, and do not define the article's subject matter in any meaningful way.
 * The lack of a recognised definition, one that is defined in terms of reliable source which would provide context to the reader, is absent. As it stands, this article can only be understood within the context of the over arching article topics (e.g. Climate Change, Global Warming etc.), and cannot be read as a seperate topic on its own. Its content, while referenced and ordered, address topics which fall outside this article, and has expanded with no logical rationale other than to fit all of the content that has been added to it.
 * Instead, original research has been employed to provide context, rather than reliable sources that are directly related to the title of this article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. Since these issues were brought to your attention on this talk page, there have been many alterations to the hatnote and the lead, but the issue that the starting point is original research, no matter how many times it has been altered to "make the lead fit the article", has not been resolved.
 * No matter how innocuous the lead is, is wholly unsatisfactory for an article to lead with analytic or evaluative claims that "Scientific opinion on climate change is given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists", when in fact this statement is unsupported and misleading. In reality, opinion on climate change comes from many sources, and must be evaluated together, not seperately.
 * If this article topic is not a recognised by the wider world, and its subject matter and scope can only be defined in terms of original research, then what purpose does it serve? One answer might be that it is simply an unintentional content fork, whose subject matter(s) are dealt with directly and in detail elsewhere by articles topics that are recognised by the world at large. Another is that this article, is in effect, a POV fork, designed to segrate scientific opinion from other forms of opinion that provide commentary, criticism or analysis about Climate Change, Global Warming etc., perhaps to avoid criticism or commentary that are the hallmarks of balanced coverage.
 * In short, the basis for inclusion of this topic as a standalone article is a form of intellectual apartheid, whereby opinions about similar topics are being artifically sepeated from each other, rather than being used to provide balanced coverage of a particular topic. Seperating scientific opinion from other sources of opinion is generally considered to be unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject are treated in one article, rather than being split into content forks. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not disagreeing with you. You have some points. But so what? This has been discussed before recently by others as well as you with no conclusion and you have made no suggestions which will change that. You have just reinterated complaints. What is your point? The talk page is for discussing improvements to the article and this is leading nowehere. Dmcq (talk) 13:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Bait not taken" to quote another author here. Airborne84 (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course some editors would continue to edit this article, oblivious to its status. In some ways, that is the case at the moment: some editors continue to add, revise and update the original research contained in the hatnote and the lead in an attempt to legitimize this article's segraegated existence. But those editors with genuine concern for scientic opinion in relation to Climate Change, Global Warming or the IPCC will focus their efforts making constructive contributions to articles which address those topic directly and in detail. If there is a way to split the overarching topics into more manageable articles, surely it will take the form of splits into article topics which are the subject of scientific opinion, such as greenhouse effect or solar variation. However to continue editing this content fork, or to spawn more content forks such as "Scientific opinion on globa warming" seem to be to run contrary to Neutral point of view, knowing what you know now that the segregation of scientific opinion from other sources of commentary, criticism or analysis is to direct the reader down a garden path that leads in an intellectual dead end. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC) WP:NPOV is pretty clear that scientific opinion should not be segregated from any other source of opinion, because even scientific opinion is the subject of commentary and analsysis from other sources, some of which may be critical. As editors, our objective is to provide the reader with a neutral point of view, that is to say, we present scientific and non-scientific opinion in an even handed way. The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints, such as scientific opinion as opposed to non-scientific opnion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC) I only ask this because your comments suggest to me that you are sceptical about the criticisms at the start of this thread. At the end of the day, you are perfectly entitled to your viewpoint, but if you are unable to support it with some form of verifiable evidence, then "what you can see" seems to be a selective and personal view of this article's status. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC) As regards your questions, I think that eliminating a content fork is always going to be more constructive than simply allowing it to exist, as its existence precludes consensus building which is what Wikipedia is all about. Whether or not merging the content of this article into one or more others would result in a "humongous" article, I could not say at this point, but as I said earlier, it is likely that the coverage contained in this article is already present elsewhere, so that might not be a problem. One thing I do agree with you: that this content fork will never reach featured article status. On the contrary, it is likely to be the target of repeated merger proposals, or failing that, it will be nominated for deletion again. I say this because the hatnote and lead are magnets original research, which makes this article an obvious deletion target. Where I think we could collectively make a constructive contribution is to break it down into the individual sources cited in this article, and then instigate move proposals for each one. At least that way its content can be saved in other articles, and used in a way that is not conflicting with Wikipedia content policy.