Talk:Scientific consensus on climate change/Archive 22

Article should be brought into sync with its title
When I look at this article, it bugs me that we have a broad title combined with a very narrow article. To wit, the title of the article is "Scientific opinion on climate change." As the IPCC has recognized, that's a broad subject. The IPCC, which is tasked with gathering and disseminating scientific opinion on climate change, deals with all of the following questions in its reports: What causes climate change?

Has the Earth been warming? If so, how much?

Is the Earth expected to continue warming? If so, how much?

Has sea level been rising? If so, how much?

Is sea level expected to continue rising? If so, how much?

How much does an increase in CO2 warm the climate? (More techically, what is the value of equilibrium climate sensitivity?)

How long does it take a human-caused increase in CO2 to be re-absorbed by the climate system?

What, if any, is the likely impact of changing climate on agriculture?

On polar regions?

On health?

All of the above questions are addressed by climate scientists and by IPCC reports. Yet the article narrowly focuses on the first, and half of the second. That bugs me. I think an article entitled "Scientific opinion on climate change" should address many aspects of scientific opinion on climate change, rather than endlessly hammering home a single widely-agreed point.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 08:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The intro lede sums up the scope, which is focused on the anthro aspects and observation confirmations. There are however various other bits of science, but those are dealt with in the various other articles. And if you want an overview of the science then global warming is the article for that. prokaryotes (talk) 09:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the lede sums up the scope quite nicely. The problem I have is with the mismatch between the title and the content.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, the first thing ofc is to update the article for IPCC AR5. prokaryotes (talk) 09:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No objection to updating, but does it have to stand in the way of syncing up the title and the scope? In my view, both are good ideas. Why does one need to come first?MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 09:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Because most things you want to extend are based on AR5. Also I am not sure what you want to add, as mentioned we have several articles, and the current article links to them. Though, i won't object to add a subsection for elaborating some more on those. prokaryotes (talk) 09:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is about the scientific opinion on global warming, not on global warming itself. The article about the global warming is called global warming. This article is not about the IPCC, there is another article about that. How else would you title them? Dmcq (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Anything to narrow it down towards what the article actually covers. "Scientific opinion on global warming" is still too broad but would certainly be an improvement -- not quite right, but much better than "Scientific opinion on climate change."  From a describe-the-topic standpoint, the ideal title would be something like "Scientific opinion on the fact that humans are causing global warming" but obviously that reads terribly.  "Scientific opinion on global warming" at least doesn't imply that things like storms, sea level, glaciers, and localized changes are covered.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 19:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is about 'scientific opinion on climate change. It isn't about the science of climate change/global warming as such. Sticking in extra words like 'the fact of' doesn't help and it does look like it prejudges the issue. You seem to be having problems with the idea that there is a notable topic about whether there is a scientific opinion on it and how strong the consensus is but it has been the subject of a lot of attack and obfustication and questioning. Dmcq (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Please don't pigeonhole me. And as I noted above, obviously "the fact of" reads terribly; that was merely a descriptor of what the article says. Can we stick to my actual concerns without putting words in my mouth and making stuff up. Good grief.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 06:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I would not be concerned about your title if it just read terribly. Any old title would be good if it explained your concern. I said what your title said to me - and what it said to me was wrong because it prejudged the issue without adding anything useful that I could make out otherwise. Do you expect to see a lot of science at public opinion on global warming, or specifics about the various different red herrings raised at climate change denial? That all goes into global warming controversy as said in the hatnote to this article. The extra words in what you said strike me like the extra words in public opinion on the fact of global warming or climate change truth denial. Dmcq (talk) 08:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Scientific opinion on climate change" would appear to include lots of things, such as storms, glaciers, and sea level, none of which are in the article. "Scientific opinion on global warming" would be considerably better because it makes it clear that the article does not include those things.  Still too broad, in my opinion, because it implies that the article includes the amount of global warming and predictions of future warming, both of which involve scientific opinion, and neither of which is included.  The current situation is akin to an article entitled "{canines" which then goes on to talk only about the relationship between dogs and humans.  If the article title were changed to "dogs", that would still not be right, but it would be a considerable improvement.  Does that make sense?MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 16:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're barking up the wrong tree, if you base your argument on the belief that "global warming" and "climate change" are not synonyms in the common tongue spoken by the lay audience. Before you try to argue that point here, please follow WP:MULTI by posting your claims at Talk:Global warming, where we've often debated the same thing in the past.  In your post, try to tell us what new arguments you have, in comparison to archived threads on point. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This primary topic of the article is not climate change or global warming - it really and truly is not. It is about scientific opinion as in the article scientific consensus. The scientific opinion of interest is the scientific opinion on climate change. The business about storms is quite irrelevant. If you have a look at the global warming article you'll see this is referred to mainly at global warming alongside the political and public discussions in the media. Dmcq (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There have been several attempts to 'divide and rule' this topic over the years. One is the idea that 'climate change' and 'global warming' are different topics (thermodynamically a global climate can only change in one of two directions - warming (more energy) or cooling (less) - and there is no doubt about the direction for this last century or so). Another is the idea that sea level rise, glacier shrinkage, storms, droughts,, etc, are entirely unrelated to climate change until proven otherwise. Another is that 'Scientific opinion' is similar to 'Some scientific opinions' and so it's all a matter of personal opinion. This is an interesting interview with Naomi Oreskes in which she addresses the idea of scientific consensus and recent efforts to discredit the concept. In my opinion the article and its title are fine, and the sections on concurring, non-committal and dissenting statements from scientific organizations are the heart of it. --Nigelj (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes that video explains well what this article is about. It is interesting that people came up to her and said 'how did you think of doing that?'. Sometimes there can be a blank area before somebody points it out and afterwards you think it is obvious, it is good they noticed. Dmcq (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, fine. I have no objection to calling it "Scientific opinion on climate change" if that is also the topic. If dividing is objectionable, let's keep it united. But in that case, other scientific opinions on climate change should be a valid topic for the article. Should the content of the article reflect its title, or only a portion of that title?MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 09:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * @MissPiggySBoyFriend, who said "other scientific opinions on climate change should be a valid topic for the article"..... please provide examples of the opinions you think are missing and the RSs that support your opinion? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not against a further split as I thought the surveys should have been kept and I think they now have too little room compared to the international societies. A couple of scientific societies which have expressed non-committal positions are listed but I don't know of any other scientific source of any vaguely comparable weight that has said anything else. Dmcq (talk) 10:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * @NewsAndEventsGuy -- is the reason this thread is getting so difficult perhaps due to a misunderstanding of what I meant by that? I in no way meant to detract from, or deny, the scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming.  This is undeniably correct, there is a strong scientific consensus to support it, and that should absolutely be covered in the article.  However, as written, the article gives the impression that that consensus constitutes the entire field, and that's simply not the case. Here, for example, CNN goes on at length about sea level rise, which is certainly a matter of scientific opinion on climate change.  Here, the IPCC goes on at length about climate sensitivity , which is obviously an important issue related to climate change, and makes the news, for example, here .  There is also a lively debate about CO2 residence time in the atmosphere, with the two takes from the IPCC here  and here , and making the news all the time, for example here  and here .  By different opinions, I was not referring to an opinion opposing the current main thrust of the article.  Rather, I meant additional opinions such as these.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You're talking about individual studies and responses on particular aspects - that comes under Global warming. CNN is not a scientific organisation making a statement or a study of scientists opinion. When you're talking about the scientific opinion on evolution you're not talking about the specific proteins involved in duplicating DNA, see for a random example. Dmcq (talk) 12:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I have attempted to resolve this thread via bold revision of the hatnote. Have at it..... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is far too long, I've reverted. The current discussion is with someone who has read quite a bit of the article and still doesn't quite see what it is about - you're not going to fix that with a longer hatnote. Dmcq (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with MissPiggysBoyFriend, insofar as a stranger to our climate pages, ignorant of our past history here, stands a very good chance of asking the very questions MPBF is asking. I think he's making some very constructive (and refreshing) criticisms and we should pay attention not just engage in instabashing.  Fact is, "scientific opinion on" is an ambiguous phrase.  Any arguments that "it always means only this" are wrong, because it can mean different things.  So why bonk heads over which ambiguous interpretation is the only viewpoint?
 * If your only objection is "too long", then you're asking the wrong question. The right question is What hatnote text will do the best job helping newcomers who are not privvy to the rhyme or reason how our articles are organized access the climate change material they are looking for?  If you can persuade me the original does a better job helping someone find the scientific opinion about how climate change will impact food security than my own version, I will agree with you.  Otherwise, please self revert. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It has been reverted because it is too long for a hatnote. No I won't revert myself and don't think you have some sort of greater insight or staus in Wikipedia or something so a change by you takes precedence unless others argue for ages with you over anythging you do. See WP:HATNOTE, it starts with 'Hatnotes are short notes...'. Dmcq (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * D, I know I frustrate you frequently. Please put that stuff on my personal talk page and here just WP:FOC, OK?  I think I'd like to hear MPBF's reaction, and of course that of others who haven't yet chimed in. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You can quote what you want to stick there in this discussion but I would have thought you should say why a long hatnote would solve anything if the whole lead doesn't. If there is something to be fixed it is the lead, I have tried to explain the topic and you have tried to explain too but I see no progress. If you find some explanation that actually is understood that would be a big advance. Dmcq (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, this is a continuation of a 2013 debate. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The relevant bit here is about the lead. To quote from the hatnote page at WP:1HAT:
 * As hatnotes separate the reader from the content they are looking for, hatnotes should generally be as concise as possible. Long explanations are generally discouraged; the article's lead text, not the hatnote, should explain what the article is about. In almost all cases, the hatnote is intended only to direct readers to other articles in case they were actually looking for something they will not find in the article containing the hatnote.
 * If you want to go against that guideline you need to have a good reason. As the interview with Oreskes showed the topic is something people have found surprising. It is in a way a metatopic of the science rather than a topic within the science and people always have trouble with anything that is a meta- something. Dmcq (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Irony alert
 * Dmcq says If you want to go against that guideline you need to have a good reason.
 * WP:HATNOTE says, "Hatnotes help readers locate a different article they might be seeking."
 * You have not offered a single word how any version of the hatnote helps readers find different articles they might be seeking, nor the specific example I offered when a reader is looking for the Scientific opinion on climate change's impact on food security. Meanwhile, you admit people have trouble with "anything that is meta-something" like this article.
 * If you're going to champion the guideline (which is great), I'd think you'd focus on substance over form by concerning yourself with what hatnote best helps readers find other articles they're seeking, instead of the number of characters.
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

