Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:51, 31 January 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scientific consensus on climate change article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25Auto-archiving period: 9 days

Template:Community article probation

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Environment: Climate change This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Climate change.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Scientific consensus on climate change. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Scientific consensus on climate change at the Reference desk.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

faq page Frequently asked questions Under construction! "‡" indicates answer not yet prepared. See Talk page for current discussions. To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question. Q1: Is there really a scientific consensus on global warming? Yes. The IPCC findings of recent warming as a result of human influence are explicitly recognized as the "consensus" scientific view by the science academies of all the major industrialized countries. No scientific body of national or international standing presently rejects the basic findings of human influence on recent climate. (Discussion) (From GW/FAQ:A1) Q2: Is the section on "dissenting organizations" adequately supported? The current consensus is that it is. There have been numerous lengthy discussions regarding the AMQUA and AAPG sources. Some have criticized the AMQUA letter as an unreliable reference. Others have stated that the combination of the AMQUA letter and the AAPG statement is against WP:SYN. The most recent consensus on this topic can be found at Talk:Scientific consensus on climate change#straw poll. Q3: How can you say there's a consensus when someone has compiled a long list of skeptical scientists? Over the years, a number of lists of so-called "skeptical scientists" have been produced. Notable among these are the Oregon Petition (circa 1999-2001, and re-circulated in 2007) and James Inhofe's list (originally released in 2007, re-released in 2008 with additional names added). These petitions have proven to be riddled with flaws To wit: Many of the people listed aren't really scientists. For example, the definition of a "scientist" used in the Oregon Petition includes anyone who has a bachelor's degree – or anyone who claims to have a bachelor's degree, since there's no independent verification. Using this definition, approximately 25% of the US population is qualified to sign. Some of the people listed aren't even people. Included on these lists are fictitious characters ("Dr. Perry Mason"), hoaxes ("Dr. Geri Halliwell"), and companies. Of those who have a scientific background most work in fields unrelated to climate, such as the chemistry of coal ashes or the interactions between quarks and gluons. Those who are scientists are listed arbitrarily, and many aren't skeptical of global warming. The Inhofe list was compiled by Inhofe staffer Marc Morano with no effort to contact the people listed. One climatologist, George Waldenberger, even informed Inhofe's staff that he is not skeptical of the consensus on global warming. His request to have his name removed from the list was ignored. Similarly, Steve Rainer of Oxford University has asked for his name to be removed and calls his inclusion "quite outrageous". The Heartland Institute has stated that scientists who have told the Institute that it misrepresented their views on global warming "have no right – legally or ethically – to demand that their names be removed" from the Institute's list. (From GW/FAQ:A2) Q4: Why should scientific opinion count for more than public opinion? Because "science" – either as the time-tested methodologies for learning about the world, or as the immense body of knowledge that has been garnered by those methodologies, or even as the international "scientific community" of tens of thousands of highly trained professionals that use these methodologies – has the better track record. Because the science of climate is based on fundamental laws of physics and chemistry, with the conclusions based on factual data, and the consensus "opinion" has been vetted by hundreds of experts. Whereas the contrarian portion of public opinion has a poor track record, being shaped by politically motivated rhetoric (financed by the "interested" industries) that pushes certain points of view in disregard of objective, factual reality. (For an example, see the previous question.) Q5: Weren't scientists telling us in the 1970s that we were cooling instead of warming? No, they were not – see the article on global cooling. A 2008 paper in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society reviewed "what the scientists were telling us" in the 1960s and 1970s, and found the following. One of the earliest papers in climate science, published in 1963, reported that a global cooling trend had begun in 1940s, which seemed to be underscored by unusually severe winters in 1972 and 1973 in parts of North America. (It was later shown that this supposed global trend was limited to the Northern Hemisphere, and offset by a warming trend in the Southern Hemisphere.) Other papers, looking at natural causes of climate variability, such as the Milankovitch cycles, "predicted" another Ice Age in 20,000 years (but only if human activity did not interfere). A survey of the peer-reviewed literature for this period showed a total of seven papers that predicted, implied, or indicated global cooling. On the other hand, 44 papers were found that predicted global warming. That there was some diversity of outlook is not surprising, as scientists often have extremely narrow, "knot-hole" views of a subject, and their conclusions are usually limited to whether the particular phenomena they have studied makes a positive or negative contribution to a general trend. The net result of many such contributions, and the overall effect or trend, is assessed by the occasional review paper, or expert panels at scientific conferences. By 1979 the scientific consensus was clear that the eminent threat was not global cooling, but global warming. The common misperception that "Back in the 1970s, all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming" – in less than 20,000 years – is fictional, based on a few studies that were sensationalized in the popular press, and subsequent misrepresentation by political writers. (See also GW/FAQ:A13) Q6: Why should we trust scientists that work for the government? ‡ (Discussion) Q7: Why does this article rely primarily on the conclusions of the IPCC? Because the conclusions of the IPCC, produced through the collaborative efforts of thousands of experts, are the result of the most thorough survey of the state of climate science (or of any science) ever done. There is simply no other organization or effort that is comparable. Q9: Isn't the IPCC a biased source? ‡ (Discussion) Q10: Why should we trust reports prepared by biased UN scientists? The IPCC reports are not produced by "UN scientists". The IPCC does not employ the scientists who generate the reports, and has no control over them. The scientists are internationally recognized experts, most with a long history of successful research in the field. They are employed by a number of different organizations, including scientific