Talk:Scientific consensus on climate change/Archive 6

Wikiproject Earth
Hello i have recently proposed the Wikiproject Earth. This Wikiproject`s scope includes this article. This wikiproject will overview the continents, oceans, atsmophere and global warming Please Voice your opinion by clicking anywhere on this comment except for my name. --IwilledituTalk :)Contributions —Preceding comment was added at 15:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you're getting lots of comments.-- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 11:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Paleontological Research Institution
Would the Paleontological Research Institution qualify for inclusion on this page?--CurtisSwain (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd say no; it would fall under the "individual universities or laboratories" exclusion. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Government agencies
I've removed all the government agencies from the list. I think we would be best served by keeping the list to independent scientific bodies. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You forgot to remove http://www.climatescience.gov/ -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 20:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, that's in there as a notable synthesis report, not as a government agency. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The CCSP documents undergo extensive independent peer review -- there are even reviews of the reviews! It's more like an academy of science than a government agency. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I’m not sure it’s valid to restrict the inclusion of government agencies. The criteria for inclusion on this page is “scientific bodies of national or international standing.”  Government agencies such as NOAA, the Met Office, MeteoSwiss, etc.  certainly meet that criteria, and are certainly qualified to speak authoritatively on the subject.  The introduction clearly states that the only scientific bodies excluded from this page are “individual universities or laboratories.”  Therefore, I feel the government meteorological agencies that were recently removed should be put back.--CurtisSwain (talk) 06:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Er...does no one else have an opinion on this?--CurtisSwain (talk) 10:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

What, are other global warming articles based on "unscientific" opinion?
I suggest this changed to scientific papers on global warming or something similar. This is wikipedia. All its scientific articles are supposed to be based on scientific opinion. --Leladax (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That name wouldn't reflect the content of this article. A more accurate title might be "Opinions of scientific academies on climate change" but that's cumbersome.  It's fine as is.  Oren0 (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer it. --Leladax (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Oren0 above. It's fine as is.--CurtisSwain (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Mostly agree too but a mention should be added about the fact that organizational statements do not necessarily represent the opinions of all their individual members. --Childhood&#39;s End (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement order?
Is there any rhyme or reason to the current ordering of scientific organizations in this article? After the IPCC and the G8 ones, they seem to be in random order. Would anyone oppose alphabetizing them (after the IPCC and Joint academies statements, which can go first)? Oren0 (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Good idea. It was tolerable before when there weren't so many entries, but now they should be better organized. Maybe put them into categories like national academies (including joint declarations) and then professional societies.  Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you’re absolutely correct. The order of scientific bodies is a little haphazard.  However, I don’t think alphabetizing is the way to go.  I think the table of contents would be easier for readers to peruse, and the ordering would make more sense if we clustered the entries by type.  The order should go from the large to the small, from the general to the specific.  After the IPCC and Joint academies statements, it should continue with other science academies, then general science groups, followed by meteorological organizations, atmospheric organizations, the geo-sciences, then miscellaneous groups.  So, the order would look something like this:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007

Joint science academies’ statement 2007

Joint science academies’ statement 2005

Joint science academies’ statement 2001

InterAcademy Council

European Academy of Sciences and Arts

Network of African Science Academies

International Council for Science

American Association for the Advancement of Science

Federation of American Scientists

National Research Council (US)

World Meteorological Organization

Royal Meteorological Society (UK)

American Meteorological Society

Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences

National Center for Atmospheric Research (US)

International Union of Geological Sciences

International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics

European Geosciences Union

Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London

Geological Society of America

American Geophysical Union

American Quaternary Association

American Astronomical Society

American Institute of Physics

American Physical Society

American Chemical Society

Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)

Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006

Then, as more organizations are added, they can be placed in the appropriate cluster. How’s does that sound?--CurtisSwain (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer categorization to sorting. I just don't want to quibble over which organization belongs first.  I propose the following main headers: IPCC, National/International Academies, Meteorological/Climate societies, and Other scientific societies.  We might also need a category for government bodies/reports.  We could sort by size/importance or alphabetically within each group. Oren0 (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That’ll work too. Either way, whoever wants to take the time to organize it in a way that isn’t objectionable to anyone should just go for  it.  I’d like to see gov’t agencies included.  So…maybe if they were labeled they’d be acceptable.  But, reports should be in a separate category if we’re going to go with categorization.  The average reader needs to be able to easily discern the difference between a scientific body and a synthesis report.  Wait, what exactly is a “synthesis report” anyway?--CurtisSwain (talk) 10:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

History of scientific opinion
The oldest reference in the article is 1990 whereas scientific opinion actually originates with Svante Arrhenius in 1896. Also the fact that Mikhail Budyko in 1972 hypothesized on a warming in close agreement the later development merits mention.1972 prediction of global warming Gabriel Kielland (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This article, at least so far, concentrates on the current scientific opinion on climate change, as described in the lead. I don't think adding historical material is appropriate here - if anything, we should have a separate article on e.g. History of global warming theory. I also have to say that a single gif on a website in Japan does not strike me as a WP:RS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That’s a great idea! I’m surprised Wiki doesn’t have one already.  Spencer R. Weart and his on-line book The Discovery of Global Warming [ISBN 0674016378] would be a good source to get that started.  I might take that on myself, or at least help out if someone wants to get it going.--CurtisSwain (talk) 11:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Conformity in the headings
Do we have to have “(The Institution of Engineers Australia)” in the heading? And does the Federal Climate Change Science Program have to have the year after it? They just look odd in the table of contents.--CurtisSwain (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Older Surveys
I added a reference for FAIR and changed the numbers to what I read there. They gave the date of the survey as 1992 (as does the Heartland Institute further down), but it seems clear it must be the same one. Which date is right? N p holmes (talk) 07:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Good question. Several people here have tried without success to find first-hand reports of the survey. Raymond Arritt (talk) 07:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The San Francisco Chronicle story (at second hand in the FAIR article) is supposed to be reporting a press release from Gallup, which should be close enough, I'd hope. Sadly the paper's web archives only go back to 1995, and if I understand the ref., the article is on 27 September, 1992.  If someone in America (I'm not) could visit a library sometime, that would answer the question (and allow Wikipedia to more briefly and directly dismiss any conflicting reports). N p holmes (talk) 07:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, looking through the links that were already there, I've found what looks like the answer to the date question (commissioned 1991, published 1992). I'm curious about the commissioning organisation, particularly when they chose the Center for Media and Public Affairs to do their research. But they hardly show up on Google except for this report. The paper by Stewart et al. (already referenced in the article) gives a title for the report, but I can't find it in any library catalogue. The survey apparently had 18 questions, which perhaps allow the discrepancies (picking figures favourable to a particular opinion). N p holmes (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Heartland Institute dead link
For the Heartland Institute's claims about the Gallup poll, the current link is dead (for me at least): this link from an early stage of the Wikipedia article seems to work (the quotation is on p. 55). The work is dated 1994 there, not 1993. N p holmes (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Are there currently any documented polls or surveys of scientists with knowledge of climate change, which reflect a consensus as to the extent and cause of climate change?
Is the following acceptable?

"A question which frequently arises in conveying the scientific opinion to a broader audience is to what extent that opinion rises to the level of a consensus. The existence of a scientific consensus on the extent and causes of climate change is controversial. While several scientific organizations have used the term "consensus" in their statements (as indicated below), none of currently documented surveys or polls of scientists, with knowledge of climate change, reflect an overwhelming consensus of opinion as to the extent and causes of climate change. "


 * "While many scientific organizations claim that AIDs is caused by HIV, there are no currently documented surveys or polls of scientists that support this notion."
 * "While scientists generally consider the Earth to be roughly spherical, this opinion is not supported by any published survey among scientists."
 * Not to mention the fact that the von-Bray/Storch survey, generally criticized as likely compromised by denial ballot stuffing, still has only 20% disagreeing with the explicit statement that the IPCC reports represents the consensus opinion. We have a large number of extremely reliable sources for the consensus. We have no single reliable source claiming a lack of surveys is a problem for gauging consensus. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the fact that the von-Bray/Storch survey, generally criticized as likely compromised by denial ballot stuffing, still has only 20% disagreeing with the explicit statement that the IPCC reports represents the consensus opinion. We have a large number of extremely reliable sources for the consensus. We have no single reliable source claiming a lack of surveys is a problem for gauging consensus. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

— Apis (talk ) 15:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There is plenty indication that there is a scientific consensus and it does not appear to be controversial. The proposal above would be directly misleading in my opinion.


 * Stephen, you did not answer the question. It has a "yes" or "no" answer. Your response is basically subterfuge.  Apis, there is an ENTIRE wikipedia page documenting why it is very controversial.  But if it makes you happy, we can take the sentence about it being controversial out.  --Sirwells (talk) 03:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Are there currently any documented polls or surveys of scientists with knowledge of geophysics, which relfect an a consensus as to whether the shape of the earth is approximately spherical? Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, nor is there any need for one since the shape of the earth not controversial. That is an inane argument.  (But I suspect you knew that.)--Sirwells (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith and remain civil in discussions with other editors. It was a serious question that is relevant to the issue at hand. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That's good advice. So why will no one give a direct answer to my question.  It looks pretty straight forward to me.--Sirwells (talk) 04:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

— Apis (talk ) 01:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)''
 * Alright Sirwells, asuming you are seriously interested in this, take a look at this essay by Naomi Oreskes, published 3 dec 2004 in the academic journal Science. It shows the lack of dissenting opinions in a sample of 928 peer reviewed articles on "global climate change".
 * Look theres even a section on it in this article. ''

— Apis (talk ) 03:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)''
 * I've read that essay before. First of all, it does not address my question, which was "Are there currently any documented polls or surveys of scientists with knowledge of climate change, which reflect a consensus as to the extent and cause of climate change?".  The essay references a survey of papers about global climate change, not a poll of scientists, therefore it is irrelevant to my question.  That being said, Oreskes survey does not even prove there is a consensus.  Only that most papers written about anthropogenic caused global climate change assume anthropogenic climate change exists.  I could just as easily look at a sample of 928 article with the key-word "golf" and conclude that most articles written about golf assume a love of golf.  This would not mean there is a consensus of all sports fans who love golf, only that the most people who wrote articles about it do.  As a skeptic, if I were I scientist, I would have no interest whatsoever in doing research on one of the many facets of AGW theory.  (nice try though.)--Sirwells (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well you asked for a survey and it's a survey of papers on the subject, which reflect a consensus. She didn't search for "anthropogenic caused global climate change" she searched for "global climate change". I don't agree with your assumption that only proponents would publish papers on the subject. Maybe you wouldn't, but If I where a scientist (in the relevant field) and highly skeptical of anthropogenic climate change, then I'd do some good science to prove that everyone else was wrong and I was right, then I'd get famous, get lots of funding for other research and have my career secured for the future. Not only that, I could also feel tremendously satisfied that I saved billions of people a lot of unnecessary effort to reduce ghg emissions. If you're only going to accept a poll in which all scientists on the earth in the relevant fields express their opinion on human caused climate change then I suspect you are going to die still wondering.
 * Raymonds question is also valid I think. Consensus on climate change isn't controversial either, or rather it's not controversial within the scientific community. ''


