| Revision as of 15:49, 22 January 2010 editGavin.collins (talk | contribs)18,503 edits →Content Fork← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:06, 22 January 2010 edit undoStephan Schulz (talk | contribs)Administrators26,888 edits →Content Fork: BlablaNext edit → | ||
| Line 107: | Line 107: | ||
| :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 ]. 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 ]. ] (]) 14:42, 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 ]. 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 ]. ] (]) 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 ] as theoretical naivete, is in reality a perversion of of the spirit of ].<br />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 ]. --] (]|] 15:46, 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 ] as theoretical naivete, is in reality a perversion of of the spirit of ].<br />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 ]. --] (]|] 15:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| : --] (]) 16:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:06, 22 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. |
|
| 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.
| ||||||||||||||
 | 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
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?
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?
|
 | 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 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 9 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Locked
Discussion here still seems unresolved and bitter enough to give me a strong suspicion that edit warring would have resumed, so I have locked the article until just after the RfC concludes. If anyone else would prefer to unprotect now without waiting for the discussion below, you have my endorsement as long as you monitor the article aggressively afterwards. I would like to unlock this article for the reasons below, but if necessary to prevent disruptive and tendentious editing, the article may remain in semi-stasis edited only through {{editprotected}}.
The proposed merge target for Scientific opinion on climate change#Scientific consensus is in flux; this may or may not affect that proposal, as might this diff from GoRight, above. As at least the majority of the sources used in the section are solid and arguably on-topic, this question should not require protection; perhaps it could be rewritten to avoid bullet-point style. The several renaming discussions do not at this point seem disputatious enough to require edit-protection. Adding sources documenting views of non-scientific organizations or individual scientists would be out of the scope of the current title and article scope, and so discussion can be tabled until such a time as such a move has consensus. The issue of naming and targeting redirects has some bearing on this article, but does not justify protection. The wording and links in the hatnote have been discussed ad nauseum, but seem amenable to normal editing methods. Other dispute resolution mechanisms are in place or in preparation, but resumption of normal editing should not be dependent upon them. Assuming that it survives AfD, Public opinion on climate change should probably be linked somewhere in this article; excessive protection damages the encyclopedia.
For these reasons, I plan to unprotect the article in about a day, after everyone has had a chance to read and offer feedback on this section. The basic outline of #Proposal #2 has consensus, though not unanimity. The arguments offered in the surrounding sections, some of which are now archived, offer nuance and explanation to the bare poll. The {{POV-check}} has received input here, and no contrary input at WP:CNB. The tagging project has devoted a fair bit of effort to ensuring that the templated text does not take a position one way or the other, but its fundamental purpose is to attract interested editors. This article is actively edited, and other more effective input-gathering mechanisms are in place. For these reasons and none other, I plan to remove the tag in my capacity as an administrator enacting the clearly-expressed will of involved editors; had the article not been locked, I expect that it would have been removed already (again evidence that excessive protection damages the encyclopedia). Adding any similar tag will be considered prima facie evidence of edit warring; any editor who does so will be blocked for a short period to limit disruption. Removing any similar tag will be considered prima facie evidence of edit warring; any editor who does so will be blocked for a short period to limit disruption. Every non-trivial change to the article should include in the edit summary explicit reference to consensus at a talkpage section; for example: tag removed per Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change#Proposal #2 and Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change#Locked. Editors making repeated undiscussed obviously and blatantly controversial changes will be blocked for a short period to limit disruption and edit warring. Any material that is reverted is considered controversial, and should be discussed here before being reinserted. If a relevant talkpage discussion does not yet exist, the reverting editor should start one, clearly expressing his or her concerns. It is best practice to start the section before reverting the edit, and to include a compromise proposal. Please comment and advise. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Question: For clarification, how do you advise on (as restated by me) "Take the sources to the RS notice board", "Put the IPCC Mission in for context", "May I have the next RfC?" and "This dispute may be resolved by creating a Opinions on Climate Change" article points I have raised? Finally WP:1RR should be a voluntary measure at first. Kindly Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I oppose the removal of the NPOV tag until the disputes have been resolved. --GoRight (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC) (Obligatory Statement)