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The phrase used in the article's title appears in the title of the following works, Scientific Opinion on Climate Change, The Structure of Evolving US Scientific Opinion on Climate Change and its Potential Consequences. More works seem to study public opinion on the matter as a topic in itself.    As this material seems rather thin, we should perhaps generalise the article to cover opinions in general, with sub-headings  which consider the opinions by grouping - public, scientific, political or whatever.  The article would cover the changing attitudes of these various demographics to the extent that the sources cover them.  Colonel Warden (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In answer to Dmcq, I don't think improving a content fork is in any way supported by Wikipedia's content policies, as the segregation of scientific opinion about Climate Change and Global Warming from other commentators goes against the spirit of WP:NPOV, and in any case, the reader is not served by seperation of content on a purely arbitary basis. If there is a body of scientific opinion available in the form of reliable secondary sources as Colonel Warden suggests, then it need to be added to the relevant article to which it is addressed. Scientific opinion does not form in a vacuum; it grows and changes within the framework of an area of a particular subject area. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, after someone has succeeded in merging the Intelligent design and Evolution articles, we'll have something to talk about. That will be after all the articles on electronics include coverage of how there's magic smoke inside the wires and phlogiston has been restored to its rightful place, I imagine. --Nigelj (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nigelj is right, there are no other articles like this, such as Scientific opinion on Intelligent design or Scientific opinion on Evolution nor Scientific opinion on electronics. If there were, they would be merged in their respective article topics that address their subject matter directly and in detail. No, my criticism is that sources about a particular topic should feature in the article topic to which they relate, not an article that has "Scientific opinion on.." attached to its title. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The split is explicitly encouraged by wikipedia. See WP:Splitting, the very first criterion is the size of the article. Click on edit on this article or on Global warming and you'll get advice that splitting is a good idea. They are currently 101KB and 87KB Dmcq (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. You misunderstood me, I think, Gavin. I meant that in other areas where there are scientific views on something, and widely separate unscientific views, they are treated in separate articles, with actually very little chance of merging the two viewpoints into large super-articles. As to the naming, we have actual names for the viewpoints in other cases, but in the case of climate change, that hasn't happened. We have the scientific viewpoints discussed here, religious-based views that man 'has dominion' over the earth and the 'end of days' will solve all these problems, anti-science views that scientists are mostly crooks who make up theories for their own financial gain and funding, right-wing views that all this is an anti-capitalist plot to reduce their business profits and growth, conspiracy theorists who think that there is a shadowy cabal who want to use these theories to rule the world etc. There is no way that these other theories will get equal, 'fair' coverage in this article. Some of them have sub-articles of their own, but even the editors of those articles often can't decide on the names they should use there, and they change and fork quite regularly. --Nigelj (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia is not a paper based encyclopedia, article spliting is indeed encouraged, provided of course the article is notable in accordance with WP:AVOIDSPLIT. However, if this article is indeed a sub-topic that has been split out of one or more articles, how come it does not provide any evidence that the topic of scientific opinion on climate change is notable in it its own right? Several editors have cited articles which are entitled "Scientific opinion on climate change" or mention this term by name, yet none of them are cited in this article. What makes this article so special that this terms is only mention used twice, and yet that mention (in the hatnote and the lead) are original research? It seems to me, but correct me if I am wrong, but the notability of this article's title is not cited once to provide evidence that it meets the reqirements of WP:NAME,, nor has the notability of its subject matter been established in this article as a result. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No. I am not going through this point with you again. Read the Talk archives. Look up WP:NAME. --Nigelj (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then let me do it for you. WP:NAME says that article titles should use names and terms most commonly used in reliable sources, and so most likely to be recognized, for the topic of the article. Yet not one reliable secondary source mentions "Scientific opinion on climate change" in this article. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So what do you want to do or to happen? Dmcq (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Colonel Warden's comments have been adequately addressed. If not, please refer to the archives for extensive discussion on this topic.