 * Where do I begin? First off, I didn't just 'ask for a survey'.  I very specifically asked if there were any polls or surveys of scientists with knowledge of climate change showing a consensus.  Since I've yet to receive a direct answer to this question.  Let me answer it myself.  There are none.  Secondly, any search of papers written about 'global climate change' essentially is the same thing as a search of 'anthropogenic climate change'.  Of course, you are welcome to try and prove me wrong on this point.  Just go to Nature's website and try to find any paper on 'climate change' where the paper is not specifically about man's theoretical influence on it.  So yes, the Oreskes person is essentially looking at only papers written about AGW to try and prove there is a consensus about AGW's existence.  Third, if you were a skeptic interested in doing research, you would not be able to write a paper unless you had your own alternate funding source because government does not give grants for research projects aimed at proving AGW wrong.  Fourth, a poll is the only way of proving a consensus, whether you like or not.  And yes I absolutely do question an authority figure such as the IPCC if they say there is a consensus of all scientists with knowledge of climate change since they have not taken a poll of all scientists with knowledge of climate change nor do they have any valid basis of claiming so.  Skeptism is healthy.  Fifth, you and the others here seem to be the ones in serious denial when you say it's 'not controversial'. I understand the OISM petition is now up to 32,000 names of scientists who are skeptic. How many scientists are in you 'elite' group of IPCC authors? --Sirwells (talk) 06:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Where do you end? About the existence of surveys, I'm aware about at least two polls, one of which I cited above (the von-Bray/Storch survey). Your second point is simply bizarre, not to mention weirdly limited. I just typed "global climate change" into Google Scholar, and it came back with e.g., (which is in Nature), , , . What terms would sceptics use? There are also tons of papers on climate change that acknowledge the current anthropogenic model although the paper would be perfectly able to stand without this, as e.g.  (in Nature). As for third, you should be aware of the fact that very many scientists are employed as professors at universities, and that, by design, many of these have tenure especially to be free to research whatever they want without outside interference. And very many of them produce high-quality published science without any additional funding. Fourth is plain wrong. Argument by "because I say so" may work in your usual surroundings, but it does not convince me or many other people here. And fifth, that you bring up the Oregon Petition shows your desperation. It does not say what you claim it does, it's been running for nearly ten years, its been described as fraudulent and denounced by the National Academy of Sciences, and it apparently lists spice girls and comic book characters. Independent attempts to verify it gloriously failed. -Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The von-Bray/Storch survey does not reflect a consensus as to the extent and cause of climate change. No offense, but the rest of your reply is just more subterfuge.  --Sirwells (talk) 02:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to hear that your case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU has become worse again. I'm willing to let this subthread stand and let the reader decide on the value of either position. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Stephan, Please assume good faith and remain civil in discussions with other editors. Also, please try not to be judgemental of others simply because you do not agree with thier opinion. I am listening, and in my opinion all of your arguments are subterfuge to the main point, which is that there are no documented polls or surveys of scientists with knowledge of climate change, which reflect a consensus as to the extent and cause of climate change .  The von-Bray/Storch survey, which you imply above is a survey reflecting a consensus, in fact shows a result more or less of an evenly divided opinion on the subject.  [].  I am not sure how this makes me be the one who is not listening as the facts are quite plain.  Also, with all due respect, you seem to be the one who accepts the argument of "because I said so" as you place far more weight on the word of a handful of scientists who claim there is a consensus, but have no proof, while apparently choosing to ignore the results all of the actual polls. As for the Oregon Petition being a fraud, again you are relying on a 'because I said so argument' to try and undermine the entire list, which is not surprising considering the controversial nature of the debate.  The Oregan Petition is quite transparent, if you believe some of the names on it are fraudulent, please point them out to us with links.  Then I will gladly reduce my above comment from 32,000 scientists by whatever number you find.  EDIT:  Here's a list of all the 'S' signers.   Sorry, Spice Girls aren't on it, no comic book characters either.  (I prefer to to right to the source and verify the facts for myself, not rely on 'because I said so' arguements...)--Sirwells (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

— Apis (talk ) 15:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)''
 * I don't know what kind of country you live in, but where I live the government certainly do not give grants only to those who support their opinion on GW. And if they did, it would only be to skeptics, since the government would benefit a lot more if the anthropogenic greenhouse effect was negligible. (Not saying that governments have no influence over research though, but at least thats what most people are striving for). If what you say is true about political influences then other countries scientific organizations wouldn't agree with the view of scientists in your country. But it looks like the majority of the worlds scientist agree on this (e.g. as reflected by the UN IPCC (which you conveniently don't trust of course)). I presume you think there is some global conspiracy involved? And if you want a poll made by climate scientists then you are going to be very disappointed, because climate scientists don't make polls, they do climate research. ''


 * More subterfuge. The question was "Are there currently any documented polls or surveys of scientists with knowledge of climate change, which reflect a consensus as to the extent and cause of climate change?"  The obvious answer of 'NO, there are not." remains unchallenged.--Sirwells (talk) 02:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

— Apis (talk ) 03:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)''
 * I thought the question was "Is the following acceptable?" – No, its not. There have been surveys, although personally, I'm not aware of any that meets your specific requirements other than whats already mentioned (that doesn't mean there isn't any of course). Is that the only way to know if there is a consensus? – No, of course not. One can never be entirely sure about anything, an exhaustive poll might be better (I'm not saying it is, I don't really have an opinion on that, I guess it would depend on the nature of the poll), but it's certainly not a requirement. ''


 * Seems extremely logical to me that an exhaustive poll should be considered a much better measurement of whether there is or is not a consensus than blindly accepting the word of the IPCC and a few other organizations. I would personally like to see a poll taken by an equal number of skeptics and believers, to help establish reliability. --Sirwells (talk) 21:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Surely such a poll would just produce a 50-50 split? 195.27.12.230 (talk) 10:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I meant a poll administered by both skeptics and believers. (sorry for the confusing wording.) Of course it's obvious to to me that any poll which fails to support the so called 'consensus' argument (as is the case with every poll taken to date) is going to be critisized by the alarmists as not 'credible', one way or another. --Sirwells (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

....take a breath....okay, Part 2
I'm beginning to question how effective this RFC thing is. I'd love to hear from someone who is NOT already a "regular" on the global warming articles. Anyone?--Sirwells (talk) 04:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fully accept that there is a scientific consensus on climate change and the impact of humans on climate, as supported by the various scientific bodies. Not a regular editor.--205.200.179.72 (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also fully accept that there is a scientific consensus, as defined on the page of the same name. A scientific consensus does not need a majority vote or poll to prove it's existance, nor does it's existance prohibit dissenting viewpoints. In my opinion, the scientific consensus is what would be written on the topic in a school science textbook, and you can be sure that school textbooks the world over back AGW. The consensus doesnt mean AGW is definitely true, it doesnt mean no scientists disagree, and it certainly doesnt mean noone is doing research into alternative theories. What it means is that it is currently the theory which best fits the evidence, in the opinion of major scientific organisations and journals worldwide. 195.27.12.230 (talk) 10:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * An obvious case of distorting the definition of consensus to your advantage. Sorry, but you don't get to redefine the meanings of words to best suite your arguments.   Here is the Webster definition of consensus: 'general agreement; the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned'  I think it's safe to say that 'most of those concerned' in this case would be all  scientists, which I specified above as 'with knowledge of climate change'.  The only way of establishing this would be via a poll of scientists with knowledge of climate change.  --Sirwells (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I realise this specific debate has been raging for many years now, so I dont expect to change anyone's mind. I mainly posted as an example of someone who wasnt a regular but beleived there was a consensus, as requested.
 * That said, I was using the Wikipedia definition of 'scientific consensus', as mentioned in my post. It's an example of the scientific use of a word being different to the common usage. For instance, in most articles the word 'similar' would mean 'having characteristics in common', whereas in a mathematical article 'similar' would mean identical to (in shape). Additionally, there has been no poll on evolution, no poll on gravity, no poll on any subject to statistically prove that a numerical majority of scientists agree. If it's possible to have a scientific consensus, it must be possible without a poll.
 * The school textbook example, I admit, was a manipulation of the definition and is entirely my viewpoint. However, in my opinion the broad contents of nationally-available curriculum-sanctioned textbooks provides some indication of that nation's scientific standpoint on those subjects.195.27.12.230 (talk) 09:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * EDIT - just noticed that you weren't asking for people who beleived there was a consensus, but for people who knew of a survey. Well you can have my two cents anyway! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.27.12.230 (talk) 09:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sirwells you are encountering a concerted effort to bend the truth by the usual suspects of global warming alarmists. This mythical "consensus" is continually referenced, although no other legitimate areas of science proceed in this way. Other fields of science are content to publish facts and let them speak for themselves. However, the alarmists rally around the "IPCC" as if it were some deity. Welcome to the alternative universe of climate "science." Climate modeling is not on par with band theory, thermodynamics or any other legitimate line of inquiry. Climate modeling is really more akin to Vegas slots than science.209.59.62.112 (talk) 05:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

— Apis (talk ) 15:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)'' — Apis (talk ) 15:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)''
 * I agree. What amazes my is how simple facts such as the one above must be blocked from being displayed on the article at all costs.  Anything to prevent folks from getting the 'wrong impression'....--Sirwells (talk) 06:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So you think we should give readers the wrong impression then? ''
 * Obviously you don't know what the quotation marks mean.-- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 15:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you saying hes insinuating that anyone is deliberately trying to sabotage the article? I prefer to assume good faith. ''

I'm not a scientist. But statements about the absence of something look like attempts to push a particular point of view, unless the something missing is something that could reasonably be expected (not, surely, the case here). N p holmes (talk) 09:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My answer would have to be a double “No”. No, I am not aware of any poll or survey of scientists that reflect a consensus on AGW.  No, I do not believe the suggested paragraph should be included on this page, because the it’s based on a faulty premise.  In the world of science, consensus, or prevailing opinion, is not determined through polls or surveys.  Please see Scientific consensus.--CurtisSwain (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for (finally) an answer which address the question directly. Although I do not agree with you as to how consesnus is determined.  I followed your link to Scientific consensus.  Now please click on the following link to this very interesting bit of edit-history.  [].  Notice what it used to say on the bottom, that in cases where there is significant controversy, other methods 'such as polling are used to establish consensus.'  Then it got changed (with no citation) by someone who is well known to be a 'gatekeeper' who edit-wars on the global warming sites, and from there, it appears that many of the same names I see around here  have also inserted themselves on the 'scientific consensus' article edit-wars.  (How convenient.)  Looks to me like the whole network of articles are rigged.  I prefer to use common sense.  A polls is better for controversial issues because it's the only way of getting to the bottom of the raw numbers,and numbers don't lie.--Sirwells (talk) 00:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If polling is accepted as a useful tool for gauging scientific consensus, then it would be helpful to have examples of polls in other scientific fields for context. Anybody care to give some examples from physics, geology, or other fields? Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * How is that helpful or relevant? There are no other areas in science where the existence of a 'consensus' is being debated.  Unless you want to include topics which overlap with religion, such as evolution (as an example) in which case, yes  polls 'are accepted' as ways to establish consesnus for controversial issues. --Sirwells (talk) 00:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you even read the link that you yourself provided? It discusses polls as only one of several ways to show consensus. Notably, it mentions statements by scientific bodies, including the National Academy of Sciences -- which is on record as accepting the scientific consensus on global warming. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Raymond, Please assume good faith and remain civil in discussions with other editors. Yes, I read the link. It was provided as an example in response to your question about whether polls are accepted as a useful tool in other areas of science.  The link gave the specific results of a poll.  It used these results as direct evidence as to whether or not there exists a consenus of scientists who support evolution vs creation.  The article did not  reject polls as a useful tool, nor does it place more weight on scientific organizations over polls.  With all due respect, Raymond, you asked a question and I gave a simple answer. I do not see why it is necessary for you now to twist the argument into something else. (We already know you think the NAS and IPCC should be regarding as the codex of knowledge on global warming).  Please stop with the filibustering.  I would really like this debate to move forward.--Sirwells (talk) 02:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Then move it forward. What's next? Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I move that we agree on the fact that there is no poll of scientists showing a consensus view and move on with debating why simply saying so on the article is being aggressively blocked from appearing. The argument has been made here that counting up papers is a better indicator of whether there is a consensus of scientists than counting up scientists.  I believe that 1) such an argument is nonsense.  and 2) it's not our job to judge what is better.  My understanding is that wikipedia is supposed to have neutral POV. 3) The text in question is merely a statement of fact. --Sirwells (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I had taken it that the appropriateness of the statement was the question. Obviously it is inappropriate.  I looked around on the policy pages of Wikipedia to see if they included a request not to add statements along the lines of "The queen has not denied Icke's accusation" but couldn't find it.  There ought to be one.  One can always make up some desideratum, and then point out that it is missing.  With a little skill one could even find a plausible one.  It doesn't say anything.  The positive statements in the article make perfectly clear what the evidence is for consensus.  Readers can see for themselves.  N p holmes (talk) 06:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

....take a breath....okay, Part 3
As an outsider, I have to admit that I too don't see the relevance of an opinion poll of scientists. Typically, the statements by national academies of sciences are trustworthy indicators of the current consensus. If not, then scientific consensus can be gauged by assessing the stated or implied positions of papers that have been published in the top venues of the relevant academic discipline. What gets easily published is more in tune with the opinion of the programme committee or journal editors, which is the most significant indicator of what the community is currently thinking.

Sirwells said above that if you were a skeptic interested in doing research, you would not be able to write a paper unless you had your own alternate funding source because government does not give grants for research projects aimed at proving AGW wrong. Well, that settles the matter, if you can't get funding, you are fringe and irrelevant. If you can't get your papers published, you are not a scientist! Doing science means getting paper published. It is therefore quite clear that there is scientific consensus for AGW. Merzul (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "The relevance of an opinion poll of scientists", is a very interesting notion. Merzul, I'm kind of glad you brought that up.  It's akin to the MSM making allegations in news articles prior to the outcome of events, in order to make news or sway opinion.  Many sheople a swayed by poll results, as all pollsters know, because they feel that there must be validity to a premise if many or most people believe or support it.  Therefore a poll can be used to give the impression that a certain premise is valid.

