Talk:Scientific consensus on climate change/Archive 3

Think tanks
From wikipedia's own "think tank" page:

" The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition has also worked to cast doubt on the scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming, as have a number of conservative think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Hoover Institution, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute--all of whom receive large contributions from petroleum industry companies like ExxonMobil and the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. "

(go to the Think Tank page and you will see several citations)

This certainly deserves a mention on this page. Such think tanks are a big force in this ongoing debate and its worth mentioning where they get their funding from. Any ideas on the best way to work this into the page? 160.39.208.20 17:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Doesn't have much to do with *sci* op. How about global warming controversy William M. Connolley 18:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * good call 160.39.208.20 18:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Satellite measurements
It seems to me the viewpoints of the scientists at NASA's Global Hydrology and Climate Center should be represented here. Take a look at the globally averaged atmospheric temperatures and see if you can see an upward trend. I came across this site by a link from a web page by John Brignell. A short bio of Dr. Brignell is here. RonCram 01:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The satellite temperature record already has its own article. Note that while the graphs on the NASA page appear to be current, the text is outdated (it refers to a report that "will be completed in 2005"). Raymond Arritt 03:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, the red plot in the diagram (Image:Satellite_Temperatures.png) on that page is Christy's data (the same used on the page Ron links to), which, after his latest corrections. Although it still is the most conservative interpretation of the raw data, it now shows a clear warming trend. --Stephan Schulz 07:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Peiser again, again
I cut:



The Oreskes essay in Science claiming a consensus for man-made global warming was criticised within weeks of its appearance by Appell and Peiser. This led to an correction from Oreskes in the same journal, stating that she had reported a literature search based on the words 'climate change' when in fact had used the term 'global climate change'. When this literature search was repeated by Peiser he found that only 1% of the scientific research paper abstracts for the period in question explicitly supported a man-made origin for recent climate change. http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm Peiser subsequently set out every one of the abstracts, by year, so others could more easily judge the issue for themselves. http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Oreskes-abstracts.htm''

...though somewhat reluctantly since its getting more reasonable. Minor problem is that I don't think Appell crit it; he was merely inquiring. Major problem is that most of the text is over the rather trivial correction of the keywords used: this isn't really important. Peisers letter is strongly spun to his viewpoint; and the fact that it was rejected isn't noted.

See-also http://timlambert.org/2005/05/peiser/#more. Note from that Peiser saying ''Let me correct another canard, the claim that Peiser didn’t take Oreskes' abstracts, he changed the search� I used exactly the same data bank (ISI Web of Science) as Oreskes, and selected the same period of time (1993--2003). Everybody with access to ISI can confirm that a key word search for "global climate change" will produce 1,247 documents (of which only 1117 have abstracts). I repeat: Oreskes got her figures wrong.'' Peiser spent quite some time insisting that he was correct and Oreskes wrong; judging by he has now finally accepted this is wrong.

How about trying to write an NPOV version here in talk?

My version would be: Oreskes' article has been criticised by Peiser who asserted that there were abstracts explicitly rejecting the consensus ; this claim was not published and was doubted elsewhere 

William M. Connolley 12:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The Stern Review
maybe this is worth adding http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6098362.stm --87.127.117.246 14:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Monckton's analysis of 4AR
Lord Monckton has a very readable analysis. Here are some excerpts:
 * FIGURES in the final draft of the UN’s fourth five-year report on climate change show that the previous report, in 2001, had overestimated the human influence on the climate since the Industrial Revolution by at least one-third.
 * Also, the UN, in its 2007 report, has more than halved its high-end best estimate of the rise in sea level by 2100 from 3 feet to just 17 inches. It suggests that the rate of sea-level rise is up from 2mm/yr to 3mm/year – no more than one foot in a century.
 * UN scientists faced several problems their computer models had not predicted. Globally, temperature is not rising at all, and sea level is not rising anything like as fast as had been forecast. Concentrations of methane in the air are actually falling.
 * The Summary for Policymakers was issued February 2, 2007, but the report on which the Summary is based will not be published until May. This strange separation of the publication dates has raised in some minds the possibility that the Summary (written by political representatives of governments) will be taken as a basis for altering the science chapters (written by scientists, and supposedly finalized and closed in December 2006).
 * The draft of the science chapters, now being circulated to governments for last-minute comments, reveals that the tendency of computers to over-predict rises in temperature and sea level has forced a major rethink.
 * The report’s generally more cautiously-expressed projections confirm scientists’ warnings that the UN’s heavy reliance on computer models had exaggerated the temperature effect of greenhouse-gas emissions.

You can read the full report here. RonCram 01:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Or read this instead William M. Connolley 19:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Roger Pielke Sr and the American Association of State Climatologists
Roger Pielke Sr has recently reaffirmed his support for the American Association of State Climatologists statement that there is no way to confidently and accurately predict the climate. See the report here. RonCram 20:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The AASC statement is more than 5 years old and carefully worded to say essentially nothing beyond common sense banalities. And Pielke does not say "there is no way to confidently and accurately predict the climate", he says "there is no peer reviewed support in the scientific literature for the claim of skillful regional multi-decadal regional forecasts" (emphasis added, duplicated "regional" from the original source). So he does not even say the models have no skill to do regional prediction (only that there is no support for this in the literature), much less that they cannot predict climate in general. --Stephan Schulz 20:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the report is 5 years old when Pielke was a state climatogist at the time (I believe) but the report is not meaningless. Pielke expressed his support recently.  Perhaps more importantly, the facts bear this out.  There has been no increase in global temperature since the report was issued. (Okay, someone might argue there was an increase of 0.03C but that is less than the margin for error so it is meaningless.)  The oceans are cooling, surface temperatures are not going up, the IPCC is lowering their projections for 2100 and increasing the size of their error bars.  All of this seems to confirm the statement by the Association: "Climate prediction is complex with many uncertainties – The AASC recognizes climate prediction is an extremely difficult undertaking.  For time scales of a decade or more, understanding the empirical accuracy of such predictions – called “verification” – is simply impossible, since we have to wait a decade or longer to assess the accuracy of the forecasts."  RonCram 21:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there any point to this? William M. Connolley 21:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. I just think this article should represent this association of scientists.  I haven't had time to work on writing the section that would describe the document for the article, yet. I will get to it, unless you want to take the first stab at it. RonCram 22:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course "State Climatologist" is a political assignment, and the AASC is a rather small association, compared to, say, the Americal Chemical Society. Still, we have them here. The "report" is not a report, but just a statement, and one that explicitely acknowledges "that human activities have an influence on the climate system [...] not limited to greenhouse gas forcing and [that] include changing land use and sulfate emissions". It's even more restrained than Pielke, talking not about the difficulty of predicting regional climate effects in general, but only "growing season, drought, flood-producing rainfall, heat waves, tropical cyclones and winter storms", contrasting this with "annual average global temperature trends", the predictability of which they do not deny. Your (or is this Monckton's?) reading of the AR4 SPM is plain wrong. I suggest you read William's reply, linked above. --Stephan Schulz 23:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