(De-denting because this is getting crazy...) I rather like NAEG's version. Yes, it is long, but MPBF's comments are pertinent: there are many articles about climate change, and this one summarizes the views of scientists and scientific organizations. I don't think said hatnote is too long, but I'm no policy expert. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you think that hatnote explains things better than the lead then why not just have the main sentence as the lead sentence? If it doesn't then why delay people from reading the lead sentence? That is what the biit at the hatnote guideline is basically saying. The lead should say what the article is about - and it should say so pretty close to the very beginning preferably in the first sentence as per WP:LEAD. You don't have to be some ppolicy expert. It isn't about following some stupid guideline - the guidelines are there as a distillation of good advice about what people have found it best to do in Wikipedia. We're supposed to use common sense. Dmcq (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

article title and first sentence change proposal
I agree with Dmcq also. The real issue here is that the longstanding consensus here has been to focus on highlevel statements (of sci opinion) about existence and cause primarily. Only the title and lead don't really say that; instead we just plunge in. We can clear all this up quite easily with a slightly tweaked title and first sentence... which would dispense with the hatnote altogether.
 * New Title - Scientific opinion on the existence and cause of global warming Yes, I propose change changed from climate change to global warming, and for the single reason that if we're changing the title to specificy "existence and cause" its a good time to make this consistent with scope of article global warming, but I'm happy retaining 'climate change' if others want. The important part is 'existence and cause'
 * New first sentence preserves substance of existing one and like the Mississippi flood example at WP:LEAD, the new article title would not be the bolded subject of the sentence
 *  There is a scientific consensus that that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. 

