Talk:Scientific consensus on climate change/Archive 12

AAPG "last" organization to reject

A recent edit changed the wording "the AAPG was the only major scientific organization that rejected the finding of significant human influence" to "the AAPG was the last major scientific organization to reject the consensus of significant human influence." This significantly changes the meaning of the statement. First, changing "only" to "last" implies that there were multiple other organizations that rejected human influence, and that they eventually came around to the current view. That may or may not be true (I don't know) but it certainly isn't stated in the cited source. Secondly, "finding" is changed to "consensus." This changes the emphasis from the underlying scientific findings to acceptance of the consensus qua consensus. Again that's not what the source states.

For reference, the source states that the AAPG stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming. It doesn't say "now stands alone" or anything that implies that AAPG was the "last" scientific society to reject human influence, and it plainly says "denial of human-induced effects" rather than "denial of the consensus" or similar wording.

I plan to revert the edit in question unless someone can provide sources to support the new wording. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess there is a problem with saying they agreed with the consensus, they're part of the crowd who make up the scientific consensus and their job is to look at the evidence and assess it not to go around agreeing with people like agreeing with consensus implies. Dmcq (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed material

I just removed the following from the section 'Statements by dissenting organizations':

However, there are some individual scientists who continue to oppose some part of the mainstream assessment of global warming, mostly along the lines that observed warming is likely to be attributable to natural causes and is not due to greenhouse gases produced my man's activities. Scientists for this purpose are defined as a person who has published at least one peer-reviewed article during their lifetime in the broadly-construed area of natural sciences. Such publication need not be recent and need not be in a field relevant to climate.

Some scientists have been wrongly labelled as 'skeptics' for differences of opinion that do not amount to opposition to the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

This is clearly an extended, unsourced discussion of opinions of individuals. Therefore it is irrelevant to the section, possibly irrelevant to the article, or if consensus is to keep, it needs reliable source references and to be put into a different place in the article. --Nigelj (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I reverted for the moment to the version which was there before which said there were dissenting opinions and pointing to where a reader might find more but without the bit trying to explain what they think - there are a large number of different ideas it isn't a coherent group. I think it would be wrong not to point to something about the dissent even if it doesn't strictly fall within scientific opinion. It is like evolution, it points to creationism even if it has nothing to do with evolution and there are some scientists supporting creationism. Dmcq (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

An article on Scientific opinion on climate change needs to include individual positions as well as organisations. The extra material could fit in another section or perhaps rename the existing section "Dissenting organisations and individuals". MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

And which individual positions do you posit, that merit weight enough (sufficiently authoritative) to describe the scientific opinion (ie. aggregate opinion), as opposed to the personal opinion of the researcher? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not (or perhaps I should say I wasn't) sufficiently interested in the actual positions of dissenters to concern myself with the details. But I'm very uncomfortable seeing them excluded. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Erm? I was not asking about dissenters. I was asking which scientists, regardless of position, who's opinion would have sufficient authoritative weight to merit inclusion as compared to the aggregate opinions. It would be a violation of WP:NPOV, to only present views of dissenters. In the case of adding individual opinions, they must be in balance with the proportion of views. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You might be nterested in participating in the discussions started at the original research noticeboard at here or at the neutral point of view noticeboard at here as these points have recently caused disruption here without progress. Dmcq (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The disruption I'm seeing is a refusal to allow the documenting of any dissenting opinion (let alone in an NPOV fashion). The UK chief scientific officer speaks for me when he just said: “I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper scepticism. Science grows and improves in the light of criticism.” MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Editors should follow WP:DISPUTE about disputes. It is fairly reasonable to bring up the same point again every so often after a reasonable span of time onto a talk page as the consensus may have changed. However it is not reasonable to keep on and on without either progressing or dropping a dispute, that is disruption. Editors are perfectly entitled to their opinions but they are not entitled to disrupt Wikipedia. The dispute resolution process is there so disputes are resolved. It is policy, it is not just a guideline. Consensus does not mean each and every editor will get their idea of what's right into the article. Dmcq (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You might not be aware but there are rather a lot of articles about various aspects of global warming and climate change. There's also Climate change consensus about the public perception about whether there is a consensus. There's Global warming controversy about the general controversy and if you want the actual science you'd start at Global warming. The actual science talks about points of dispute in the actual science itself. There's a whole subculture of wikipedia that seems to be devoted to the various topics. This one is specifically about what the scientific opinion is about climate chaneg and how strong it is. It is not about the science itself or the controversy amongst the public. Dmcq (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Introduction Adjustments

Would it be reasonable to change the intro sentence from:

"This does not include the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions."

To the following sentence:

"This article does not address the views of..."?

An alternative could be to add a section regarding "Scientific Opinion within non-scientific bodies, surveys of opinion among climate scientists..." etc. Or something more concise to that effect. That section would then summarize the positions of scientists - such as in the Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009 report - giving percentages as opposed to listing any individual names - so as to not provide undue weight to either side. The more problematic portion would be summarizing the positions of universities and self-selected reports (for obvious reasons), but I think that sources could be found to provide reasons that they should be excluded (for political or ideological bias as well as common sense) from the scientific consensus.

I did a quick search in the archives, but there's so much discussion in this area, I might have missed it if this was specifically addressed before.

On the other hand, I don't have a problem with the intro sentence as it stands now and I don't believe it represents WP:OR. Just presenting possibilities. It will never be possible to satisfy some people regarding this article, but it may be possible to address some of the concerns. Airborne84 (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Dissenting Organizations

In the 2007 book Climate change: what it means for us, our children, and our grandchildren, by DiMento and Doughman, the following statement is made on page 68:

"In the past several years, all of the major scientific bodies in the United states whose membership's expertise bears directly on the matter have issued reports or statements that confirm the IPCC Conclusion."

Is it worthwhile adding this to the article in some way? It supports the "dissenting opinion" section only in part. Would it be worthwhile to add as an additional citation to the current one?

The information on page 71 is also interesting and perhaps that could be useful [[1]]. However, the papers surveyed are not listed, and thus this is probably not germane to "synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists" as in this article.

I should also add that I have no issue with the validity or appropriateness of the current, listed reference supporting the "dissenting opinions" section. However, a second statement that corroborates the first, if only in part, should remove the word "single" from future objections at least. Airborne84 (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Cold be used as a ref to support the existing statement, if we feel we need one. I'm not sure William M. Connolley (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggest adding Portal Global warming

Suggest adding

99.155.156.219 (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds a reasonable idea to have a project on global warming. People could discuss the overall organization of the articles there rather than all the separate merge/split discussions in the separate articles and people trying to stick the same ideas everywhere and decide better where things should be. Dmcq (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Bray/Von Storch 2008

I removed the Bray/Von Storch survey of 2003 because of various problems but I think the 2008 one should be in. The survey has been used in a peer reviewed article on another subject which is enough to give credence for the survey methodology - what was principally wrong with the earlier 2003 survey. I'll try sticking in something and see how it goes. Dmcq (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm losing track. Why is the 2008 survey any good? That was the one trivially hackable, wasn't it? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No I believe it was he 2003 where passwords were leaked and anyone could fill it on the internet. The 2008 one was sent to specific people on 3 lists of climate change scientists and the main criticism I can see is that the response rate was only 18%. Dmcq (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the methodology was better. The survey email from Bray contained a link to take-survey.com which included a unique identifier for each recipient. Nonetheless many of us did not respond for fear that the survey results could be misused (not by von Storch but by others). Perhaps this partially explains the low response rate. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

18% is not bad at all; all surveys have low response rates. This was really quite a long survey, so it's surprising that that many responded. MikeR613 (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Low response rate isn't so bad: Response_rate MikeR613 (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Doran & Kendall-Zimmerman 2009 survey response rate was around 30% which they reported as typical for that format, citing some sources in social science journals in support. As von Storch replied (quoted earlier in an archived talk page), they submitted short articles based on the research to peer review, rather than the full-length document (open access PDF). This is comparable to what Doran & Kendall-Zimmerman did with a short article in EOS 90:3. (Their EOS article does not give a link to their full paper. Also they charge $2 for the full report.)Birdbrainscan (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The two IAP coordinated statements in 2009

The InterAcademy Panel on International Issues (IAP) released two statements on climae change issues in 2009. As the other similar IAP releases, they are not in the name of the IAC (the InterAcademy Council), but in the name of the siignatory membors of the IAP; which (up to date) means 70 and 54 academies of sciences (or other members), respectively. Both were explicitly issued with the Copenhagen conference in mind.