History of scientific opinion of climate change
I think the article would be greatly improved if the prevailing opinion was put into historical context. I found an interesting webpage devoted to news clippings of scientists on global climate over the last century. Very interesting reading. Too bad the SPM does not seem to understand the variability of climate. This report makes the same mistakes certain scientists have made for a long time.RonCram 19:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, tosh, Ron! Cute page, but all it does is show that the *popular press* has been keen to turn scientists' statements into attention-grabbing headlines for over 100 years. In fact, a quick glance actually does show a sensible progression from 1895 projections of cooling (because by then we were starting to understand the ice age cycle, but had not yet realized the warming potential of CO2 and CH4) to remarking on the correctly reported warming trend up to around 1940, without having a specific explanation for that yet; to noting by the 70's that that trend had temporarily reversed (largely due to aerosol pollution). At that point, scientists weren't yet sure if the aerosol cooling effect would outpace the CO2/CH4 warming effect, so they wondered if cooling might resume. Since then, efforts to cut smog and acid rain have slowed the growth of aerosols, and the GHG forcing has emerged as the stronger effect. This does not demonstrate that science is 'fickle', can't make up its mind if we are doomed to freeze or doomed to bake, etc. It shows that we were able to listen to new data as it accumulated, and refine our ability to account for the data and then make better predictions. We know a lot more now than we did in 1895 or 1940 or 1970.
 * If you want a good history of the science, we could start with Spencer Weart's 2001 book The Discovery of Global Warming. There is also a nice four-volume compilation of the top journal articles on the subject in our university library. I've read volume 1, whose TOC would be a good starting point for a historical summary of the scholarship: Arrhenius, Callendar, Keeling, Revelle, et al. Birdbrainscan 15:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't use words like "Oh, tosh" unless you want them in your [http: //wiki.racetotheright.com/GW_Bias evidence file]. Also avoid "balderdash", "piffle" and other secret code-words of the global warming cabal. Raymond Arritt 18:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit disappointed at the progress of that page. You are still a red link, and I have only one entry (and that with a formatting error...). "Oh tosh, what a balderdashing piffle!" (or was that piffling balderdash?) --Stephan Schulz 18:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Whats wrong with including infromation from reptuable news sources like New York Times, Time, and Washington Post? The historic "Scientific opinion on climate change" is very important for a topic titled Scientific opinion on climate change.  After all, the "Consesus" of global cooling in the 70s is indeed "Scientific Opinion" is it not?--Zeeboid 16:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not, since there was no such consensus. --Nethgirb 23:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you list for me, Nethgrib, any Science that had a "Scientific Consensus" before this "Global Warming" thing?--Zeeboid 19:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So, it is acceptable to delete other's comments on the talk page without any discussion or explanation? I'm learning more about the Wikipedia culture everyday. --  Tony 21:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It would appear William realy does not this question asked, after removing it twice from this page. Could you please cite for us the WIki policy you are refrencing?  Also Could you answer it for us, William, you know... from your neutral point of view?  Could you list for me, William, any Science that had a "Scientific Consensus" before this "Global Warming" thing?--Zeeboid 21:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Timothy Ball?
Why have an external link to an interview with Timothy Ball on this page? There is a separate page for climate skeptics where his bio is linked; his views certainly don't jibe with the majority. I propose to remove this external link. If anyone feels we need more external links reflecting the majority view, that would be easy to add several. Birdbrainscan 15:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Normally I'd suggest to be bold, but User: Mnyakko might [http: //wiki.racetotheright.com/GW_Bias archive] your evil deeds! -- Stephan Schulz 15:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC) An anonymous friend!

scepticism list?
Is there any list on people and organisations sceptic on climate change? It would be nice to have such a thing in order to check new "studies" critical of global warming. --84.178.119.155 15:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * See category: global warming skeptics and Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.--Stephan Schulz 16:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is the Scientific Opinion against human caused Global Warming?
Shouldn't a section titled Scientific opinion on climate change contain all the "Scientific opinion on climate change" wether or not it supports the "human-caused warming" Theory? Should this not be included?--Zeeboid 16:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between the scientific opinion (the well-considered synthesis of the published scientific literature on a topic), and an individual scientists opinion. Which significant published opinion do you think is missing? --Stephan Schulz 20:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The section [Survey of US State Climatologists] is not a well-considered synthesis of published scientific literature, yet still exists on this page. There is no qualifier for what counts as "Scientific Opinion on Climate Change" for the Scientific opinion on climate change article except what appears to be to keep the current POV fork intact.--Zeeboid 21:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's an attempt to gauge the opinion (or, as I suspect in this case, an attempt to mis-gauge it). The article is not "the" scientific opinion on climate change (we try to describe that at global warming), it is "about" the scientific opinion on climate change. And, as far as I'm concerned, the survey can go. It has, at best, historical value. But I strongly suspect that if I remove it, there will be plenty of cries about "censorship" and "the conspiracy".--Stephan Schulz 21:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So you are choosing not to follow the [Assume good faith] Policy? This sounds like an issue for a Wikipedia editor, no?--Zeeboid 21:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF applies to Wikipedia contributors, not to a lobbying group like Citizens for a Sound Economy. BTW, for Wikipedia articles, you can use much nicer (and easier) Wiki links: This links to the same article you linked to. --Stephan Schulz 21:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And I'm sure you will explain why you bring up a lobbying group...--Zeeboid 22:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm...because the Survey of US State Climatologists that you linked to was performed by that group? Did you read what you wrote? --Stephan Schulz 22:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, yes, I did read what I wrote. Did you read what you wrote?  Did you read what I wrote?  Did you read what others wrote?  The Survey of US State Climatologists that I braught up is not a "well-considered synthesis of published scientific literature" and should not be in ths page based on your qualifications (which seam to change based on the arguement and what you want to stay or exclude).  What does your yelping about a lobbying group have to do with it?  I never mentioned that as a reason that item shouldn't be on the page, so please educate me, I fail to see where your smart-allic remark asking me if I read what I wrote applies.--Zeeboid 15:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe we are talking at cross purposes. This article should discuss the scientific opinion on climate change, i.e. the well-considered synthesis of the published scientific literature on a topic. Since we don't have a nice opiniometer, we report on the various attempts at gauging it. The G8 academies of science report it, Oreskes analyses it, the various surveys try to find it (or, as I wrote above, possibly try to miss-find it - I took your AGF complaint to refer to my mistrust of Citizens for a Sound Economy, to which WP:AGF does not apply, as I pointed out), the IPCC collects and publishes it. An individual scientists opinion on climate change is irrelevant. An individual scientists opinion on the scientific opinion on climate change is relevant (and may or may not be notable). --Stephan Schulz 15:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Propose Merging List of scientists opposing global warming consensus with this article
Scientists who Oppose the mainstream scientific assessment belong in the Scientific opinion on climate change. There are too many articles creating POV Forks in this respect. Scientists agree or disagree on the Climate Change issue are still Scientists who have an opinion on Climate Change. The Scientific opinion on climate change is lacking much of this information, and misleads users with the split of the topic.--Zeeboid 20:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * See my answer to your previous question. In short, no. --Stephan Schulz 20:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Your responce makes no sence. You say "There is a different between the scientific opinion (the well-considered synthesis of the published scientific literature on a topic)" Yet this article is spicifically about "Scientific Opinion."  How does Scientific Opinion not fit in the "Scientific opinion on climate change" wiki article?--Zeeboid 21:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I cannot parse this in a way that makes sense. Did you read what I wrote? --Stephan Schulz 21:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I did read what you wrote, and I am still not clear on why you want to keep "Scientific opinion on climate change" out of the wiki article Scientific opinion on climate change. The global warming even lists the Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming article under the Opinion and controversy section, further backing up why "Scientific opinion on climate change" belongs in the Scientific opinion on climate change article.--Zeeboid 21:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is about scientific opinion which is a collective judgement presumably based on evidence in peer-reviewed publications. The other article is a list of individual scientists' opinions. So I agree with Stephan that there is a distinction between "scientific opinion" and "the varied and mutually incompatable opinions of individual scientists". That said, certainly opposing viewpoints are relevant to this page and I think it is essential to mention them---but you will note that they are already included: there is a section entitled "Scientists opposing consensus opinions" which links to the list of skeptics. So I don't see what the problem is.