Nothing else would change, but the title and first sentence would then better reflect what we have always agreed to include here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not keen on long titles but at least it doesn't prejudge the issue like some suggestions. I think we can avoid that if we have a good enough lead sentence. The problem perhaps with the current lead sentence is like you say it dives into the result rather than saying what the article is about, but your suggestion doesn't really fix that. Your hatnote had 'This page presents a summary of statements made by various scientific institutions about the current climate change, or global warming. Also included is a summary of surveys of individual scientists', that gives what is in it but not why and the current lead sentence says the result - but nothing really gives the topic like Oreskes study had a topic. I would say the topic of the article is partly in your proposed title - it is about whether scientists have a consensus on whether global warming is happening, and if so its major causes and likely progress. Dmcq (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * @Myself... in my OP I said nothing else would change, but I'd forgotten that in the lsat couple years some additional bullet points had crept into the lead... stuff that goes beyond existence and cause, that is. For example, compare to lead in this Dec 2011 version.  So mabye more would have to change after all.   Still, we should get a grip on Title/Scope so we can finally pursue consensus on an AR5 update.
 * D, please tell us succinctly what you think the topic should be, and critique the current title and lead accordingly. If they're flawed (given your understanding of the topic), then how are they flawed, and more importantly what title or text you propose that would do a better job than what's previously been suggested? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought I just did say what I thought was the topic in the very last sentence before your contribution. Did you completely miss what I said? Dmcq (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I tripped on the word "partly", but that comes in the clause before your statement. Sorry, I thought "partly" meant you left part out, my mistake.  Let's see what others think..... hey others!  Do you agree that the topic of this article is/should be whether scientists have a consensus on whether global warming is happening, and if so its major causes and likely progress ? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Just trying to brainstorm a few titles here. No strong opinion for/against any of them, yet: Or substitute "opinion" for "consensus" in any of the above MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 06:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Scientific consensus on the cause of global warming
 * Scientific consensus on human-caused global warming
 * Scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming
 * I think they are all too restrictive. Also the words 'consensus' and 'global warming' prejudge the issue. It is like saying 'The consensus of people on the scrumptious icing of the cake'. That is hardly a NPOV title. This article should contain any notable dissenting scientific opinion, it is just that the most there is are crowds like the American Association of Petroleum Geologists who are explicitly non-committal about it. Dmcq (talk) 10:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So you are suggesting something like "Scientific opinion on global temperature trends?"MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Although I think you've made some apt criticisms, you don't appear to be working towards an implementable remedy, so I'll go back to tolerating the status quo. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * NAEG: I'm not sure about how you phrased that red statement above; something doesn't sit right with me about it, but I can't really place it. I rather like a variation on MPBF's new title: "Scientific opinion on the cause of modern climate change". - Parejkoj (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking, Parejkoj. The red text - with which I disagree - is a quote from Dmcq's prior comments; I felt we were talking past each other a bit and wanted to see if we could all agree on a more specific statement as to this article's topic/scope.   Instead, I think the topic/scope should be as stated in a new article title.  Either
 * Scientific opinion on the existence and cause of global warming to be consistent with our article "Global warming", or
 * Scientific opinion on the existence and cause of climate change
 * Because scientific opinion also covers (A) effects, (B) projections, (C) approaches to mitigation, (D) adaptation issues, (E) climate engineering technology, (F) policy options, and probably others...... we should specify in the title/lead which part of scientific opinion we are talking about and for the rest just link to the relevant articles. The part I think we should laser focus on is existence and cause, and I think we should say so in the title/lead.   Also, I'm only talking about the overall conclusions from the scientific community, i.e.,  (1) Yes, it's warming, and (2) Yes, it's us.   There is also a lot of scientific opinion on the supporting evidence for those conclusions, but we should just link to the sub pages where that stuff is covered in more detail.
 * Regarding the title you liked, "Scientific opinion on the cause of modern climate change", it assumes the fact that it is indeed warming. Well of course that's what the RS say. But I kinda think we the topic here should include existence of warming, as well as the cause.
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * NAEG, Why do you say that? Were you talking to me?  I was tying to suggest some ideas. If it was not helpful, I apologize.  About the statement in red, I am fine with that topic for the article, if titled appropriately.  Certainly nothing wrong with having an article on that subject, and that's what this one is, presently, except for the title.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Apolgoies if I sounded harsh. The climate pages are plagued with a low signal-to-noise ratio.  Idea/criticism floating is fine, but what helps most is substantive participation in evaluating pros/cons of the different suggestions.  Thanks for adding some thoughts on that score. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A point about what you said above, the article says that policy is not part of the scientific opinion and quotes a source on that.They can try and analyse what a policy would do or try and find an action to implement a particular policy but policy is a political matter and depends on people's value judgments. Policy is part of the IPCC remit but that is because it is also a political organisation. As to a lot of the rest things like mitigation options don't have some overall scientific opinion on them and indeed depend on policy decisions to a great extent. At best we can say what will probably happen for different mitigation options but that isn't at all clear yet. Dmcq (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I like this title a lot; seems to fit the existing topic perfectly:
 * Scientific opinion on the existence and cause of global warming.
 * the article is really about global warming specifically, not climate change in general
 * the amount of warming is not covered; this proposed title makes that clear
 * the cause is covered; this proposed title makes that clear as well.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 10:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a bit better than the previous but rather verbose. You seem to think that the titles in Wikipedia are the same as titles to stand alone articles being put into a journal. They are not, they are more like descriptive keys. We even have them a little wrong sometimes to solve disambiguation problems. The way articles are found in Wikipedia is by search and by links in other articles. See WP:PRECISION in the policy about article titles "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that". We're hardly going to have any other articles on other aspects of the scientific opinion on anything to do with this, and if we did we'd probably want to make it a subtopic of this one. Dmcq (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, it is a bit verbose and I would prefer less. But what alternative is better?MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 11:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yo seem to want a title that does the job of the lead. Precisely defining the contents of an article is not a requirement in the article policy in WP:TITLE, precise there means precise enough to identify it and distinguish it from other articles it might be confused with. It is a way of finding the precise article - not a precise description of everything the article is or is not about. This is the same problem we've had about the hatnote. The job of outlining precisely what the article is about is up to the the lead as in the policy WP:LEAD. The title does not constrain the contents of an article. It is not the same as the title of a journal article where they try and be very clear about what it is about because searches used to be by eye on the title and there are many articles on very similar topics. Dmcq (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate the sounding board, we really need more eds to join this discussion if there's to be any chance of implementation. Should we try to agree on text and some suggested answers for a mutually agreed poll question? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Works for me, but I don't have much idea how such polls work or where to start.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 12:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:POLL and WP:!VOTE. Basically, you work hard at writing a neutral question, develope some possible answers with neutral phrasing (and I always like to add an option for "other") and post it.   Then participants insert their !votes;  consensus is supposed to be determined by weighing the strength of the reasoning, not the number of "yes" or "no" or other unsubtantive replies. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd much prefer to have the lead fixed since we have identified that it does not outline the topic at the beginning but just dives straight into results. What's the point of this business about the title if we haven't got the topic in the lead right? Dmcq (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine by me to explore lead revisions first. Please show us what you have in mind via bold edits, or posting a draft of new text here at talk. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You put what I said I thought was the topic and put it in red above and said you disagreed with it. Perhaps if you could be more specific with your disagreement or said what you thought the topic was we could go forward a bit. Dmcq (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I already said we should laser focus on existence and cause. You included more than that in your red text.  At least two of the eds in this discussion so far (Dmcq and myself) know the history here, and it's my opinion that most eds are just ignoring all this noise until something tangible is formally proposed.  So although I disagreed with your red text, so what?  It's just the three or four of us here.  My hope is we can organize competing ideas over which we disagree into a succinct package to present to the many silent page watchers who would probably chime in if edits were made to the article itself.  The goal is to convince them, after all, not just us few. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup reverted split article
MissPiggysBF, please add the template to Statements_by_scientific_organizations_on_human-caused_global_warming

You split all that out of this article, and I reverted so we could talk about it first. Thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Done! MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 13:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I would say that other article has a far too specific title and is not in the least concise. Why do you feel the need to cram stuff in to produce such a long title? Please read WP:TITLE about titles on Wikipedia. Have you come across another such long title on |Wikipedia and did you think it was a good idea? Dmcq (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I know a longer one... List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.  I appreciate the fast response posting the author-request speedy delete template, which makes the rest of this sorta moot, no? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep you're right, that is longer, and I can't see how to chop it down. The 'list of' is the only redundant bit but it is standard on Wikipedia to say a list is a list. Perhaps 'mainstream scientific assessment' could be shortened to 'scientific consensus'. It doesn't though have any bits just put in unnecessarily like 'List of scientists in natural sciences who have been noted for an opinion contradicting the mainstream consensus on the science aspect of global warming as summarized by the iPCC''. Dmcq (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't say I'm wholly opposed to a split like that though. This article would still have to have a substantial summary but overall it would become much shorter and the other main sections would show up more. Dmcq (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't hurt to have the discussion . . . I'm not opposed to working more on that article; just didn't want to do it if we don't want the article to exist.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * To talk about splitting out the statements by organizations, please start a clean thread to propose it, and spot the split template on the article. As for "List of..." I am not troubled by that title but in any case this isn't the best place to debate its pros/cons. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Part of the lead is not actually scientific.
From the lead, reference omitted:

"The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources)."