I've not studied the statements carefully yet. I do not know if either or both of them essentially coincide with any of the 2009 statements already mentioned in the text. Also, I'm not quite clear of the status of the second statement, since it is not (yet) endorsed by a two third's majority of the IAP members. In either case, I think they should be mentioned among the joint science academies' statements, not in the IAC section, since they are not issued on behalf of the academies, but ratified by the academies themselves.

My idea so far has been to have separate articles for the various IAP released statements, and link them to the relevant articles about the issues they address. If so, summaries here should be linked to these articles. Now, only an article on the first of the 13 statements exists, about overpopulation, from 1993-1994; actually, already this statement shows concern about "increasing greenhouse gas emissions" (long before 2001); therefore, perhaps this, too, ought to be mentioned briefly in the academies of science section?

Comments? JoergenB (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to the IAP's statements Tropical Forests and Climate Change and Ocean Acidification. I noticed those too, and read them through. The IAP is obviously in agreement with the rest of the scientific community, and both statements do cover the detrimental effects human activities are having on the planet and the importance of reducing atmospheric CO2. Unfortunately, they don't specifically say, "The planet is warming". So, it doesn't look like they are appropriate for this article. It's not like we really need them, what with the various joint academies statements and the IAC, etc. But, I would encourage your idea of creating separate articles summarizing the various IAP statements with links to relevant articles about the issues they address. I believe that would be of value.--CurtisSwain (talk) 09:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. The statements seem to take human activity caused greenhouse gas emissions and a consequential temperature rise as given facts; the first one discusses means to dampen further effects, and the second one notes that the rising CO₂ also has a harmful influence on the acidity of oceans. If the title, Scientific opinion on climate change, refers only to opinions on whether there is and/or might be such a change, and if so, what are its causes, then especially the two statement seems a bit off target. (The first one does claim deforestation as a partial cause for raising CO₂ emissions, but does not state explicitly that it thus corresponds to global warming. It does say that stopping deforestation is essential in preventing further temperature increase beyond the 2^o limit; but this is just makes the causality implicitly deducible from the text. Not that good in an encyclopedia prohibiting OR.) Thus, I withdraw my suggestion. JoergenB (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Polish Academy of Sciences

In 2009 the Polish Academy issued another statement with more in it. Basically they say that some of the warming is caused by human activity rather than quantifying it and have pointed out the earth has warmed up and cooled in the past. Of course it has been pounced on by skeptics saying some might mean very little and therefore AGW is untrue and certainly parts of the rest of their statement is skirting round the issue. It is all very silly but it looks notable enough to me to mention specially. Any ideas of what happened there, do they actually have a large number of skeptics or are they doing the usual business of scientists prevaricating and covering all the bases? Dmcq (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

First scientists rarely prevaricate. That's publicists and Politicians. Sometimes it appears that scientiests are making disengenuous statements because they are trying to be as accurate in their statements as possible. The Polish Academy statement does not refute that some anthropogenic Global Warming is taking place but they are qualifying that with a discussion about the other factors that contribute to changes in climate. This statement is nothing to be alarmed about, this is how science works. All we need to do about this is add a short note in the section on dissenting statements, if someone tries to add something that isn't properly supported by the source we can revert them. I find it a little disturbing that you're this upset by this statement. keep in mind WP:FIVE and remember we're just reporting what other people of note have found, our personal opinions should not enter into the equation. Also do you have a full english version of the statement? I'm working off news articles.Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think what they said is a bit more than that if you look at [2]. They talk about this temporary warming in section 7 for instance. That is a pretty strong statement. In fact a lot of the struff looks unfounded and bad science to me. Dmcq (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like a dissenting statement. They say that some of the current greenhouse effect is anthropogenic; so does everybody else, don't they? That's not dissenting. --Nigelj (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I don't see anything in here I would qualify as "bad science" in fact I don't think any of this is new information. The Polish Academy of Sciences is not a WP:FRINGE organization, the opinions they make in the statement I think could reasonably be supported with accepted science and the recommendations they make are conservative and reasonable. The statement mostly seems to be an objection to the alarmist views that some organizations, scientific and otherwise, have taken on the subject and cautions that more study is necessary before taking on expensive projects. This seems to be an excellent example of a scientific organization trying to separate the popular and scientific views on the subject. Seeing the whole statement, I agree with Nigelj, this isn't really a dissenting opinion. This is not a statment against AGW. Meanwhile the Polish Academy of Sciences section of the article should probably be updated. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The bits I thought were plain wrong I was misreading or can be read differently. I don't suppose one should expect any new science in an opinion statement. Why would they talk about 'this temporary warming' though, with the caveats they have about the science that really sticks out as how can one know it is temporary especially with all the caveats? And how long is temporary anyway? It isn't quite a dissenting opinion but it isn't exactly an endorsement either. I think it is a rather strange document and in need of a bit of explanation and overall I feel a bit puzzled by it. Dmcq (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not the Polish Academy of Science. Its a sub-committee (one of 90), and it doesn't speak for the Academy. See archives: Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change/Archive_7#Polish_geologists --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Still doesn't explain what they were up to but subcommittees sometimes do strange things. Reminder to myself, search the archives. Dmcq (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. As to what the subcommittee is up to: Only a guess; but the only explicit action except further research I find advocated is found in point 9 and concerns stopping deforestation of rain forests. Incidently, this was the subject of the IAP statement from December 2009, which the Polnish Academy of Scienses has not (yet) endorsed. IMHO, the committee in practice agrees with the call for action, but not with the underlying analysis of that satement; found here. Thus, I'd speculate that the subcommittee would propose their statement as a substitute for proposing the academy to sign a statement with which they only partially agree.

As I said: This is only a guess, from a quick reading of the document.

As for the scientific content: There are some sharp disagreements with "the climate consensus" here, I think. The committee advices more research, before a conclusion can be reached on whether or not human activity already has contributed to global warming. On the other hand, it states as facts and underlines heavily that there are other, more or less known reasons for the present warming; see especially points 4 and 7. The following sentence from §7 should be contrasted with the lack of conclusions about human involvements:

"The phenomena observed today, specifically a temporary rise of global temperature, just reflect a natural rhythm of climate change." (Emphasis in the original.)

In my mind, this is surprising and inconsistant, and also their references to the longer term cycles sound a bit strange to me; I'm not an expert, but what little I read about the Milankovitch cycles (which seem implied in the committee arguments), considering these alone should rather predict a successive cooling than a heat peak now.

However, this is neither here nor there. This is an intrascientific expression of ideas, and it partly seems to go against the "consensus" view. It should be reported as such; without putting undue weight to it. JoergenB (talk) 12:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Article re-write request