On the other article's talk page you claimed it was a POV fork. I don't see how it can be; POV forks duplicate existing topics (which it doesn't) and have a non-neutral POV (which it doesn't as far as I can see). To summarize, I agree the topics are similar, so at a minimum they should be prominently linked to each other (which they are). Keeping them as separate pages makes sense from the point of view of article length. --Nethgirb 21:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If the article is about "Scientific opinion" it should contain Scientific Opinion, Hence its NAME. If its name is inaccurate to the article's purpose (to list Scientific Opinion) then it should not be named "Scientific opinion on climate change."


 * Also, you say that it is "presumably based on evidence in peer-reviewed publications." It either IS or it IS NOT.  Is every listing in the Scientific opinion on climate change article in "in peer-reviewed publications?"  If that is the primary qualification, will Peer-reviewed publications that don't follow the Concesus be alloud?--Zeeboid 21:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like we are still not connecting on the distinction between "scientific opinion" and "the opinions of several individual scientists". But regardless, the main points to me are that (1) we all agree that acknowledging that the skeptics exist is important for this article, and (2) that's already done in more than one place in this article, so (3) I don't see what this discussion is about. --Nethgirb 00:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. There is still no diffrence between "Scientific Opinion" and "the opinion of scientists." Acknowledging that a differing Scientific opinion exists is important to an article about the "Scientific Opinion" on climate change.  And providing a link to another article, is not doing that.  By creating a link to another article, you are keeping the differing scientific opinion out of the article, giving the false impression that there is no differing scientific opinion.  Also, I will ask again:
 * Also, you say that it is "presumably based on evidence in peer-reviewed publications." It either IS or it IS NOT.  Is every listing in the Scientific opinion on climate change article in "in peer-reviewed publications?"  If that is the primary qualification, will Peer-reviewed publications that don't follow the Concesus be alloud?--Zeeboid 14:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You can take out the "presumably"; the results are reported in hundreds (thousands?) of peer-reviewed publications. Raymond Arritt 14:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Zeeboid, Regarding the question you are asking again, I don't see the relevance since this article does not list peer-reviewed pubs on either side.

Regarding the acknowledgement of the skeptics: You are basically saying their opinion is not given enough weight. But the article lists statements by scientific organizations, and the one skeptical org (Petroleum Geologists) is listed. As for listing individual scientists, supporters are not listed at all while the skeptics are given a section which contains a link -- yes, only a section listed in the table of contents at the beginning of the article and a link (which you assert is equivalent to not including them at all). But since there is no list of individual supporters at all, I don't see how you can complain. Keep in mind WP:Undue weight as well -- being a small minority scientific opinion, the skeptics do not need to be given as much space to begin with. --Nethgirb 17:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you not say that this article is "a collective judgement presumably based on evidence in peer-reviewed publications"? And supporters are named many places, correct?  The "Small Minority" as you put it is very subjective.  I bring up once again the Oregon Petition, and how 17000+ Scientists is not a "Small minority."  actually, could you tell me how many scientists there are on the planet?  That could help this "Small minority" issue.  But then again, there is forcable limitation of the voice of the "skeptics" from multiple sources... So I can understand your inacurate perception.
 * Here for example
 * "The session was criticized in a news release by Sen. Mike Jungbauer, R-East Bethel, for not including speakers who would question that consensus on global warming. Two protesters outside the chamber also expressed similar views."
 * And I know from 3 first hand accounts of people who were there protesting, that the number of protesters was closer to 20, not two...--Zeeboid 01:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The Oregon Petition doesn't mention global warming; it only refers to "catastrophic heating." Not the same thing. Scientists who accept the science behind global warming don't necessarily think it will lead to "catastrophic heating." Raymond Arritt 06:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this "peer-reviewed"-related thread, I am completely missing your point and its relevance, so if you could start again and be more clear that would be helpful. Regarding "And supporters are named many places, correct?" Individual supporters are not listed in this article -- I suggest you reread it. Regarding the Oregon Petition and the number of skeptics, please see extensive discussion elsewhere on this and related talk pages. --Nethgirb 06:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Your wrong Raymond Arritt, the article attached to the petition did mention "global warming" twenty-one times and "climate change" four times. Becides, semantics is not a game you should be playing to keep the POV shifted your way.  with the Oregon Petition comment, Nethgirb, I have read alot of the discussion about the skeptics and what not.  There are alot of skeptics with the whole "Man is causing climate change" also, so unless your willing to remove other things from Wikipedia claiming skepticism, i wouldn't go there... if I understand correctly, Wikipedia is not here to debunk things, but provide information and let people come to their own conclusins.  the data speeks for it self kind of a thing.--Zeeboid 01:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

RA is right, because the signers signed the petition itself, not the attached article. As for the rest of what you say, I am unable to extract a coherent point from your collection of statements, so I can't respond. --Nethgirb 23:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you, Nethgirb sign something mailed to you that is attached with a note you don't agree with? No you wond't.  You are trying to split hairs here to justify a stance that was already refuted.  RA (you as well) is wrong because the entire petition documentation that was sent out and signed (thats what you have to do, look at everything not just what you agree with) lists "global warming" twenty-one times and "climate change" four times allong with "catastrophic heating" once.
 * I am sorry you are unable to grasp my point and its relevance. It has been laid out qutie clear.  The limiting of the scientific opinion of climate change to form a POV is probably the most basic way I can lay it out for you.  May I ask you what you believe "catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere"  means?--Zeeboid 17:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please avoid using rhetoric in Wikipedia talk pages. The important part of this discussion is the NPOV of this article.  This is straight out of the official Wikipedia policy, WP:NPOV:


 * To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.