 * As to the rest of the discussion, I can only repeat my recommendation to simply refer GC to the archives until he comes up with something new. Airborne84 (talk) 03:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In answer to Airborne, an examination of the archive shows you have already rejected the approach being put forward by Colonel Warden. In answer to Dmcq, I don't think there is any point in putting forward a proposal at this time if there is unwillingness to accept the three criticisims raised at the begining of this thread, but it would involve merging the content of this article with the various over-arching topics to which its subject matter relates. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * An actual proposal at long last, thanks. Merge this article which is already considered on the large side with other articles which are way over the large side and where splitting is highly recommended. Is that correct? Any takers? Dmcq (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take it. Refer to the archives for the consensus on this proposal. Airborne84 (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's nonsense. The first thing policy would require would be that we spin off smaller articles from the monster so created. So, we would separate the peer-reviewed science out from the politics and public opinion stuff, and be back exactly where we are today. --Nigelj (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonsense? It what way is the elimination of a content fork nonsense? If the subject matter of this article is dealt directly and in detail in various other articles, chances are that the coverage of this article is aleady present else where. In any case, what is the alternative? To continue to augment, revise and update this article knowing it is a content fork? This would appear to be the least sensical choice of action, for that would bring its contributors into contravention with Wikipedia content polices; I think good editors will not wish to down this path.
 * see the FAQ at the top of this talk page about scientific opinion. And opinion about it too. It doesn't include everybody's opinion. There's other articles about all that. Dmcq (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with the FAQ, the hatnote and the lead is that they are all original research, rather than being the subject of reliable secondary sources in their own right. This would not be so bad if a rationale for this article were provided in the body of the article itself, but it is not; there is not a single reference to "Scientific opinion on climate change" even though it runs to more than 9,500 words (over 10,000 if you include the reference list). In answer to Dmcq, I can understand why some form of rationale, such as your statement that "It doesn't include everybody's opinion" should be the starting point for this article, but using personal opinion to determine what should or should not go into an article are not supported by Wikipedia's content guidelines.
 * Taking a neutral point of view between 'science' and 'non-scientific opinion' on a scientific subject is nonsense. Try that on the Laws of thermodynamics and see how you get on. --Nigelj (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, I think you proved my point. There is no other article like this, such as Scientific opinion on the Laws of thermodynamics. All of the sources of opinion are included in the one article, whether they are from scientists or not, and no viewpoint is excluded. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't see why you want to spend some of your finite lifetime on arguments like that. Dmcq (talk) 12:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So what are you trying to say? Are you suggesting that this article is not a content fork? If so, what evidence, in the form of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that address the topic of "Scientific opinion on climate change" directly and in detail can you cite to support your view?
 * I'm not trying to say anything except what I've said. I started off at the beginning of this discussion warning that if you really felt you had a point you wouldn't get anywhere here but you might be able to get some admin to agree with you on a noticeboard. I don't think you would get anywhere but it was my best advice and I felt the chance you would get anywhere here were very much slimmer. I also advised you to try and be constructive, you've come up with that anything you say would mean sticking some very large articles together to make something humongous, I think you'd have to be a bit more specific about such plans as what is the point of discussing the wrongs and rights if the result of doing things 'right' according to you looks like it would be unreadable? There's lots of quite important articles that are in far far worse condition than this. It may not make featured article but so what? Your plans wouldn't make a featured article either. Dmcq (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh and no I don't see it as a content fork. If it was a content fork then merging it with something else would produce something much less than the sum of their individual sizes but I can't see much duplication of the contents of this article anywhere else. And with such size reduction merging currently is just not on. Dmcq (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In reply to Dmcq, if that is your final view, then that is fair enough. You have answered my questions about this article's status, and I respect that, although I disagree with our view that it does not duplicate subjects that are addressed directly and in detail elsewhere, such as Climate Change, Global Warming or the IPCC as its sources suggest.