With more and more stories coming out which cast doubt on the methodology used to reach this scientific consensus, I would like to see the tone of this article lose its "settled science" shine. In the interest of keeping our Wikipedia honest and free from viewpoint pushing, I really think it's time. Here is an article from today's TimesOnline by Jonathan Leake called "World may not be warming, say scientists." (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece). For those of you who disagree with my request, please let me know what you would need to see in well referenced media to grant it in the future. I assume I will either get, Jonathan Leak is a known anti-climate change whatckjob (I've never heard of him 'til now) or that the TimesOnline is somehow either biased or not reference able. Which shall it be? Lexlex (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll get Jonathan Leake is a journalist. Compare that to the quality of the sources in the existing article and you'll immeadiately see the difference. As to those quoted: one is John Christy, long-term skeptic, and one of the authors of the satellite temperature record. Remember, that record is "the most accurate" if you're a skeptic, and since it shows warming, his position is rather puzzling. Notice how Christy gains status in the eyes of the Times by his association with the IPCC. Next up is McKitrick, but he is an economist. After that we're down to Watts; Mills (with some study that might be in press). Against that you can set Trenbeth and the Pope, so really it is no contest William M. Connolley (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This article isn't about the science. It is about the scientists opinions about the science. If the scientific opinion has changed I'm sure there will be a survey coming along soon enough showing that. You're entitled to think your opinion. Personally I'm reminded of the Dilbert cartoon of the boss piloting the plane using Excel. Dmcq (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I need some explanation there. I just am rather amazed by the way people want the consensus of scientists to agree with them and want to rewrite what the surveys show. In general there is a disconnect between what the scientists say and what a large number of the general population believe. And for myself I'm content to agree with the climate scientists and let the economists work with the probabilities the climate scientists come up with and present the options and costs. Are people at home going to come up with better probabilities using their version of Excel? Do they even know how to use a spreadsheet? Dmcq (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, I point out that the title of the article is World may not be warming, say scientists - not my words. Here we have a major publication saying "scientists" say the world may NOT be warming. So my question remains: as this article insists that science is settled here, and we have a major publication saying that it's not - what else would I need to modify this entry accordingly without creating a sh*tstorm? Lexlex (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This is fairly lazy journalism -- old, recycled stuff from the usual contrarians. Note especially that Watts and McKitrick aren't scientists. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so it's that the journalism is lazy! Silly me, here I thought that because a major publication published the article and in fact declared these folks to be scientists, they would be. I guess there is some secret, subjective knowledge which validates truth of which I am unaware. Would someone care to enlighten? I am getting very, very, very confused here as I thought the criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia was reference-ability. I guess that doesn't count with this article? I don't get it. Lexlex (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You can find scientists that will say or support anything, but whether the majority of scientists (especially those with relevant expertise) agree with something is a different question. "Scientists say" is a typical cliché of lazy or sensationalist journalism. When scientific publications or organisations make those claims, then we can take them more seriously. Verbal chat 17:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That piece from the times basically just isn't relevant to this article because it doesn't say how many or what percentage of scientists think whatever it is. Saying 9 out of 10 window cleaners prefer Shino and the window cleaner association endorses it is the sort of thing this article is about, some window cleaners interviewed by the Times prefer soap is what their piece is like. It says nothing about overall opinion. You might prefer climate change consensus which is more about arguing over whether the window cleaners really do have the consensus opinion they say and the campaigns by Brighto to say really they are better. The actual science of Shino and Brighto are covered in other articles. Dmcq (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Except it is more like the Times interviewed a few amateurs instead :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 12:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That may be so, and the other observations may be correct. However, I remind you that Wikipedia is not the place for subjective opinion. Our job, as editors, is to find a reference source for any claim we make. I have given a reference source above - very clearly from a mainstream publication and very clearly stating that scientists think the world may not be warming. It's the article title, in fact! Yet even the mere suggestion of using this undeniably valid reference per Wikipedia rules generates matter-of-fact sounding, subjective responses. You, Mr Connolley, are making a subjective declaration about a news organization. You, Dmcq, are making a subjective opinon about why this article is somehow not relevant. I ask you to read both article titles. The titles match! Again, I am not doubting anyone's logic, credibility, or truthiness - I am pointing out that, per very clear Wikipedia rules, this should be allowed.

Individual opinion in this instance does not have weight - and yet, with the current high feelings around this topic, I believe many of you are rationalizing behavior because you are clouded by your belief. This is simply not acceptable from experienced editors as you all are. Frankly, it casts a pall on the whole article and makes me read it with more than a grain of salt. I don't think that's what you want. There should be a way to fix this very serious impasse. I just don't know what it is. Lexlex (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, here's another. Why would this one be rejected? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html Lexlex (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The way to fix this impasse is to write up an article not for Wikipedia but instead for the journal Nature or Science. Count Iblis (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

How? the article would be rejected for any number of reasons, just like these. Lexlex (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Saying these are about scientific opinion is WP:Original research. You are drawing your own conclusions rather than depending on actual studies. The only way such a story can be relevant is if somebody does a study of such stories and produces some statistics from them. Though how one goes from studying stories in newspapers to deducing such statistics I don't know. Dmcq (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I just had a read of that interview and I think the right place for it is global warming controversy. Dmcq (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

LexLex, I understand your position and your rationale isn't without logic. The issue for this article is that the parameters for what is to be included are defined in the paragraph below the lede (or maybe it's part of it) starting with "Scientific opinion on climate change is given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies..." To add the article you mention, the parameters for inclusion would have to be changed. Since the current standards were established by a consensus, you would have to build a new consensus to change. Certainly, the parameters have been challenged before. On the other hand, before trying to change the standards for inclusion, you should consider what it would do to the article, if successful. It would lead to the inclusion of so many articles/sources that the usefulness of this page for the average reader would be reduced due to ambiguity brought on by giving undue weight to sources (such as individual scientists) that are currently excluded. The relevant, purely scientific, sources would be diluted into irrelevancy. The important question to be answered is: "Would that make Wikipedia better"? If you think the answer is yes, then you should continue on your quest to build a new consensus. Airborne84 (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Remove American Association of State Climatologists from non-committal orgs

As they have no current statement the American Association of State Climatologists name and statement should be removed from the list of non-committal statements. This page is a current list, not a history of positions. dinghy (talk) 04:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That's probably a good idea. I just visited the AASC web site, and you can't even find their old statement. So, yes, it might be time to remove them. But, let's give it a few days to see if anyone has a convincing reason to keep them on.--CurtisSwain (talk) 07:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand...removing the AASC will probably bring on another round of accusations of bias and suppression of dissent, etc. Given that the entry makes it very clear that The Association has no current statement. The previous statement, discussed below, became inoperative in 2008, and being only two years old it's still fairly recent, it may be best to leave them in. --CurtisSwain (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The mention of individual scientists.

I think that the mention of individual scientists in the dissenting organizations section biases the article, since there is no equivalent section in the concurring organizations. (And neither would maintaining such an extensive and inclusive list be simple to maintain).

The web has a lot of misinformation about climate science on the web, and this mention of individual scientists under a heading that is clearly not about individuals raises my concerns of the professional misinformation campaign. But in any case it should be removed as inappropriate to the section and biasing to the article. RobinGrant (talk) 11:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I have raised this question before, at Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change/Archive 12#Removed material. I agree with the point you raise. --Nigelj (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that individual opinions have little to nothing to do in an article about the general scientific opinion. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Choose your battles carefully. Some mention that there are scientists who dissent is reasonable as long as it is generally proportionate to the weight of those opinions. Perhaps one sentence is still too much weight, but removing it will probably help strengthen POV claims regarding the article. There may be a way to move it to another section. Airborne84 (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the "dissenting organizations" section is perfect the way it is. We have to acknowledge that not every single scientist in the entire world agrees, otherwise, like Airborne84 said, we'll get accusations of POV pushing. My hope is that readers will come away from the article with a clear understanding that AGW is endorsed by virtually the entire scientific community. If the article does not acknowledge that there is a very small handful of dissenters, then it can too easily be dismissed (in some people's minds) as not telling the whole story.--CurtisSwain (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Referencing an article about individual scientists is not the same as giving the opinions of individual scientists undue weight alongside scientific organizations and surveys. I think mentioning the other article is about the right weight. Dmcq (talk) 10:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. And feel free to read that article. --Hawkian (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The Geological Society of America

http://www.geosociety.org/positions/pos10_climate.pdf William M. Connolley (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

American Physical Society commentary

They approved a longer commentary to the original statement and the commentary does include some changes or "clarifications" to the original. A mention+link to this should probably be included in the article? http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm Mikael Lönnroth (talk) 04:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If you think it's worthwhile, go for it. They’re mostly just adding some additional details. They have not changed their stance.--CurtisSwain (talk) 06:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There is also a new NRC report: http://atmoz.org/blog/2010/05/19/nrc-2010-yawn/ William M. Connolley (talk) 09:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

General issues

"No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion since the American Association of Petroleum Geologists adopted its current position in 2007." And all you come up with to reference such a significant statement is a commentary of the AGU regarding Crichton? Besides, I seem to be unable to find the statement in the source.
Citing general media (newspapers, news agencies) on a scientific topic? The dog politely requests to stop wagging it so badly.
This article deals with a dynamic process without ever making note of such.
For now. --G-41614 (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a statement by a scientific organization of national or international standing that rejects the findings of human influence on climate, please help us improve the article by adding it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

There are two sources for the identified statement in the article itself. Thanks for bringing up the issue that the second source was not listed in the lede. It is now. Also, this is an issue that has been discussed ad nauseum before. The source you mention is a reliable source, but the explanations for that are in the archives. Please review them. They should address your concerns. --Airborne84 (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Royal Society of the United Kingdom

I'm dubious that the "news" belongs here at all. But quotes from anonymous members certainly don't William M. Connolley (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It certainly is crystal gazing to try and presume what the results of the review will be. It really isn't an established statement. However I'd have no objection to it being put under the entry for the Royal Society. Dmcq (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh sorry I see that's already been done. Dmcq (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Airborne84 for the improvement. Along with Dmcq, there seems to be a consensus at present for including the detail later in the article.

This is the eye-catching headline from the Times Online:

May 29, 2010

Rebel scientists force Royal Society to accept climate change scepticism

While overblown, there's an important story in the offing. Anyone editing this angle of the article may wish to read this statement from the Royal Society in its entirety in order to gain a sense of perspective and proper weighting.