research institutes, agencies like NASA and NOAA, and universities. They receive no extra pay for their participation in the IPCC process, which is considered a normal part of their academic duties. (Discussion) (From GW/FAQ:A11) Q11: Why doesn't the article include dissent from the consensus by noted scientists and IPCC contributors? The IPCC consensus regarding climate change was formally developed by thousands of experts, based on the entirety of climate science research and interpretation. The "several prominent contributors" said to be "critical" of the consensus do not constitute a sufficiently significant minority view to warrant inclusion (per the policy of WP:WEIGHT). Nor has any scientific authority been cited that suggests these criticisms in any way challenge the science of the consensus. See also the next two questions. (Discussion) Q12:There are plenty of scientists who dispute human-caused global warming. Why aren't their opinions included? Numerous individual scientists have made a variety of public statements on this topic, both dissenting and concurring, and everything in between. Including those statements here would make the article overwhelming long and cumbersome, and would be granting them far too much undue weight. Public statements made by individual scientists only reflect the opinions of those individuals and not of the scientific community as a whole. (Discussion) Q13: Why doesn't this article include any dissenting views? Non-scientific views (whether dissenting or assenting) are not included because this article is about scientific opinion. There are no "statements by dissenting organizations" because (as noted in the article) "no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change". Views of individual dissenting scientists are not significant enough to be included in the consensus (a 2010 report estimated the dissenters to be less than 3% of active climate researchers, and their expertise and scientific prominence "substantially below" that of their peers); to include them here would violate the policy of undue weight. (Discussion, discussion, discussion) Q14: Why doesn't this article mention the Oregon Petition or other lists of dissenting scientists? See Question #2. (Discussion) Q15: Where is the Scientific Opinion against Anthropogenic (human caused) Global Warming? What "Scientific Opinion against AGW"? The synthesis of scientific opinion — that is, the view that best represents all climate science research and interpretation, and particularly whether there is, or is not, AGW — is that most of the observed increase in global average temperature is very likely (probability greater than 90%) anthropogenic. It would be more sensible to ask, "what is the scientific case that global warming is not anthropogenic?" But this case is so overwhelmed by the evidence, and held by so few scientists (if any!), that it simply lacks sufficient weight for consideration. (The argument that there is no global warming, that it is not human caused, and that the expected effects are only "alarism", is prominent only in non-scientific venues, and this article is about scientific opinion.) (Discussion, discussion) Q16: Is this article slanted or biased because it presents only one side of the debate? ‡ (Discussion) Q17: Is this article a prohibited synthesis of the opinions of the listed scientific bodies? No. The synthesis of scientific opinion on climate change (based on the primary sources) was done by the IPCC (a reliable secondary source). The statements of the various scientific organizations are affirmations of the IPCC's conclusion; their inclusion in the article establishes the IPCC as a reliable source, and affirms the synthesis it reached as a consensus view. (Discussion) Q20: What exactly is a "scientific body of national or international standing"? An Academy of Sciences or a scientific society that maintains a national or international membership, and that is well-regarded within the scientific community could be said to be of "national or international standing." Discerning how well-regarded a particular scientific body is requires some familiarity with the scientific community. However, for academies or societies that produce scientific journals, some assessment of their standing can be derived from their journal's impact factor ratings as provided by Journal Citation Reports. The journals Science, from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and PNAS, from the US National Academy of Sciences, are considered to be among the world's most influential and prestigious. (Discussion) Q21: What are the criteria for including organizations? ‡ (Discussion) Q22: Is it fair to assume that organizations not listed as supporting are undecided? No. It is fairer to ask, what organizations? It is more likely that any "organizations not listed" simply do not exist, as a reasonable search has not found any. Even easing the definition of a scientific organization to a point that became questionable did not find any undecided organizations (aside from the AAPG). An earlier form of the question noted that the listed organizations are predominately American or British Commonwealth (which is what might be expected for the English-language Misplaced Pages), and questioned whether there might be smaller, non-English speaking nations with scientific societies that are undecided on the issue. This is a possibility, but unlikely; the InterAcademy Council that represents the world's scientific and engineering academies affirms global warming and its dangers. (Discussion) Q25: Given the obvious NPOV violation why shouldn't I tag this article as NPOV? Because the purpose of a tag is to alert other editors to a possible problem, but in this case the other editors are already aware of the alleged problem. Because per WP:General sanctions/Climate change probation you could be sanctioned for just adding a tag. Because the general consensus is that the article is NOT an WP:NPOV violation (see next question). Q26: Does this article violate the Misplaced Pages Neutral Point of View policy? ‡ (discussion, discussion, discussion) References Dissenter on Warming Expands His Campaign. New York Times, April 9, 2009. Retention of sulphur by laboratory-prepared ash from low-rank coal Today: George Waldenberger. Grist.org. December 3, 2007. Kaufman, Leslie (April 9, 2009). "Dissenter on Warming Expands His Campaign". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-07-09. Peterson, T. C.; Connolley, W. M.; Fleck, J. (2008). "The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 89 (9): 1325. Bibcode:2008BAMS...89.1325P. doi:10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1. Crichton, M. (2004), State of Fear, Avon Books. Anderegg, William R. L.; Prall, James W.; Harold, Jacob; Schneider, Stephen H. (April 9, 2010). "Expert credibility in climate change". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Retrieved June 23, 2010. AAAS - AAAS News Release AAAS Annual Report-Science The most influential journals: Impact Factor and Eigenfactor PNAS Retrieved on 2009-11-16

Scientific consensus on climate change received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25

This page has archives. Sections older than 9 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Content Fork

Going back to the thread Content fork, it is clear that issues raised have not been adressed in any shape or form.