 * It's your life to do with as you wish. Dmcq (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There are so many relevant responses to these discussions that its hard to hold back. However, my original comment still stands: it's best simply to not respond sometimes since it lends credibility to arguments that have no consensus and are just beating a dead horse. I won't repeat my recommendation again, however, since I don't want to be accused of WP:Tendentious editing. Anyway, GC - take a break, come back in a month or two and see if something has changed so you don't turn into these guys., . In the meantime, there are original research hatnotes in the Creationism and List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming articles (among many others) that also deserve your attention. Airborne84 (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In answer to Airborne, if only you could cite significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that addresses the topic of "Scientific opinion on climate change" directly and in detail, you could have silenced my criticisms from the onset, but so far you have not. Perhaps you still believe this article is not a content fork, and I can respect that. Maybe you are one of the many editors who believes it to be a seperate article topic in it own right, but just don't have any sources to back up your firmly held opinion, and again I understand your position. However, it seems to me that we are almost in agreement that the hatnote and the lead of this article are comprised of original research. Am I correct in this? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No we don't agree on that. Dmcq (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's certainly arguable - just not here for a while. Have you checked out the other articles and hit their talk pages yet? If it's original research, they deserve equal consideration of your valuable time. I wish you had hit my link for this though. . Too bad. And now I have to follow my own advice and remain silent. Cheers! Airborne84 (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Recommend close. Airborne84 (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Scientific opinion is about ideas and theories that are the subject of standalone articles, and for each of the sources contained in this article, there is an over arching article topic that corresponds to it. In no other article is the title "Scientific opinion on.." used, and this a commonsense indicator that this article is a content fork. It is not a recognised as a seperate subject matter by the world at large in accordance with WP:NAME. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC) This is a pattern that you will find repeated in all of the scientific opinions expressed in this article: opinions are expressed about article topics such as Climate change, Global warming that are addressed directly and in detail elsewhere. That is why there are no other content forks like this one in existence, otherwise there would articles along the lines of "Scientific pronouncements on climate change", "Scientific papers on climate change", "Scientific consensus on climate change", or "Scientific thinking on climate change". --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Should have been closed a long time ago. It has been going in circles for way too long. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's an example why I considered consensus better than opinion that does the job, that's been reprinted in a book. But I see others have mentioned references with opinion and they've been ignored. Dmcq (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It has not been ignored in fairness, as we have discussed it. The book by Oreskes is already cited in this article in the section Oreskes, 2004, but it does not address the subject of Scientific opinion on climate change as if it is a standalone topic in its own right. Instead this section says that "the essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change". That is a clear indication that the conclusions which she reached support anthropogenic climate change, not scientific opinion per se.
 * I'm afraid I simply do not see the separate strands you think you have split this hair into. Are you saying there is some big distinction between scientific opinion and scientific consensus that would affect the contents of the article? Dmcq (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That is partly the issue (consensus is not the same as opinion, afterall), but it is also the substance of what Oreskes is saying that should be taken into consideration. She writes that "The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" and that "there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change". In this context "Scientific opinion" is the merely the source of her information, not the over-arching subject.