WMC, I think the news is important and deserves to be noted. I must agree with you that an anonymous quote should not be included. Yopienso (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that others will weigh in on this. However, while this might be a noteworthy development, isn't it a better fit in the Global warming controversy article? --Airborne84 (talk) 05:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

To Boris: No, I didn't "forget" to include anything. I wasn't even looking at that article you cite. I was at the Telegraph. It furthermore says,

"Lord Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society, admitted that the case for man-made global warming has been exaggerated in the past.

He emphasised that the basic science remains sound but agreed to issue guidance so that it better reflects the uncertainties."

It goes on to detail:

"In recent months the debate about global warming has been marred by a series of scandals. Emails stolen from the University of East Anglia appeared to show scientists were willing to manipulate the data to exaggerate warming. The individuals involved were cleared from any wrongdoing but the scandal known as 'climategate' knocked public confidence.

At the same time the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that advises the United Nations on global warming, came under doubt after wrongly claiming the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035."

And from the RS site:

"Any public perception that science is somehow fully settled is wholly incorrect – there is always room for new observations, theories, measurements, etc. However, the existence of some uncertainty does not mean that scientific results have no significance or consequences, or should not be acted upon."

We need to be careful in our presentation to be scientific and accurate and as unbiased as humanly possible. --Yopienso (talk) 05:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That they are reviewing their statement and the reasons they give are noteworthy and should be here, but including a big quote about the review before saying anything about the current agreed statement is just plain wrong. Especially when yet more big quotes are included afterwards. Dmcq (talk) 08:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Please restate your comment as I don't get your meaning. The very first words are, "The Royal Society of the United Kingdom has not changed its concurring stance." Isn't that saying something about the current agreed statement? Prior to that, the RS is in a list of signatories of a "joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming." Yopienso (talk) 08:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Just read it again and I guess it is okay. Dmcq (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Add NASA?

Example: NASA announces that "It is nearly certain that a new record 12-month global temperature will be set in 2010", in a new draft paper based on GISS temperature analysis. (Climate Progress) 209.255.78.138 (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No. A paper by some NASA researchers, even prominent ones, is not an official statement by NASA. Interesting find, though - it might go into instrumental temperature record. But on the other hand, we can just wait 6 months for the final data. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Because it is a draft paper, there may be errors and omissions which should be corrected before the final paper is published. Also, because it is a draft, there will be no critical analysis of the study, which is important because it would tell us how well received the views are by other scientists. TFD (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Add National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, such as reference in USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/weather/research/2010-06-10-cloud-whitening_N.htm 11.June.2010 page 2A.

Add National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, such as reference in USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/weather/research/2010-06-10-cloud-whitening_N.htm 11.June.2010 page 2A: "... carbon dioxide emissions, which are thought to be causing global warming, according to the ..." "The 2000-09 decade was the warmest since record keeping began in 1880, NOAA reports." 99.54.139.220 (talk) 02:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Also add 2010 on track to be hottest year, from July 2010; and maybe Study: Think it's hot now? Just wait a few years: Climate models suggest more heat waves over next decades from MSNBC. The research was funded by the Energy Department and the National Science Foundation. The climate model simulations were generated and analyzed at Purdue University. In the next 30 years, we could see an increase in heat waves like the one now occurring in the eastern United States or the kind that swept across Europe in 2003 that caused tens of thousands of fatalities," Noah Diffenbaugh, an assistant professor of environmental Earth system science at Stanford, said in a statement. Diffenbaugh and Moetasim Ashfaq, a former Stanford postdoctoral fellow now at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, used a series of computer models of climate to calculate changes in the future with increased levels of carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere. Their findings are reported in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. 99.35.10.141 (talk) 02:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Too much weight on a single paper. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That's three news articles. 99.27.174.48 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC).

Mini edit war on "some" or "many" organizations

To Kean Thomas: I assume you have changed "Some organisations hold non-committal positions" to "Many organisations hold non-committal positions" in a good faith effort to make the article more accurate. It doesn't, and I'm suggesting two ways you may have become confused.

1. It's true that many organisations do hold non-committal positions, but they must be within the scope of this article if they are to be included in it. The non-committal position of say, the Riverside Garden Club or the science club of a Christian high school would not "count" in this article.

2. The table of contents seems to indicate that 7 organizations concur that global warming is anthropogenic while 5 don't, but the 7 "organizations" are actually 7 categories including more discrete organizations than I care to count at the moment. The 5 holding non-committal positions are only 5 discrete organizations, meaning they are a small fraction of the total number of organizations within the scope of this article. --Yopienso (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

[[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby] William M. Connolley (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby Hmmm, thanks; interesting. --Yopienso (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature. Why no new ones?

I would be very curious what surveys show post-Climategate. This article from The Weekly Standard (which references other publications) indicates support of AGW theory is falling precipitously. [3] JettaMann (talk) 17:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

How often and how many surveys do you expect scientists to answer? There's a survey from last year and there probably will be another this year sometime for all I know, but the results might not be out till next year, do you want a monthly update or something? Dmcq (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Climategate and other bits of media hype are more likely to effect Public opinion on climate change than scientific opinion. However, when another survey/poll of scientists comes out, it'll be included here.--CurtisSwain (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Strange you should ask, but I just came across this. --Nigelj (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Here you go; as to be expected, some reporters play it up and some tone it down. Time is fairly even-handed. --Yopienso (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The "support" that the Standard claims is falling precipitously is public opinion. As the editorial board of the Weekly Standard is not scientifically competent there is no reason to believe there will be any effect on scientific opinion on climate change. Which is what this article is about. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I find this study somewhat mind-boggling. Did they actually chose their "sample" by taking the names from lists of scientists who signed statements for and against AGW (plus the AP4 working group contributors)? As they say in the article, "not comprehensive nor designed to be representative of the entire climate science community". They certainly cannot draw the conclusion that 97-98% of researchers support AGW (though they seem to have done so); it might be more or less, depending on the chances that a researcher will sign those statements. Dreadful.

Their conclusion that the supporters are more expert than the doubters is better supported, I think. But I'm not really comfortable using the study's conclusions at all, unless with a qualifier: 97-98% of researchers who sign public statements, etc. It's embarrassing for wikipedia to quote this kind of really bad statistics. MikeR613 (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

"Really bad statistics"? Why? because it doesn't support your preferred beliefs?

You should be more embarrassed by your incomplete and misleading quote. The complete statement is: "Though our compiled researcher list is not comprehensive nor designed to be representative of the entire climate science community, we have drawn researchers from the most high-profile reports and public statements about ACC. Therefore, we have likely compiled the strongest and most credentialed researchers in CE and UE groups." (emphasis added.)

The prospect that some large "silent-majority" (that do not sign statements) of climate scientists are actually contrarians is not supported by any evidence (and rather unlikely); there is no evidence of a significant difference in the beliefs of those who sign statements and those who do not. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no real opinion on whether there is "some large "silent-majority" (that do not sign statements) of climate scientists are actually contrarians". However, what I said is correct: This is not how surveys are done. You don't say that an obvious confounding variable is insignificant, when you have no idea one way or another. You don't say that your sample allows you to claim something about the overall population when it doesn't. MikeR613 (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

All very interesting, but irrelevant (on both sides of the discussion). "This is not a forum for general discussion of Scientific opinion on climate change." If the source is reliable, verifiable, and falls within the agreed scope of the article, it merits inclusion. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not arguing. But yuck. MikeR613 (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is not only a WP:RS, but it is peer reviewed. This means that the methodology will have been well-scrutinised as well as the data, its treatment and its relevance to the conclusions. --Nigelj (talk) 07:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess it doesn't mean that.:) MikeR613 (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Mike's point would indeed be relevant — if he was correct. Which I think he is not. If he is not adamantly set on the point it might be worth sorting the matter out. But perhaps not that big of an big issue. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk)

It might be an interesting discussion on a blog or in a personal essay. For Wikipedia, the matter is sorted out already, as noted above. --Airborne84 (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Has the current InterAcademy Panel on International Issues report been released to potentially add here?

Has the current InterAcademy Panel on International Issues report been released to potentially add here? 99.102.176.145 (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It isn't clear what report you're referring to, but you might want to look at the brief The two IAP coordinated statements in 2009 section in Archive 12 of this talk page.--CurtisSwain (talk) 08:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Are they the ones from Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy from the World Resources Institute, as the http://www.interacademies.net/ links to those? 99.190.90.117 (talk) 00:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they have much to do with this article, that is an investigation into some incidents not an opinion about climate change. Dmcq (talk) 07:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Add State of the Climate articles?