1. As this article stands, its title "Scientific opinion on climate change" is not a recognised term used to address its subject matter by the world at large.
2. The article lacks any form of definition from a reliable secondary source. In fact, there is no single source cited that mentions, let alone address directly and in detail, the subject of "Scientific opinion on climate change".
3. The hatnote and lead of this article which define the articles subject matter is comprised of original research.

The legitimacy of this content fork in relation to Misplaced Pages's content policies is in question, yet nothing has been done to address this key issue. What is to be done? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

--Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what adding links to various websites, including those that cite Misplaced Pages as their source, in any way diminishes the criticism. What is lacking are at least several reliable secondary sources to identify "Scientific opinion on climate change" as a seperate subject in its own right. The fact that the subject of these links is Climate change is not helping the discussions. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It shows that at least 3 reliable sources consider the Scientific opinion on climate change both interesting and worthy of reporting about. And that should be all that is needed to match your previous objections. Now please back away from the poor equine stiff :-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Correction. Only one source is reliable (the rest are unpublished websites) and the subject of the only peer reviewed article is "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". This article is probably nearer to the article title, but it only mentions "Mainstream scientific opinion". The fact remains that "Scientific opinion on climate change" is not a defined or recognised subject in its own right. If scientific opinion is cited in Misplaced Pages articles, it is used within the context of recognised article topics such as Climate Change, Global Warming or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, not split out from articles addressing the same topic. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't an "unpublished web site" not be on some intranet? Preferably a small one? Of course the sites are published. You might try to argue reliability, but Science Daily has been around for 15 years, has an editorial staff, and has won numerous awards. It's not a peer-reviewed journal, but for general comments and notability it's plenty good enough. And the Science Council looks pretty reliable to me, as well... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The article may not be a prime candidate for deletion, but the title is not ideal. It is vague and could lead to a WP:COATRACK of pro and anti global warming sources. My view is that the issues here are best dealt with in other articles about climate change, with care taken about sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ 19:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Scientific consensus on climate change might be a bit better I think but I really can't see the need. I do not see why you think my reply was disingenuoius and I see nothing relevant at the attached link Denying the antecedent. The point is the best way to get something done on Misplaced Pages is to do something positive like suggesting a new name and giving reasons or proposing a delete and giving reasons why it is a good idea. What has been done here is totally negative - and the replies have been dismissed in a negative way with no positive contribution. There's been other complaints about the title and hatnote and the existence of the article, they have been a bit more positive with suggestions about new names, changes or where to merge. The consensus so far seems to have been to do very little. There is no point expecting any action when nothing except complaints are voiced and people have talked about it before. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia which is written by its contributors and the operative word is contribute. Say what you want rather than what you don't want or write a bit of article text if you want something useful to happen. Dmcq (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Dmcq, a valiant attempt, but it will fall on deaf ears. Having watched Gavin Collins' lengthy objections last month (and responding to some of them because I assumed good faith on his part), I finally decided to stop wasting time by addressing them. My recommendation? Read through some of his archived posts. If he's saying something different now, feel free to respond. If he's just repeating something that did not gain consensus before, it's best to save time by not typing responses. Worse, lengthy discussions lend credibility to otherwise senseless arguments. Airborne84 (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• The issues which I addressed in my previous posts are just as relevant now as they were then, and dismissing them as being "negative" or "time wasting" is not shedding any light on this article being a content fork, or the damaging consequences of allowing this state of affairs to persist.

1. To establish the notability of this topic, and to refute the criticism that this article is a content fork, requires significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that address the article title directly and in detail, which are absent from the lead or the body of this article. For instance, the articles Climate Change, Global Warming and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are addressed directly and in detail, usually by sources which are expressing some form of opinion, whether it is scientific, economic, political or otherwise.
2. Clearly there are several editors that disagree with the assertion that this article is a content fork (fair enough), but if the main issue is disputed, then at least consider the symptoms that are the badge of a content fork. The hatnote and lead to this article are original research, and do not define the article's subject matter in any meaningful way.
3. The lack of a recognised definition, one that is defined in terms of reliable source which would provide context to the reader, is absent. As it stands, this article can only be understood within the context of the over arching article topics (e.g. Climate Change, Global Warming etc.), and cannot be read as a seperate topic on its own. Its content, while referenced and ordered, address topics which fall outside this article, and has expanded with no logical rationale other than to fit all of the content that has been added to it.
4. Instead, original research has been employed to provide context, rather than reliable sources that are directly related to the title of this article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. Since these issues were brought to your attention on this talk page, there have been many alterations to the hatnote and the lead, but the issue that the starting point is original research, no matter how many times it has been altered to "make the lead fit the article", has not been resolved.
5. No matter how innocuous the lead is, is wholly unsatisfactory for an article to lead with analytic or evaluative claims that "Scientific opinion on climate change is given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists", when in fact this statement is unsupported and misleading. In reality, opinion on climate change comes from many sources, and must be evaluated together, not seperately.
6. If this article topic is not a recognised by the wider world, and its subject matter and scope can only be defined in terms of original research, then what purpose does it serve? One answer might be that it is simply an unintentional content fork, whose subject matter(s) are dealt with directly and in detail elsewhere by articles topics that are recognised by the world at large. Another is that this article, is in effect, a POV fork, designed to segrate scientific opinion from other forms of opinion that provide commentary, criticism or analysis about Climate Change, Global Warming etc., perhaps to avoid criticism or commentary that are the hallmarks of balanced coverage.