 * Each of these individuals are a tiny minority of the scientific community, and the climate change skeptics together make up a minority of the scientific population. Wikipedia is not the place for an individual to advance his minority viewpoints.  Since climate change skepticism is a minority viewpoint in the scientific community, it will be given a minority of weight in this article.  I'd also like to note that using a controversial petition (even within the scientific community) like the Oregon Petition to establish the notability of a viewpoint is dubious.  The best sources for encyclopedic content are notable, uncontroversial, and verifiable.
 * Twelvethirteen 18:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Uncontroversial. Good one... --Childhood&#39;s End 19:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * lol yeah I was kind of cringing when I wrote that, but where Wikipedia policy is silent it's the job of Wikipedia editors to make sound judgements, and I happen to believe that uncontroversial surveys make better sources than controversial ones. Twelvethirteen 20:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality
This atricle has no opinion from scientific organisations with varying opinions on climate change. There are many such organisations and individuals (see Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming ). It would probably be best to split the page up into vaguely similar stances. For example those of the opinion that climate change is caused by human activity, of the opinion climate change is due to natural fluctuation, of the opinion there is insufficient data and too many variable factors to draw a reliable scientific conclusion (incidentally my personal opinion). There is plenty of argument and sources to support each theory and equal attention should be paid to every plausible theory. Also important is to distinguish between climate change and global warming, they are not the same thing; due to current data they can be commonly mistaken as the world is heating slowly, however, the climate can cool (as it has done in the not too distant past) and also contains many other factors (overall cloud cover etc.). If in doubt see articles about climate, and keep an open mind! 82.152.178.67 17:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please discuss before tagging. This article is about *scientific* opinion on cliamte change. Many of the individuals listed on Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming have no publications at all in climate science, and so aren't eligible here. None of those that *have* published on climate have published on the issue of attribution, which is the core here. And as for "many organisations"... which are you thinkin of? William M. Connolley 18:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"For those interested in Global Warming and Climate Change, there is a controversial series of video clips in our News Items section, from Canada. Friends of Science is an organization made up of active and retired engineers, earth scientists and other professionals, as well as many concerned Canadians, who believe the science behind the Kyoto Protocol is questionable. You may or may not believe them, but their message is worth listening to." (from www.a1surf.tv) http://www.friendsofscience.org/

The "facts" section of that site is particularly concise, however if you do want to find out more then watch the video section. It reports on the work of several senior and highly qualified climatologists. The article is also misleading in the sense that it cites no work from climatologists (as this is "climate" change; you wouldn't go to a scientist if you needed medical help), though they could be classed as scientists the term "scientist" itself is becoming more and more vague; what is a scientist?


 * The FoS "facts" are twaddle. Take #1: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8Cover the last 100 years - what is this supposed to mean? That the current warming is the same as the 100 year mean? It isn't, obviously William M. Connolley 22:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is opinion not elligible if it isn't "published"? Surely it is still the "scientist's" opinion whether they have published it or not. Publishing something does not make it correct. Owenhyfryd 22:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Publishing something doesn't make it correct but it makes it more likely to be coherent and not self-contradictory or non-sequitors, like most of the skeptics arguments. There is a reason why the FoS's "facts" are not to be found in the literature William M. Connolley 22:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So lets see here, WMC has stated that:

"Many of the individuals listed on Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming have no publications at all in climate science, and so aren't eligible here."
 * Now, what I have difficulty understanding... Are you talking about Science or Opinion? The two are quite diffrent.  Infact, anything thats not a "Proof" could be argued as opinion.  If you, William M. Connolley, are fighting to keep this section full of things that are only Published, then what are you looking for.  Science, or Opinion?  You can't have both.  "Science, in the broadest sense, refers to any system of objective knowledge."  Is this article about Science, or Opinion?  Because, if its about Scientific Opinion, that doesn't sound like Published Papers to me.  That sounds like the Opinion of Scientific people, as Scinece it self can not have an Opinion.--Zeeboid 17:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yea, according to Wiki: "An opinion is a person's ideas and thoughts towards something."  So, Should a section about Scientific Opinion contain persons Opinions?--Zeeboid 17:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This article is about the opinion of scientists. Opinion and science are not mutually exclusive.  A scientist will often include his or her opinion on a topic along with the objective results in the conclusions section of a paper.  If this paper is published in a peer-reviewed journal, then the opinion is not only scientific, but also notable. And while the distinction between objective knowledge and opinion may be vague, the distinction between published and unpublished material is not.
 * Generally, articles on Wikipedia should spend more time discussing more notable topics, and more relevant topics within an article should be given more attention. As this is an article about opinions of the scientific community on climate change, more attention should be given to more popular opinions. Of course, other notable opinions should be included too, but they should not be given equal attention, they should be given due attention. As 82.152.178.67 mentioned, there is already an article on Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.
 * This article needs work, but it is an organizational problem, not a neutrality problem. Twelvethirteen 17:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But keeping Scientific Opinion about climate change out of the article titled "Scientific Opinion about climate change" that doesn't vibe with the POV of some of the editors is part of the whole Neutrality problem.--Zeeboid 20:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Needs an intro
This article has no intro, and as we see from the above, people are confused as to what it is about. I think it is about the "scientific opinion" on cl ch; it is *not* about the "opinions of individual scientists" on cl ch. This is why it is about syntheses and literature surveys and surveys. So I propse an intro, thus:


 * This page documents the views on climate change, in particular recent global warming, as given by synthesis reports, reputable bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion or climate scientists. It does not document the views of individual scientists.

William M. Connolley 19:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If it does not have opinions of scientists, the word opinion should be removed from the title based on the definition of the word opinion. If this article is aobut the "Opinions of Scientists" then it needs to list the "Opinions of scientists."  your opinion for a intro states the oposate of what the title and others here have said this article means.--Zeeboid 20:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Say wha...? 20:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * According to Wiki: "An opinion is a person's ideas and thoughts towards something."  So, Should a section about Scientific Opinion contain persons Opinions?  If not, then this article should not be titled with the word Opinion, because an opinion is "a person's ideas and thoughts towards something'' not "A scientific paper's thoughts twords something."  otherwise the sugguested Intro tries to cover this up, including all the discussion that has been generated about how this section needs to include Scientific opinion if its titled "Scientific Opinion"--Zeeboid 20:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK. I could agree with taking "opinion" out of the title in favor of something like "Scientific assessment of climate change." The word "opinion" has a specific technical meaning here that doesn't jibe with its common meaning.  (Don't get me started on "theory"...) Raymond Arritt 20:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, shouldn't it say "Theory" because its not a Proof? or is that what "assessment" points to anyway?--Zeeboid 20:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * A lot of pages on climate change link to this one, and from the context in which it's been linked, I think people know what "scientific opinion" means here. Also, papers can't have opinions but they do express opinions.  If someone can give an argument other than that things or collections of people can't express opinions, maybe we should change the title.  The way I see it, we don't need to.