Add State of the Climate articles? 99.39.186.48 (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That seems to be a discussion about the present not an opinion piece about the future. Dmcq (talk) 07:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"The Future" is an extrapolation from the Past (and the Present). Science is about evidence and method process. This is roughly how valid predictions are made 99.184.229.98 (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

They don't make a prediction that I can see. Dmcq (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You, User:Dmcq, brought up "the future". Do you not read what you write? The Scientific "opinion" on "climate change" is about the past, present, and future; so your comment on the State of the Climate is confusing at best. Any other commenters? 99.155.151.95 (talk) 04:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I've read the summary again. Is the 'Decade-to-Decade Warming' section the one you mean? They say they have observed a warming over the three decades and this section says if the increase continues that could be bad for us. That isn't exactly an endorsement of climate change so I suppose this could be put in the non-committal section of the article as they are a national level scientific society. Dmcq (talk) 11:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Add Politics of global warming (United States) near User:Arthur Rubin's "edits"?

Add Politics of global warming (United States) near User:Arthur Rubin's "edits"? User:Arthur Rubin, yelling is not polite, and that is how you type when you write in ALL CAPS, and that is not leetspeak. 99.54.136.219 (talk) 05:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about here, either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I tried to figure out what was meant and also failed. Dmcq (talk) 09:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Add "Thirteen United States departments and agencies comprise the U.S. Global Change Research Program".

Add "Thirteen departments and agencies comprise the U.S. Global Change Research Program". 99.52.151.84 (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Not a "scientfic" opinion, a "political" opinion. As well use the Bush-era government positions that there (wasn't) a significant temperature increase. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Arthur Rubin, your "Bush-era" (I assume you mean "W", George W. Bush) comment got me curious: When Bush ran against VP Al Gore in 2000, "W" promised to take climate change "very seriously" and even to cap carbon emissions from power plants. That took global warming off-the-table as a campaign issue and contributed to the agreement that there was little difference between the candidates. Shortly after taking office, "W" reversed course and, under counsel of VP Dick Cheney, refused to take mandatory action and began questioning the validity of climate science; per "The Climate War" by Eric Pooley ( ISBN 978-1401323264 ) page 4. 99.190.90.62 (talk) 07:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Deify "W", maybe "we" would be better off Listening? 99.155.148.31 (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you confused? What in your world are you writing about? The current USGCR Program is thirteen entities, see its webpage; of the Federal government of the United States and the Smithsonian Institution. The addition suggestion has nothing to do with opinions. 99.88.229.145 (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about. If this is to be included as "scientific opinion", then so should the Bush-era government pronouncements to the contrary, for appropriate balance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

"Appropriate"? Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press 2004 by Jules Boykoff of American University and Max Boykoff of University of California, Santa Cruz sounds relevant at this point. 99.184.229.211 (talk) 07:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

See False balance, Argument to moderation, Media bias (specific cases any way) (the history of the Fairness Doctrine & Equal-time rule), and the Canadian Accurate News and Information Act. 99.24.250.208 (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It does sound to me more like a government funding agency for scientific enterprises rather than a scientific society in itself. The .gov at the end of the website url sort of confirms that for me. Dmcq (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

There is NO MENTION of Administrations. Do you believe you are on Talk:Politics of global warming (United States) User:Arthur Rubin? Both should read "The Climate War" by Eric Pooley, in regards to that topic. 99.184.231.77 (talk) 23:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No. Do you? It might be appropriate there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2009

We should include a statement that this study has been widely criticized. I don't have refs at hand, or time to find them now, but Roger Pielke, Jr.'s blog would be a place to start. Pete Tillman (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Negative. The Anderegg (PNAS) paper is a scientific paper, published in a scientific journal according to scientific standards. Whereas the criticism (such has been seen so far) is just the usual politicized blogosphere ranting, not reliable and highly POV. If you happen to find some scientific criticism, that might be pertinent. But if, instead of seeking out any pertinent evidence and then neutrally assessing it, you only seek out criticism that supports your pre-determined view, then that would be a POV problem in itself. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a stretch to call this a scientific paper. It is little more than propaganda and mutual admiration among like-minded folks. Criticism does not have to be scientific, it simply has to reliable and verifiable. Minor4th 21:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Why do you want to single out this study exclusively for criticism? (That's a rhetorical question - the answer is obvious.) None of the coverage of the other studies includes criticism. That's as it should be, because it's not necessary - the section is merely reporting the findings of the studies, not debating the rights and wrongs of those findings. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Assuming your comment is directed at me? I'm not singling out this study for criticism -- I have no idea what criticism of the paper exists or whether it's reliable or not. I couldn't care less if this article includes criticism of this particular paper or not, but it's incorrect to say that criticism of a paper in a scientific journal must be scientific. Let's at least state the correct guideline. Minor4th 00:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I also disagree with adding a statement. There's a place for criticism like that on Wikipedia, but it's not here. This article is probably already too large at over 100kb. If we adjusted its scope to include criticism, the article would grow far beyond its current size. According to WP:SPLIT, articles over 100kb "should almost certainly be divided". There may be justification to keep an article over that size, but adding another huge section to this article ignores the guidelines on article size. Adding that section would require an immediate split of the material to a separate article. If there is not an article that covers this topic adequately (I suspect Global warming controversy will do), a new article should be created. --Airborne84 (talk) 02:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI Global warming controversy is 133kb. This article is 103kb. Minor4th 05:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd have thought criticism blogs would be giving undue weight in an article like this, just the same as it would be in any other scientific article that has lots of reliable scientific sources, never mind that blogs aren't counted as reliable sources normally. Surely a criticism in a reliable source should be cited before starting a discussion like this? Dmcq (talk) 08:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You are right, Dmcq, but many editors don't understand the "undue weight" principle (this may not apply to anyone here, of course) and that can lead to useless arguments. I thought a more concrete reason might be more successful at bringing this thread to a reasonable conclusion. --Airborne84 (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

As Minor4th has no "refs" supporting his proposal, has "no idea what criticism of the paper exists", and "couldn't care less" – yes, perhaps it was just an unguarded brain burp (it happens) that doesn't really warrant so much attention. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a proposal. I think you're mistaking me for the OP in this section. I am not proposing that criticism of the PNAS paper should be added to this article. I was merely correcting a misstatement that a paper published in a scientific journal can only be balanced by scientific criticism. The attention in this thread should be to the OP and not to my correction of a misstatement about reliable sourcing. (I was also stating my opinion that it's a stretch to call the PNAS paper a scientific paper, but that was an aside and not a proposal that my view be included in the article -- so sorry if that caused confusion). Minor4th 23:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

  Oops! My apologies, I did get a little cross-wired there. Well, I think the specific proposal here has failed. But your allegation ("correction") really is the core issue here: is non-scientific criticism of scientific results credible? (Should we start a new section here?) To put it just a little differently: are the unfounded, unsourced, and largely unconsidered opinions of any random yahoo to be given equal weight with the researched, considered, documented, and vetted conclusions of experts? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

That is *so* the core issue here. So much so that I believe some people are currently waiting for arbcom to publish a decision on it. --Nigelj (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Seperately, if the paper is notable in and of itself (due to RS commentary etc) - it would qualify for it's own article - which would be an inherently more appropriate place to discuss non-science based opinion of it, than this article. Such an article would of course be linkied from here. ‒ Jaymax✍ 17:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, can anyone explain (justify?) why this paper is given a 2009 date? It is standard practice that work is cited by the year it is published, and this paper was published this year (June, 2010). If there are no objections I suggest this be corrected in the article. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You can blame me. I wrote it in a manner that states that the study was conducted in 2009—which it was. However, I've also observed that it's not necessary to be hyperaccurate on Wikipedia (popular audience). I've no objection to rewording if you'd like. --Airborne84 (talk) 01:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not "hyperaccuracy", just standard convention, that work is dated (for citation purposes) when it is published. At any rate, I gather there are no objections to making this little correction. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Along with some very minor corrections. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis -- collection of statements