The problem is that even though the IPCC did say that, it's not actually science. To quote the first sentence of the science article:

"Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."

The problem should be clear. The statement "the reselience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by . . ." is not testable. For example, suppose someone came to you with the statement "In the third century, the resilience of many ecosystems was exceeded." Even with perfect information about the state of the world at the beginning and end of the third century, there is no way you could make a determination whether the statement was true or not.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 19:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to debate "what is science" please do it on that article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Compare "the probability of rain today is 60%". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Stephan Schulz. The projections about the effects on the environment are part of the scientific opinion and there is a pretty strong consensus about them. It is the same as forecasting the weather for tomorrow and them saying you'll probably get get soaked if you go out. The non-scientific bit in IPCC is the policy recommendation that we should do anything about it. It is up to people in general to say how much they care. That's the same as whether you don't mind going out in the rain or whether you'd prefer to stay dry. Dmcq (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * See also #4 here. --Nigelj (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Stephan Schulz' example illustrates my point perfectly. At the end of the day, either it rained or it didn't.  It is testable.  To be sure, there could be borderline cases, but the vast majority of the time, it will be clear that it either rained or it didn't.  The statement about rain is therefore science.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 03:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nigelj, #3 (cherrypicking) also seems to be in play.  It's obvious, MPBF, that you didn't actually read the entire Science article.  But I'll play along with your attempt to resrict science soley to that which is empirical.  You're still wrong.  If the forcaster dies the same day they produced the forecast, the testing can still happen, it just has to be done by his/her successor(s), just as projections about Resilience (ecology) 100 years out will be tested by the successors of today's ecologists.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This article isn't about the science, it is about the scientific opinion. Do you understand what I am saying? Do you disagree? Dmcq (talk) 08:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * My concern was never with the "century"; rather, it was with the question of whether or not "resilience" and "many ecosystems" are sufficiently well defined that, after a century, one would be able to give a clear answer as to whether or not such a prediction has been fulfilled. It's still not clear to me that this is the case, but based on the linked "resilience" article above, it is clear to me that the effort is at least being made.  So I'm going to drop this line of inquiry.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 11:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It very much fear it looks like we will not need some precise criterion for that but that it will have more of a 'when I drop a stone it falls' sort of obviousness. When one drops a stone it falls is a scientific statement. Dmcq (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Extent of warming
I think the extent of warming, both past and future, is a valid topic for this article. I've made a (small) beginning towards coverting what is doubtless a very large topic.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 11:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This would be better at Global warming or maybe Effects of global warming or maybe Instrumental temperature record. I've reverted, since we're talking about the general (rather than detailed) statements of scientific bodies.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If that's off topic here, the article is mis-titled. Is this about Scientific opinion on climate change?  Or merely scientific opinion on the fact that climate is changing?MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The operative words here are 'scientific opinion'. It is about the scientific opinion on global warming. It isn't about global warming. Dmcq (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, scientific opinion about how much the Earth has warmed. That's a scientific opinion about climate change.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Scientific opinion includes the impact of climate change on fruit fly testosterone, too, you know. Well OK... I just made that up to illustrate the following point --- given the million things for which there is at least some scientific opinion in the RSs on climate change, we have to use our judgment on where to draw the line.  Since I arrived (2011) this article has been reporting the general agreement on the ultra high-level points:   It has and is warming, It's us, we could mitigate against it if we chose.  Maybe with or without others, in different flavors, at different times in this articles history, but that's always been the general thrust.  It has not been about quantifying amounts, or ranges, or discussing the uncertainty factor in those quantifications.  That's all at Global warming and its sub articles (I think).  Here, its about the scientific endorsement of the super boiled down, can't-boil-it-any-further high points.   There are genuine matters left to resolve (i.e., climate sensitivity)  and some of those are discussed in summary style at global warming controversy.  Here we should stick to the general agreement of the super high points.  Specific temp increases in the record is an excessive detail in this particular article.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe you better had a look on Nature instead of continuing your private assessment here. The major point is about the regional diversity of climate change and the rather different individual vulnerability of specific societies and states. That said, the extent of an global warming average is negligeable. Serten Talk 07:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant to this article. See WP:NOTFORUM. Dmcq (talk) 09:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Points / main points
I think the lead reads better with "points" instead of "main points" as it has now. I think this is more of a content edit than an NPOV as I characterized it in my [now reverted] edit. When something is in the lead, people will realize it is a "main point."MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Attempting to design a poll
First take:

This poll is about the title of the article currently entitled Scientific opinion on climate change. The content of the article focuses on the current scientific consensus that the Earth as a whole is warming, and that humans are largely responsible. The question is whether or not the title is a good fit for the article.

where xxxx is whatever you prefer from question 1.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 08:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Question 1: Should the title use "climate change" or "global warming"?
 * Question 2: Which of the following forms of the title is preferable:
 * A. "Scientific opinion on xxxx"
 * B. "Scientific opinion on the existence and cause of xxxx"
 * C. "Scientific opinion on human-caused xxxx"


 * Good first try. Hopefully helpful remarks
 * (A) The lead's current bullet points go beyond warming and cause so the sentence starting "The content..." seems incomplete.
 * (B) I've never had good luck with polls that ask two questions
 * (C) If the question is "whether or not the title is a good fit for the article." there should be answers that start "Yes", "No", and "Other"
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * (A) So it does. Ugh.  Not sure where to go with that . . . some of the lead seems problematic in and of itself.  For example the lead says "The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded" . . . Is that even subject to determination by observation?  How would one define whether an ecosystem's resilience has been exceeded or not?
 * (B and C) I've taken the liberty of editing my original post.


 * Saying the ecosystems resilience is likely to be exceeded is a very reasonable part of the scientific opinion. Why not? The sort of thing that wouldn't be part of it is whether we should bother saving the environment. Anyway I'm going for just keeping the current title especially as we haven't gone into fixing the lead yet and you're discussing the lead. Dmcq (talk) 10:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's any need to update the article's focus: what it talks about is useful, and interesting, and a valid subject. I also don't see any use to be had in fiddling around with the title William M. Connolley (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Suppose we play it out to see if there will be any logical reasoning that will require more than "don't like" rebuttal? If not, then its other people's wasted time so why object? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Second take:

This poll is about the title of the article currently entitled Scientific opinion on climate change. The content of the article focuses on the current scientific consensus that the Earth as a whole is warming, and that humans are largely responsible.

MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 08:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Question: Which of the following forms of the title is preferable:
 * A1. "Scientific opinion on climate change"
 * A2. "Scientific opinion on global warming"
 * B. "Scientific opinion on the existence and cause of global warming"
 * C1. "Scientific opinion on human-caused global warming"
 * C2. "Scientific opinion on human-caused climate change"


 * The courtroom objection is "Assumes facts not in evidence".  As I previously stated, the lead bullets go beyond your characterization of the article.  Until you fix that, it is a fatal defect to this draft.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There is disagreement about what the topic is, what is the point of going on about a title if there isn't first some agreement about a statement of the topic in the lead? Dmcq (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Dmcq, I've already said I'm willing to do it that way also, and am waiting for a reply to my comment at 15:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC) in the prior thread. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I know you did, what is your point? You are perfectly entitled to go on talking about changing the title even though there is a disagreement about the topic. You can even change it even if you haven't any agreement about a decent statement about what the topic is if you get a consensus. I asked "what is the point of going on about a title if there isn't first some agreement about a statement of the topic in the lead?" Is it so you can do something like that? If you don't care to give an answer then don't answert but don't go on as if the question hhas been answered by you waiting for me to make more of the topic on the topic as if you were some arbiter or chairman shutting down unconstructive comment. Dmcq (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Unassisted communication is obviously futile here. If you hope for constructive dialogue with me about maybe improving the lead/topic issues, I'd be glad to join you at the WP:DR venue of your choice. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Third take:

This poll is about the title of the article currently entitled Scientific opinion on climate change. The content of the article focuses on the current scientific consensus that the Earth as a whole is warming, that humans are largely responsible, and predicted impacts of warming.


 * Question: Which of the following forms of the title is preferable:
 * A1. "Scientific opinion on climate change"
 * A2. "Scientific opinion on global warming"
 * B. "Scientific opinion on the existence and cause of global warming"
 * C1. "Scientific opinion on human-caused global warming"
 * C2. "Scientific opinion on human-caused climate change" — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk • contribs) 03:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * So far, this is like WMC said...pointless. This poll just asks whether CC and GW are synonyms.  We've already discussed that, and I've already pointed to the abundant archives at global warming.  MPBF, if you want support rehashing that yet again, in my opinion you need to invest effort at organizing a review of the past debates and with reference to the content in the prior debates tell us us why you think the outcome should be different this time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Abundant" is right -- given the constraints of RL, I am not going to go through 72 archives -- is there one in particular that is relevant? I would add that I don't think you are being entirely fair to my proposed poll; there is more than just the CC/GW question in there.  In particular, a title of "Scientific opinion on the existence and cause of climate change" would not make much sense; therefore, the CC/GW issue kinda HAS to be included to get at the other one, unless I'm missing something.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Type "title" in the little search box thingie NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The difference I see is in the article under discussion. While this article does have some non-temperature discussion, it is pretty slim.  I assume that if someone were to start a section on (say) storms, which is not a direct temperature issue, it would get reverted.  That's not the case for the climate change article.  That was my original motivation for suggesting the change to the title of this article, and looking at portions of the archives hasn't changed it.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I really don't know why you go on about particular conclusions rather than what the article is about. The topic would still be a valid one if the scientific opinion was that the climate was going to get cooler or not change at all. We say 'public opinion on smoking', not 'public opinion of the evils of smoking a noxious weed'. Dmcq (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

There are actually *two* differences between GW and CC. GW is clearly about temperature, whereas CC can include non-temperature aspects of climate. Additionally, GW says there is warming, while CC does not prejudge that. It seems like what is happening here is that I want GW to make it clear that the article is about temperature; but that bugs you becuase it is also prejudging the warming. Not sure what to do about that.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 14:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oreskes said climate change in the paper starting this off so basically that is that. Your argument about that climate change deals with more than just the temperature and global warming prejudges the issue just shows how right that choice was. What you could do about it is to stop going on and on about changing a long standing title for no good reason. Dmcq (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Lead section
How about instead of the introductory sentence going immediately to results we actually say what the topic of the article is about. I propose the following. There is a bit of duplication with what follows so some trimming could follow. Dmcq (talk) 09:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC) The scientific opinion on climate change is the overall judgment amongst scientists about whether whether global warming is happening and if so its causes and probable consequences. Near unanimous agreement has been established by the statements of the major international and national science organisations and by surveys of climate scientists.

The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are ...


 * Is it really the case that near unanimous agreement exists as to probable consequences?MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 11:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as those consequences are stated here yes. Dmcq (talk) 11:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on the article (admittedly without going to the actual statements), I'd regard that assertion as unproven. For example, the lead talks about "costs", but very few of the quoted organizations say anything about it.  Far from clear that silence should be interpreted as agreement.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A number have explicitly agreed with the IPCC and nobody has said they disagree. If you have some evidence of a disagreement please advance some source. Or would you care to say which bits you think are doubtful and we might be able to find something about it? Dmcq (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said, by concern is that silence on an issue (such as costs) should not be interpreted as agreement. To wit, you've proposed the phrasing "near unanimous aggreement" for the intro.  That seems correct for both whether warming is happening and for causes.  It does not seem correct for costs.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That seems to an argument of the gaps, yes they said they agreed but did they specifically say they agreed with this particular thing. I think they are quite capable of saying about anything they disagree with and a number have explicitly agreed. Have you got any substantive reasons for thinking anything else? If you disagreed with it and were drafting something would you just leave out saying anything about things you disagreed with? Dmcq (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That depends on whether or not I were referencing a specific document. If I were to write up "what I agree and disagree with about the IPCC statement on climate change", then I would likely address whatever was in the IPCC statement, yes.  But if I were to write up "my opinion on climate change", I would not necessarily reference everything I agree and disagree with about the IPCC statement.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 07:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well have a look at the section on 'Joint national science academy statements' for instance then. They explicitly refer to the IPCC saying they agree with it. And if you think any of them would say that without caveats about any major areas they disagreed with or had reservations about then you don't know scientists. Dmcq (talk) 09:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, I agree.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, looking at the G8 statement, it's not clear whether or not they are fully endorsing the IPCC as to costs. They have a paragraph entitled "climate change is real" with the following sentence: " It is likely that

most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." The footnote to that sentence says that they endorse the international scientific consensus of the IPCC.  That actually seems more like they are endorsing the IPCC as to the existence and cause of warming.  If they were endorsing the entire report, they would have said so in the context of discussing the entire report, rather than in the context of just that paragraph.  They go on to talk about consequences, mention both costs and benefits, and say that costs are likely to predominate if the change is large and/or sudden.  I'll take a look at some of the other statements next.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I just looked at another statement. They are (again) explicit about existence and cause of warming.  For impact, they say this:

• Increases above 4.0ºC will lead to major increases in vulnerability, exceeding the capacity of many physical and human systems to adapt. If we take "exceeding the capacity . . . to adapt" to be as the same as "exceeding the resilience", then they are actually saying something somewhat weaker than the IPCC, which is predicting such an event in the next century, but not making it dependent on any particular temperature increase. So in that particular case, it is actually pretty clear that they are not endorsing the IPCC's statement about resilience. Looking at it overall, it is very clear that the major academies agree with the IPCC on existence and cause. For costs and consequences, they tend to have similar concerns, but, as in the above example, their predictions of consequences are often more conservative than those of the IPCC.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you better spell out exactly what you are looking at and where you see them as disagreeing. Dmcq (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * After looking again, I was wrong about disagreement. I'm back to thinking what I thought initially -- they tend to explicitly endorse the IPCC as to existence and cause, then talk about consequences, without explicitly endorsing the entire IPCC report.  See for example footnote 2 here, and note in the text above the sentence that they are footnoting.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is footnote 2
 * 2 IPCC (2001). Third Assessment Report. We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
 * That bit isn't exactly very informative and doesn't say which bits of the report are scientific as its remit is also political. The interpretation on your part that it backs you up about the science only referring to the existence and causes as they are the scientific bits is rather circular, you're just saying it is so because that's what you say. You are basically saying again that a weather forecast for tomorrow from a meteorologist is not a scientific opinion. I think you're missing the 'opinion' and 'consensus' bits again. Dmcq (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, look above at the sentence it is footnoting. "It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)."  That's what they are endorsing.  I didn't write that; they did.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a footnote on the lead paragraph of the whole thing and is not itself qualified in any way. If it was in a subsection we might be able to make some inference like you say but it isn't. They also talk about projected effects. If they had any disagreement with the summary points of the IPCC as far as that was concerned they would have said so. Lets say they failed to do so by some oversight even though scientists tend to very questioning - surely you could find another without such an oversight? Dmcq (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You are arguing that a footnote on a particular sentence is actually footnoting the whole paragraph?kMissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 04:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No it is you who are arguing that it applies only to the sentence as if they were citing something contentious on Wikipedia. Were you really expecting them to stick a superscript 2 at the end of every sentence? I said "That bit isn't exactly very informative and doesn't say which bits of the report are scientific as its remit is also political". It is you who is reading a lot into it. And as I keep on saying this article is about scientific opinion. It has IPCC as a main source on that but it is not about the IPCC. The statement talked about the consequences for the environment. That hardly indicates they exclude the prediction of the consequences from their scientific opinion. Dmcq (talk) 07:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It does seem to me that you are just wasting my and other peoples time with this stuff. Get something substantial or I think I'll just ignore you until such time as you try changing the text of the article. This is not a forum for you just to practice our rhetorical skills. Dmcq (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. prokaryotes (talk) 09:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I've put in the first sentence from the text above but moved text from elsewhere in the lead to form the second sentence about how the consensus is assessed. I've also put in a statement about the policy section. Dmcq (talk) 07:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

This sentence is not supported be the reference, probably should be deleted, or edited. "Some scientific bodies have recommended specific policies to governments and science can play a role in informing an effective response to climate change, however, policy decisions may require value judgements and so are not included in the scientific opinion"70.59.20.182 (talk) 01:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I put in another reference but looking at it again I think you will probably find it not satisfacory if you found the original unsatisfactory. What exactly is it about
 * "Natural, technical, and social sciences can provide essential information and evidence needed for decisions on what constitutes "dangerous anthropogenic interference" with the climate system. At the same time, such decisions are value judgments determined through socio-political processes, taking into account considerations such as development, equity, and sustainability, as well as uncertainties and risk"
 * that you think does not say that policy is not part of scientific opinion? They can as it says help people with their decisions by trying to work out the best way of getting what they want and they can point out the consequences, but really at the end of the day they can't say that someone who wants to have a big car and enjoy the freedom of driving around the place is wrong or that someone who constrains their life by living like some Indian villager is right. Should we spend spend spend and depend on some wondrous technology to save the planet? Saying one policy is preferable to another is a political value judgement.Dmcq (talk) 11:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Splitting out opinions of scientific organizations
Do we want to move some or all of this portion to a sub-article, presumably replacing it with a summary?MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 11:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is rather unwieldy at the moment and I already chopped it down a while ago. So yes I think a separate article on it is called for and hopefully the section here can be cut to about a third its size. Dmcq (talk) 12:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * After looking at this a bit more, I'm thinking the National Academy statements should stay in this article. What makes it absurdly long is the inclusion of all the specific statements for geologists, ecologists, statisticians, etc. etc. etc.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 06:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't get the issue. The article as it stands is not that long; 120k bytes and that includes rather long quotations in the references. Second Quantization (talk) 11:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

There is still a tag - which has been there for a year, since August 2014, apparently - saying that we are discussing moving the Statements by scientific organizations of national or international standing section out of the article. This does not seem to be the central topic of an active discussion here at the moment. I'm going to remove the tag. If there is something else - specific - to discuss, please start a new discussion section below. --Nigelj (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Engineers in the other section
There seems to be a number of engineering societies in the 'Miscellaneous' section. Should they really be in this article? I know engineering is sometimes counted as a science but it just doesn't look quite right to me. Dmcq (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