 * I'd rather talk about the lead section that William M. Connolley proposed. I think it should go something like


 * The scientific opinion on climate change reflects the opinions of many individuals with scientific backgrounds, and has been summarized in several formal surveys. Recently, the view has become more popular in the scientific community that global warming is caused by humans and threatens life on Earth.  At the same time, climate change skeptics have become more vocal, with prominent public figures and scientists denouncing the popular opinion.


 * I'm not sure what we want to say about individual climate skeptics in this lead section. As for the rest of this article, I'm sure we could find a lot more believers than skeptics.  I'm going to try to integrate this into what is there now.
 * Twelvethirteen 21:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Threatens life on earth is definitely over the top William M. Connolley 21:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)I'm sorry, but there are many problems with this intro:
 * The scientifi opinion usually represents the opinion of scientists working in the field, and is more often than not assesed by a literature analysis (that is essentually what the IPCC does, on a very high level), not by a formal survey.
 * "Recently is weasely". The debate has become more visible, but while the details and certainty increase, the scientific opinion has been essentially stable at least since the first IPCC report in 1990.
 * No informed climate scientist seriously claims that global warming threatens "life on earth". What it threatens are biotopes, resources, growths potential and (mostly poor) people. Life will go on fine, as it has for the last several billion years.
 * --Stephan Schulz 21:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the intro to be closer to William's version, in line with the above criticism. I don't mean to eliminate Twelvethirteen's contributions, but maybe we can all discuss here what would be a good wording for additional summary text before putting it in the article. --Nethgirb 21:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, well I still think the first sentence should say what "scientific opinion on climate change" is. If we can't say "scientific opinion on climate change is X," we should at least say what that opinion is evident in.  The page does reference formal surveys and assessments by organizations, so maybe the first sentence could be something like:


 * National and international science academies and professional societies have assessed the scientific opinion on climate change, often in the context of recent global warming.


 * I'm not really a fan of the "this article documents ..." form. The lead should summarize the article, not state its purpose.  I'm also unclear as to why we need to explicitly say that the article doesn't cover the opinions of individuals.  That should be obvious to anyone glancing at the table of contents.


 * Admittedly that second paragraph was over the top, but shouldn't the lead section summarize the opinions themselves to some degree? Maybe I can't write a good summary of it, but I'm sure someone here can. Twelvethirteen 14:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Twelvethirteen. ~ UBeR 18:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've put in a rough try at the IPCC position: An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Of course there is no one position, but that I think covers most of the things that people are likely to consider controversial William M. Connolley 18:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Time for a title change?
How about "scientific assessment of climate change"? Laypeople often equate "opinion" with a guess. "Assessment" would also parallel the various assessment reports that have been done. Raymond Arritt 21:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As long as we are talking about a title change, there's another problem -- you might say that global warming actually is the article that documents the scientific opinion on climate change, and this article documents the extent to which that opinion is supported, or something like that. It would be nice to somehow make it clear in the title. --Nethgirb 21:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Oregon Petition added
To quote the opening paragraph of this article: "This page documents scientific opinion as given by synthesis reports, bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. It does not document the views of individual scientists."

The Oregon Petition qualifys as "Surveys of opinion" as it contains the opinion of a large group of scientists.--Zeeboid 19:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC) As it has been refrenced in the past, this is not a place for individual comments, so, because the Scientific opinion on climate change article can not contain individual scientists, there should be no problem with this group.--Zeeboid 19:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh? Because I'm not allowed to murder, I'm allowed to steal? Weird logic. A petition is not a survey, as it presents only one option. Unless you implicitely assume that everyone who has not signed the petition is opposed to it? Ok, that would leave some of the Spice Girls and half the Disney characters in your camp... --Stephan Schulz 19:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * your opinion about the Petition asside (because it does not matter), the Oregon Petition is an Opinion of a Group of scientists. A Petition is not a survey... I'll go with that.  But the Oregon Petition, fits under [Scientific opinion on climate change]] because it is opinion of scientists (not individuals, the diffrence between the two has been discussed) on climate change.--Zeeboid 20:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, by the way, your little comment about the spice girls and disney characters is incorrect. Please refer to the Oregon Petition, as it clearly states, the independant verification process has removed the false names.  Also, as listed before, If you have any question to this process, contact information is listed on the Oregon Petition's website.--Zeeboid 20:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"But the Oregon Petition, fits under [Scientific opinion on climate change]] because it is opinion of scientists (not individuals, the diffrence between the two has been discussed) on climate change." There are multiple problems with this. (1) A petition is not a good way to determine what the scientific opinion is, since as Stephan pointed out, it is not an assessment of the opinion of a group of scientists; rather, it is a group of scientists formed because they have a specific opinion. I think we should exclude petitions, pro or con, from this article. (2) This particular petition has reliability problems, as discussed at Oregon Petition; as you point out there is a claimed independent verification process, but that's only as good as our trust in OISM. The independent verification by the Scientific American showed that many of the signatories should not be there, or no longer agree with the petition. (3) The petition includes many non-climate scientists and even non-scientists, who should not be relevant for this article. (4) The petition is misleading because it is presented as skepticism of the consensus, but the petition statement itself only is skeptical of "catastrophic heating" which is not part of the consensus. --Nethgirb 21:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC) And to clarify further, as a result of (1), contrary to what Zeeboid says, I think a petition is much more like "the opinion of individual scientists" than "scientific opinion". --Nethgirb 21:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it belongs under "Older surveys" along with "Bray and von Storch, 1996"? It was stated earlier that individual scientists can't be on here, but when a group is brought up, that’s not okay either?  and Nethgrib:


 * 1) The petition is a large list of scientists who have grouped together to give their group's opinion as a consensus.
 * 2) The details behind the verification process, is readily accessible.  Just because its not on the internet does not mean its not a source.  the Scientific American did a small sampling of the names on the list, and it has been independently verified since by OISM.
 * 3) The petition also includes Many Climate scientists, of which are well above 2000 in numbers.
 * 4) the petition is not misleading, as listed under Oregon Petition the documentation included with the Petition mentions "global warming" twenty-one times and "climate change" four times. this is far from "misleading".  "Catastrophic Heating" as you put it is also out of context.  The sentence reads: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."  how do you view that sentence?--Zeeboid 21:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * From the intro: "This page documents scientific opinion as given by synthesis reports, bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists." The OP is not a "synthesis report"; it is not a statement by a "body of national or international standing"; and it is not a "survey of opinion among climate scientists." A petition signed by a group of environmentalists wouldn't belong here either -- petitions simply are outside the remit of the article. Raymond Arritt 21:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with RA and Ng; reverted as such. Curious about the 2000 sci claim though: does that have a source other than OISM? William M. Connolley 21:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Look it up. Contact the OISM if you care so much about it.--Zeeboid 13:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Scientific American says around 200. While their figure is an extrapolation from a small sample, it's more credible than anything out of OISM. Raymond Arritt 22:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is limited to thosfe three categories not because they must, but because they currently are. ~ UBeR 23:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Good call. Then the article will be expanded to show a more complete view and article based on the title.  I have added "public entities" to the list of what this article displays, which coveres petition groups.  As a group of tens of thousands of people is no small thing (or even thousands).--Zeeboid 13:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The OP states the views of c. 20k scientists. Obviously it should be included here. Iceage77 23:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * WMC, please explain your opinion that the OP has "OP has nothing to do with science. please mark reverts as such."--Zeeboid 14:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "please mark reverts as such" means that you have a nasty habit of reverting without explicitly noting such, which is bad form William M. Connolley 15:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I was refering to your comment "OP Has nothing to do with science." Please explain this.--Zeeboid 15:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There are both scientists and non-scientists on the petition, so the petition by itself is not useful. Moreover see above for problems with petitions in general. --Nethgirb 18:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There are non-scientists on the IPCC. We need some balance here. Iceage77 19:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It is wrong to include the Oregon Petition for so many reasons (described carefully above) that this discussion is ridiculous. Maybe outside mediation is the way to go. --Nethgirb 20:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats your Opinion, Nethgrib. the reasons above are also opinionated.  Outisde Mediation is deffently the way to go.  You argue against the oregon petition not being based on Science, yet the IPCC Report being refrenced all over the place is a report put together by Politicions, who take into account the opinion of some scientists.  Even the Global Warming arguement can be claimed (and is) it does not follow Science.  We have a group of people (some Environmental Activists) who have made and altered these global warming related articles for years with their own POV, and any time a change is sugguested that does not reflect what this group wants, there is nothing but revert wars listing the same reasons for removal that items on the page it self, defended by this same group, will not qualify under.  This article (and the related POV FORKs out to Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming‎ need to all be discussed by a moderator.  Not Activist Admins.  Bottom line here, your opinion of why the Oregon Petition does not belong here (AND WMC's also) Don't pass the NPOV smell test.--Zeeboid 20:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The scientific opinion is based on published peer reviewed papers in leading journals. There is even a peer reviewed essay published in Science about the scientific consensus itself. The Oregon Petition, apart from being flawed (you can say that this is my own judgement which you can disagree with), was never published in a peer reviewed journal. So, the things it purports to show cannot be assigned the same weight as other peer reviewed studies that show the complete opposite. Count Iblis 20:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Petitions are not peer reviewed, but the petition IS based on a peer reviewed scientific paper.   The information behind this paper then, and a refrence to the Oregon Petition should pass your "Peer Reviewed Scientific Opinion" requirements.--Zeeboid 20:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That article is by some of the "few dissenting scientists". You can include a reference to the peer reviewed articles written by these scientists. Count Iblis 21:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Where was that published? I can't seem to find it.  Guettarda 21:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It may have been published in Energy and Environment, which for all practical purposes gives climate change skeptics a free pass. E&E is carried by few libraries and is so obscure that it isn't even listed in the Science Citation Index. Raymond Arritt 21:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Free pass or not, you guys used the arguement of "Peer Reviewed" not "Peer Reviewed except when we don't agree with it."--Zeeboid 02:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, there's an E&E paper of the same name but with a different sequence of authors and it's a 1999 paper. The only references I could find to this paper call it "unpublished".  So calling the basis for the petition "peer reviewed" isn't accurate (even though it may have been "reviewed by peers".  As for E&E - I'm not ready to call a publication in a non-ISI indexed magazine "peer reviewed science", and anyway, it isn't the paper upon which the petition is based...it would be unethical to switch authors on the "same" paper and call it "new". Guettarda 21:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, 1 September 1999, pp. 439-468(30) by Soon W.; Baliunas S. L.; Robinson A. B.; Robinson Z. W. ~ UBeR 21:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm, so is UBeR saying it's the same paper and Guettarda saying it's a different one?  I don't know, myself; E&E was just a guess based on the dramatis personae. Raymond Arritt 21:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The link provided by Zeeboid is to a paper by AB Robinson, Baliunas, Soon and ZW Robinson. The E&E paper is from a year later, and is by Soon, Baliunas, AB Robinson and ZW Robinson.  Based on authorship, the petition is based on a paper that is primarily AB Robinson's work.  The E&E paper must primarily be Soon's work, with Robinson as the third author.  It would be dishonest to publish the same paper with different authorship, so presumably these are different papers.  Obviously, neither of them is "peer reviewed science"... Interestingly, there's a third paper of the same name, also published in 1999, in a real journal, by the same group (Soon, Baliunas, AB Robinson and ZW Robinson, 1999, Climate Research 13: 149-164).  Of course, the petition only mentions the unpublished paper, so the assertion that it is based on either of the other two papers is original research.
 * By the way...who the heck published three papers by the same name in two years (even if two of them aren't real papers)? How hard is it to title a ms?  It isn't like it's that great a title or anything...  Guettarda 23:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That, or they're the same paper. ~ UBeR 00:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So you're accusing the authors of unethical behaviour? DO you have a source for these accusations?  And how does it strenghten your case to accuse them of this sort of behaviour?  Guettarda 00:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've had a look at the CR paper (Soon et al. 1999) and large sections are word-for-word identical to the stuff on the OISM web page. That's not bad in itself; it's fine to send out early drafts for suggestions by colleagues. What would be more interesting is if the CR and E&E papers were such close siblings. Manuscript submissions have a standard question along the lines "have you published or submitted any portion of this work elsewhere." Raymond Arritt 00:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

POV Check
User:Stephan Schulz User:William M. Connolley User:Raymond arritt User:Count Iblis POV Pushing on this article.