I've just read this article and IMHO it violates WP:SYNTH & WP:NOT(specifically WP:NOTSOAP) as it is a collection of media statements from an indescriminate collection of organisations some of who's opinion are dubious to even be included within the scope "Scientific opinion". Specifically groups like the Australian Medical Association, Engineers Australia, WildLife society, American Academy of Pediatrics, Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand...... Add to that many of the organisation who opinion is list dont even have wikilinks but are EL's making this appear to be a collection on WP:EL's. I would suggest that the whole section Statements by organizations be removed from the article. I'm aware this article has been a battleground hence I've ony tagged the article and listed my concerns here for discussion Gnangarra 05:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you read any of the prior discussion? This stuff is eerily familiar. I don't think your concerns are correct and I don't think the tag is useful William M. Connolley (talk) 11:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF I have never seen, read or edited this article prior to today even though I've been editing for five years about four of those as an admin. I tagged the article after I read and admit I hadnt ventured to the talk page before doing so , honestly but for the comment about a 1R limit to the article I'd have just sent it to WP:AFD. So many of the sources are just quotes from WP:ELs as primary sources who have no apparent "climate change" credentials but are rather just political lobby groups especially the ones in my area of knowledge, Australia most of them wouldnt be remotely considered as reliable souces for "Scientific opinion" on the matter. What is lacking in this article is reliable sources that tie the opinions of these groups together and give them any context. The claims of Austraian organisations is not an Australian opinion that is the realm of the government and it scientific organisation CSIRO. if your look at the source#13 that attributes it to 17 countries its list a number of them including Australia but when you look at the sources it says 16 and doesnt list any. There in the issue is a random collection of comment group together to express a POV ie its a WP:SYNTH its reads like a WP:SOAPBOX as the quotes rely on primary sources. Gnangarra 16:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with Gnangarra. The fact that this article is about "opinion" and then synthesizes from that is very concerning for NPOV. The prior talk may be defending the original research. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Another thing, the singular form "opinion" is very troublesome (see avoid singular form [4]) because it synthesizes that there is a singular opinion. When in reality, with NPOV and that clearly evident facts, there are multiple opinions. At the very least, the title should be plural, because plurality, particular with opinions, implies objectivity whereas singular is subjective (like in this article is a POV push). I suspect this article was pushed out of the singular IPCC opinion, which may force out other NPOviews. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree. Please give specifics of disagreement instead of just opinion. I will remove the tag as being pure WP:IDONTLIKE. Dmcq (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Dmcq, please restore the tag until the discussion is completed, Thanks Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason why it was stuck in, there has been discussions like this before and it was removed before. Shouldn't it be left as previous discussion has decided rather than being changed for any drive by edit and kept that way whilst arguing over non-existent reasons? Dmcq (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

May I point out WP:BRD Bold, revert, discuss. It is not bold, keep till end of discussion, discuss. Dmcq (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way as far as I can make out Gnangarra complains that CSIRO is not mentioned. It is a government organization not a national scientific one. There is a similar case just above where someone was talking about an American government organization. Dmcq (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I point out that the article proports represents the Austraian POV, but it doesnt do it using reliable and credible sources -- CSIRO is mentioned as an example of a credible publicly recognised source from Australia, if you take 5 minutes to trawl through their database you'll find plenty of "quotes" to add to this synthesis. With that I directly point out at the source that claims it to be an Australian POV and note two problems the first one is the source refers to 16 countries the article says 17 countries. The second is a list in the article of countries including Australia but the source has no such list, nor does it specificly mention the countries in that list. Gnangarra 01:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEtheTAG. There are reasons given, and you are talking about them. Dmcq, you should seriously reevaluate yourself considering this Wikipedia:Tagging_pages_for_problems#Removing_tags. Folks a getting POed over tags now. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Your 'agree' above said nothing about the synthesis point, just that synthesis can be bad for NPOV. WP:SYN describes synthesis and you have what the OP wrote above which they assert justifies the charge. I've said how I think the OP has misunderstood the basis of scientific opinion. How about you putting some point together about what the OP said rather than just attacking the removal of the tag? Dmcq (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you miss this point above [5] Dmcq? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

That edit talks about NPOV and the word opinion in the title. It ignore the OP's points. Dmcq (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree with the tagging. This is a "synthesized" issue, which is "eerily familiar" because has been repeatedly lobbed at various "climate change" articles, possibly reflecting a persistent and even willful misunderstanding that is rising to WP:Disruptive editing#Refusal to "get the point". By the way, ZuluPapa5: it's been ten days without a response from you on Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming#Incorrect list sources. How about getting back with us there so we can try to sort out at least one dispute? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• No wonder this article has a 1R sanction, look at the amount of bickering about the tag and thats all thats being focused on. Forget I even bothered to point out WP:SYNTH and WP:NOT issues along with questioning how Australian Medical Association, Engineers Australia, WildLife society, American Academy of Pediatrics, Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand can be considered credible organisations on the Science of Climate Change nor that their opinions arent discussed/disected/analysised by any independent third party reliable source but are just quotes from themselves all of which combined in this article makes it look like a EL link farm of original research to push a point of view. I really dont care how the editors of the article choose to resolve this, I came here from a readers POV and saw that the article clearly doesnt comply with 2 of our communities 5 core principles. This discussion also highlights that the editors of this article appear to struggle with a third one of those principles, and happens because the article lacks the necessary WP:RS to guide its formation and purpose. Gnangarra 01:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay will do. Dmcq (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should forget what you said, as it seems you do not understand the nature of the article. But perhaps not, as this is getting to be a persistent issue. So let us be perfectly clear: this is not an article on the science of climate change, it is about scientific opinion on climate change. For which the IPCC reports are the premier source, and their conclusions represent the majority, consensus scientific opinion on the science. But some of you controvert this, controvert that the IPCC is the authoritative secondary source on climate science, and so we have tertiary sources, essentially character witnesses that vouch for the reliability and integrity of the IPCC and its conclusions. You cavil that these tertiary sources are not credible re climate science, and "their opinions arent discussed/disected/analysised by any independent third party reliable source but are just quotes from themselves." What some of you don't seem to understand is that these are the "third party reliable sources", which are verifying the reliability of the IPCC and its conclusions. The only synthesis in the article is the one left to the readers: that you can sift very fine without finding any credible organization disagrees with the IPCC. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point J.Johnson; however, simply put this article attempts to synthesize a single opinion view, when NPOV demand articles consist of multiple opinions (i.e. plurality). Again, the title is misleading and cause for concern with NPOV and synthesis in this article, never-mind right now that folks consider that the IPCC is the only authoritative opinion on the subject. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What is it that you do not understand about WP:WEIGHT? And particularly WP:VALID? You completely misunderstand WP:NPOV when you state that it demands that articles consist of "multiple opinions". Actually, it could be said that this article does have multiple opinions (from all these organizations regarding the IPCC's conclusions) – what is really stuck in your craw is that they all agree: the IPCC is authoritative on this topic.

As to the title, it boggles my mind how any reasonably objective person could consider it misleading. The only point of view I can see is the inherent suggestion that a scientific opinion might be relevant in matters of objective reality . It seems that what you really want is to insert some political opinion. Well, perhaps you should consider creating a Political opinion on climate change article. But before you do that, how back getting back to a previous issue awaiting resolution? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What I see, is that folks have no choice but to accept the IPCC mission pointed opinion. Seem like anything else is met with a squad that abuses undue weight and fringe, to whole hardly defend as single IPCC point of view. The IPCC authority, is as a questionable source with a single purpose and no editorial oversight process, or fair conflict resolution method. The IPCC is clearly authoritarian which when presented in Wikipedia as the "Scientific opinion", is offensive to NPOV. Well we may have a NPOV dispute here. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

So now you are accusing me of being part of "a squad that abuses undue weight and fringe"? (I presume you mean WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE, right?) On which basis you will claim a NPOV dispute, and then tag the article? That is entirely unreasonable. I hesitate to ask you to support your accusation because previous experience shows that you like to dance around and make preposterous claims, but you do not stick around to discuss them, or even to support them. (Like here, where we are still waiting for your response.)

You also change the subject a lot. If I might steer this discussion back on track, let me ask you again: What is it that you do not understand about WP:WEIGHT? As the lead sentence in the article says: "Scientific opinion on climate change is given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists." And in a long list of scientific (and even what might be considered "semi-scientific") bodies the overwhelming majority support the IPCC's conclusions. If you think that is incorrect, then show us: name some scientific (or even semi-scientific) organzations, amounting to more than "an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority" that do not concur with the IPCC. (For extra credit, show us that you have some minimal familiarity with WP:WEIGHT by identifying where that quoted language comes from.) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(Following space reserved for ZuluPapa5's list of scientific bodies that do not concur with the IPCC.)

• [6] a scientific body in disagrement with the IPCC. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Not a scientific body, and not of national or international standing. This is just SEPP/Heartland in disguise. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you applying synthesized criteria? Should we settle this at the Reliable Source notice board? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No. Settle what? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That link is to the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, a 501c3 (look out for governmental influence!) run by the Idso brothers and their father, noted for being #8 on the "Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial". Also noted for an article that concluded "the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content will continue to increase food production around the world, while maintaining the nutritive quality of that food and enhancing the production of certain disease-inhibiting plant compounds." They don't disclose their finances, but surely their conclusions are in no way influenced by the $90,000 ExxonMobil reported giving them. Not notably credible per WP:RS.