All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach. --Adolf Hitler

By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise. --Adolf Hitler

If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed. --Adolf Hitler

The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force. --Adolf Hitler -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 16:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * And another example of Self-Godwinization. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Very good, but this article would serve you better. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 17:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * TFI, if it is the case that scientific bodies are abusing the term consensus, and engaging in propaganda, then for us to point this out we need reliable sources with some authority. Even if you convince me that you are right, the only way a statement disputing the NAS is getting on this page would be if you provided us some independent sources, e.g., maybe a science magazine giving an overview of the debate saying that this notion of consensus is controversial. Could someone point me to such independent reliable sources, so I could have a look? Merzul (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, just follow the money. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 11:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Spoken like a true authoritarian. --Sirwells (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Strawman? 195.27.12.230 (talk) 09:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm an outsider, here via RfC. I've read a good portion of the RfC responses. The proposed paragraph is inappropriate: scientific consensus is not determined by polling, and it's fatuous to suggest in any way that "surveys or polls" are a common, accurate, or adequate metric of the merits of a scientific paradigm. Science is decidedly not democratic; that there's a demostrable consensus is readily apparent without the help of a Gallup poll. The anti-AGW opinion that the consensus is unreliable/nonexistent may be important to convey, but (per WP:FRINGE/WP:UNDUE) needs to be done carefully and intellectually honest. Alleging that "none of currently documented surveys or polls of scientists...reflect an overwhelming consensus..." is not intellectually honest, in my opinion, as it equates polls & surveys with scientific consensus, which is highly inaccurate. &mdash; Scientizzle 16:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but in my view the fact that this article exists on Wikipedia is inappropriate, because it is the basis for a political agenda. An article on the scientific opinion (consensus) on climate change and then listing science organizations is in itself a poll that is presented as a bonafide article.  It's a sham, a disgrace and a stain on Wikipedia; and that goes for every other article like this, related or not!  Those on high in Wikipedia should come down here and pluck this tick off the hindside of Wikipedia. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 16:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Then propose it for deletion. WP:AFD is → thattaway. &mdash; Scientizzle 18:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This article doesn't deserve deletion! How in any way does this have a political agenda? It is an article on scientific opinion, not political opinion for starters, never mind that it has sections that are for, neutral and against the concepts existence. It is not the article's fault if there are no scientists against the consensus (technically there are but their opinions have been shown to be not without bias). This article alos deserves it's existence because it's a topis of note that a lot of people like to have information on that there is scientific consensus or not, and as the article says, "A question which frequently arises in popular discussion of climate change is whether there is a scientific consensus." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.13.81 (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The mere fact that you want to delete the opposing article, speaks for itself. It proves my point that these articles are agenda driven, period!!-- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 23:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me say that I admire the flexibility of your concept of "prove/proof". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Look either quit your WP:OWN policy and allow other points of view, or delete the article. The fact that other views have to go in another article is ridiculous and you know it.  It is open bias to not allow alternative opinions in this article.-- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 01:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The irony is unbelievable... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed with The Founders Intent. The fanatacism shown here by some who seek to control the article has become absurd.  I made a simple addition yesterday quoting the opinion of the Nongovernmental Panel of Climate change.  It was reverted with the reason give that the NPCC "doesn't exist"?!?!?  I support removal of this article.  Honest viewpoints which don't match those of the fanatics who seek to control it are systematically blocked.  This article has become a tool for some to use to control information.  It needs to be removed.  --Sirwells (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's great when you have a student of mathematical and marine ecology to swoop in and save your "Man is the cause of global warming" article from deletion. I love the NPOV aspect of that. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 01:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

....take a breath....okay, Part 4
Sigh Count Iblis (talk) 02:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest closing this RfC. There is no point asking for community input, when those asking are not interesting in hearing anything other than their own opinion. My impression is that the "ownership issues" here is nothing more than some editors preventing the inclusion of speculation from the article.


 * Also, I suggest asking on WP:AN/I for uninvolved admins to do something about the disruption caused by editors who don't respect Wikipedia's sourcing policy. It doesn't matter, who is right or wrong, but for an open encyclopaedia to function, we need people to respect the consensus process and our content policies. Thanks, Merzul (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Rfc tag removed (replaced with a more appropriate rfc below), but I would like to suggest Merzul stop with the juvenile taddletale style of behavior. This is a controversial article and thus we can expect heated debates. Everyone is entitled to thier opinion, whether you agree with it or not.  No one is being disruptive except for you, by the incivility and personal attacks being made in your previous post.--Sirwells (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I asked for sources, and was called authoritarian; how do you expect me to react? Merzul (talk) 07:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I apologize for calling you an "authoritarion". --Sirwells (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I thank you for your apology. Let's see if I can be more mature in the discussion below. At least I promise I will try my best to fully understand your position. Merzul (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

climate change is not happening and will not happen for another fifty years

Is the existence of a properly run poll or survey relevant for determining whether or not a "consensus" of qualified scientists exist over controversial scientific issues?
In a previous RFC, it was asked whether or not a poll exists showing a consensus of scientists with knowledge of climate change. Very few of the responses actually addressed the question, but none were able to identify any poll establishing a consensus of scientists. At this point, it occurs to me it is safe to consider the matter of whether or not there exists any such poll of scientists showing a consensus as settled. There are none.

However, the main argument coming from the editors who actually stayed on point and addressed the question has been that whether or not such a poll exists is "irrelevant", and that the only "true" way of measuring scientific consensus is to look at whether a 'reliable source' says there is.

I believe this premise is flawed and contrary to Wikipedia's core content policies for the following reasons:


 * Per wikipedia policy on verifiability, a citation should "directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made". None of sources being used as evidence of a scientific consensus as to the causes and extent of global warming makes any attempt at doing this. (except for the Oreskes survey, which I discuss below) Instead, these sources convey one or more individual opinions and do not directly supported these opinions with any evidence, nor have they undergone any level of scrutiny by third parties.  (the sources are typcially self-published documents such as web pamphlets)  Wikipedia's policy on verifiablity makes it quite clear that "the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is."


 * It has been argued that the so-called Oreskes survey is a peer-reviewed document proving that a consensus exists. This is very misleading.  The Oreskes paper, BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER Essay written by Naomi Oreskes, was published as an essay, not a scientific paper.  As such it also must be considered as commentary (in fact, it is included in ScienceMag's "commentary" section), and therefore the opinions being presented in the essay have not undergone any scrutiny in the form of fact checking of the evidence and arguments being made.  Furthermore, the Oreskes survey is not a poll of scientists, rather it is a survey of scientific papers.  Therefore it does not take into account the majority of scientists who have not written papers related to climate change.


 * Notwithstanding the above, logic and common sense dictates that if one were trying to establish whether or not a consensus exists, the most logical method of doing so would be to look at the results of a poll. And the least logical way of doing so would be to listen to the opinion coming from individuals, who offer no evidence to support thier opinions.

--Sirwells (talk) (updated 12:07pm MST, 1 June 2008)


 * You can rephrase this as often as you want (although the people on the RfC pages may eventually get annoyed), and you can keep misreading policy (hint: A citation is something different from the cited source), but that does not change the fact that we do have a large number of extremely reliable sources directly supporting the existence of a consensus on current climate change. Polls are extremely rarely used to gauge scientific consensus, as they are very bad tools for interpreting complex situations. When they are used, its usually by the fringe trying  to give a misleading impression about an issue, as e.g. in A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.  --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This page is not about "hints". If you have a point to make about citations vs source, please just spit it out.  (You might want to go look how wikipedia defines 'source' first.)  I just did, and I'll say again with confidence, other then Oreskes' commentary, none of your sources regarding scientific consensus are published in third-party journals, they are all self-published and they have undergone no scutiny for verification of facts and evidence.  And none of them make any attempt to support any claims being made of the so-called consensus.  Both of these are core content policies accepted by a consensus of wikipedia authors.  Regarding your opinion about how polls are "usually by the fringe trying to give a misleading impression...", please give us a better example, the Darwinism link does not even mention polls.  Thanks--Sirwells (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Polls in science may be rare, but settled scientific principles such as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics will not lead to major changes in national policy. 99.999% of scientists agree about the 2nd law, not all scientists agree about GW. Global warming discussion is about a prediction about what may happen in the future, and policy makers are basing decisions about issues such as carbon taxes, cap and trade, etc. on these predictions. It is humourous how the the POV pushing GW alarmists have made it seem like a simple poll on such a controversial issue is such a crazy idea. Sirwells is correct.Medallion of Phat (talk) 07:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sirwells, you write: "In a previous RFC, it was asked whether or not a poll exists showing a consensus of scientists with knowledge of climate change. Very few of the responses actually addressed the question." The actual question at the head of the RFC section was "Is the following acceptable?" and most people were addressing that. On the subject of wording, shorter titles would leave room for an edit summary. N p holmes (talk) 07:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources, please
Responding to Medallion of Phat... Well, I think it is an outrageous idea, but you think it isn't; so what we need are reliable source that have suggested a poll is relevant. Why do we have to fight about this, I asked to be pointed to background information about this issue. Some coverage in independent reliable sources would settle the dispute. Why not just point to some sources? Merzul (talk) 07:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We agree. For a controversial issue, the need for a poll is a default position when claiming a consensus. So, where are the sources showing the polling data for climate scientists showing it is "an overwhelming majority" that agree with the GW alarmist position?Medallion of Phat (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For a controversial issue, the need for a poll is a default position when claiming a consensus.. Can you point to any field of science where polls are used to show a consensus among scientists?--Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that's putting it very mildly. When just about every scientific body is saying there is evidence for AGW, and some even use the word "consensus", if we want to dispute the Scientific Academies, which normal people accept as the authority on scientific consensus, we surely need some reliable sources. Merzul (talk) 08:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't need to provide a citation. You need to provide one. By definition, "consensus" means >50%. There is no reliable source that proves >50% of all climate scientists agree with the global warming prediction. I am not the one claiming a consensus, you are. So provide a citation the proves a consensus, as defined (i.e., >50% of climate scientists), exists. Apart from a poll, there is no way to do this. If YOU say "just about every scientific body is saying there is evidence for AGW" = consensus, that is original research/synthesis. Medallion of Phat (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "By definition, "consensus" means >50%" — Really? Is it 50%, or maybe 70%?  or 85%?  Does this have to be documented using polls of climate scientists or with surveys of statements in the research papers that they wrote? My point is that one can't take the definition so lightly.  I made that mistake myself when we had surprisingly long discussions somewhere in the old archives over here trying to agree on what "consensus" means. The solution is just Wikipedia's standard policy: we don't try to prove a consensus ourselves. That would be nontrivial original research, requiring determining the "right" percentage of support, determining where this support needs to be stated (in abstracts or surveys), finding surveys that support it, etc.  Instead of all that mess, we cite reliable sources which state that there is a consensus. Done.
 * (But by the way, we do have reliable sources, though not polls, stating >50% support. Check the article for the statements by the US National Academy of Science ("In the judgment of most climate scientists...") and the European Geosciences Union ("the vast majority of science researchers and investigators". Maybe others...) --Nethgirb (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

(←) We are obviously not making progress, so let's try to restart this discussion. I'm requesting a source for the change suggested above. Now, I apologize, if I was quick to argue without listening carefully first. What do you request a source to back up? Can you patiently explain what exactly on the article page you find offensive and what claims are made, which you think requires sources to back it up? Merzul (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm open leaving the specific change "up in the air" for now. The part I have problems with (at least for this discussion.) Is the undue weight being placed on the word "consensus" being used in web-pamphlets, self-published documents, etc written by members of certain scientific organizations.  None of these sources (currently being used in the "consensus" section) meet any of the criteria I mention above. (no supporting evidence offered, not published in third-party publications, etc.)  Some of them are even being quoted out of context.  In order for them to meet wikipedia criteria for credible sources, at the very least the sources need to include some sort of supporting evidence showing that there exists a consensus of scientists.  (and how else to do this other than by showing the results of a poll.) --Sirwells (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "In order for them to meet wikipedia criteria for credible sources, at the very least the sources need to include some sort of supporting evidence showing that there exists a consensus of scientists." — I think a lot of people will disagree with you on this.  Can you be more specific about the wikipedia criteria you're referring to?  (But BTW, supporting evidence does exist, just possibly not the very specific type of evidence you're demanding) --Nethgirb (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It would also help to be a bit more specific about where the term "consensus" is given undue weight. Is it a matter of wording, section title, or do you object to something deeper, like the underlying premise of this article? As far as I see, no source is used to allege that there actually is consensus, rather this page just compiles official statements. I'm not sure I can see the problem with that. As Nethgirb anticipated, I'm not aware of policy demanding that the source should demonstrate the truth of the statement in question. Merzul (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Consensus" is defined as "the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned." Check out Webster's and you will see. The minimum threshold for "most" is >50%. Therefore, simply provide a source which quantifies the number of climate scientists out of all climate scientists who agree with the GW alarmist position to support the term "consensus" and you will be fine. Simply having a source that says "there is a consensus" is not sufficient without facts. Otherwise, it would not meet WP:RS.Medallion of Phat (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You have your logic mixed up. If a reliable source explicitly states "consensus" (and several do), that is enough to support "consensus". Indeed, arriving at this from poll data or similar would arguably get us into hot water with respect to WP:OR. Simply repeating reliable sources is entirely uncontroversial. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is there so much debate here about whether or not a consensus exists? The title of this article is “Scientific opinion on climate change.” It is NOT “Scientific consensus on climate change,”  and at no point does the article assert that a consensus exists. The statements asserting that a consensus exists are made by scientific bodies of national or international standing, not by the editors of this article. The purpose of the article is to document the expressed opinions of scientists regarding AGW, and that’s exactly what it does. If you disagree with statements made by the various scientific bodies, your argument is with them, not with the editors of this article.--CurtisSwain (talk) 07:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