NIPCC
I removed a subsection of the NIPCC, which was added from 71.215.86.20 on 25 June. The NIPCC is not a scientific body, let alone one of international standing in the scientific community. The introduction of the main section says that "Synthesis reports are assessments of scientific literature that compile the results of a range of stand-alone studies in order to achieve a broad level of understanding, or to describe the state of knowledge of a given subject." The document released by the NIPCC does not meet any of the clauses of that sentence. I do notice that the rest of the section - 'Synthesis reports' - seems to consist of a strange hodge-podge of items, mostly quite old, and omitting any text about AR5. Is this all there is? Is it time for an update? --Nigelj (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing that edit and removing it. Dmcq (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, time for an update. But the IPCC, and the NIPCC are all I see of recent synthesis reports. The currently listed consensus reports are not fully from "scientific bodies". Three of the four sources are governmental organizations, run by politians. In the case of the Arctic council it is run by ambassadors. The NIPCC does take a large amount of peer reviewed literature and compiles it into a broad level of understanding, so should be included. 75.166.215.201 (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It just isn't a scientific body of some standing never mind a national or international one like the others. It was set up by Fred Singer specifically to push climate change denial. It does not even qualify as being scientific as they start with the conclusions they want and argue for that. Dmcq (talk) 09:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't feel an alternative view point is substantial grounds to exclude the NIPCC. The others are political organizations not scientific bodies, except for the one participant in the Arctic synthesis.
 * Do not put in the edit. The consensus here is against that. It is not a scientific body of international standing. It is a single interest group set up to deny the science. Dmcq (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The IPCC is not a political organization just because it is inter-governmental. That's an argument used to "refute" the consensus on climate change by people with conflicts of interest. Dustin  ( talk ) 21:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Graphs beside the lead
I don't think the various graphs of temperature beside the lead illustrate the topic at all well. The article is about the scientific opinion on climate change, some statistic on scientific opinion would be best I think or some illustrating scientists meeting to discuss the business. If we do keep on with those graphs I'd have one at most - having three just makes people think the article is about the science behind those figures. Dmcq (talk) 06:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Opinion vs evidence?
I came here trying to learn about the actual evidence for human caused climate change, and I can't seem to find any, only "opinions". Since when was science about "opinions"? We don't have surveys of how many scientists believe in quantum mechanics or string theory on those pages, in fact we usually don't mention scientists at all in factual articles about science. Should this page be rewritten or removed and replaced with a clear explanation of the arguments for (and against) the claims? In particular it should differentiate claims about causality from correlation -- yes we know that C02 is correlated with temperature, but what is the scientific argument for the direction of causation here? (Rather then, say,natural temperature rises causing more animals to survive and breathe out CO2.)  Where are the arguments using Pearl and Granger causality statistics? Someone must have built a proper physics model and worked out how many tonnes of oil are burned each year and what percentage of the atmosphere that makes and what temperature rise would occur from that percentage. Where are those numbers? I wanted to learn about these arguments here to use them on people, but all that's here is a feeble "argument from authority", like we were told at school not to buy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.239.146 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you want the main Global warming article. All your questions will be answered there. - Parejkoj (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * If you didn't want something that talked about scientists and opinion you shouldn't have mentioned them in your search. Just say the basic thing you want when searching. Dmcq (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * This article on WP and the general subject editing of climate change suggests that there is no controversy.   It could not be more wrong.    The "statistical science" or very measurement precision + accuracy is far from conclusive.   --71.10.144.84 (talk) 01:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read the first statement in this article, it is about the overall judgement amongst scientists. There is no point just saying you think things are wrong, you need to provide something to back up what you say. Dmcq (talk) 09:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So an opinion poll is science? 600 years ago, most intellectuals still thought the world was flat, that the planets and stars were part of a "celestial sphere".   This is just another dark age of science. --71.10.144.84 (talk) 05:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "600 years ago, most intellectuals still thought the world was flat" BTW, this is wrong. See Myth of the flat Earth. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I haven't found an article yet that explains how global temperature is actually measured. I'm talking not just about instrumentation, but coverage over the globe, and time and conditions whereby temperature is actually measured. It seems to me that the data must be reliable and verifiable to be both scientific and conclusive. --71.10.144.84 (talk) 04:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Would you please go to the Global warming article instead as requested before above. That is the one which is relevant to your questions. You are just wasting your and other peoples time with irrelevant comments here. Wikipedia is not a forum for you to air your ideas, and especially not in irrelevant places. If you do go to the relevant place have a citation to back up what you are saying if you want some change made. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia which is based on what is published in reliable sources, it is against policy to include things unless they have been published so any desired change must be based on a directly relevant source that says basically what you want to say, see WP:5P. Dmcq (talk) 06:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Attribution of global warming is the top article reporting on scientific efforts to determine the reasons for earth's positive energy budget. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Scientists’ Views about Attribution of Global Warming: Verheggen et al.
I suggest we add pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es501998e William M. Connolley (talk) 13:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well yes okay and the article about such surveys. Do we have some cut off date for older surveys here or how are they chosen? Dmcq (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd forgotten about Surveys of scientists' views on climate change‎. I don't think there's been a need for a cut-off up to now, there not having been all that many; but perhaps we're reaching it William M. Connolley (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Survey of economists
http://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/ExpertConsensusReport.pdf William M. Connolley (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit war on dissent
I just reverted a revert of a revert of a revert. I strongly think Christy's opinion should stand, and the source is reliable, being from Christy himself at UAH. Not so sure about Peiser since he doesn't have Christy's credentials. YoPienso (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * From our lede: "The scientific opinion on climate change is the overall judgment among scientists regarding whether global warming is occurring, and (if so) its causes and probable consequences. This scientific opinion is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists." Peiser's opinion is neither notable, reliable, not scientific. Christy is a qualified scientist, but his individual opinion carries insufficient weight. We don't list individual scientists who support the consensus, either. Also see . --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems my edit summary was perhaps a bit lacking, and thanks for re-removing the "dodgy" bit. Stephan coveres it quite well, methinks. Vsmith (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Putting in those violates WP:WEIGHT. The rest of the article is based on scientific society statements and surveys not individual views. The article would have to be absolutely huge to include all individuals who have stated their views. We are able to cover the scientific controversy side better in Global warming controversy. Dmcq (talk) 02:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes; thank you all. We have several articles approaching the topic differently; this one represents the general consensus.
 * Two more cents from me: I think it's useful to take things to talk rather than simply reverting so the person whose edit is being reverted understands why. YoPienso (talk) 02:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I have asked User:EdJohnston for advice. Biscuittin (talk) 09:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

This change appears to misunderstand WP:BRD. The purpose of that is be bold, but if reverted, then discuss. Don't just re-revert the text back in, which is what that edit does. effectively makes the same mistake, re-re-reverting, while saying "let's take this to talk", which is dishonest William M. Connolley (talk) 10:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Except that I only made one of the reverts. The others were made by different editors who appear to share my concern. Biscuittin (talk) 11:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Editor Yopienso, not editors. Dmcq (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * William is correct.  The number of reverts is only relevant for purpose of the WP:3RR rule, which is a subset of the edit war topic.   When you make an undiscussed restoration of reverted material, that's a different subset of edit warring and can be described as not following WP:BRD. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * One can always put a disputed edit onto the talk page so everyone knows what they're talking about. Here it is from the'Dissenting' section under 'Statements by scientific organizations of national or international standing'
 * In a report to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on 1 August 2012, Alabama State Climatologist, John Christy, PhD, stated: "Widely publicized consensus reports by “thousands” of scientists are misrepresentative of climate  science,  containing overstated  confidence  in  their  assertions of  high  climate sensitivity.  They rarely  represent the  range  of  scientific  opinion  that  attends  our relatively murky field of climate research".
 * and here's the bit that was earlier removed
 * A 2014 report to The Global Warming Policy Foundation by Nicholas Lewis and Marcel Crok states:
 * "Only in recent years has it become possible to make good empirical estimates of climate sensitivity from observational data such as temperature and ocean heat records. These estimates, published in leading scientific journals, point to climate sensitivity per doubling (of carbon dioxide concentrations) most likely being under 2°C for long-term warming, and under 1.5°C over a seventy-year period. This strongly suggests that climate models display too much sensitivity to carbon dioxide concentrations and in almost all cases exaggerate the likely path of global warming". The GWPF has a published policy on peer review.
 * Dmcq (talk) 12:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Dmcq (talk) 12:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Referring to the most recent edit by Yopienso I can't see a sub-heading 'Statements by scientific organizations of national or international standing'. Where did you get that from? Biscuittin (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Dissenting is under that heading. Look t the contents list. Dmcq (talk) 12:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. I am waiting for a response at User talk:EdJohnston. Biscuittin (talk) 13:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Biscuittin (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to stop you barking too much up the wrong tree, if you look carefully you will see that NewsAndEventsGuy is just helping you understand how to follow the process in complaining where you said the main objection was about reliable sources. They did not say the main objection was on the grounds of reliable sources. Dmcq (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