Is that the best you can do? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

A quote from WP:WEIGHT (part of WP:NPOV):

• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

As only one source (and a dubious one at that) has been presented, there seems to be a credible case that naming a "prominent adherent" – in this case, scientific bodies that do not concur with the IPCC – is not easy, and that viewpoint is not held by a significant minority. Another quote from WP:WEIGHT:

• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

For all the political blathering about AGW, scientific opinion (which is what this article is about) is overwhelmingly as the IPCC concluded, and as endorsed by an overwhelming majority of scientific bodies. Contrary to a statement made above (that "NPOV demand articles consist of multiple opinions"), WP:NPOV does not demand inclusion of viewpoints "held by an extremely small ... minority", and even rejects them. (To the extent that any AGW contrarian views need to be represented that would be more than sufficiently covered with a link to List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming – anything more would be undue weight.) Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the complaints made above re weight and NPOV are invalid, and arise from a lack of understanding of WP:NPOV. Any "augmentation" of the IPCC conclusions is not required, and even incorrect.

  If the forgoing be accepted, and these side issues cleared away, perhaps we could get back to the original topic of this section, of whether this article violates WP:SYNTH. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

While I'm here (1) 'scientific opinion', like 'public opinion' is a mass noun - it inherently incorporates the variety and vagary of opinions that qualify as scientific, and would be grammatically incorrect to pluralise. (2) WP:SYN is about content, not topic, and would require that there is some text somewhere in the article that can be shown to be a synthesis. (note the exceptions allowed for basic math, etc) - I really can't see anywhere in the article that could be construed as such. ‒ Jaymax✍ 16:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The article's premises and "allowability" have been questioned before (ad nauseum) and the consensus (although not unanimous, to be sure) has been to keep the article in its current form—for many of the reasons described above, and others. The other reasons can be found throughout the archives.

Good to see you again Jaymax. Where've you been? --Airborne84 (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

lol - thanks - Let's just say I needed an extended break before I could be bothered. ‒ Jaymax✍ 12:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Gnangarra - I've addressed synthesis above - you further argue: that this is an 'indiscriminate' collection of information - that is false, the discriminationg criteria are clear - Scientific society of nationial or international standing - Then you seem to be arguing that the standard is quite loose, but because it doesn't include any contrary opinions it must be soapboxing. Your logic is somewhat self-contradictory. ‒ Jaymax✍ 12:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I have not argue about contrary opinions, I question the synthesis of different primary sources because there are no reliable secondary sources have made such a synthesis. Therefore it's just an indescriminate collection of quotes that have been grouped together to present a POV, it doesnt matter whether its a positive, negative or even a neutral view the syth is in combining them all under the banner of scientific opinion. what source says Australian Medical Association, Engineers Australia, WildLife society, American Academy of Pediatrics, Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand these are a Scientific society of nationial or international standing Gnangarra 14:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

And I believe I have adequately addressed (above) your specific concerns. The IPCC is the reliable secondary source that surveyed thousands of primary sources to provide the most authoritative possible statement of scientific opinion on climate change. This "indescriminate collection" of sources that you complain about are the tertiary sources that endorse the IPCC and its findings. They are not a synthesis of opinion, they are a demonstration that the IPCC findings represent the majority opinion. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Gnangarra, the organisations you list are scientific societies by definition - and they are in each case the established national body for their discipline. The list is demonstrably not indiscriminate, and I'm sorry you can't see that - but it's very difficult to explain the obvious. The argument you make about synthesis is not supported by any Wikipedia policy. I take a different line to J Johnson above - This article would still be valid, even if the IPCC entry wasn't there. Finally, it is not our fault that the POV of current scientific opinion is what it is. Many many WP articles present a POV, because it is in the nature of the topic covered. This is consistent with WP policy ‒ Jaymax✍ 01:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Right. I'm afraid some folks here confuse WP:POV with WP:NPOV – neutral point of view. There is always a point of view. Wikipedia policy is that "balance" follows prominence, and so the article necessarily follows what is the overwhelmingly majority opinion. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Remove section U.S. Global Change Research Program

There was some talk above about the section 'U.S. Global Change Research Program' about Climate Change Science Program. It has a tag saying it may stray from the topic of the article and basically I agree with that. I believe it is a government organization to fund science rather than an actual scientific organization. Any objections if I just delete the section? Dmcq (talk) 19:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The IPCC is about on the same track, in terms of government funding, they receive it to write opinionated synthesis reports which create further Wikipedia synthesis articles. Should we delete the IPCC too? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a big difference between getting some money from the government and being part of the government giving it out. I take it you're happy with removing the section. Dmcq (talk) 13:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

There is little difference between the IPCC and the CCSP, as in both not actually conducing physical research (but for psychometric research). How does removing the CCSP help the article? The CCSP is highly relevant to this article. The overwhelming majority of "scientific organizations" are in fact "government organizations" by virtue of their non-profit status. The distinction you draw is meaningless. Thanks for asking, let's improve it over remove it. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

One can hardly doubt that for instance the Royal Society is a scientific organization and it doesn't do research and a statement from it is on behalf of its members.

I just had another look at the article and I see the IPCC and the U.S. Global Change Research Program are not actually listed as scientific organizations but as producing synthesis reports. I'll have to think about that, perhaps that does remove my objection though I tend to be a bit leery of the results of government enquiries even when I agree with their results. Dmcq (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

For reference, most scientific government orgs are only controlled by the gov approving their missions as a tax exempt cause, for community benefits. Thus, it is important to consider the org's stated mission when considering their scientific status. If the tax folks find that the org has gone out of their approved mission, then it could lose it's tax exempt status. It short, the gov applies the tax code to control non-profits, and non-profits are effectively owned and controlled by the government tax code. Should we take this further, we must look at approved mission statements. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You've gone from if and could to government applies and controlled with no qualification. Have you an example of this ever actually happening? Dmcq (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I follow, but check here [7] for case studies. The important point is about checking mission statements for a determination. The CCSP mission "To build a knowledge base that informs human responses to climate and global change through coordinated and integrated federal programs of research, education, communication, and decision support", would seem highly relevant to this article, and in my opinion, the CCSP mission is superior and objective as compared to the the IPCC's subjective approach at a mission (authoritatively assessing “the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change", the IPCC mission statement isn't even on their website for some hidden reason. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that statements from the American Institute of Physics for instance are influenced by the government via threats of action from the inland revenue service? That sounds highly unlikely to me. Have you any instance of something like that happening? Dmcq (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The "case studies" cited above are an IRS website of revocations of tax exempt status. By ZP5's reasoning they all may have government agents directing their activities. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Your two create ridiculous distractions, and then accusing me of the same. The point is the gov approves and regulates the tax exempt mission. Missions are very important when assessing the scientific role of an org. The CCSP should remain in this article. The article title should be changed to reflect a plurality of opinions. (I must apologize, neither the CCSP or the IPCC fall under the IRS; however, the point that missions are important is to be taken here.) Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

ZP5, can you restate that? I'm trying to follow your argument, but can't. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Where have you gone astray? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The ridiculous distraction is your contention that "non-profits are effectively owned and controlled by the government tax code". That is not just ridiculous, it is absurd. If you really believe that then further discussion is pointless because, hey, Wikipedia is (QED) controlled by the government. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Correction, U.S. non-profit are regulated by the tax code. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

By your "correction", do you retract your statement (above) that "non-profits are effectively owned and controlled [emphasis added] by the government tax code"? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

See Regulation is "controlling human or societal behavior by rules or restrictions.". At what level of control is the real question. The gov avoids operational controlling, leaving that to the trusties. For the most part, they approve the mission and maintain financial controls on what expenses qualify for the approved mission, with the tax code. Shortly, you will see how the CCSP has better editorial controls in place than the IPCC, hence the IPCC is a less reliable source.Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you not see how bizarre your statements are? First you said that "non-profits are effectively owned and controlled by the government tax code", then you "clarified" that by stating non-profits are regulated by the tax code, but now you equate regulation with controlling, so there is really – no difference. So when all the dancing around is done, it appears you have not retracted your statement that non-profits are effectively controlled by the government. In that case, you should be reassured that the IPCC is not a U.S. non-profit, and therefore avoids IRS "regulation". Right?