In short, the basis for inclusion of this topic as a standalone article is a form of intellectual apartheid, whereby opinions about similar topics are being artifically sepeated from each other, rather than being used to provide balanced coverage of a particular topic. Seperating scientific opinion from other sources of opinion is generally considered to be unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject are treated in one article, rather than being split into content forks. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

• The phrase used in the article's title appears in the title of the following works, Scientific Opinion on Climate Change, The Structure of Evolving US Scientific Opinion on Climate Change and its Potential Consequences. More works seem to study public opinion on the matter as a topic in itself. As this material seems rather thin, we should perhaps generalise the article to cover opinions in general, with sub-headings which consider the opinions by grouping - public, scientific, political or whatever. The article would cover the changing attitudes of these various demographics to the extent that the sources cover them. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

In answer to Dmcq, I don't think improving a content fork is in any way supported by Misplaced Pages's content policies, as the segregation of scientific opinion about Climate Change and Global Warming from other commentators goes against the spirit of WP:NPOV, and in any case, the reader is not served by seperation of content on a purely arbitary basis. If there is a body of scientific opinion available in the form of reliable secondary sources as Colonel Warden suggests, then it need to be added to the relevant article to which it is addressed. Scientific opinion does not form in a vacuum; it grows and changes within the framework of an area of a particular subject area. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, after someone has succeeded in merging the Intelligent design and Evolution articles, we'll have something to talk about. That will be after all the articles on electronics include coverage of how there's magic smoke inside the wires and phlogiston has been restored to its rightful place, I imagine. --Nigelj (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Nigelj is right, there are no other articles like this, such as Scientific opinion on Intelligent design or Scientific opinion on Evolution nor Scientific opinion on electronics. If there were, they would be merged in their respective article topics that address their subject matter directly and in detail. No, my criticism is that sources about a particular topic should feature in the article topic to which they relate, not an article that has "Scientific opinion on.." attached to its title. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The split is explicitly encouraged by wikipedia. See WP:Splitting, the very first criterion is the size of the article. Click on edit on this article or on Global warming and you'll get advice that splitting is a good idea. They are currently 101KB and 87KB Dmcq (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. You misunderstood me, I think, Gavin. I meant that in other areas where there are scientific views on something, and widely separate unscientific views, they are treated in separate articles, with actually very little chance of merging the two viewpoints into large super-articles. As to the naming, we have actual names for the viewpoints in other cases, but in the case of climate change, that hasn't happened. We have the scientific viewpoints discussed here, religious-based views that man 'has dominion' over the earth and the 'end of days' will solve all these problems, anti-science views that scientists are mostly crooks who make up theories for their own financial gain and funding, right-wing views that all this is an anti-capitalist plot to reduce their business profits and growth, conspiracy theorists who think that there is a shadowy cabal who want to use these theories to rule the world etc. There is no way that these other theories will get equal, 'fair' coverage in this article. Some of them have sub-articles of their own, but even the editors of those articles often can't decide on the names they should use there, and they change and fork quite regularly. --Nigelj (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Because Misplaced Pages is not a paper based encyclopedia, article spliting is indeed encouraged, provided of course the article is notable in accordance with WP:AVOIDSPLIT. However, if this article is indeed a sub-topic that has been split out of one or more articles, how come it does not provide any evidence that the topic of scientific opinion on climate change is notable in it its own right? Several editors have cited articles which are entitled "Scientific opinion on climate change" or mention this term by name, yet none of them are cited in this article. What makes this article so special that this terms is only mention used twice, and yet that mention (in the hatnote and the lead) are original research? It seems to me, but correct me if I am wrong, but the notability of this article's title is not cited once to provide evidence that it meets the reqirements of WP:NAME, , nor has the notability of its subject matter been established in this article as a result. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

No. I am not going through this point with you again. Read the Talk archives. Look up WP:NAME. --Nigelj (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Then let me do it for you. WP:NAME says that article titles should use names and terms most commonly used in reliable sources, and so most likely to be recognized, for the topic of the article. Yet not one reliable secondary source mentions "Scientific opinion on climate change" in this article. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

So what do you want to do or to happen? Dmcq (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Colonel Warden's comments have been adequately addressed. If not, please refer to the archives for extensive discussion on this topic.

As to the rest of the discussion, I can only repeat my recommendation to simply refer GC to the archives until he comes up with something new. Airborne84 (talk) 03:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

In answer to Airborne, an examination of the archive shows you have already rejected the approach being put forward by Colonel Warden. In answer to Dmcq, I don't think there is any point in putting forward a proposal at this time if there is unwillingness to accept the three criticisims raised at the begining of this thread, but it would involve merging the content of this article with the various over-arching topics to which its subject matter relates. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

An actual proposal at long last, thanks. Merge this article which is already considered on the large side with other articles which are way over the large side and where splitting is highly recommended. Is that correct? Any takers? Dmcq (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll take it. Refer to the archives for the consensus on this proposal. Airborne84 (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It's nonsense. The first thing policy would require would be that we spin off smaller articles from the monster so created. So, we would separate the peer-reviewed science out from the politics and public opinion stuff, and be back exactly where we are today. --Nigelj (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense? It what way is the elimination of a content fork nonsense? If the subject matter of this article is dealt directly and in detail in various other articles, chances are that the coverage of this article is aleady present else where. In any case, what is the alternative? To continue to augment, revise and update this article knowing it is a content fork? This would appear to be the least sensical choice of action, for that would bring its contributors into contravention with Misplaced Pages content polices; I think good editors will not wish to down this path.
Of course some editors would continue to edit this article, oblivious to its status. In some ways, that is the case at the moment: some editors continue to add, revise and update the original research contained in the hatnote and the lead in an attempt to legitimize this article's segraegated existence. But those editors with genuine concern for scientic opinion in relation to Climate Change, Global Warming or the IPCC will focus their efforts making constructive contributions to articles which address those topic directly and in detail. If there is a way to split the overarching topics into more manageable articles, surely it will take the form of splits into article topics which are the subject of scientific opinion, such as greenhouse effect or solar variation. However to continue editing this content fork, or to spawn more content forks such as "Scientific opinion on globa warming" seem to be to run contrary to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, knowing what you know now that the segregation of scientific opinion from other sources of commentary, criticism or analysis is to direct the reader down a garden path that leads in an intellectual dead end. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