{UNDENT} One issue I have raised in the past is that this article relies very heavily on some pretty weak sources. For example the claim that "Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion." Is the central point of this article and yet it is very weakly sourced. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Without that one phrase, that here is used to "prove" the consensus on Global Warming, this article is a clear content fork and everything in this article is covered in the other Global Warming article, of which there are several on Wikipedia. However despite my own misgivings I suspect this is a clear case of the snowball rule. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 13:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The only wining move is to do the right thing, and that is to merge the sources in this article into its the arching topics which they address directly and in detail. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But that's the elephant in the china shop about all this business, it isn't repeated in other articles. There may be short little snippets but they then refer to here. If this article was stuck into climate change consensus for instance it would mean you'd have to delete practically everything else there in the cause of neutral point of view, it would be like trying to stick creationism and evolution together, creationism would just be relegated to a paragraph as fringe or else you'd have to make an enormous article just so it got a look in. That really wouldn't be fair in other ways to the subject as currently expressed in climate change consensus which is able to describe the overall public opinion without too much reference to the science. And it can't go into global warming, that's far too big already. The other business in a content issue you have and should be a separate thread. Dmcq (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In fairness to Voiceofreason01, the content issue about the hatnote and lead being comprised of original research is just one indicator that this is article is a content fork, and so is relevant to the discussion. As regards the uniquness of sources, the one source we have discussed (Oreskes), is already cited in the articles Climate change consensus and Attribution of recent climate change. Merging the content of this article would not be easy, I agree, but it is not rocket science either. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What on earth would be the purpose of sticking the contents of this article somewhere else? You just go on with these unconstructive ideas to no great purpose that I can see. Why do something silly? The public debate on whether there is a scientific consensus is different from whether there is a scientific consensus, sticking the two together would ruin two perfectly reasonable articles and in particular only leave some articles that sound very POV like climate change denial to document the public debate. Dmcq (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't "win" this argument with GC Dmcq. To quote from the movie WarGames, "the only winning move is not to play."
 * As to the comments of Voiceofreason01, please refer to the lengthy discussions on this subject in the archives. Airborne84 (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with doing nothing is that the content fork would remain, in contravention of WP:NPOV, which prohibits their creation and existence. A content fork is not a reasonable article as Dmcq suggests, nor is it reasonable to segrate scientific opinion from other forms of commentary, criticism and analysis, as to do so would be to condone intellectual apartheid. To provide balanced coverage of climate change, global warming, and other related topics, both scientific and opionion from other sources must be brought together. There is nothing novel about such an approach, as sources such as Oreskes apply this approach in their own scientific papers by citing both scienfic and governmental sources in her paper, which also took into account criticisms from political sources.
 * As I said at the very very beginning please take your complaint to a noticeboard about content disputes. What will happen there is that either other people besides those here will also tell you that you are wrong, or else you will get the backing of people who specialize in dealing with the type of problem you assert is happening here. For NPOV problems the appropriate noticeboard is Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Dmcq (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Whilst you are entitled to claim this article is not a content fork, the evidence is against you: the lack wider recognition of the title, the original research in the definition, and the lack of reliable secondary sources that address the article title directly and in detail. Since these criticism are direct at this title, this is the appropriate venue for discussion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You've raised practically the same sorts of things only a month ago and had a strong consensus against you. There is no indication that going on and on again is likely to change that. Your unwillingness to follow the dispute resolution process to resolve your problem indicates to me that you are not interested in achieving your stated objective or else believe you would not achieve it that way and wish to achieve it by subverting the dispute resolution process. The closest I can see to either of those with what is happening here is Civil POV pushing. If you continue this fruitless discussion without pursuing the dispute resolution process I will invoke administrator intervention to stop you on those grounds. Dmcq (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

{undent} I fail to see how this article is substantially different than Climate change consensus. This article seems to deal with scientific bodies and the other with individuals, but the individuals make up the scientific bodies. We basically have two articles talking about the same opinions of the same groups of people but in a (slightly) different context. There is some good things in this article but most of it IS repeated elsewhere and most of the content that would likely be lost if this article were merged with another is a lot of quotes, in other words not a big loss. I don't think the article as it stands now does justice to the topic. To address Dmcq's objection that, "The public debate on whether there is a scientific consensus is different from whether there is a scientific consensus" Actually these are the same thing and segregating them into different articles is basically the definition of a content fork. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're entitled to your opinion, the problem is with just going on about it here when it has been thoroughly debated before a couple of times including quite recently. One should follow the dispute resolution process if one feels strongly that something is wrong with an article but the consensus is against change. It is okay to bring up such issues every so often on the talk page but this is too frequently and long and is obviously not going anywhere.