Question: You mention consensus for proposal 2 above. Does this mean that 1RR is in effect, and what are the parameters around it's meaning since this was unclear the last time it was brought up? Is this WP:1RR? --GoRight (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Question: What is the time limit, if any, associated with the adding and removing of NPOV tags? --GoRight (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- The prohibition applies only to adding or removing such a tag without first gathering consensus here; if the editors here agree that adding or removing a tag is likely to lead to article improvement, then I support that. I left the time period deliberately open-ended in the hopes that at some point in the decently near future a consensus supported by everyone will develop and we can drop all this. If, after the current kerfluffle dies down, a proposal here detailing NPOV concerns goes unanswered, adding a tag would no longer be prima facie evidence of edit warring. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Short version: only edit if consensus has been reached at a relevant talkpage section, referenced in the edit summary, or you are reasonably confident that other editors with whom you are collaborating will not object to the change. The latter condition applies primarily to grammatical fixes and other minor edits. If a change is reverted, follow WP:1RR and do not re-revert; instead, wait for the reverting editor to explain his or her concerns at the relevant thread here. A reverted edit should not be reinstated until such a time as consensus is reached here. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Unlocked. Please edit only according to clearly expressed consensus. Any edit warring will lead to blocks, as this article has been protected too long already. I intend to monitor this article as closely as I can for the next little while, but if problems develop without speedy redress, please make use of WP:ANEW and WP:RFPP. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have retroactively logged this at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log#Log of sanctions. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Remote future timestamp to stop premature archiving. --TS
- This is basically covered by Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation now, and the rest I put in an editnotice, so it should be okay to let the bot archive this now - removed timestamp above. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Suggest adding Scientific American link "... . Their so-called "consensus" on global warming is scientifically irrelevant because science isn't settled by popularity."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense&page=4 ... "Claim 5: Climatologists conspire to hide the truth about global warming by locking away their data. Their so-called "consensus" on global warming is scientifically irrelevant because science isn't settled by popularity. > It is virtually impossible to disprove accusations of giant global conspiracies to those already convinced of them (can anyone prove that the Freemasons and the Roswell aliens aren't involved, too?). Let it therefore be noted that the magnitude of this hypothetical conspiracy would need to encompass many thousands of uncontroversial publications and respected scientists from around the world, stretching back through Arrhenius and Tyndall for almost 150 years ... " 99.155.155.73 (talk) 07:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- That should probably be in Climate change consensus or Climate change denial, it doesn't really fit into this article which is bout the scientific opinion on it. Dmcq (talk) 07:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- What is the difference? 209.255.78.138 (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Between the two articles? The first says it is about the public debate over whether there is actually a scientific consensus and the second is specifically about the campaign to rubbish the science, or expose the conspiracy or however one views it. There's a couple of others too that are fairly close in their shades of meaning and that's why I said two instead of one - I'm not sure which is best. I think the climate change denial one perhaps as the Scientific American article is about fighting it rather than just giving or describing an opinion. Dmcq (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hey, if you read the Sci.Am article , specifically "Claim 5", and click on the hyperlink "official positions of dozens of scientific organizations"...guess where it takes you.--CurtisSwain (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Between the two articles? The first says it is about the public debate over whether there is actually a scientific consensus and the second is specifically about the campaign to rubbish the science, or expose the conspiracy or however one views it. There's a couple of others too that are fairly close in their shades of meaning and that's why I said two instead of one - I'm not sure which is best. I think the climate change denial one perhaps as the Scientific American article is about fighting it rather than just giving or describing an opinion. Dmcq (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
An addition to this, or another page? Why haven’t we rallied our collective power to solve global warning?
Why haven’t we rallied our collective power to solve global warning? by Daniel Gilbert (psychologist) 99.35.9.49 (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- No thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Include "List of ..." in section headings
Per WP:LISTNAME - should we change
- Synthesis reports
- Statements by organisations
- Surveys of scientists and scientific literature
To each be 'List of _________' ? ‒ Jaymax✍ 21:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe. "Should" /= "must," so in the absence of complaints I'd ask the question "Does it improve the article?" If not, perhaps it's best as is. Airborne84 (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Isn't that style guideline related to whole article names, not section names, and so not even relevant here? --Nigelj (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
IPCC to retract remarks that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035
See World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown from the The Sunday Times. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 21:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Storm in a teacup. Refers to a paragraph prepared by the Asian working party of Work Group II (effects of global warming). The output of Work Group I (physical basis) is not affected, or are other aspects of Work Group II. --TS 22:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- I wouldn't minimise it - the IPCC author/review system fell down in one place. It's impossible to really know for certain whether it's a single occurrence (probable), or a systematic issue (unlikely). Regardless, the IPCC will need to address it's review systems to avoid recurrence. Regardless of all that; it's got nothing to do with this article. (another example of the article title being a touch ambiguous) ‒ Jaymax✍ 22:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Content Fork
Going back to the thread Content fork, it is clear that issues raised have not been adressed in any shape or form.
- 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.
- 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".
- 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)