see the FAQ at the top of this talk page about scientific opinion. And opinion about it too. It doesn't include everybody's opinion. There's other articles about all that. Dmcq (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the FAQ, the hatnote and the lead is that they are all original research, rather than being the subject of reliable secondary sources in their own right. This would not be so bad if a rationale for this article were provided in the body of the article itself, but it is not; there is not a single reference to "Scientific opinion on climate change" even though it runs to more than 9,500 words (over 10,000 if you include the reference list). In answer to Dmcq, I can understand why some form of rationale, such as your statement that "It doesn't include everybody's opinion" should be the starting point for this article, but using personal opinion to determine what should or should not go into an article are not supported by Misplaced Pages's content guidelines.
WP:NPOV is pretty clear that scientific opinion should not be segregated from any other source of opinion, because even scientific opinion is the subject of commentary and analsysis from other sources, some of which may be critical. As editors, our objective is to provide the reader with a neutral point of view, that is to say, we present scientific and non-scientific opinion in an even handed way. The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints, such as scientific opinion as opposed to non-scientific opnion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Taking a neutral point of view between 'science' and 'non-scientific opinion' on a scientific subject is nonsense. Try that on the Laws of thermodynamics and see how you get on. --Nigelj (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, I think you proved my point. There is no other article like this, such as Scientific opinion on the Laws of thermodynamics. All of the sources of opinion are included in the one article, whether they are from scientists or not, and no viewpoint is excluded. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see why you want to spend some of your finite lifetime on arguments like that. Dmcq (talk) 12:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

So what are you trying to say? Are you suggesting that this article is not a content fork? If so, what evidence, in the form of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that address the topic of "Scientific opinion on climate change" directly and in detail can you cite to support your view?
I only ask this because your comments suggest to me that you are sceptical about the criticisms at the start of this thread. At the end of the day, you are perfectly entitled to your viewpoint, but if you are unable to support it with some form of verifiable evidence, then "what you can see" seems to be a selective and personal view of this article's status. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to say anything except what I've said. I started off at the beginning of this discussion warning that if you really felt you had a point you wouldn't get anywhere here but you might be able to get some admin to agree with you on a noticeboard. I don't think you would get anywhere but it was my best advice and I felt the chance you would get anywhere here were very much slimmer. I also advised you to try and be constructive, you've come up with that anything you say would mean sticking some very large articles together to make something humongous, I think you'd have to be a bit more specific about such plans as what is the point of discussing the wrongs and rights if the result of doing things 'right' according to you looks like it would be unreadable? There's lots of quite important articles that are in far far worse condition than this. It may not make featured article but so what? Your plans wouldn't make a featured article either. Dmcq (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh and no I don't see it as a content fork. If it was a content fork then merging it with something else would produce something much less than the sum of their individual sizes but I can't see much duplication of the contents of this article anywhere else. And with such size reduction merging currently is just not on. Dmcq (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

In reply to Dmcq, if that is your final view, then that is fair enough. You have answered my questions about this article's status, and I respect that, although I disagree with our view that it does not duplicate subjects that are addressed directly and in detail elsewhere, such as Climate Change, Global Warming or the IPCC as its sources suggest.
As regards your questions, I think that eliminating a content fork is always going to be more constructive than simply allowing it to exist, as its existence precludes consensus building which is what Misplaced Pages is all about. Whether or not merging the content of this article into one or more others would result in a "humongous" article, I could not say at this point, but as I said earlier, it is likely that the coverage contained in this article is already present elsewhere, so that might not be a problem.
One thing I do agree with you: that this content fork will never reach featured article status. On the contrary, it is likely to be the target of repeated merger proposals, or failing that, it will be nominated for deletion again. I say this because the hatnote and lead are magnets original research, which makes this article an obvious deletion target.
Where I think we could collectively make a constructive contribution is to break it down into the individual sources cited in this article, and then instigate move proposals for each one. At least that way its content can be saved in other articles, and used in a way that is not conflicting with Misplaced Pages content policy.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's your life to do with as you wish. Dmcq (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There are so many relevant responses to these discussions that its hard to hold back. However, my original comment still stands: it's best simply to not respond sometimes since it lends credibility to arguments that have no consensus and are just beating a dead horse. I won't repeat my recommendation again, however, since I don't want to be accused of WP:Tendentious editing. Anyway, GC - take a break, come back in a month or two and see if something has changed so you don't turn into these guys. , . In the meantime, there are original research hatnotes in the Creationism and List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming articles (among many others) that also deserve your attention. Airborne84 (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