To anyone in may concern, I sent this question by email to the NAS. I'll post the reply (if there is one) on this board:

Dear Sirs,

''I have read over the booklet, "Understanding and Responding to Climate Change." On page 2, it says "Most scientists agree that the warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."'' ''I have read statements such as this used alot by scientific organizations. However, I have not been able to find any survey, poll, or other such study showing that "most scientists agree..." Would you mind explaining where this statement comes from? Is it based on a poll or survey? Or is it more from anecdotal evidence? Or is it simply based on the current body of "peer-reviewed" papers?  I understand the "peer-review" process is typically used to further scientific knowledge. However, I also understand the peer-review process does not necessarily gage the opinion of all scientists, just the ones who are involved with scientific publications.'' I ask this because I am interesting in knowing whether a consensus exists of scientists with (qualifying background) as to the causes and extent of climate change. Thank you in advance for your time.--Sirwells (talk) 04:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The ones who are publishing are the ones who matter most. As for the others, it's hard to define whether they're scientists or not, and to find them and survey them. --Nethgirb (talk) 04:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Nethgirb, please don't take this personally, but I sincerelly hope that when (if) the NAS replies to my email, they do not display the same intellectual snobbery you just did in your post. What you and the wiki-AGW company continue to not get, is that organizations, groups and individuals are not 'sources' that you can simply bestow elitist status on and assume every word ever written by them be considered 'credible' and 'reliable'.  A source is a document, not a person or group.  And credibility is measured by verfification, especially by how many independent third parties have scrutinized it for facts. Please read WP:V and you will find this is precisely how wikipedia decides what to include in articles.  I would argue that at least half of the sources being used by wiki AGW-company do not measure up as credible sources since they have not been peer-reviewed, do not support the statements being made with evidence, and have not been scrutinized by 3rd parties.  (certainly not all are guilty of this, but a great many are.) I've started a conversation about this over on WP:RS/N.  There are varying responses, but it's interesting that the only ones who try and claim that an organization's "authoritiveness" get's them essentially a free-pass to not have to meet wikipedia's other content policies are the ones who followed me over there from this talk site.--Sirwells (talk) 05:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm having a hard time seeing how what you said is related to what I said. I'm not talking about wikipedia RS issues, I'm talking about hypothetical surveys of scientists which is what your email was about.  You said "peer-review process does not necessarily gage the opinion of all scientists, just the ones who are involved with scientific publications" which is true, but the standard measure of whether someone is a scientist is whether they are doing scientific research, and the standard way of determining whether someone is doing scientific research is if they are publishing it.  You can call that elitist if you want, and yes it excludes the intelligent and knowledgeable people who do novel research in their basement and write it up only in their private diary, as well as the ones who got every one of their papers rejected from publication, but it's the practical reality.  And BTW, putting scare quotes around "peer-reviewed" is not likely to increase your chances of a response from the NAS :-) --Nethgirb (talk) 06:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I was trolling Template:RFCsci list as I often do when I saw this RfC and thought to myself, "that's still active?!" Instead I find just a nitpicking rework of a previous point that failed. To answer the RfC, the (non)existence of a "properly run poll or survey" regarding a scientific consensus has no effect on the actual developed consensus. Such a poll, if it exists, may be relevant for inclusion in a Wikipedia article, with due editorial discretion to be applied, as always. Any assertion that challenges a readily-sourced scientific consensus on the basis of a lack of such a poll is at best ignorant of the scientific method, at worst preposterous special pleading. Polls do not determine scientific consensus. Full stop. &mdash; Scientizzle 18:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * while I'm not sure I agree with Scientizzle's tone - - I do think that he is quite correct. opinion polls are, well...  a collection of opinions, and no scientist worth his salt would confuse his opinion on a matter with the consensus developing out of evidence and research.  if any such poll exists, they (at best) would demonstrate that there is (or is not) a growing concern in the scientific community that this scientific issue needs to be resolved through further research.  the unfortunate fact of this particular topic is that it has become highly politicized, and scientists who would not normally involve themselves in the scientific debate feel that they do need to involve themselves in the political debate in order to preserve the sanctity of the scientific process.  it makes for a bit of a mess...  I'm not certain that it's a mess we wikipedians should involve ourselves in.  if there is a well-sourced poll, it can probably be cited, but only to show the extent to which climate change issue has become a concern (and frankly, the mere fact of a poll would seem to show that, regardless of the results of the poll...). -- Ludwigs 2  06:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * All Scientizzle is saying is that polls do not determine consensus. As a side note, polls are very easy to manipulate and it would be best to keep them out of this.  As you say, the only reason to speak of a poll would be to show that climate change has become political (polls are heavily used in politics) but that might be original research.  Brusegadi (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm responding to the RfC now that I've hopefully found the right place amongst the exchanges here. To respond to the exact RfC question as it was phrased: my answer would be yes, if a reliable poll of scientists did exist, it does seem like that would have some relevance, and that it could be included as one source of evidence. But I also agree with the view above that the article only seems to be reporting that some scientific authorities on these matters are stating that there is a scientific consensus. And that this seems very normal and in line with Wikipedia policies, and in line with the way these things are generally judged. If someone believes there is a particular reason to doubt the reliability of these authorities to judge the consensus in this particular case, I assume they would be free, in the interests of NPOV, to add a sourced counterpoint outlining that reason. EverSince (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC) p.s. and to try to respond to the exact phrasing more precisely, if a reliable poll did NOT exist, again yes I would say that has some relevance, because it's one line of evidence that isn't available (and the claims of consensus are not being based on that). But whether that's noteworthy in a given article, or is implied by the fact that such a poll is not described in the article, is a different matter. Anyway I see there have been partial surveys of various sorts. EverSince (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The Text on Scientific Consensus
Stephan Shulchz, last night I amended the text to show the following additional information.

"A question which frequently arises in conveying the scientific opinion to a broader audience is to what extent that opinion rises to the level of a consensus. The existence of a scientific consensus on the extent and causes of climate change is controversial. While several scientific organizations have used the term "consensus" in their statements (as indicated below), none of the currently documented surveys or polls of scientists, with knowledge of climate change, reflect an overwhelming consensus of opinion as to the extent and causes of climate change. "

You deleted it. Would you please explain why you think it does not belong there and/or which part of it you believe is not factually correct. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirwells (talk • contribs) 12:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not Stephan but I can say why I would have reverted. (1) Your text asserts that the existence of a consensus is controversial without any source; and I would emphasize that we would need a scientific source since this article is about scientific opinion not popular / media / political opinion. (2) Your phrasing might imply that individual scientists are the ones with knowledge of climate change, to the exclusion of scientific bodies. (3) As for the surveys, Oreskes' 2004 survey of abstracts does support an overwhelming consensus.  Bray and von Storch's survey did not use rigorous methodology, and even so it mostly supports the mainstream view.  The others are all quite old.  So, while your text implies that the surveys contradict the scientific bodies' statements, all of the rigorous recent evidence that we have from surveys actually supports the statements. (4) You may be setting a subjective and misleading standard by requiring "an overwhelming consensus". The definition of (overwhelming) consensus might be hard to nail down precisely, so it is in my opinion a much better and less POV strategy to simply quote reliable sources that use the word "consensus" explicitly, which is what we have done. --Nethgirb (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The question was for Stephan, since he is the one who reverted it. But I will address your reasons anyway:  (1) There is an entire wikipedia page dedicated to showing how global warming is controversial.  This page includes a large section on the existence of a scientific (not media/popular/political) consensus.  At best, my phrasing may have needed to be updated to include a link to the wikipedia on page on global warming controversy.  (2) Individual scientists ARE the ones with knowledge of climate change.  "Scientific bodies" are just groups individual scientists (as well as non-scientists.)  A survey of individual scientists is a better measure of scientific consensus, because a statement made by an organization might not reflect the opinion of every individual member of that group.  Nevertheless, the whole argument is moot, since my phrasing does not even mention "scientific bodies".  (3)  The Oreskes study was not a survey of scientists, it was s survey of papers written about global warming.  (4) The main page on global warming uses the phrase "overwhelming consensus".  Are you willing to make the same argument there?  Nevertheless, we can eliminate the word "overwhelming" if you wish.  The phrasing is still factual and accurate without it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirwells (talk • contribs) 00:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Both Stephan's and Nethgirb's comments can be summarized with the wikipedia policies of WP:WEIGHT and WP:V. Scientific consensus doesn't ride with individuals, but the individuals as a group, and the published research. The global warming controversy page describes the non-scientific controversy (ie. political and other), that cannot be integrated into the main global warming articles, precisely because they are minority opinions (and thus out per undue weight). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed that scientific consensus does not ride with individuals, but with individuals as a group. Thus far, all of the references being used as proof of scientific consensus of AGW (on both this page and the Global Warming page) are statements written by individuals.  The actual surveys of individual members of the group, which are the only way to truely measure the opinions of the entire group of all scientists with knowledge of climate change, do NOT indicate a consensus.  The global warming controvesy page very specificly discusses scientific controversy.  Please refer to the section labeled "existence of a scientific consensus".  Nevertheless, the entire argument of whether or not this proves the existence of consensus is moot, becuase my phrasing remains neutral as to whether or a scientific consensus does or does not exist.  It merely makes a factual statement that none of the actual surveys or polls taken of scientists with knowledge of climate change reflect a consensus.  This statement is strictly limited to facts (not opinions) which are currently irrefutable--Sirwells (talk) 01:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The statements from the various academies and scientific organizations are not written in a void. They are supposed to represent the views of their members, and we have no indication or reason to suspect that they do not. As for the survey's they are as pointed out, very old and in many cases quite suspect. The Oreskes review is actually the most reasonable one, since it tries to examine the actual published opinion of the scientists who do the research. And i'm sorry to tell you that every survey published since 2000 also shows that a consensus exists, even though they aren't actually a valid way to examine a scientific consensus (as pointed out before). You seem to think that a scientific consensus is equivalent with a unanimous opinion. And that is not the case.  --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Which part of this is supposed to be a refutation of the fact that none of the actual surveys or polls of scientists knowledgable about climate change reflect a consensus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirwells (talk • contribs) 03:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Which part of all the survey's since 2000 actually do support a consensus did you miss? ;) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't play games with me. I don't argue about survey's I have not seen.  If you know of a survey proving your point, give us a citation. (and it better meet the same standards you demand of others) --Sirwells (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Look at the article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There is one survey of scientists on the article done since 2000. It's results did not show a consensus.  To be blunt, your claim that all surveys of scientists with knowledge of climate change done since 200 show a consensus, is utter nonsense.  That is, unless you are playing games with words and trying to twist this argument to include a survey of papers about global warming, which is not the same thing, not what I have been arguing and not part of the phrasing you so quickly reverted.  Since you seem to have a tendency to change topics, let me restate.  My phrasing specifically said:"...none of the currently documented surveys or polls of scientists, with knowledge of climate change, reflect an overwhelming consensus of opinion as to the extent and causes of climate change. "  Thus far, none have refuted this statement.  I would like to hear a logical and FAIR reason why KimDabelsteinPetersen, Stephan Schulz, and Dawn Bard are so aggressively reverting this phrase, which remains unchallenged (except of Kim's word manipulation games), factual, accurate, and non-opinionated.  --Sirwells (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't you call for a request for comment? If you need help with the process, let me know. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What a second, did actually just say that a poll is not a valid way to determine consensus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirwells (talk • contribs) 03:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes i did. Surveys are a highly inaccurate tool. Too much depend on the way questions are asked, instead of the actual context and background for the question. For instance ask people if they want to raise taxes and they will answer No. Ask them instead if they would raise taxes, with the context of a specific issue, and the answer will be different. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So all they have to do is write the survey to be specific, accurate and in the proper context. Am I to understand that you think it's more accurate to accept on blind faith, a statement written by an individual, and in mainy cases getting paid under the assumption that AGW is an issue, claiming there is a consensus of all.  Now I see why the call it the Global Warming Religion.  --Sirwells (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest you learn how the IPCC reports are created and who pays the scientists. Very many of the contributors are tenured and have unlimited job security, especially with the aim of making them independent from political and other pressure. And most of the members of e.g. the Royal Society actively compete with climate scientists for research funding - can you explain their motivation for supporting the IPCC unless they think the science is sound? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't need to explain it. It reflects only the opinion of a small group of individuals, not a consensus of all scientists with knowledge of climate change.--Sirwells (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