By the way, what was the point of adding the source to your quote? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Silly me .. the point was to have you see that regulation is a form of control. The point was mission statements are important. U.S non-profits are effectively controlled through regulation of their tax exempt expenses. The exaggerations are anoying. Why must you insist on putting me in a false light? What will be beneficial is to compare the org authority and editorial process between the IPCC, CCSP and the NIPCC. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Oh, the source tag copied with the Regulation cut and paste. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 00:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

   Though we stray a little bit from the original topic, let us spend a few moments on your citation, as that might clarify some other concerns of yours. First: have you actually read the book you cited? If not, then you have no basis for citing it; your authority extends only to where you saw someone else use it (i.e., the article Regulation). (See WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT.) However, note that (except for matters pertaining to Wikipedia) we do not cite Wikipedia articles as authority (see WP:CIRCULAR). Now I am not trying to trap you in a corner. What you need to understand is that it is not necessary to source some things, like WP:common knowledge. You have previously argued elsewhere that WP:VERIFY requires everything to be sourced, but there is a limit to that. (See also WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue.) Okay?

   Moving on: I do not dispute that regulation is a form of control. But there is a vast range of possibilities here. What I dispute is your exaggeration that "U.S non-profits are effectively controlled through regulation of their tax exempt expenses." That is so absurd as to be plain silly. But also quite irrelevant to the issue because, as I said above, the IPCC is not a "U.S. non-profit". - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Just two question for clarification please: Merchants of Doubt's Fred Singer "NIPCC" and this CCSP? 99.88.228.183 (talk) 18:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Actual formulation of a question (or two) would be a good start. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The rules for inclusion of synthesis reports needs better definition. However, I actually think this is the one place in the article where Heartland might get a toe in, which I know is an unpopular opinion. But if we allow synthesis from an gov't entity which is not 'an actual scientific organization', we MUST be consistent, and allow same from a non-gov't entity - I believe this would be a better approach than any bias driven tightening of the rules. ‒ Jaymax✍ 13:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

By "gov't entity" do you mean the CCSP or the IPCC? Either way, I hope you aren't suggesting that there needs to be any "balance" between "govt" and "non-govt" sources. Balance is based on prominence, and I don't see that any of the Heartland organizations are scientifically prominent. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Referring to CCSP/GCRP per thread topic. And no - not talking about balance in any way whatsoever - just consistency. With any list, there needs to be objective criteria - and it's not clear to me what these are for the 'synthesis reports' list section within the article. Without criteria inclusion/exclusion is open to allegations of bias. That has long been resolved in the main list through fairly solid criteria (scientific society of national or internation standing). ‒ Jaymax✍ 01:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, from the CCSP report, it clearly is a synthesis work - and as such I think is in-keeping with the article - the tag should be removed. However, I want to see objective criteria that would lead to the exclusion of the NIPCC 2009 synthesis report (I know it's bunk - but thats just my POV) if this report is included. I can't on one hand (above) defend the article by arguing that the organisation list is non-arbitrary (not indiscriminate), and then just let this go because the status-quo fits my POV ‒ Jaymax✍ 02:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Is the problem you see that "scientific bodies of national or international standing" (the implicit criterion, given twice in the lede) does not adequately define "scientific"? (Or some such?) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Not at all - that criteria was developed before this article even HAD the (list of) 'synthesis reports' section. It has never been explicit that the criteria per above ALSO applies to that new section. If the consensus is that it does, then that would mean (per discussion above - I haven't looked closely at this myself) that CCSP should be REMOVED from the list (as it is suggested it is a government science funding body, rather than a scientific body per se). If, however, the criteria for inclusion in the 'synthesis reports' list is distinct from the 'scientific body of national or international standing', and is open to 'scientifically prepared synthesis reports' generally, then the situation is different. Again - the KEY point here is that this article used to just list documented scientific opinion from bodies of blah blah; then was expanded with a section to list selective quotes that used the word 'consensus', and finally was expanded with a list of synthesis reports - criteria for inclusion in the latter two list sections has never really reached a consensus AFAICT. ‒ Jaymax✍ 00:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why this section is suppsoed to be off topic. As far as I can tell from the above discussion, Dmcq wanted to remove it, bt no-one agreed - the entire discussion got derailed. So, who still wants the tag, and why? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Three questions: Who added the tag originally? What is the criteria for including the entry (or any entry) in the list of synthesis reports? And, if relevant to the criteria, is the CCSP a scientific organisation of national standing? I support the retention of the tag for now as it highlights (what I perceive to be) a lack of consensus around such criteria. ‒ Jaymax✍ 09:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

As you could have fairly easily discovered by looking in the history, it was AR [8]. He doesn't seem to have felt the need to explain why on talk. For some reason he thinks the GCRP is a political entity. It isn't. As to the criteria: there isn't a clear one. Any credible science-based synthesis will do (so, not the NIPCC if that is what you mean).

So, does anyone have any justification for what the tag *actually says*: viz, that the material is off-topic? Rather than retaining it as a pointed to some other personal interests William M. Connolley (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thinking it over, I used the wrong tag. However, looking at the scope of the article, as given in the lede, very few of the "Human health" organizations qualify as "scientific", even if medicine is considered a science. The AMA, for example, is primarily a lobbying group. It should also be pointed out that their pronouncements on (and generally in favor of) gun control are, in addition to being usually factually wrong, are clearly outside their organization and the expertise of their members. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

WMC - Snark is not helpful. Also, 'credible' could validly be seen as a weasel word. Credible according to whom? ‒ Jaymax✍ 07:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Randomly, bizarrely, I stumbled across this while involved in a totally different discussion: Talk:Smithsonian_Institution#U.S._Global_Change_Research_Program

"The last sentence is certainly off topic for that section, although it's related , and may be a controversy. However, I question its relevance to the article at all. The Institution participates in many intragovernment and other associations; why is this one notable, unless it is controversial. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)"

I suspect it was intended for here. ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

What is a scientific organization?

  In a subsequent section Arthur Rubin raises the question of 'what is a "scientific" organization' (which I address here as being the more appropriate section). As a general answer I suggest 'an organization in the scientific community'. But here I wish to address Rubin's comment that "... it seems to mean, an organization containing scientists which produces results agreeing with the editor's opinions" [emphasis added].

  In short: no! This appears to be yet another manifestation of a POV prevalent on the right-wing, that "the government" has various nefarious means of controlling what is reported, even in the scientific community. (Another instance is Zulu Papa 5's assertion above that "non-profits are effectively owned and controlled by the government tax code".) While this view needs a general rebuttal, here I would like to touch upon the nature of science: it is based primarily on objective reality, the scientific method, and especially peer review. While perfection on these matters is not always obtained, and editors will tend to look askance at reports that seem bizarre or conflict with well-established results, yet there is an excellent track record in following the science. (Keep in mind the adage that "the race is not always to the swift, nor the fight to the strong – but that is the way to bet.")

  It might be kept in mind that the actual, documented instances of where "the [U.S.] government" attempted to influence global warming science it was to suppress or minimize the science, and it was at the behest of political appointees of the previous Republican administration, which as a matter of doctrine denies AGW. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

My assumed definition of what we mean is a Learned society where the discipline(s) involved come from the world of science. We could be specific about something like that if useful - to date, the question of standing has effectively worked around whether a specific organisation is suitably 'scientific'. ‒ Jaymax✍ 07:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

  I hadn't seen Learned society before – that looks good. I think the criteria to be used here really depends on the use. I.e., are we looking for credible organizations that have independently reviewed the literature and made a determination of what the prevailing scientific opinion is? Considering the size of the primary literature, that is a monumental task far beyond the capabilities of most organizations; the IPCC's work is the premier review. Alternately, are we looking for organizations that stand somewhat in the role of auditors (or character witnesses) that essentially vouch for the IPCC and its conclusions of what scientific opinion is? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The error in the first part is in the focus on made a determination of what the prevailing scientific opinion is - That is a matter of the Scientific Consensus - which is a closely related, but distinct topic. The error in the second part, is to assume that any Scientific Learned Society who's opinion properly contributes to the mass of Scientific Opinion, must use or consider the IPCC report (of course that would be somewhat expected in a great number of cases - but is not a requirement). The question is simply, does the Organisation have an opinion which contributes to the SOoCC, and does it have sufficient standing (a necessary, arbitrary discriminator to avoid a pointless and huge list). It may be sensible to require that the discipline of the organisation includes a research area relevant to CC (including potential effects) - and this question has come up before; but in reality it's virtually always possible to make such a case, given the breadth of the issue ‒ Jaymax✍ 01:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that Learned Society is linked in the current FAQ entry, under a different title. ‒ Jaymax✍ 01:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)