In answer to Airborne, if only you could cite significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that addresses the topic of "Scientific opinion on climate change" directly and in detail, you could have silenced my criticisms from the onset, but so far you have not. Perhaps you still believe this article is not a content fork, and I can respect that. Maybe you are one of the many editors who believes it to be a seperate article topic in it own right, but just don't have any sources to back up your firmly held opinion, and again I understand your position. However, it seems to me that we are almost in agreement that the hatnote and the lead of this article are comprised of original research. Am I correct in this? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No we don't agree on that. Dmcq (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly arguable - just not here for a while. Have you checked out the other articles and hit their talk pages yet? If it's original research, they deserve equal consideration of your valuable time. I wish you had hit my link for this though. . Too bad. And now I have to follow my own advice and remain silent. Cheers! Airborne84 (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Recommend close. Airborne84 (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Should have been closed a long time ago. It has been going in circles for way too long. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's an example why I considered consensus better than opinion that does the job , that's been reprinted in a book. But I see others have mentioned references with opinion and they've been ignored. Dmcq (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It has not been ignored in fairness, as we have discussed it. The book by Oreskes is already cited in this article in the section Oreskes, 2004, but it does not address the subject of Scientific opinion on climate change as if it is a standalone topic in its own right. Instead this section says that "the essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change". That is a clear indication that the conclusions which she reached support anthropogenic climate change, not scientific opinion per se.
Scientific opinion is about ideas and theories that are the subject of standalone articles, and for each of the sources contained in this article, there is an over arching article topic that corresponds to it. In no other article is the title "Scientific opinion on.." used, and this a commonsense indicator that this article is a content fork. It is not a recognised as a seperate subject matter by the world at large in accordance with WP:NAME. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I simply do not see the separate strands you think you have split this hair into. Are you saying there is some big distinction between scientific opinion and scientific consensus that would affect the contents of the article? Dmcq (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That is partly the issue (consensus is not the same as opinion, afterall), but it is also the substance of what Oreskes is saying that should be taken into consideration. She writes that "The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" and that "there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change". In this context "Scientific opinion" is the merely the source of her information, not the over-arching subject.
This is a pattern that you will find repeated in all of the scientific opinions expressed in this article: opinions are expressed about article topics such as Climate change, Global warming that are addressed directly and in detail elsewhere. That is why there are no other content forks like this one in existence, otherwise there would articles along the lines of "Scientific pronouncements on climate change", "Scientific papers on climate change", "Scientific consensus on climate change", or "Scientific thinking on climate change". --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

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

But that's the elephant in the china shop about all this business, it isn't repeated in other articles. There may be short little snippets but they then refer to here. If this article was stuck into climate change consensus for instance it would mean you'd have to delete practically everything else there in the cause of neutral point of view, it would be like trying to stick creationism and evolution together, creationism would just be relegated to a paragraph as fringe or else you'd have to make an enormous article just so it got a look in. That really wouldn't be fair in other ways to the subject as currently expressed in climate change consensus which is able to describe the overall public opinion without too much reference to the science. And it can't go into global warming, that's far too big already. The other business in a content issue you have and should be a separate thread. Dmcq (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

In fairness to Voiceofreason01, the content issue about the hatnote and lead being comprised of original research is just one indicator that this is article is a content fork, and so is relevant to the discussion. As regards the uniquness of sources, the one source we have discussed (Oreskes), is already cited in the articles Climate change consensus and Attribution of recent climate change. Merging the content of this article would not be easy, I agree, but it is not rocket science either. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

What on earth would be the purpose of sticking the contents of this article somewhere else? You just go on with these unconstructive ideas to no great purpose that I can see. Why do something silly? The public debate on whether there is a scientific consensus is different from whether there is a scientific consensus, sticking the two together would ruin two perfectly reasonable articles and in particular only leave some articles that sound very POV like climate change denial to document the public debate. Dmcq (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You can't "win" this argument with GC Dmcq. To quote from the movie WarGames, "the only winning move is not to play."

As to the comments of Voiceofreason01, please refer to the lengthy discussions on this subject in the archives. Airborne84 (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with doing nothing is that the content fork would remain, in contravention of WP:NPOV, which prohibits their creation and existence. A content fork is not a reasonable article as Dmcq suggests, nor is it reasonable to segrate scientific opinion from other forms of commentary, criticism and analysis, as to do so would be to condone intellectual apartheid. To provide balanced coverage of climate change, global warming, and other related topics, both scientific and opionion from other sources must be brought together. There is nothing novel about such an approach, as sources such as Oreskes apply this approach in their own scientific papers by citing both scienfic and governmental sources in her paper, which also took into account criticisms from political sources.
The only wining move is to do the right thing, and that is to merge the sources in this article into its the arching topics which they address directly and in detail. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said at the very very beginning please take your complaint to a noticeboard about content disputes. What will happen there is that either other people besides those here will also tell you that you are wrong, or else you will get the backing of people who specialize in dealing with the type of problem you assert is happening here. For NPOV problems the appropriate noticeboard is Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Dmcq (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Whilst you are entitled to claim this article is not a content fork, the evidence is against you: the lack wider recognition of the title, the original research in the definition, and the lack of reliable secondary sources that address the article title directly and in detail. Since these criticism are direct at this title, this is the appropriate venue for discussion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You've raised practically the same sorts of things only a month ago and had a strong consensus against you. There is no indication that going on and on again is likely to change that. Your unwillingness to follow the dispute resolution process to resolve your problem indicates to me that you are not interested in achieving your stated objective or else believe you would not achieve it that way and wish to achieve it by subverting the dispute resolution process. The closest I can see to either of those with what is happening here is Misplaced Pages:Civil POV pushing. If you continue this fruitless discussion without pursuing the dispute resolution process I will invoke administrator intervention to stop you on those grounds. Dmcq (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

{undent} I fail to see how this article is substantially different than Climate change consensus. This article seems to deal with scientific bodies and the other with individuals, but the individuals make up the scientific bodies. We basically have two articles talking about the same opinions of the same groups of people but in a (slightly) different context. There is some good things in this article but most of it IS repeated elsewhere and most of the content that would likely be lost if this article were merged with another is a lot of quotes, in other words not a big loss. I don't think the article as it stands now does justice to the topic. To address Dmcq's objection that, "The public debate on whether there is a scientific consensus is different from whether there is a scientific consensus" Actually these are the same thing and segregating them into different articles is basically the definition of a content fork. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, the problem is with just going on about it here when it has been thoroughly debated before a couple of times including quite recently. One should follow the dispute resolution process if one feels strongly that something is wrong with an article but the consensus is against change. It is okay to bring up such issues every so often on the talk page but this is too frequently and long and is obviously not going anywhere.