♠ Save your energy Sirwells, you're dealing with fanatics. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 11:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You miss the point. Why would all the National Academies and other scientific bodies which primarily consist of scientists from competing fields support the IPCC for financial gain? It cuts into the funding for other fields. As for "very small numbers": The Royal Society has 1300 members. The IPCC has thousands. Very many reported surveys about the population in general work with a sample size of about 1000. In fact, the council of the Royal Society has 21 members - that alone is half of the total number of people on our List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

♠ Tenured means nothing, they can be just as agenda driven and corrupt as anyone else. Face it, you miss the point Stephan, you are the architect and high priest of "the consensus" religion on this page. It doesn't matter if your list reaches the moon, that doesn't make it right. We don't know everything there is to know, and rushing to judgment (which human caused global warming is) requires a helluava lot more evidence than there is. If you're that worried, then sell your home and move into a cave using only a knife to survive. I'll start my SUV and rev the engine real loud a few times in your honor. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 11:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I rent. I'm also continuously astonished by people who confuse science and politics. I don't like falling on my nose, but when I stumble, I don't argue with gravity. But if you want to argue from the effects and like your SUV, check the recent development of fuel prices and consider what that implies... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry Stephan, I hear some are arguing about gravity too. Maybe global warming is having an affect. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 12:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. But regardless of whether dark energy or Modified Newtonian dynamics is a better refinement of general relativity, and even if we get a well-tested theory of quantum gravity, I will still fall in a manner that is quite adequately described by Newton's law of gravity. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Until you can demonstrate what is an adequate "consensus", we'll just have to assume that you're guessing at what is "possible" or "likely". I don't know how you can assume that a "consensus" of scientific opinion (ranging from 51% to 100% approval, I presume) demonstrates that something is true. Even a "likely" consensus (66% support) is insufficient in scientifc circles to claim that something is true. Anything short of "extremely likely" (95+%) really doesn't prove anything conclusively. A lot of the fanatics' arguments here in support of AGM are really just dwelling in the high-school realm of wishful thinking. Bushcutter (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? I don't assume that "consensus" demonstrates that something is true. Scientific consensus just makes it likely that we have a good model of reality. Science can never prove something true, and I never claimed so. And in this case, I don't need to identify scientific consensus, as several extremely reliable and competent sources have done that. If your use of "likely" and "extremely likely" refers to the IPCC use, you don't understand them. These are not levels of support, but rather probabilities of certainty. 100% of competent scientists will agree that it is "likely" (66.6...%) that I roll 3, 4, 5, or 6 on the next throw of a normal 6-sided die.  --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Add 2008 U.S. Scientific Assessment?
The Scientific Assessment of the Effects of Global Change on the United States was released May 29, 2008. It is a report required by the Global Change Research Act of 1990, and it has been released four years late. I would think it would be a significant report as it is deemed the official stance of the United States Government.--Diafygi (talk) 02:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The US Climate Change Science Program already appears to have a listing on here under Federal Climate Change Science Program (US), which is where such a report should be listed. However, I'm actually going to remove what is already listed.  I wouldn't consider a federal program to be a scientific academy or professional society. If my assessment is wrong, please rv and let's discuss. Jason Patton (talk) 05:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it could stay. It's not a scientific academy or professional society but that text was not the definition of all that is in the article.  It probably fits under either "synthesis reports" or "scientific bodies of national or international standing", to quote the intro. To me, the important criteria for inclusion in this article are (1) giving the opinion of a significant group of scientists and (2) the group is not selected because they support one side or the other. --Nethgirb (talk) 06:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My particular problem with the program's inclusion is that it's not a collective voice of (climate related) scientists. The scientists that contribute to the program are selected, though not to support any "side" as you mentioned.  The program is exclusive rather than inclusive like the other societies listed on the page, so I don't see how it can count as a scientific body or a significant group of scientists.  In other words, I don't see how the program is any different from a think-tank other than that is sponsored by the government.  If I'm mistaken, please let me know.  While I'm glad the report concurs with the IPCC (though I don't see how it could not being that the IPCC is cited so often), I'm not sure it belongs here. Jason Patton (talk) 07:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The comparison to a think-tank doesn't seem right. I can't say I know exactly how the authors of the FCCSP report were selected and I'm only assuming, without verifying it myself right now, that they were (almost?) all scientists.  But a think tank is not composed of mostly scientists, and its goal is a political agenda, rather than finding the factual answer to a question using science.  Actually the comparison with the IPCC seems more apt:  both are scientific bodies (it seems) created by governmental organizations.  It seems FCCSP sponsors research too .  Anyway, it is all a question of where you draw the line:  yes, it's smaller than the IPCC, but does that matter and where is the threshold?  Yes, it's probably more politically-associated than many other groups on the list, but what's the criteria for exclusion?  I'm happy to learn more about the FCCSP but it seems to me that based on what I know, and based on the criteria stated in the article, it fits as a "synthesis report" and likely as a "scientific body of national standing" and as a "significant group of scientists" (the latter being my phrasing above which is not in the article).  Note that "significant" and "scientific body of national standing" do not necessarily require "large and inclusive". --Nethgirb (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Lacking other comments, I went ahead and replaced the FCCSP statement. Happy to discuss more, though. And if it does stay we should consider the new statement noted by Diafygi. --Nethgirb (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, was away for a while. I agree with your assessment that it fits as a synthesis report and to leave it in the article. Thanks! Jason Patton (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Update: "It is well established through formal attribution studies that the global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases." []

Press release: [] Gmb92 (talk) 06:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

International Council for Science
The quotation for this organization is partly at second hand. The speaker cites (with implicit approval) the opinion of the UN Secretary General. In any case it's largely an ornamental preamble before describing the council's own work in such research. Could the article do without it? It only provides its agreement incidentally. If kept a clearer quotation might help. N p holmes (talk) 11:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Since nobody seems to have an opinion I'll remove the section. If you want to put it back in, I hope you'll bear in mind my remarks above and at least rephrase. N p holmes (talk) 09:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

American Physical Society
Speaking of the American Physical Society, they have now reversed their position on manmade global warming. Here is a link, and I have already removed their section from the groups supporting section. http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warming+Debate/article12403.htm SpudHawg948 (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Some pundit with a blog referencing the newsletter mentioned in the preceding section. Restored stated policy. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I see. Sorry about that. Looks like I jumped the gun a little. I'll do a little more thorough research next time.SpudHawg948 (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Physics & Society - A Forum of the American Physical Society
Anyone interested in having a discussion on the item instead of just posting and removing? I went to read the publication and it seems that this is indeed the statement of the position of the APS. Their position is that there is a significant amount of disagreement among their members and so they are starting a debate. This is being stated by the editor of the publication in the publication. Their position is that there is uncertainty. Would this not be a valid position of an organization?--JAMWebMonk (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope. This page already has the APS position statement on it. Perhaps you might try reading it? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Before anyone else attempts to add the editorial comment to the page again, I suggest going to the APS's website and reading the statement they posted on the front page. Jason Patton (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems that it's appropriate to add the statement, provided it's cited appropriately. (To the editor of the Forum on Physics and Society, rather than the APS proper). I'll also note that the two statements are not mutually exclusive... just because the position of the organization is that human-caused CO2 is the cause of climate change, doesn't mean that there is not "a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion". — PyTom (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Bray & von Storch
I might be missing something here but there seems to me to be no credible evidence that the survey represents "scientific opinion on climate change" oin that there was no mechanism for ensuring that survey respondents were scientists qualified to express an opinion. Including a survey which was never published in a pee-reviewed journal and which has obvious methodological flaws and which, on top of that, shows no credible evidence of representing scientific opinion, would seem to me to be giving undue weight to something which is basically just an unscientific survey off "teh internets". Guy (Help!) 11:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Bray & von Storch 2003, yes? Asking "What's this worth?" might well eliminate all the surveys. Maybe they should all go, but I'd prefer that the coverage just be shortened. The survey did get noticed; and people may want to know. (Incidentally I can think of some journals that deserved to be reviewed in the way you suggest; but publication there wouldn't be a guarantee of quality.) N p holmes (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

APEGGA survey
Kim reverted the following addition from the section "Surveys of scientists and scientific literature" with the justification "Not a scientific society":
 * A 2007 survey of professional geologists and geophysicists found that 68% of 1,077 surveyed scientists did not consider the science of climate change settled. While nearly all respondents agreed that the global climate is changing, a clear majority disagreed with the statement "the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled."

First, I don't see how this isn't a scientific society. Second, I don't see why it has to be. We include the state climatologist survey, what's the difference? Oren0 (talk) 06:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm adding this to global warming controversy but I believe it belongs here also. Oren0 (talk) 06:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like a bunch of petroleum geologists from Alberta.... William M. Connolley (talk) 07:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * From their website, they seem to represent all licensed engineers, geologists and geophysicists in Alberta. Other than the results of this survey, what makes you think that any significant number of the membership or survey respondents are petroleum geologists? Oren0 (talk) 07:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * They almost certainly are (there's no mining in Alberta aside from coal), but I don't see how that's relevant. They're scientists. --Llewdor (talk) 00:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Page 26 . The most significant part of the organization are engineers (~90%), less than 10¤ are geologists or geophysicists. Its not a scientific organization, but rather an organization (union?) of people working in the engineering profession - the are not scientists or even researchers. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a professional association (not a union) of engineers, geologists, and geophysicists, but I understand the survey was a survey of the geologists and geophysicists in the organisation - the SCIENTISTS. There's no way this doesn't count.  The people surveyed may well be biased or uninformed, but they are a group of scientists with a clear opinion.  There's no way this doesn't belong here.  Are you just making up criteria? --Llewdor (talk) 00:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Any claim to exclude this because they are "petroleum engineers" or anything like that doesn't fly. It's not up to us whether the survey is reliable, it's up to reliable sources like the Canada.com story.  Of course, if other reliable sources discredited the survey that info would merit inclusion as well.  The only argument to be had is whether this has enough weight to merit inclusion. Oren0 (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The article states that it includes scientific bodies of national or international standing. Granted some of the Canadian provinces have murmured about breaking away, but I don't think Alberta counts as a nation yet. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't that standard a bit arbitrary? --Llewdor (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've read the survey, and it isn't only amongst the geologists and geophysicists. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Specifically on page 2 of the piece they give a breakdown of respondents: 69.1% P.Eng, 10.3 % P. Geol., 3.5% P. Geoph. After P. Eng. the next largest group is E. I. T. 14.1%. I don't know what that is, but since there's also a Geol. and Geoph. I. T., I take it that the E. is engineering again. That's apparently Engineer in Training. Over 83% would then be engineers, if I understand correctly. N p holmes (talk) 08:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But there's still a significant scientist component. Fine, let's mention that the responses were mostly from engineers, but it's a survey of scientists, and it's one of the few that dissents. --Llewdor (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See undue weight. And i find your definition of "significant" interesting. Baseline is: Its not a survey of scientists. (btw. geologists and geographers working in "the field" are not scientists by default). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

AASC statement no longer up to date?
The AASC website states: "AASC Policy statements are applicable for 5 years by unanimous vote of the membership"

The statement listed in this article is now 7 years old. It is still hosted on the AASC website but it is no longer listed in their publications section(where it used to be). Instead it states the quote above. I don't think it would be wise to remove it altogether since it is one of the last statements not to agree with the mainstream opinion and removing it will lead to calls of censorship. But I think it is appropriate to mention that this statement no longer represents the official position of the organization.