 * As to your actual point. There is a big difference between the public view about the climate change consensus and the actual scientific opinion. You can think of it as the difference between the media circus surrounding the O J Simpson case and the actual trial itself. As far as the law is concerned the media circus had no bearing and in an article about the law concerning the OJ case the public view would weigh very little indeed. However the media circus and the differing opinions are notable. If those two articles were combined and the result treated like the law case then no number of American senators voicing their opinion would count as anything compared to the opinion of the Royal Society for instance. This article is boring because they all say practically the same thing but weight for the scientific opinion would dictate that the whole of that other article would be summnarised as something like that there is widespread discussion with some disagreement from some scientists. The thing that's already here under surveys. If it is trreated as a public discussion about whether there is a scientific consensus then that other articvle already does a reasonable job and the scientific opinions can be chopped to their weight as seen in newspapers and suchlike. Dmcq (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Within the narrow context of this discussion, there is certainly some evidence to support what Voiceofreason01 is saying to be the case. For instance, Oreskes is cited in both this article and in the article Climate change consensus, and the title of her paper, "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" supports the view that we basically have two articles talking about the same opinions of the same groups of people.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

@Vor: yes, CCC is a content fork, and yes we should see about AFD'ing it William M. Connolley (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC) As regards William's proposal, I am not keen on AFD, since the content of both this and that article is too good to delete. Far better to agree on a systematic dispertion of this article's coverage to the respective article topics to which each source relates, i.e. a sort of "one-to-many" merger. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In answer to Dmcq, you are right that in the real world there is big difference between the public view about the climate change consensus and the actual scientific opinion. However, in Wikipedia, the distinction between the two can only be made by reference to the reliability of sources, not by the source of the source, if you get my meaning. A good example is the commentary and analysis from the likes of Al Gore whose political views augment scientific opinion. We can't segregate the two types of source just because there are disagreements between them anymore than we can segregate legal opinions expressed in proceedings in the OJ Simpson case from the commentary contained within the media coverage of those proceedings.
 * As my request the issue be either dropped or raised to an appropriate forum has been ignored I have raised General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement. There's no point my continuing here otherwise I would be ignoring my own advice about progressing or dropping disputes. Dmcq (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your concerns have been addressed directly and in detail in this discussion. What has not been forthcoming is knockout evidence that this article topic is not a content fork in the form of of substantial coverage from reliable secondary sources that address "Scientific opinion on climate change" directly and in detail, or provide some sort of third party support (such as a Wikipedia content policy, for instance) for your assertion that scientific opinion should be segrated from other sources of opinion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Voiceofreason1, you said it wouldn't be a big loss if this article were dissolved or condensed and merged. It would be. It would be easy for someone to look at a small section within the other articles and say "that's not evidence that there is a scientific consensus. There's not enough proof." There is very little question when visiting this article. So, the loss of the ability of an average person to go to Wikipedia and see if there is an article that answers the question "is there a scientific consensus on climate change" would be a big loss. The article is damning proof that there is a scientific consensus by any commonly accepted definition. That brings a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT from people that previously didn't realize they held an untenable position - at least in regard to the scientific consensus. Some people decide to accept that, some remain mute, some vandalize this article, and some try to make it go away. The consensus here is that it should not go away...not only because it would be a "big loss," but also because it is acceptable within Wikipedia guidelines - according to the consensus on the talk page. It's also been noted by at least one administrator - as noted in the archives. As to its usefulness, try checking how many people visit the page on a monthly basis. In fact, this is the page that I navigated to months ago when I wanted to answer the question, "Is there a scientific consensus?" It was the single most useful article for me. I'm not against improving the article. I'm against losing the answer it provides for people like me. Merging and condensing loses the answer, besides the fact that it would likely violate WP:SIZERULE.