As to your actual point. There is a big difference between the public view about the climate change consensus and the actual scientific opinion. You can think of it as the difference between the media circus surrounding the O J Simpson case and the actual trial itself. As far as the law is concerned the media circus had no bearing and in an article about the law concerning the OJ case the public view would weigh very little indeed. However the media circus and the differing opinions are notable. If those two articles were combined and the result treated like the law case then no number of American senators voicing their opinion would count as anything compared to the opinion of the Royal Society for instance. This article is boring because they all say practically the same thing but weight for the scientific opinion would dictate that the whole of that other article would be summnarised as something like that there is widespread discussion with some disagreement from some scientists. The thing that's already here under surveys. If it is trreated as a public discussion about whether there is a scientific consensus then that other articvle already does a reasonable job and the scientific opinions can be chopped to their weight as seen in newspapers and suchlike. Dmcq (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

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

@Vor: yes, CCC is a content fork, and yes we should see about AFD'ing it William M. Connolley (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

In answer to Dmcq, you are right that in the real world there is big difference between the public view about the climate change consensus and the actual scientific opinion. However, in Misplaced Pages, the distinction between the two can only be made by reference to the reliability of sources, not by the source of the source, if you get my meaning. A good example is the commentary and analysis from the likes of Al Gore whose political views augment scientific opinion. We can't segregate the two types of source just because there are disagreements between them anymore than we can segregate legal opinions expressed in proceedings in the OJ Simpson case from the commentary contained within the media coverage of those proceedings.
As regards William's proposal, I am not keen on AFD, since the content of both this and that article is too good to delete. Far better to agree on a systematic dispertion of this article's coverage to the respective article topics to which each source relates, i.e. a sort of "one-to-many" merger. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

As my request the issue be either dropped or raised to an appropriate forum has been ignored I have raised Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Gavin.collins. There's no point my continuing here otherwise I would be ignoring my own advice about progressing or dropping disputes. Dmcq (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Your concerns have been addressed directly and in detail in this discussion. What has not been forthcoming is knockout evidence that this article topic is not a content fork in the form of of substantial coverage from reliable secondary sources that address "Scientific opinion on climate change" directly and in detail, or provide some sort of third party support (such as a Misplaced Pages content policy, for instance) for your assertion that scientific opinion should be segrated from other sources of opinion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Voiceofreason1, you said it wouldn't be a big loss if this article were dissolved or condensed and merged. It would be. It would be easy for someone to look at a small section within the other articles and say "that's not evidence that there is a scientific consensus. There's not enough proof." There is very little question when visiting this article. So, the loss of the ability of an average person to go to Misplaced Pages and see if there is an article that answers the question "is there a scientific consensus on climate change" would be a big loss. The article is damning proof that there is a scientific consensus by any commonly accepted definition. That brings a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT from people that previously didn't realize they held an untenable position - at least in regard to the scientific consensus. Some people decide to accept that, some remain mute, some vandalize this article, and some try to make it go away. The consensus here is that it should not go away...not only because it would be a "big loss," but also because it is acceptable within Misplaced Pages guidelines - according to the consensus on the talk page. It's also been noted by at least one administrator - as noted in the archives. As to its usefulness, try checking how many people visit the page on a monthly basis. In fact, this is the page that I navigated to months ago when I wanted to answer the question, "Is there a scientific consensus?" It was the single most useful article for me. I'm not against improving the article. I'm against losing the answer it provides for people like me. Merging and condensing loses the answer, besides the fact that it would likely violate WP:SIZERULE.

If you read WP:POVFORK carefully, you can see that this article falls under "What POV forking is not."

Climate change consensus was written last year and is still under development. I'd recommend you visit their page to try to improve/merge that article instead of trying to merge this one.

GC, save your time - there's no need to respond to this. The comments were directed toward Voiceofreason1. Airborne84 (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've added a cite flag to the passage you mention in point #2. Hopefully someone can add an appropriate source. --DGaw (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

How interesting. DGaw, did you read the lengthy archive discussions on that subject, or did you just add it because someone disagreed with it again? Airborne84 (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Assumption of good faith please, Airborne84. I added the flag because there is no reference provided for the statement, and one is required by WP:RS and WP:OR, past discussion notwithstanding. Is there a reliable source for this statement, or is it original research? If there is a source, could you please cite it with a ref tag? Thanks. --DGaw (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Voiceofreason01, I disagree that the whole article hinges on the statement you mention in #2. The remainder of the sections of the article are equally relevant.

I don't think "shouting down" changes is a "good faith" way of phrasing it. The other authors expressed their opinions, which may have been contrary to yours. Disagreement doesn't have equal "shouting down." And if the majority vetos major changes, then it does express the consensus. I'm not sure what the issue is, in general, to that?