What do you guys think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.247.93 (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Best not to change anything unless AASC explicitly disavows the statement. I'll email Nolan and ask if there are plans for an updated statement. Basil &quot;Basil&quot; Fawlty (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove "Scientific consensus" section?
The section in this article headed “Scientific Consensus” seems rather redundant to me. Yes, several of the scientific bodies explicitly use the word “consensus”, and others use such wording as “…accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community” (NRC), “…the vast majority of science researchers and investigators” (EGU), and “few credible Scientists now doubt…” (AMQUA). However, one can read that in the main section of the article, and I see no value in reiterating the statements under another heading. Let us simply document the official statements of scientific bodies, and let readers draw their own conclusions. Additionally, the presence of the “Scientific Consensus” section may give some readers the impression that we are pushing a particular POV. I believe the article would be viewed with more credibility if we removed the entire “Scientific Consensus” section. There’s no point beating them over the head with it.--CurtisSwain (talk) 07:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It was about time someone addressed the consensus issue! I'm amazed noone has ever expressed an opinion on it before...195.27.12.230 (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I find it useful. This is a frequent claim that is also frequently questioned, so it deserves to be discussed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Curtis, I can understand your points. I haven't decided yet on your main suggestion, but I'll say that I do think there is value to the section in terms of organization: it lists statements about the extent of agreement with the science, rather than mostly statements about the scientific conclusions themselves.  I'd also note that there doesn't appear to be too much overlap in content between the first and second sections.
 * One option would be to broaden the Consensus section to list not just mentions of "consensus" but statements on the extent of agreement more generally. (Maybe this would address some of your POV concerns?) Actually, I see the Consensus section as being topically similar to the Surveys section in that both attempt to document the extent of agreement. --Nethgirb (talk) 09:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The section in question worried me slightly. For the question "What is the consensus on climate change?", statements of (for instance) the Royal Society about climate change tell us the line they take on the issue and are by definition good evidence for the Royal Society's "opinion" (if you'll allow a Society to have an opinion).  Statements about "the consensus" are not of the same kind. "The Royal Society thinks that man-made global warming is taking place" would be a piece of evidence for consensus. "The R. S. thinks that everyone else also thinks that man-made global warming is taking place" would also be evidence, but less valuable (the informed opinion of whoever wrote the statement).  A more reserved intro to the section would help, if it's to be kept. N p holmes (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There's an Original Research issue here. We could go through each scientific society looking for statements like "Society X thinks GW is happening" and somehow aggregate all these into a conclusion about the extent of agreement in the scientific community.  I agree this is a good thing to do if you are a pollster but it is not reasonable for a Wikipedia editor.  Instead we have to cite a reliable external source that has done the aggregation for us.  That's what I see as the purpose of this section. --Nethgirb (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Good points. Actually, I think I agree with everyone in this discussion. I can't yet form my own opinion; but thanks, Curtis, for bringing this up as I find this discussion quite valuable. I will maybe make a more informed comment after some thinking, but I wanted to say that I'm following this with interest, Merzul (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

—Apis (talk ) 02:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)''
 * I agree with Stephan Schulz. As long as the section is well sourced (and to me, it looks like it is) I think it should stay in the article. It seems like this is of interest for many, and having the readers do more work and read more statements/sources is counter productive isn't it? The information is there if they want to more carefully inspect the basis for this claim and form their own opinion. ''


 * I would contend that the section is skewed: basically, almost all of the statements on 'consensus' refer to the IPCC, and I'd be willing to bet that the rest of them based their opinions on it. When those bodies state that 'The consensus is X', what they really mean is that 'The IPCC says X'.  I would also contend that there is not a consensus, and I would further contend that the entire article is somewhat biased.  I wonder what the history of its 'vandalism' is, that led to its semiprotection... maybe some people edited it who - shock horror - weren't convinced by the AGW rhetoric and faulty science?  In summary, Try unbiasing it instead, and don't count the IPCC as five sources just because five people sourced them. PT (talk) 00:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What is surprising about other organiazations agreeing with the IPCC? It's the IPCC's task to evaluate and summarize the state of climate science with respect to climate change. They do a good job, and several other highly respectable organizations explicitly endorse this. What else would you expect? Of course in a consensus situation people agree. And what five people are you talking about? I count about 20-30 national academies of science (including the US one), the AMS and the AAAS as explicitly supporting the consensus. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not that they agree with the IPCC per se. It's that their claims of a consensus are invalid.  "Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005: 'We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).'"  That doesn't mean there's a consensus among scientists.  It means there's a consensus among the IPCC's apparatchiks.  And what surprise is that, when the IPCC owes its funding to the existence of the Great Global Warming Scare?  The mention of 'five' was an approximation to the number of IPCC-parroting organisations in the 'consensus' section, not the number of organisations in the whole article.  To reiterate: Just because a number of scientific institutions have said 'The IPCC has reached a consensus', this does not mean that the scientific community at large has reached a consensus.  And is not McIntyre a scientist?  From your record I see you are a defender of the AGW orthodoxy.  Perhaps you should look more closely at, say, the math Mann et al 2008 use to make their 'hockey sticks'?  Quite apart from the fact that the old MBH98 hockey stick was equally discredited.  The 'evidence' supporting the warmist position is, simply, bad science. PT (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

What about this poll? http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=1718 MikeHunt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.9.15 (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, when I click that link I end up at a page on "Preventing Child Abuse and Domestic Violence: Another Benefit of the Human Empowerment Paradigm" - I don't know how that is relevant... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There's plenty of organizations endorsing the AGW. I don't see however any on the list that would not be under control of western globalists, who have a heavy interest in one side of the verdict. If it's a global scientific truth, it should be true in China, Russia, Venezuela, Iran, Pakistan and other "uncivilized" nations. All of them have renowned universities and research institutes. Why can't you find anybody to agree in there? There's also many groups of people who disagree with AGW in the western world, they don't have however multi-million statute funds to create a PR brand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mik1984 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "that would not be under control of western globalist"? What's wrong with the National Academies of Science of Brazil, China, Russia, India, Mexico, South Africa, Indonesia and Malyasia? Or the Network of African Science Academies? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the notion of consensus in science is THE question that should most concern us about the IPCC process. I also think the IPCC process, in particular the union of policy and science and politics embodied in the summary reports, should cause us to re-examine the ways in which we think about science. 'Consensus' (in the general or political sense) is antithetical to inductive and empirical models of science. 'Consensus'as a goal also jars with more communitarian models of science (eg. Kuhn). Does the attempt to establish a consensus interfere with the scientific process? What impact would a consensus-based process such as the IPCC have on a discipline or series of discipliens over the longer term? If there is a paradigm shift coming, would we allow it to be published?(see Philosophy of science).
 * I guess I don't want to dispute whether the IPCC is or is not actually a consensus. I want to think about how the attempt to build consensus has impacted the scientific model. I also want to think about if there are better ways to link emergent science to policy. Leave the heading in, I say!!
 * ms_lee 1.53, 6 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.2.205 (talk)

American Public Health Association?
I just added American Public Health Association, an "organization of public health professionals". I'd be interested in hearing from others in regards to the appropriateness (or inappropriateness) of their inclusion. Thanks.CurtisSwain (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Add National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Opinion
NOAA has several different articles on their site that support the IPCC research and lend support to global warming. An organization whose research is as well-respected as NOAA should be included on the list of scientific bodies in agreement with IPCC/GW.

"As the ice-core data show, the increase in carbon dioxide is unprecedented and well outside the range of natural variations. The recent increase matches the increase calculated from the fossil fuel emissions. There is little doubt that these gases will contribute to global warming, and here too the paleo record provides invaluable evidence regarding how much temperature change accompanied changes in carbon dioxide over the past several hundred thousand years."

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/end.html

In regards to the IPCC:

"The depth of NOAA's contributions in this international effort, from a leadership role, providing observations, data, model simulations, analysis, authors and review editors, highlight the preeminent science conducted by our agency," said Vice Adm. Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., U.S. Navy (Ret.) undersecretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. "The efforts contribute to NOAA's goal to understand climate change and variability to enhance society's ability to plan and respond."

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/media/2007/ipcc.html

The FAQ answers several important questions regarding climate change. The FAQ states that GHG emissions are increasing, average temperatures have increased since the late 19th century, Arctic sea ice is retreating, and ocean levels are increasing.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

P.S. - This is my first contribution to Wikipedia so please go easy on me if I have made any errors in protocol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yorichid (talk • contribs) 03:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. There has been a discussion about this topic a while ago. We decided against including individual labs and universities (even notable ones), as the number would be overwhelming, and a clear criterion for inclusion is hard to define. In the future, please add new talk topics at the end of the page, and sign your talk page contributions with 4 tildes ( ~ ). Thanks! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Good source for learned societies
If you need a good source for links to learned societies, I’d like to recommend the Scholarly Societies Project. They have links to literally thousands of scientific and professional societies, unions, federations, associations, etc. You can search by subject, scope, country, or language. It’s very well organized, and easy to use. Happy hunting! --CurtisSwain (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"Consensus" does not mean "Correct"
I'm concerned that the general tone of this article infers that scientific reality is somehow democratic in nature: that because more scientists believe something, it makes a hypothesis "more" true. This concept, while pleasant, doesn't really fly: science can and has been turned on its ear time and time again with the introduction of new information. Can anybody here think of how some impressionable youth might be heeded to keep an open mind and remember that science is not a popularity contest? Lexlex (talk) 09:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that the general tone of this article infers that scientific reality is somehow democratic in nature: that because more scientists believe something, it makes a hypothesis "more" true. - nobody would disagree with this. However, a common tactic in The Republican War on Science to impede regulation is to play up or outright fabricate doubt about the science motivating new regulations. To that end, the energy industry has created a great deal of misinformation about the topic of climate change. In particular, many people do not understand that there are no credible scientific organizations that dispute anthropogenic global warming (and no credible scientists either, but that is neither here nor there). The purpose of this article is to clear up misinformation on this matter. Raul654 (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your answer, however it seems anything which doesn't fall within the generally understood global warming concept is immediately shot down for any number of reasons - with an "efficiency" that I have never experienced anywhere else on this site. Even if it is part of some conspiracy, if proper attribution is given, the article and information should stay up, no? I am trying to find information on the con side to global warming and nothing is here. I tried adding an article referencing a few things I found, and before I had even completed it - within 15 minutes of the first save- it had already been placed on the delete list and had several votes against it. 15 minutes. This does not bode well for someone honestly trying to look at the issue and, frankly, feels more like I'm being railroaded. I don't like it. Why are the emotions so high on this issue? I don't get it. Lexlex (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia reflects the weight of the scientific literature on climate change. If something has sufficient scientific backing to be considered a notable alternate - then it should/must be represented here (and is). But i believe you may be looking for these articles instead: Global warming controversy (for the political debate) and List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming for individual dissenting opinions. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Lexlex, the honesty you speak of would be more evident if you didn't falsely claim that there's nothing on the con side at WP, and if you would provide the reasons given for why your article was deleted -- there are numerous possible good and legitimate reasons. You might at least mention the name of your article. -- 98.108.201.42 (talk) 07:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Gosh 98.108.201.42 you can easily look at my page and see what I'm working on, but for reference the article was Manhattan Declaration. And I wrote that it was nominated, not deleted. I also wrote that "I" could find nothing, perhaps you can enlighten me? Really, I'm learning that anything on Wikipedia that has to do with Religion, Sexuality, Politics, or anything that isn't well established is kind of a crapshoot here. It seems whoever has the most persistent voice wins - and that doesn't always mean true. It's still very interesting nonetheless and can be a time suck as I'm sure we all agree! Lexlex (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is covered under the scientific consensus article which is linked wherever the term is used. 'Impressionable youth' will hopefully pop over there to better understand the philosophy of science.--Jaymax (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is called scientific *opinion* on... which might give you a hint as to what its about. If you want the science itself, you want global warming William M. Connolley (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, it does fly if accurately and carefully expressed. Because more scientists believe something, it is more likely to be true, exceptions notwithstanding. Talk of "democratic in nature" is confused. No one is taking a vote to decide whether something is true; rather, what we have here is a determination of the empirical matter of what the prevailing scientific view actually is. And that empirical fact is highly relevant; while the prevailing scientific view can be wrong, there's a strong correlation between prevailing scientific views and what is true, so it would be hazardous to ignore it, or to be so "open minded" as to treat it as just one of several equally likely alternatives, or to reject it because it doesn't fit one's preconceptions or ideology. Talk of "democratic in nature" reverses cause and effect; AGW isn't true because more scientists say yea than say nay; rather, more scientists say yea rather than say nay because that's what the evidence indicates. A contradiction of the prevailing view is, in Sagan's terms, "an extraordinary claim" and as such requires extraordinary evidence in support. -- 98.108.201.42 (talk) 07:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This whole thread is basically irrelevant -- for goodness sake, look at the title of the article. It's a documentation of scientific opinion on the matter, not a declaration of what scientific findings are "correct." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahh, finally an answer that makes sense. You are correct sir. Let's stop this foolishness now and close the thread. Lexlex (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Its the same answer I gave you on the 29th. But obviously Boris is more authoritative :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Many people believed in a flat earth, and it was a consensus until proven incorrect. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 00:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Talk:Global_warming/FAQ --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