 * POV pushing because we have deleted the Oregon Petition??? That's a bit like accusing someone who deletes, say, Nazi propaganda cited from Goebbels in an article about Jews of POV pushing :) . Non reliable sources should always be replaced by reliable sources. The Oregon petition itself is not a reliable source. Count Iblis 15:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on your opinion, and your views, its not reliable. But I would argue that your opinion means nothing.  The wiki policies however mean more.--Zeeboid 15:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Read the article about the Oregon Petition and read the wiki policies about Reliable Sources. Count Iblis 15:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the stupid tag, for the obvious reasons William M. Connolley 16:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Reality Check
Petitions never were part of the article, as is clear from its history. The line about petitions was added solely as clarification after certain parties insisted on adding them. Thus, the claim that removing the clarification amounts to a "change in focus" is not merely unfounded, but turns the situation on its head. Raymond Arritt 16:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The OP is an example of a large group of scientists who agree in their assessment. It is peer reviewed.  It is also "scientific opinion as given by synthesis reports" It meets your qualifications until it was added, then you noted that "petitions" don't count either.  Then you change the requirements so it can't be added.  This is POV Pushing at its worst. and I can not believe wikipedian admins would allow it.--Zeeboid 17:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

POV Check again
User:Stephan Schulz User:William M. Connolley User:Raymond arritt User:Count Iblis POV Pushing on this article once again, removing items they do not agree with and altering the opening paragraph to exclude additional information.--Zeeboid 17:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have not been editing this page since at least a few days ago. :) Count Iblis 17:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Whops, sorry for pasting you into this. WMC, could you please explain to us your removal of the NPOV Tag??--Zeeboid 02:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Because there is no justification for it. You failed to get your inappropriate material into the article; resorting to tagging as a bludgeon is an old and pointless tactic William M. Connolley 07:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

William, whats up with your deletion of the opposition?
User:William M. Connolley here is Removing posts that he doesn't agree with in talk page of Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change

listed are the questions in context, and the diffs. The conversation is form this page, in this section.


 * It's not, since there was no such consensus. --Nethgirb 23:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you list for me, Nethgrib, any Science that had a "Scientific Consensus" before this "Global Warming" thing?--Zeeboid 19:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Taken Away

Added Back


 * So, it is acceptable to delete other's comments on the talk page without any discussion or explanation? I'm learning more about the Wikipedia culture everyday. -- Tony 21:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Both lines taken away

Added Back Again


 * It would appear William realy does not this question asked, after removing it twice from this page. Could you please cite for us the WIki policy you are refrencing? Also Could you answer it for us, William, you know... from your neutral point of view? Could you list for me, William, any Science that had a "Scientific Consensus" before this "Global Warming" thing?--Zeeboid 21:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

And taken away once again

So User:William M. Connolley, whats up here? Could you please explain what Wikipedia policy you are using to justify this?--Zeeboid 21:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The most important of all the wikipedia rules is Ignore All Rules: If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them :)  Count Iblis 23:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That does not answer the question for William. What is your reasoning William for removing this question?  Also, I want the question answered.
 * Could anyone list for me, any Science that had a "Scientific Consensus" before this "Global Warming" thing?--Zeeboid 04:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Geography had a consensus that the Earth is more or less a sphere since the dawn of modern time. Physics has a consensus that Apples fall down (unless very fast). Chemistry has a consensus that 2H2 + O2 will give 2H2O and a small bang .--Stephan Schulz 06:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Geologists reached a consensus during the 60s that plates move and biologists reached a consensus following Darwin that living things evolve. Both of these examples were hotly debated during the consensus formation period. These and other examples didn't imply anthropogenic cause nor did they have such direct implications for future lifestyle and economic disruptions and so lacked that aspect of political resistance. Vsmith 11:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So you say, but I am looking for refrences. Please show me where it says "Geologiests reached a consensus that the earth is not flat" or "a scientific consensus exists that gravity pulls things together" (note, not down, objects are pulled to each other, depending on the mass of the objects) or "A scientific consensus exists that the earth is flat.  Scientists agree to limit discussion that the earth is round. conflicting scientists viewed as heritics"  Do you have any news articles or refrences for this?  Could you provide me with a refrence over your word?  I can't seam to find any refrences for this until the Global Warming issue as of recient.  So yea.  lets see some refrences using the word "consensus"--Zeeboid 21:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Feeding the trolls I know, but "The prime focus of the book is on Big Bang cosmology and the role of primordial nucleosynthesis in establishing the modern consensus on the Big Bang" - review of The Big Bang and Other Explosions in Nuclear and Particle Astrophysics; and "The 1965 observation of the microwave background radiation by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson from the Bell Telephone laboratories convinced most scientists of the validity of the big bang theory. Further observations reported in 1992 have moved the big bang theory from a consensus view to the nearly unanimous view among cosmologists" Lecture by H. Schaefer at U of ColoradoHal peridol 12:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And not to forget "No. The scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming. Those opposed to the teaching of evolution sometimes use quotations from prominent scientists out of context to claim that scientists do not support evolution. However, examination of the quotations reveals that the scientists are actually disputing some aspect of how evolution occurs, not whether evolution occurred." Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition (1999), National Academy of Sciences Hal peridol 12:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The only dissenting organization?
Raymond Arritt removed the statement that the AAPG is the only dissenting org. However, we do have a verifiable source saying that "The AAPG stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming." , as cited in the article. So it seems like that is enough, since our standard is verifiability, not truth, unless we have comparably verifiable sources contradicting that statement. (Note that in that same document Fred Singer tries to demonstrate that some figure in the US Climate Change Science Program contradicts AGW theory but by his own admission the statement itself does support AGW—so that does not appear to count.) --Nethgirb 11:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Relatedly, we might consider adding the AMQUA (whose Council wrote the statement on the first page of the article referenced above) to the list of supporters. --Nethgirb 12:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, agreed on both counts. Raymond Arritt 15:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not the only dissenting organisation at all.

Global Climate Coalition

Founded in 1989 by 46 corporations and trade associations representing all major elements of US industry, the GCC presents itself as a "voice for business in the global warming debate." The group funded several flawed studies on the economics of the cost of mitigating climate change, which formed the basis of their 1997/1998 multi-million dollar advertising campaign against the Kyoto Protocol. The GCC began to unravel in 1997 when British Petroleum withdrew its membership. Since then many other corporations have followed BP s lead and left the coalition. This exodus reached a fevered pitch in the early months of 2000 when DaimlerChrysler, Texaco and General Motors all announced their exodus from the GCC. Since these desertions, the GCC restructured and remains a powerful and well-funded force focused on obstructing meaningful efforts to mitigate climate change.

George Marshall Institute

This conservative think tank shifted its focus from Star Wars to climate change in the late 1980s. In 1989, the Marshall Institute released a report claiming that "cyclical variations in the intensity of the sun would offset any climate change associated with elevated greenhouse gases." Though refuted by the IPCC, the report was very influential in influencing the Bush Sr. Administration s climate change policy. The Marshall Institute has since published numerous reports downplaying the severity of global climate change.

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine

The Marshall Institute co-sponsored with the OISM a deceptive campaign -- known as the Petition Project -- to undermine and discredit the scientific authority of the IPCC and to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. Early in the spring of 1998, thousands of scientists around the country received a mass mailing urging them to sign a petition calling on the government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was accompanied by other pieces including an article formatted to mimic the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequent research revealed that the article had not been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor even accepted for publication in that journal and the Academy released a strong statement disclaiming any connection to this effort and reaffirming the reality of climate change. The Petition resurfaced in 2001.

Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

Founded in 1990 by widely publicized climate skeptic S. Fred Singer, SEPP s stated purpose is to "document the relationship between scientific data and the development of federal environmental policy." SEPP has mounted a sizeable media campaign -- publishing articles, letters to the editor, and a large number of press releases -- to discredit the issues of global warming, ozone depletion, and acid rain.

Greening Earth Society

The Greening Earth Society (GES) was founded on Earth Day 1998 by the Western Fuels Association to promote the view that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 are good for humanity. GES and Western Fuels are essentially the same organization. Both used to be located at the same office suite in Arlington, VA. Until December 2000, Fred Palmer chaired both institutions. The GES is now chaired by Bob Norrgard, another long-term Western Fuels associate. The Western Fuels Assocation (WFA) is a cooperative of coal-dependent utilities in the western states that works in part to discredit climate change science and to prevent regulations that might damage coal-related industries.

Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide & Global Change

The Center claims to "disseminate factual reports and sound commentary on new developments in the world-wide scientific quest to determine the climactic and biological consequences of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content." The Center is led by two brothers, Craig and Keith Idso. Their father, Sherwood Idso, is affiliated with the Greening Earth Society; the Center also shares a board member (Sylvan Wittwer) with GES. Both Idso brothers have been on the Western Fuels payroll at one time or another.

These guys too: http://www.nzclimatescience.org/

And there are alot more.

Consensus
I was thinking of adding a short section documenting statements (subject to the conditions for inclusion in this article) which address the issue of whether or not there exists a scientific consensus on GW. That info seems to be missing from the GW pages. And this article seems to be the an appropriate place, rather than Global warming controversy, which is bloated and deals more with controversy than the scientific opinion. Feel free to comment... --Nethgirb 22:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Name Change
This page needs a name change because as it is currently named, it is not comprehensive. Except for one paragraph about one organization, it only records the Scientific opinion of those who agree generally with IPCC. It does not include the Scientific Opinion of those who disagree. --Blue Tie 07:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe -- Scientist supporting mainstream assessment of Global Warming. --Blue Tie 07:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Or we could merge the two pages. --Blue Tie 07:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope. There is a scientific opinion on cliamate change, expressed by the IPCC, supported by a near unanimous consensus of scientific and professional societies, unchallenged in the scientific literature. There is a small set of incoherent counter-opinions by individual scientists, best summed up as "everything but CO2". But "a scientists opinion" is not "the scientific opinion". --Stephan Schulz 09:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Hi Blue Tie, perhaps instead of changing the name, we should address what you think is missing. Is there something you'd like to include here that fits the requirement of "synthesis reports, [statements by scientific] bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists"?
 * I assume the other page you're referring to is Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Keep in mind that that article and this one serve different purposes. That one lists individuals and their opinions; this article lists the collective judgement of scientific groups informed by evidence in peer-reviewed publications. (So actually the skeptics are getting more space than the AGW supporters, since there is no article Scientists supporting the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.) This issue was already discussed above. --Nethgirb 09:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not really thinking about space. I do not mind if the space is equal or unbalanced as long as it generally fair (I do not exactly equate space with fair).  What I am thinking about is consistency for the sake of NPOV.  By Title, this argument says "Scientific Opinion on Climate Change". Yet it is missing a ton of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change.  I am conflicted.  I think the fix is to merge the two articles.  But that would be too big.  Keeping them separate LOOKS like POV Forking.  But one thing at a time.  I think that the paragraph on the objectors should be removed.  The header should mention that there are objections and link to that article.  Then this article should be renamed to say "Scientific Opinion supporting the Mainstream Assessment of Global Warming".  The other article should have a title "Scientific Opinion objecting to the Mainstream Assessment of Global Warming".  They should both, near the header, link to each other.  But if this title remains, the two articles should merge, which I do not think is best. --Blue Tie 16:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not a symmetric situation, and hence does not warrant symmetric treatment. --Stephan Schulz 16:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Then lets merge them. --Blue Tie 16:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Blue Tie, the 2 articles are on different topics as I already stated, and so they should not be merged. Also, you say this article is "missing a ton of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change"—can you please say what is missing that's within the scope of the article? Keep in mind individuals (on either side) are not included here. --Nethgirb 19:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course they are on different topics. That is why they would have different titles. But Stephan does not want them to have symetric titles, even though they are, in essence the flip side of the same coin.  This is an NPOV matter. So if they are not going to be treated in an NPOV manner separately, I say combine them.  But that is not my first choice.
 * No, they are not "flip sides of the same coin". One documents the considered opinion of the scientific community, supported by all serious scientific organizations and thousands of scientists, the other documents various individual opinions that differ in minor or sometimes major ways from this opinion. --Stephan Schulz 20:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not know why you started that statement with a "No they are not the flip side" and then went forward and described how they are the flip side. Oh well! Oh wait, I see, it was the way you worded it that made it sound different.  How about if I do the wording a different way.  "One documents the mainstream and prominently published opinion of the leading organizations of the scientific community and the other one documents samples of the considered opinions of thousands of their members who disagree with the public stance of that organization."  You probably think your way is better.  No need to tell me that.  I know you have your sympathies.  But, so you know, I do not particularly recognize that your opinion is better than mine.  Rather than get into that, I would suggest a straight NPOV approach -- which would include neutrality.  The MOST neutral thing would be to merge the two articles.  But that is a bit too big.  As a compromise to that -- a compromise that I think retains POV forkishness but at least gives each article room for itself is to name then similar names.  Then let the readers decide.   --Blue Tie 21:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Mu. --Stephan Schulz 21:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh heh. hard to imagine a more NPOV answer than that! --Blue Tie 22:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as what is missing, all the Scientific Opinion that objects to the IPCC and other organization's statements on Global Warming is missing from this. If you merge the two articles, it will not be missing any more. Keep in mind, individuals on both sides are included here because this is not an article about "organizational opinion of global warming" but rather "Scientific Opinion". That would include individuals.  Excluding them is an artificial device. --Blue Tie 20:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "all the Scientific Opinion that objects to the IPCC and other organization's statements on Global Warming is missing from this."—why don't you give some citations? "Keep in mind, individuals on both sides are included here"—Certainly individuals are involved in the process but we are not listing opinions voiced by an individual, on either side. "Excluding them is an artificial device."—no, there are just too many scientists to list them individually. --Nethgirb 03:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Last edit by User:Alex.rosenheim
I think something went wrong with this edit. It looks as if some tool has embedded all the CSS directly into the article, or as if someone paseted the generated HTML source instead of the Wiki-source. Alex, can you veriify this? Raymond has reverted it, because it was an unmaintainable and uneditable mess. --Stephan Schulz 18:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)