You recommend removing the statement you mention in #2. What would you replace it with? The section could not be removed, because that would violate WP:POV. Dissenting opinions must be considered - if they are from reliable sources. If they don't exist, that should be noted also. As far as the reliability of the source, you already know what the consensus decided. Please let us know what you would replace it with if it were (theoretically) deleted though. Airborne84 (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The leader doesn't need citations except for contentions statements in BLP, see Misplaced Pages:Lead_section#Citations, but it is recommended where people might go challenging it. I think it would be better to put something in. The leader is there to introduce and summarise the article. Dmcq (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

{undent} I don't recommend removing it, I recommend citing a reliable source. Besides being a weak source it is WP:SYNTH. In the previous discussion on this topic my concerns were largely dismissed out of hand in favor of keeping a pretty quote in the article. It is tempting to use the first quote that supports what you're trying to say but the source doesn't hold up. Not only that but the arguments, in the previous discussion, for keeping the current source were also weak. If this were an isolated incident I would simply let it go as consensus having spoken, but looking at the current discussion I see the same thing happening. The reason this is so important is that the lead asserts that there are no notable organizations that dissent from the theory of global warming. The article then lists sources and quotes that support that assertion. If we don't have a source saying there are no notable sources that do not support global warming than the rest of the article becomes a giant POV mess. That one source is incredibly important to the article. Do you dispute that that phrase is important to the article? If it isn't important why not remove it? As for your assertion that I am not assuming good faith on the part of the other editors I say that I am just calling a spade a spade. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. Yet deleting the "dissenting" section isn't a possibility since all sides have to be considered. Why don't you help make this article better by finding some more sources that support that section besides the one that's there? Airborne84 (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

"Shooting the messenger" is not the way forward to resolving the crticisms made at the start of this discussion. How can Voiceofreason01 be expected to find sources in support of original research? The lead makes unsupported claims that are based on editorial opinion, not verifiable sources. WP:OR says "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented".
The edit history shows that dozens of editors have added unsourced content to the lead, but not one of them chose to cite a source in support. Original research can't be described as the consensus view, as it is not in accordance with Misplaced Pages content policy; the lead is simply the combination the personal opinions of many editors. Finding sources for original research is like looking for a pin in a haystack.
In answer to Voiceofreason01's question, the unsupported statements in the lead of this article are incredibly important to the article, in terms of its notability as a standalone article, as well as defintion of its subject matter. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Dispute Resolution

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

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

By the way I see from the discussion that Gavin Collins raised a similar point about other articles at Misplaced Pages:VPP#Contradiction_at_WP:Content_fork:_content_forks_are_not_always_bad with similar comments to him, ended up doing an AfD on another article which then was kept. So I guess he has been to a noticeboard even if not the particular one for these issues. It looks to me like the only ways left to resolve this issue are mediation or arbitration, or of course walk away. My action isn't on the particular issue but on the failure to make reasonable progress with the dispute process so I guess you can always try one of those if you like. Dmcq (talk) 09:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

In answer to ZuluPapa5, I don't know what is the best way to proceed, because this is a complex case. I would be happy to proceed to mediation.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

My involvement is a mediation step; however, I have a view here. I guess a AFD is required to rename an article, so how about a RFC on an AFD for renaming? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe AFD is the way to go, as most of this article is well sources, so deletion of its content would not be appropriate. I don't think a change of name on its own will provide a solution, because the subject matter is defined by the original research in the lead section. Since the criticism are relatively complex and open to being dismissed out of hand, a formal mediation case should be opended in my view. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, maybe I mixed my intentions with yours. What would you like to change? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The problems with this article are quite complex. Whether this article is a content fork is a matter of dispute, and I feel that a mediation case should be opened with the Mediation Cabal on this issue. My view is that this article should be converted to a redirect (to which article, I cannot say), and its sources be dispersed to which ever article they relate to. Whilst you may not agree with my remedy, I think that a mediaiton case is a proposal with merit, and I would appreciate your support. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Use of an editorial as a source

Earlier this morning, I flagged the last sentence of the article's first paragraph as requiring a citation, based on Voiceofreason01 having noted it previously. Stephan Schulz kindly pointed me to a reference later in the article, which is the source of the statement. In reviewing the source, however, I discovered it is a letter to the editor drafted by the Council of the American Quaternary Association. While editorials may be used as sources in Misplaced Pages without violating WP:NPOV, they can only do so if the views they present are clearly attributed. I have updated both appearances of the reference to include the appropriate attribution. --DGaw (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Editorials are normally excluded as other than opinion, because they have less editorial oversight than regular journalistic pieces. That is not the case in a Peer-reviewed journal, the letter is (afaikr) peer-reviewed in this journal, and it was sent out to relevant parties, so that it could (and was) responded to, before getting published. And it is from a respected scientific society. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

DGaw, please check the archives. This has been discussed already. Airborne84 (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur with DGaw. It is one thing to cite a respected journal, but very unusual to cite a letter to a journal, a bit like citing the letters page in the Economist as a source. As Voiceofreason01 has pointed out, extraordinary claims should be backed up with top notch sources, and while I concur with KimDabelsteinPetersen that the source is respected, I think it should be flagged as being a letter, not scientific paper.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no parallel with "letters to the editor" in a newspaper or magazine. "Letters" to a scientific journal are subject to peer review and editorial control. Try writing a "letter" to Eos or BAMS and you'll see. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 07:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Frequently Asked Questions

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

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)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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 ]. 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)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Environment articles
• Unknown-importance Environment articles
• WikiProject Climate change articles
• Old requests for peer review