THREAD CLOSED

Water Environment Organizations?
About a month ago, I added the Water Environment Federation and Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management to the list of concurring organizations. I expected them to get bumped off right away, or at least challenged here in the talk pages. This has not happened. So, I'll pose the question myself: Do these two organizations qualify as "scientific bodies of national or international standing" that can be included in this article, or are they more like technical/professional associations that really don't belong?--CurtisSwain (talk) 08:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't mind them, but I also don't think they add very much. But as long as we have the AAPG, it's hard to argue against them, but they all seem to be somewhat off their home turf. At least the water organizations accept the IPCC position and then comment on the impact in their domain, so it has some relevance. As for the lack of resistance: I suspect the sceptics have given up the battle on this article. The scientific opinion is so overwhelmingly clear that they now fall back to conspiracy theories... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, nobody has expressed any strong support for the two water environment associations, so I've removed them. As Stephan said, they don't add much, and given that they are really professional associations, not scientific bodies, I felt their inclusion weakened the article.--CurtisSwain (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Structure
Is it just me or is the structure of this article appalling? Every society etc gets its own heading and short para... looks awful, and makes the TOC massive. How about organising it, eg grouping the metereological societies, that sort of thing, or perhaps by date? Rd232 talk 14:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I agree with that. First, organizing by date wouldn't work, because several of the statements don't indicate the year they were issued.  Second, the organizations are already grouped together by their commonality within the TOC.  But mostly, I like the TOC the way it is.  I like seeing a huge, long list of all the scientific bodies that confirm the AGW phenomenon.  It's very impressive and impactive.  However, if we were to impose some sort of organization, perhaps it would look something like this:

Synthesis Reports Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)

Academies of Science InterAcademy Council Joint science academies' statement 2008 Joint science academies’ statement 2007 Joint science academies’ statement 2005 Joint science academies’ statement 2001 International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences European Academy of Sciences and Arts Network of African Science Academies Royal Society of New Zealand

General Science National Research Council (US) European Science Foundation American Association for the Advancement of Science Federation of American Scientists

Meteorology/Oceanography World Meteorological Organization American Meteorological Society Royal Meteorological Society (UK) Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences

Geology International Union for Quaternary Research American Quaternary Association Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics International Union of Geological Sciences European Geosciences Union Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences Geological Society of America American Geophysical Union

Biology Institute of Biology (UK) American Society for Microbiology Wildlife Society Australian Coral Reef Society

Human Health World Federation of Public Health Associations American Public Health Association American Medical Association American College of Preventive Medicine Miscellaneous American Astronomical Society American Institute of Physics American Physical Society American Chemical Society Water Environment Federation Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management American Statistical Association Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia) --CurtisSwain (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That sort of structure is exactly what I had in mind. On the other hand, the advantage of a date-based structure is that it could give a sense of the evolution of certainty of scientific opinion; but there is perhaps not enough data to make that evolution clear enough to make it worth the effort involved. So the above sounds good to me. Rd232 talk 23:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * hmmm...the evolution of scientific opinion on climate change?...sounds like the heading of a new section in the article. And, thanks for pointing out we need to organize the TOC.  But, let's wait to see if anyone else has any preferences or ideas.--CurtisSwain (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Structure changes
The fifth pillar of Wikipedia encourages contributers to "Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles." So, I was. I think it looks pretty good, but I would appreciate it if others could read it over to see if there are any little errors I didn't catch. And, of course, if anyone doesn't like what I've done, they are free to fix it, or undo, or voice their ideas and opinions here on the talk page.--CurtisSwain (talk) 10:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I reorganized the "statements by concurring organizations" grouping them in their respective fields of science as best I could. I had a hard time deciding if the two Quaternary orgs. should go under "Geology" or under a separate "Paleoclimatology" sub-heading.  I settled on the later.  Somebody, please enlighten me if that's not correct.
 * I put the synthesis reports and everything else in alphabetical order, except with the fields of science where "miscellaneous" comes last. I believe that better honors the NPOV principle, and avoids any sort of hierarchy.
 * I put all the Joint Science Academies' Statements in chronological order to conform to the Manual of Style, and used bullets rather than sub-headings.
 * Made a few other minor changes in wording, punctuation, etc. in order to gain more consistency in style. Added several wiki links as well.


 * Overall, I like it. I would reverse the IPCC and the Federal Climate Change Science Program, as the IPCC is very much senior and has been doing it a lot longer. I don't think your "avoids any sort of hierarchy" is a requirement by NPOV, although it's a good idea if it is unclear or undefined.  --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, except IPCC is senior and should come first. Thought: perhaps organisations important enough to quote here should each have an article about them - a number don't at the moment (eg CAETS). Rd232 talk 12:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that so? ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't stop now - there's more like that... ;) Rd232 talk 11:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I moved IPCC to first. No comment on the rest William M. Connolley (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the speedy response! And, I agree; it makes more sense for the IPCC to be listed first. Although it's not consistent with the alphabetization, so what? This is Wikipedia; we can do what we want. Next question: the TOC is still really long. For the sake of brevity, and a less cluttered TOC, should we convert some of the level 4 headings to bullets? That way, under "Statements by concurring organizations", the TOC would just show the level 3 headings (Academies of Science, General Science, Biology, etc.), and not the names of every single scientific body (there's so many!). If we did that, I think we'd have to get rid of the indented block quotes and just use quotation marks. "Synthesis Reports", "Statements by dissenting organizations", "noncommittal" and the section on surveys could still have level 4 headings under them without the TOC looking too cluttered. Whatcha think?--CurtisSwain (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think ;-). Alternatively, we could collapse the TOC, although I haven't yet figured out how to do it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Problem solved! Thanks, Stephan.  That looks so much better.--CurtisSwain (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Remove IUGS and AFS?
Now that we have an extensive collection of statements, I'm going back and thoroughly scrutinizing each entry. I think it's important for each entry to be solidly valid. Otherwise, the quality of the article is diminished. Therefore, I'd like to remove the IUGS. Their entry is not a "position statement" or official declaration, but merely a prospectus (i.e. brochure). I simply doesn't have the power of a definitive declaration that unequivocally represents the organization as a whole. I'd also like to remove the Federation of American Scientists. They appear to be not so much a "scientific body" or learned society, but more of a political advocacy group founded by scientists, like the Union of Concerned Scientists. Any objections to their removal?--CurtisSwain (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Bray and von Storch survey
'The survey has been criticized on the grounds that it was performed on the web with no means to verify that the respondents were climate scientists or to prevent multiple submissions.'

I'd like to add that there should be more grounds of which to criticize this survey. For instance, the core question cited here:

'"To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?", with a value of 1 indicating strongly agree and a value of 7 indicating strongly disagree.'

is obviously loaded, and appears to be designed to illicit a certain response that could easily be spun by skeptics, since they didn't add "from the last 50 years" or at least "recent" as a qualifier. Clearly, pre-20th century climate change was mostly non-anthropogenic. This is just my opinion but I suspect others have that issue. We would need a RS for this. Gmb92 (talk) 07:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that calling the question "loaded" is fair, since the survey authors themselves warn about this very fact on their website: http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/08/climate_scientists_views_on_cl_1.html#more However, it does limit how far you can take that particular response. It's hard to write surveys! It would be good if they can finish their repeated survey, since the sample issue is crippling.MikeR613 (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Survey questions, particularly scientific ones, should be phrased to be as specific as possible if one is to obtain meainingful results. This particular question was highly ambiguous.  Their new survey question appears to be a little better "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" yet it combines 2 questions in one (recent and future) and fails to put any timeframe on either one.  "Near future" in particular is open to interpretation.  Climate scientists would have a higher degree of confidence over a 30-year period than a 5-year period, for example.Gmb92 (talk) 06:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My dear Gmb92, you have obviously never written a survey. I have, and hope I won't have to ever again! You break your head trying to get the wording right, and a hefty chunk of responders will get it exactly backwards. Don't assume conspiracy when stupidity (human limitations) will suffice.MikeR613 (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Danish National Space Center
Dang. I was about to revert that bit from the Danish National Space Center (DNSC), but Stephan beat me to it. However, let me state that I agree with the action for the same reasons. (1) As far as I can tell, the DNSC does not appear to meet the criteria for inclusion in this article as it is not a "scientific body" (i.e. learned society). According to their "About DNSC", they are a simply a research institute within the Technical University of Denmark, and this article doesn't include "individual universities or laboratories". That's why you don't see Scripps or Woods Hole here. (2) The referenced document is the work of just two people (Svensmark, H. and Friis-Christensen, E. ). It does not appear to be an official declaration by the DNSC, as it is not a position statement, but simply a report published as part of their "informal report series". If anyone has any reasonable justification for including the report in this article, I'd love to hear it.--CurtisSwain (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest removing that criteria. Can anyone defend it?  Universities and laboratories are a significant component in collective scientific opinion.  arbitrarily excluding them doesn't serve a npov.  --70.143.64.199 (talk) 05:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

—<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">Apis (<span style="color: rgb(5, 85, 5);">talk ) 07:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It wasn't arbitrary, two editors have given a good explanation why. I agree with them in this case. Including material like that would not serve npov since it would give a minority view undue weight. This page doesn't express the opinion of individual scientist, theres another page for that.
 * Removing the criteria creates a free-for-all, where any individuals opinion counts - and then the article would only achieve balance if the opinion of every individual lab and scientist on the globe were included - which would be useless in an encyclopedia. So some criteria is required to capture the essence of the current 'Scientific Opinion'.  I think the current criteria is solid. Jaymax (talk) 10:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

new addition removed
I removed a newly added section describing how all the major scientific societies are biased and a policy report by the Heartland Institute showed anthropogenic global warming to be false per undue weight, original research, and npov generally. I believe that such is in line with the consensus here, and so just noting this for completeness. --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus? "oft-repeated assertions of a supposed ‘consensus’ among climate experts are false" - 700 Qualified Endorsers of the Manhattan Declaration
I submit that if enough scientists (a reasonable proportion) say that there is no consensus on an issue, that even if quite a few other scientists say there is a consensus, there isn't (because there is a disagreement).

The Manhattan Declaration - March 2008 "Recognising that the causes and extent of recently-observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed ‘consensus’ among climate experts are false" - The Manhattan Declaration

I further submit that the following is a list of enough scientists:

Endorsers of the Declaration

It should be stated outright and upfront that there is no 'consensus' on this issue. fogus (talk) 05:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder how many of the people on this latest list had there names put on against their will like the last list the Heartland Institute put out. Raul654 (talk) 05:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, as far as I can tell, the Manhattan declaration is more like the Oregon Petition, and less like Inhofe's Gulag (you get in for what they think you say and never get out...). WIth qualifications like "BS (Computer Science)", "MD (radiology)", "Founder, Climate Researcher and Web Master" and "retired engineer" on their "qualified endorsers" list, the only real qualification necessary seems to be the ability to read a captcha at . In fact, on that very page they write that everyone can add their name "whether you are an expert in the field or not".  And still, they seem to have only 12 Steves.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, so out of the millions of "scientists" that exist in the world, 652 sign a petition, and we're supposed to be impressed? First of all, this article does not include "self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions."  Secondly, if you look carefully at the list of signers, I think you'll see that many of the them don't appear to be qualified to make any meaningful statement about the state of our planet.  A quick perusal reveals many just have BAs or BSs, and then there's #527, a retired dentist; #648 a retired General Manager of Colorado Springs Technology Center of Hewlett Packard; #101 a nuclear science engineer; and #18 is just an "author ."  However, this petition maybe appropriate for articles like List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, and is already referenced in Global warming controversy.--CurtisSwain (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Individual Dissenters
I propose including in the 'Dissenting Organisations' a comment that while no organisations of stature have dissented, a number of individual scientists have - while explicitly pointing out that their individual opinions should be balanced against the consensus opinions of societies representing many hundreds of thousands of scientists.