 * If you read WP:POVFORK carefully, you can see that this article falls under "What POV forking is not."
 * Climate change consensus was written last year and is still under development. I'd recommend you visit their page to try to improve/merge that article instead of trying to merge this one.
 * GC, save your time - there's no need to respond to this. The comments were directed toward Voiceofreason1. Airborne84 (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that there is a place for this type of article on Wikipedia, the bigger issue as I see it is that there are a number of issues with this article that never seem to get addressed. The big 3 as I see it are


 * 1. The title - I think it's fine the way it is but the issue keeps coming up.


 * 2. The WP:OR and weak sourcing in the article. Specifically this phrase for the lead, "Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion." Which has a ridiculous source for the importance and gravity of the statement. The whole article hinges on this one statement and the source is basically a blog. I know that it has been discussed before, I was there. But this is not OK, either it needs to be removed or supported with more sources.


 * 3. The allegations that Gavin Collins brought about this article being a content fork. A lot of the main points of this article are discussed in other articles. Given the controvery concerning this topic it would seem appropriate for this article to exist, but it should not be trying to "prove" that there is scientific consensus, and the format of the article is almost like that of a list. There are some POV issues involved with making an article that is little more than a list of organizations that agree with the article's premise.


 * The first item here is not a big deal, but the second two are very legitimate concerns that never seem to get addressed. "Consensus" on this article often seems to be three or four of the main editors of this article shouting down or vetoing any major changes. I don't know if the problem is with ownership on the part of some of the editors here or if it is something else but there is a problem and the result is the article is never improved and discussions such as this one that drag on and on and on with little or nothing being accomplished.


 * Airborne, what part specifically of WP:POVFORK were you refering to, I didn't see anything that seemed to apply to this article? Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added a cite flag to the passage you mention in point #2. Hopefully someone can add an appropriate source.  --DGaw (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How interesting. DGaw, did you read the lengthy archive discussions on that subject, or did you just add it because someone disagreed with it again? Airborne84 (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Assumption of good faith please, Airborne84. I added the flag because there is no reference provided for the statement, and one is required by WP:RS and WP:OR, past discussion notwithstanding.  Is there a reliable source for this statement, or is it original research?  If there is a source, could you please cite it with a ref tag?  Thanks.  --DGaw (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Voiceofreason01, I disagree that the whole article hinges on the statement you mention in #2. The remainder of the sections of the article are equally relevant.
 * I don't think "shouting down" changes is a "good faith" way of phrasing it. The other authors expressed their opinions, which may have been contrary to yours. Disagreement doesn't have equal "shouting down." And if the majority vetos major changes, then it does express the consensus. I'm not sure what the issue is, in general, to that?