This page should be removed
as it expresses an opinion in its very title — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.26.8 (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That is wrong on a number of counts
 * It does not express an opinion in the title
 * There is no policy saying articles must not express an opinion in the title though it is normally a bad idea
 * A problem with a title is a reason to change a title not to remove an article
 * And by the way could you sign your contributions on a talk page by putting ~ at the end thanks. This will be autoatically expanded to give a signature like you'll see on other contributions. Dmcq (talk) 09:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The IP refers to the reasons, why a translation of the article was deleted in the deWP: Its a) plain Original Research to setup a "sole opinion" - any scientific topic shifts in time, a mainstream is not a "single opinion". The article does not mention which opinion in time it covers and how the opinion was constructed. b) While Wikipedia:Verifiability likes to have scientific sources, we dont use them in the article title. There is nothing like "Scientific opinion on gravity" or "Scientific opinion on WWII". c) The title violates as well Wikipedia:Article titles, since not any of the given sources has "Scientific opinion on climate change" as part of its abstract or content. Polentarion Talk 11:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Did you used to be called "Serten" and "Serten II" ? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The message is about the content, not the messenger, I hope. Yes I had to rename the id, since Serten is not useable on all wikis. Polentarion Talk 16:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * When I learnt it was you my opinion of what you'd written did not change. Dmcq (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, then you are in line with an AfD? This is not an article, its an opinion piece. Polentarion Talk 16:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * How do you get from "That is wrong on a number of counts" and "my opinion of what you'd written did not change" to "in line"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * He did not comment on the content, looks like he has no say on any of the points. I am not identical with the IP btw. Polentarion Talk 17:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagreed with the ip. Do not assume my opinion has changed when I read what you say, it would be silly for me to be always having to say I disagree every time you write on the talk page of an article I have on my watchlist.. In fact just assume I disagree with you as I can't think of a single occasion I have agreed with you. If I do spot an occasion to agree I'll certainly try to tell you. My opinion of what you wrote was that it was confused and silly. Dmcq (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) Its plain Original Research to setup a "sole opinion" - any scientific topic shifts in time, a mainstream is not a "single opinion".
 * 2) The article does not mention which opinion in time it covers and how the opinion was constructed.
 * 3) While Wikipedia:Verifiability likes to have scientific sources, we dont use them in the article title. There is nothing like "Scientific opinion on gravity" or "Scientific opinion on WWII".
 * 4) The title violates as well Wikipedia:Article titles and WPNoteability and WP sources. Not any of the given sources has "Scientific opinion on climate change" as part of its abstract or content or will do so in the near future.
 * 5) This opinion piece is a nice example of a WP construct without any base in the real world. Polentarion Talk 19:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

This nail-jello-to-the-wall rehash of Serten's science-philosophy arguments of a year or two ago appears to be a poorly-constructed claim that the article somehow violates WP:NOTABILITY. (Note that the egg-ish link to "WP:topic" does not help us here.)  Since no one has yet cited the provisions of WP:NOTABILITY and provided an explanation how the cited language has been violated, there's nothing more to say now. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

By the way anyone know what the rhetorical fallacy in #5 is called where the article is called an opinion piece when it talks about opinion? Dmcq (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Overall, Gish gallop and Spray and pray come to mind. Now he's talking synth (below). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I deleted the recent ranting gibherrish once - if you want to discuss, go for the points. As said, non of the sources deals with "opinion" - the article is WP:Synthesis at its worst. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." None of them states a scientific opinion, whatever that may be.  Polentarion Talk 21:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If none of the sources deals with opinion, then the title of (currently) reference 121, The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change (emphasis mine) is exceedingly badly chosen.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Stephan you found the one and only, a humanites study about the surveys. Thats an exemption confirming the rule. Polentarion Talk 23:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You're mixing up opinion and consensus. There currently is a consensus in the scientific opinion on climate change as well cited in the article. WP:TITLE is the policy on titles, see WP:NDESC. The WP:LEAD is the place where the topic is outlined. WP:OR is the policy on original research. Please don't make up strange interpretations of Wikipedia policy - they are fairly straightforward and you're fooling no-one. You have not said a single thing which gives any reasonable or policy based reasons for anything you say. Dmcq (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * If you think so. You quote rules, you don't follow them here. There is NO other article using a similar title, OK Silent_birth has one section title following the policy used here. Its a shame for WP, nothing else. Polentarion Talk 23:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It would be great if you actually practiced what you preach about following policies in what you write, in particular WP:OR. WP:IDONTHEARTHAT is applicable here as I just pointed you to the appropriate place in WP:TITLE. Dmcq (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I would like to see any other article that is as bad as this one. This policy and the underlying consensus is not being used in any other WP article. Polentarion Talk 00:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Deletion proposal
I am thinking of proposing this page for deletion on the grounds that the subject is not notable. There is no single scientific opinion on climate change. There may be a consensus but this is also non-notable because consensus is irrelevant to science. Science does not depend on opinion polls. Please discuss. Biscuittin (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't; the subject is highly notable. Not a day goes by without an article in the media about climate change and about the varying scientific opinions on it. This page informs what the different facets of opinion are. YoPienso (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it doesn't. It devotes only three lines to dissenting voices, so there is a breach of WP:NPOV. Biscuittin (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The topic is quite notable. As there is little, if any, valid scientifically-based dissent, the article meets NPOV. Jim1138 (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a textbook or science journal, it is an encyclopaedia. Your personal ideas about science are simply irrelevant. Whether articles are included or not is covered by the WP:Notability policy. If you would read the very first paragraph of the article you will see that notability has been clearly established. WP:NPOV is not relevant to notability grounds. If you would like to provide better grounds for improving the article on NPOV grounds that that there aren't enough lines saying scientists disagree with what is here then please provide citations. Also see WP:GEVAL, 50% on either side of everything is not what WP:NPOV is about. Dmcq (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to humour you, I have added one. However, I don't see why I should waste my time expanding an article which should not exist. Biscuittin (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * When it comes to "should not", perhaps eds "should not" toss around conclusory statements on talk pages, instead of using RSs to explain with logic how various policies like WP:NOTABILITY have been violated?  To that end, you might find the "settled fact" quote from the US National Academy of Science to be of interest.  It's footnote 10 of this version of the Global warming article NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Future of the article
At the request of another editor, I have withdrawn my informal deletion proposal. I will now try to improve the article. Other editors can help by not instantly deleting everything I write about dissenting voices. Biscuittin (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're prepared to follow BRD, go for it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:5P3, "no editor owns an article and any contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed". Try reading the article first instead of just dumping your thoughts in. Dmcq (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've never claimed ownership of the article. Biscuittin (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with the article is that it is seriously unbalanced. There are no opposing voices represented in it. I have tried to introduce some opposing voices but others have removed them and claimed that they are not reliable sources. I am trying to obtain a second opinion on the sources but others are continuing to attack me without waiting for that second opinion. Biscuittin (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Your insertions in the article are not you. You are not being 'attacked'. What you put into the article was removed and reasons were given. Have a read of those reasons. Dmcq (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Opposing voices would be WP:UNDUE because they are a tiny minority within science. In climatology, the number of current peer-reviewed papers promoting climate skepticism is way below one percent. Remember, this article is about the scientific opinion, not the opinion of laypeople. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)