I think this both helps the essence of the article (what current scientific opinion clearly is) while providing some appropriate balance (ie: put the scales on visible display, one side so heavy it's on the floor) - this provides an in context link to the article page at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming that covers notable individual scientists contrary opinions. ??? Jaymax (talk) 10:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * While the "List of scientists opposing..." is in the "See also" section, I think Jaymax is right, the link to the article page should go under 'Dissenting Organisations'.--CurtisSwain (talk) 11:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the mention of individuals under dissenting organisations jars a bit. The article is about scientific organisations. None of the other sections mention individuals, so I also don't think that this does add balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.51.212 (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay 1) This link is not in context with this article. The link is about dissenting scientists for whatever reason, the article is about the (lack of any) dispute about one specific point, "that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities". 2) As the original proposer suggested if this link were included you would need to make some mention of assenting scientists for balance. I think that this is outside the scope of this article. 3) By appending the phrase to the start of the sentence under dissenting organisations, you've made an okay sentence into a horrible one in terms of readability.

I shall address point three now, but I would like to see some justification in terms of balance for having this link in at all.RobinGrant (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Japan Society of Energy and Resources
I've read a few articles now about how the Japan Society of Energy and Resources has rejected UN's IPCC view that recent warming is primarily the consequence of man-made industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. I cant find the original report, just articles such as this http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/ Would this organization qualify to be on the list of dissenting organizations? --Designsquid (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's hard to find out anything substantial about the organization, which makes it doubtful as a "scientific body of national or international standing". And the Register's reporting is so horrible that I cannot even make out what has happened - it seems as they issued a 5 author report, and 3 of these authors doubt the IPCC. The Register has published selected parts of a horrible translation - apparently only parts from the sceptics. I would suggest to simply ignore this until substantial evidence arrives. There are some suitable documents linked from http://www.jser.gr.jp/index.html, but my Japanese is a bit rusty. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

U. of Chicago/Doran and Zimmerman survey
The primary data missing here is precisely the percentage of those who answered "no" vs "unsure". From the bar charts, the "unsure" answers appear to exceed the "no" answers but no hard data is listed in the article.Gmb92 (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Should this survey be listed at all? Is EOS considered a reliable source? Was this publication refereed? -Atmoz (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * EOS is refereed, Yes. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, my experience is that EOS content may be refereed, some things go through solely at the editor's discretion. There is no way to know what has been externally reviewed and what hasn't.  Dragons flight (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Still, EOS is a more reliable source than any general news and most popular science sources for this topic. It certainly is better than "Citizens for a Sound Economy" or "Harris Interactive". If we want more data, the full thesis then paper is based on can be downloaded for US$ 2 from lulu.com - content/5595308. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, if it wasn't referred it should be considered no more of a reliable source than a letter to the editor of a newspaper. -Atmoz (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It certainly was reviewed and approved by an editor of a scientific publication with a reputation for reliability and fact checking, even if it did not go through formal peer review. This is a level of scrutiny that is higher than that of most newspapers. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * QED. -Atmoz (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you see a disclaimer for the EOS article? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The editors of EOS haven't decided to publish anything that stupid, yet. -Atmoz (talk) 04:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't this discussion sort of missing the point though? EOS is not supposed to be venue for primary publication.  Shouldn't someone check the original report and cite that?  Kendall Zimmerman, M. (2008), The consensus on the consensus: An opinion survey of Earth scientists on global climate change, 250 pp., Univ. of Ill. at Chicago.  Dragons flight (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, is a master's thesis considered a reliable source? -Atmoz (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There have been several discussions about this at WP:RS/N. The consensus seems to be "possibly, but it depends very much on the field and the school". However, this study has been conducted at a major university under supervision of an expert who co-published the result in EOS. Again, this is certainly much more reliable than the other polls we have. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He's an expert at what? Polling? What does the fact that it was conducted at a major university matter? Is that somehow more reliable than research conducted at a minor university? In my view, this is not a reliable source, and should not be included in the article. If that means removing the other surveys, then remove them too. -Atmoz (talk) 04:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously contending that Eos would willingly tell porkies? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I can see no basis for questioning the veracity of the Doran/Zimmerman survey. As Stephan pointed out, there is no disclaimer accompanying the report, so there's nothing to indicate it didn't meet the AGU's usual "high peer-review and editorial standards". And, the survey has been reported on in one or more reputable science news venues. Besides, this article gives space to "Bray and von Storch, 2003" which was rejected by a peer-reviewed scientific journal, so we can surely find space for Doran/Zimmerman.--CurtisSwain (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No disclaimer? There was never a disclaimer for the APS newsletter before they let Monckton screw with them. That's no reason to assume it was referred. Do articles in E&E come with a disclaimer? Can you at least get the surname right? Kendall Zimmerman. -Atmoz (talk) 04:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The APS newsletter is a (semi-)free forum (read their own description) - not a scientific journal/weekly letter. The reasons for the disclaimer is that Monckton claimed otherwise - so they had to be explicit about that article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed that we have two sections in Talk for this survey; I added a separate section "Doran and Zimmerman", not realizing that this was here. Could someone competent combine them? And maybe some of you have comment on my suggested change there to the entry.--MikeR613 (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

'96.2% of climatologists who are active in climate research believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels.' I'm a beginner at these things, but this strikes me wrong. Pre-1800 levels? You mean, like, since the Revolutionary War - when they brought cannons across the ice of the Hudson River? Is it under dispute that things were colder then? Does anyone claim there's been global warming from CO2 all of that time? Are these survey guys trying to "snow" us, by getting a high percentage answer to an irrelevant question?

Does someone have more information on all the questions asked on this survey? Could be the others are just demographics, though. MikeR613 (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

See the wikipedia articles on the Little Ice Age and on the Maunder Minimum: There is a lot of agreement that there was an unusually cold period during that time, ending roughly 1850 - cause under dispute. And, it is clear from the main Global Warming article that the last fifty years are the crux of the issue. I listened to a podcast Doran had at his website; apparently no other payload questions were asked. I see that there are already articles complaining about the vagueness of the questions (obviously by skeptics - that's how these things work.) My conclusion: I am not sure this study deserves to be listed here, unless we add a sharp disclaimer. It just doesn't go into enough detail to be useful. And, I believe that the stated conclusions are intentionally pushing a POV that the survey doesn't merit.--MikeR613 (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Therefore, this survey does not support the consensus; it doesn't even talk about it. It makes as much sense as if it said, "95% of climate scientists say they had lunch today. And therefore (triumphant conclusion), 'It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.'" Only that wouldn't fool anyone, and this survey certainly did impress me and might impress others. The fact that the survey is in EOS is not the point - we're not disputing the results! The point is that it doesn't discuss the issue of this particular page and therefore shouldn't be mentioned here.
 * This is based on a Master's thesis. It's available from Lulu.com, at US$ 2,- for the download ( http://www.lulu.com/content/559530 ), and, presumably, very much more comprehensive than the short EOS paper. You can also find a FAQ off Doran's page with a bit more information. And btw, most rivers in  industrialized countries don't freeze over anymore because we dump a lot off heat into them from cooling power plants and industrial processes. Climate change is only a small part of that particular story. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I hear you, but it doesn't really answer my question. It seems to me that comparison to pre-1800 levels is misleading and irrelevant. They made explicit claims in the pdf linked here that their results prove that virtually all climate scientists agree with the consensus, and I was initially very impressed with the percentages they showed. Now I don't see that that is true.--MikeR613 (talk) 05:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: I read the FAQ, and it didn't help. Not sure I want to chip in $2 for this! If my question is dumb, someone here will answer it. If it's not dumb, then that study is, and we need to point that out.--MikeR613 (talk) 05:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, pre-1800s or pre-1750 (depending on the number of significant digits) is quite commonly used as "before industrialization had a significant impact on the atmosphere", although William Ruddiman would probably disagree. And come on: $2 is less than a soda pop at MacDonalds, nowadays.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Besides, I lived in New York for a decade. It never gets cold enough there for rivers to freeze (more than a few days per winter), regardless of what they're dumping into the water.
 * The study has been published by EOS, quite reliable source for science topics. We do have a WP:SPS survey that has been rejected for publication by Science, and even one by Citizens for a sound economy. The current one easily beats these for reliability. We don't do disclaimers. If you find criticism of Doran and Zimerman published in reliable sources, we can of course include it. But note that sources should be of comparable quality, i.e. blog postings or pop-press editorials do not really cut it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but it's currently misleading our readers through omission and misdirection. If not a disclaimer, there should be a note saying something like: The survey did not ask about warming within the last fifty years. Even better would be add to that, "which is the claim of the Global Warming consensus."--MikeR613 (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The current text is "96.2% of climatologists who are active in climate research believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 97.4% believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures." - I find that entirely clear and in no way misleading. Asking about the last 50 years is really pointless, as we have good instrumental records for this period, and only real fringe-freaks deny that it has warmed during that period. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree with Stephan Schulz on this one. I don't see any merit in MikeR613's objections. He appears to either not understand the survey, or simply does not want to accept it's results.--CurtisSwain (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Pardon my belaboring this point, but I'm not sure we're communicating. [He] "simply does not want to accept it's results" - I am not in any way denying the results. I am questioning their relevance. And I am highly ignorant about global warming, but I did read this article and some of the other ones here on the subject! They repeat over and over that the point of the consensus is "that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities". Some places they mention "since 1900" or such. And on the article List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming this is one, though not the only, point of controversy. No one, so far as I can see, argues that there is no major warming post-1800.
 * Note, by the way, that Gmb92 earlier had almost exactly the same complaint against the Bray and Storch survey - in the opposite direction! That is, that a question that doesn't clearly state "in the last fifty years" in the question is liable to miss the critical issue and will fuzz the results. The survey here is even worse, as it clearly does state an entirely different time frame. It doesn't fuzz the results, it gives results to the wrong question.--MikeR613 (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Have I convinced y'all? I'd like to add that clarifying phrase.--MikeR613 (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Added it--MikeR613 (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well - reverted already! "Unsourced original research." Don't get that - what research did I do? I just described what the survey claims and what it doesn't claim.--MikeR613 (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with MikeR613; the claim struck me as irrelevant on first reading. That's why I came to this page to see if someone else had noticed.  Something that is irrelevant doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article regardless of whether it is true or not.  And why would I want to pay $2 for something that is uninteresting and irrelevant, no matter how much McDonald's sodas cost? Stifynsemons (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I tried the change again. We'll see if someone who reverts it has any comments to add!--MikeR613 (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Really, how can you as an honest editor be against trying to prevent this piece of the article from misleading readers? I know that it misleads some of them, because it misled me when I first saw it. I assume that I am not unique, if only as a representative of the not-too-bright non-experts. I cannot see that there is any reason to object to clarification unless someone has an agenda.--MikeR613 (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "The survey apparently did not ask about the beer consumption in medieval Tuscany"? We clearly state the results of the survey Adding non-results only adds spin, not substance. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? If the study had discussed beer consumption in Tuscany, and someone had insisted on including it on this page anyhow, along with a comment by the authors that this shows "that pretty much everyone agrees with the consensus on Global Warming", I think that a comment that the study in fact is on a different subject would be in order. The way this information is currently presented is deceptive to the casual reader. If that's your goal, fine; otherwise it must be fixed in the interests of honesty. What you're essentially saying is that this study should not be included at all.--MikeR613 (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I will attempt to address the concerns raised about this survey, although I certainly do not consider myself an expert on global warming, or surveys. Re: the question about the rise in mean global temperatures since 1800.  I believe that's relevant, because 1800 marks the beginning (more or less) of the industrial revolution and that's when CO2 levels started to rise.  According to NOAA "pre-industrial carbon dioxide level was 278 ppm. That level did not vary more than 7 ppm during the 800 years between 1000 and 1800 A.D."  According to NASA atmospheric CO2 is now up to 386 ppm.  However, the question about the rise in mean global temperatures since 1800 does seem to be rather secondary.  I believe it's there mostly to set up the next question regarding human influence, which, obviously, is highly relevant.  That's what it's all about. Either way, this is a survey of scientists asking their opinion on global climate change, and it comes from a reliable source.  Therefore, it's included in this article.  If you can find a WP:RS that critiques the survey, then feel free to include that in the article.  Otherwise, I see no reason for this discussion to continue or for the entry to be changed in any way.--CurtisSwain (talk) 08:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe I've answered you already; I don't want to repeat myself. Saying that "the question about the rise in mean global temperatures since 1800 does seem to be rather secondary" is not sufficient. It does not "set up the next question regarding human influence", it confuses it. The follow-up question is as a result pretty fuzzy and perhaps useless as well; they couldn't say that human activity is the main cause of warming since pre-1800, and they didn't ask about the last fifty years. Instead, "A significant factor" - a far cry from the beginning of this article, which quotes "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities". If we quote this survey, we should make clear what it says, and what it doesn't say. And I don't understand your requirement for a WP:RS; our goal here is to make this entry understandable.