 * You recommend removing the statement you mention in #2. What would you replace it with? The section could not be removed, because that would violate WP:POV. Dissenting opinions must be considered - if they are from reliable sources. If they don't exist, that should be noted also. As far as the reliability of the source, you already know what the consensus decided. Please let us know what you would replace it with if it were (theoretically) deleted though. Airborne84 (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The leader doesn't need citations except for contentions statements in BLP, see Lead_section, but it is recommended where people might go challenging it. I think it would be better to put something in. The leader is there to introduce and summarise the article. Dmcq (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

{undent} I don't recommend removing it, I recommend citing a reliable source. Besides being a weak source it is WP:SYNTH. In the previous discussion on this topic my concerns were largely dismissed out of hand in favor of keeping a pretty quote in the article. It is tempting to use the first quote that supports what you're trying to say but the source doesn't hold up. Not only that but the arguments, in the previous discussion, for keeping the current source were also weak. If this were an isolated incident I would simply let it go as consensus having spoken, but looking at the current discussion I see the same thing happening. The reason this is so important is that the lead asserts that there are no notable organizations that dissent from the theory of global warming. The article then lists sources and quotes that support that assertion. If we don't have a source saying there are no notable sources that do not support global warming than the rest of the article becomes a giant POV mess. That one source is incredibly important to the article. Do you dispute that that phrase is important to the article? If it isn't important why not remove it? As for your assertion that I am not assuming good faith on the part of the other editors I say that I am just calling a  spade a spade. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC) The edit history shows that dozens of editors have added unsourced content to the lead, but not one of them chose to cite a source in support. Original research can't be described as the consensus view, as it is not in accordance with Wikipedia content policy; the lead is simply the combination the personal opinions of many editors. Finding sources for original research is like looking for a pin in a haystack. In answer to Voiceofreason01's question, the unsupported statements in the lead of this article are incredibly important to the article, in terms of its notability as a standalone article, as well as defintion of its subject matter. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying. Yet deleting the "dissenting" section isn't a possibility since all sides have to be considered. Why don't you help make this article better by finding some more sources that support that section besides the one that's there? Airborne84 (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Shooting the messenger" is not the way forward to resolving the crticisms made at the start of this discussion. How can Voiceofreason01 be expected to find sources in support of original research? The lead makes unsupported claims that are based on editorial opinion, not verifiable sources. WP:OR says "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".


 * I am not suggesting removing the "Dissenting opinions" section, although it wouldn't really matter since all it says is that there "are no dissenting opinions". The claim in the lead is being used as an excuse to not include any dissenting opinions, and there are some dissenting opinions, even if they aren't from "scientific body of national or international standing" there are still NPOV problems with simply linking to individual scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming. I have submitted this issue to the WP:OR/N noticeboard here. Hopefully some extra eyes will help us get this resolved. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for progressing your content dispute in an appropriate way. That is what I mean by either progressing or dropping a dispute if one is not getting anywhere at the talk page. Hopefully at the end of that either you will either get your desired change or people will be able to point to that to stop this particular issue being pursued again for a couple of months. Dmcq (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Gavin.collins has started up another one at with basically the same text that started this long discussion. Dmcq (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution
I see merit in Gavin Collins dispute. What is the best way to agree on resolving this issue? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * For the particular issues Gavin Collins raised how about following the process described in the WP:DISPUTE policy? And then accept the conclusion one way or the other? I raised the above request because they wouldn't follow the process but kept on bringing it up again and again here and it obviously wasn't talk which might help in improving the article because nothing new was coming up. Dmcq (talk) 09:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way I see from the discussion that Gavin Collins raised a similar point about other articles at VPP with similar comments to him, ended up doing an AfD on another article which then was kept. So I guess he has been to a noticeboard even if not the particular one for these issues. It looks to me like the only ways left to resolve this issue are mediation or arbitration, or of course walk away. My action isn't on the particular issue but on the failure to make reasonable progress with the dispute process so I guess you can always try one of those if you like. Dmcq (talk) 09:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In answer to ZuluPapa5, I don't know what is the best way to proceed, because this is a complex case. I would be happy to proceed to mediation.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My involvement is a mediation step; however, I have a view here. I guess a AFD is required to rename an article, so how about a RFC on an AFD for renaming? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe AFD is the way to go, as most of this article is well sources, so deletion of its content would not be appropriate. I don't think a change of name on its own will provide a solution, because the subject matter is defined by the original research in the lead section. Since the criticism are relatively complex and open to being dismissed out of hand, a formal mediation case should be opended in my view. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, maybe I mixed my intentions with yours. What would you like to change? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The problems with this article are quite complex. Whether this article is a content fork is a matter of dispute, and I feel that a mediation case should be opened with the Mediation Cabal on this issue. My view is that this article should be converted to a redirect (to which article, I cannot say), and its sources be dispersed to which ever article they relate to. Whilst you may not agree with my remedy, I think that a mediaiton case is a proposal with merit, and I would appreciate your support. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)